- (1.)THIS appeal of Balia is directed against the judgment of the Special Judicial (Railway) Magistrate, Jodhpur, whereby respondent Heerji has been acquitted by the learned Magistrate of the charge under Section 500 Indian Penal Code.
(2.)THE circumstances leading to this appeal are as follows: Mst. Pushpa. daughter of Heerji. was married to the appellant about eight years back and the 'muklawa' ceremony was performed after five years of the marriage. According to Mst. Pushpa, Balia was not potent and. therefore, in spite of the fact that on many occasions Balia tried to have sexual intercourse with her but he failed to do so, and hence Pushpa out of frustration left her husband's house and ultimately Came to live with her parents. On 24th May, 1964, it so appears that a caste panchayat was summoned to consider a charge against Heeriji that he was not willing to send his daughter Pushpa to her husband's house. Heerji was also called to meet that charge and it is said that Heerji told the panchayat that Balia was impotent. Balia then filed a complaint against Heerji in the court of the Mun-siff-Magistrate. Jodhpur City, under section 500 Indian Penal Code alleging that accused maliciously propagated among the members of the caste panchayat that the complainant was impotent and therefore he deserves to be punished under Section 500, Indian Penal Code.
(3.)COMPLAINANT Balia when he entered the witness box stated that this allegation of the accused that he was impotent is false and that it was made with a view to defame him. In his cross-examination, however, he admitted that the accused had told this to the caste panchayat because he was informed about it by his daughter mst. Pushpa. Another prosecution witness Shankerlal (P. W. 13) has, however, deposed that he was present in the panchayat when Heer-ji had made his statement before the panchayat, but he clarified that Heerji made that statement when he was asked by the panchayat to explain as to why he was not sending his daughter to her husband's house.
;