NISAR KHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Judicial Magistrate, Bareili vide his Judgment dated 24.10.1981 convicted accused Nisar Khan under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code and sectenced him to a fine of Rs. 200/- and in case of default in payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. In the appeal filed by the accused, the Sessions Judge, Raisen vide his judgment dated 23.8.1982 maintained the conviction and sentence. Hence, this revision by the accused in this Court.

(2.) The substance of evidence produced against the accused in the case was as follows. P.W. 1 Smt. Lajwanti Kapoor (aged about 54 years) was working as a teacher in a School in village Bharkachh. Accused Nisar Khan was connected with the affairs of the Gram Panchayat in the village. On the date of the incident, he went to the School in which P.W. 1 Smt. Lajwanti Kapoor was working and enquired from the Head Master of the said School as to why she was going to Bhopal so very often. On learning about the said talk from the Head Master, P.W. 1 Smt. Lajwanti Kapoor went to the panchayat office and asked the accused who was sitting there in the verandah as to why he was making enquiries about her visits to Bhopal. The accused replied to her that it was his right to make such queries. On this, P.W. 1 Mst. Lajwanti Kapoor got annoyed and asked the accused Aisa Kaunsa Adhikar Tumko Mil Gaya? To this, the accused retorted by saying Choop Rah Verna Tamacha Maroonga Ke Tera Peshab Nikal Jayega. It was the said act of the accused which was alleged to have constituted an offence under section 509 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) In the opinion of this Court, even if the substance of the evidence as stated above was accepted as true, section 95 of the Indian Penal Code was attracted to the case and the conviction of the accused under section 509 was not warranted. In the first instance, P.W. 1. Mst. Lajwanti Kapoor was not justified in demanding explanation from the accused in the manner she did. Even assuming that she had such a right. She was not justified in losing her temper and giving cause for provocation to the accused after the accused had declined to give the explanation. Thus, she was herself partly responsible for the incident. Secondly, it was obvious that the accused had uttered object ional words only in the heat of the moment and had no intention to cause any harm to the reputation of the complainant. In fact, it was admitted by the complainant in her evidence that her relations with the accused had been cordial and she treated him as her child. In the circumstances, even assuming that any harm was caused to the complainant by the words used by the accused, the same was so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm. 3. For the reasons stated above, the revision is allowed, The conviction and sentence of the accused-applicant under section 509 of the Indian Penal Code are set aside and be is acquitted. Fine amount, if recovered, shall be refunded to him.