Mr. V, an appellant is an owner of a house in City A. The wife of the first respondent Y, was tenant of a part of the first floor in that house. On January 17, 1966, one R a servant of the appellant, called the wife of the first respondent a thief and Halkat. On the following day, the first respondent slapped R on his face which was followed by heated exchange of abusive words and between the first respondent and the appellant s husband.The first respondent was annoyed and threw at the appellant s husband a file of papers. The file did not hit the appellant s husband, but it hit the elbow of the appellant causing a scratch. The appellant lodged information to the police complaining that the first respondent had committed a house trespass in order to the committing of an offence punishable with imprisonment, had thrown a shoe at her and had slapped her servant R.During the course of the investigation the appellant and R refused to be examined at a public hospital, claiming that a p

• A. convict the accused under Section 95 of the IPC
• B. acquit the accused under Section 95 of the IPC
• C. fine the appellant under Section 95 of the IPC
• D. Both (A) and the (C)