MRS. E. SIMTH Vs. CHANDRAMANI MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner was the complainant in a case filed by her against the opposite party under Section 506 I.P.C. The opposite party was put on trial and was convicted by the Magistrate, First Class, Sambalpur, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 75/ - under Sections 504 and 506 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonments for three months. On appeal by the caused the learned Sessions Judge while accepting the findings of the trial court as regards he occurrence held that the accused was guilty of no more than using a few abusive words and that his action did not constitute an offence under Section 504 I.P.C.

(2.) I regret to say that the learned Sessions Judge has not properly looked at the section or the evidence recorded in the case. Section 504 I.P.C. Bays that whoever intentionally insults and gives provocation to any person intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the peace, is guilty of the offence of intentional insult contemplated in that Section. The evidence of P.W. 1 is to the effect that the accused went up to her in a temper, that he abused her using such terms as "Harum -Jadi" and "Bbusudi" besides other equally obscene words. Thereupon, the complainant says she got angry and protested. At that he told her that he would break her legs (Paher thotdunga). She said: "On being abused I felt had. While be was chasing me he was moving his hands most probably to hit me." The words attributed to the accused, the gestures accompanying the words used, the object of insult, the company and the occasion when these words were used, have all to be taken into consideration in deciding whether the words were such as to provoke a breach of the peace. If only the complainant had been of the other sex or had been a accompanied by any of her servants, I have no doubt that there would have been an instant retaliation resulting in a breach of the peace. The fact that the complainant is a respectable lady and could control herself, in spite of the provocation, is no reason why the act of the accused should be held as not amounting to an offence Under Section 504 I.P.C. In my opinion this case cannot be brushed away as an incident involving no more than the use of abusive language. The circumstances clearly indicate that an offence Under Section 504 I.P.C. has been made out. The facts also disclose an offence under Section 506 I.P.C. as, it is said, the accused proceeded towards the complainant in a temper and raised his hands as if to hit her. In these circumstances the order of the learned Sessions Judge directing the acquittal of the accused is palpably wrong and I am unable to uphold it.