Mr V, an Appellant Is an Owner of a House

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)