K.D. UPADHAYAYA Vs. BHAGABATI CHOUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the (acquittal of the two respondents under Sections 504 and 447, I.P.C.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution was that on 19.4.60, at about 10 -00 a.m., the two respondents entered the Verandhah of the dwelling house of the appellant and abused the appellant in filthy language like, bastard, pig, thief, shala etc. and challenged him to come out of the house and threatened to beat him with shoes, if he did so. The appellant was very angry at the abusive words, but the restrained himself so that there may be no breach of the public peace. After some time, the respondents went into the courtyard of the building and continued to abuse him. Thereupon some others like P.Ws. a to 4 came to the place and prevailed upon the respondents to leave the house. Thereupon, the respondents went to the road near the house and from there continued to abuse the appellant for about an hour and ultimately went away saying that they would come the next Sunday with more persons and recover the money due to them from the appellant. The appellant is a contractor and the respondents, who are husband and; wife were the suppliers of labour for such contract work at Teliamura and there was dispute between them about the payment of the dues due to the respondents and the respondents had gone to the appellant's house claiming the dues from the appellant.

(3.) THE prosecution examined 4 witnesses of whom P.W. 1 was the complainant and P.Ws. 2 to 4 were persons who arrived on the scene on fearing the noise of the quarrel. All the prosecution witnesses gave evidence that the two respondents entered the veranda of the dwelling house of the appellant and used abusive language to the appellant like bastard, pig, thief, shala etc., and threatened to beat him with shoes. There was also evidence that after the arrival of P.W. 2, the landlord of the house where the appellant was residing, P.W. 2 said that he heard them use the abusive language from the veranda and when he asked them not to make noise inside the residence, but to go out, the respondents went to the courtyard and continued to abuse the appellant as before and that thereupon P.W. 2 said that he would inform the Police. Then the respondents went to the road and from there continued to abuse the appellant for about an hour and ultimately went away threatening to come back with Goondas next Sunday to recover the amount due to them.