Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

22. In order to appreciate the aforementioned submission urged by the learned counsel for revisionist, it is imperative to refer to the provisions of Sections 504 and 506 IPC. Accordingly, the same are reproduced hereinunder:-

• Section 504 IPC reads as under:- Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.--
Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

23. According to Ratanlal and Dheerajlal on IPC, 33rd Edition, the following are the ingredients of Section 504 IPC:-

"2. Ingredientss - This Section requires two essentials:-
(i) Intentionally insulting a person and thereby giving provocation to him.
(ii) The person insulting must intend or know it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace or to commit any other offence."

24. The learned Authors have then opined that in order to prove a charge under Section 504 IPC, the following things must be established:-

Learned counsel for revisionist has also referred to another judgment of this Court in Shamsuddin Vs. State of U.P., LAWS(All)-2005-8-147, wherein also the Court has held that disclosure of the exact abusive language for constituting a charge under Section 504 IPC is mandatory. Following has been observed by the Court in the penultimate part of paragraph 6 and in paragraph 7;-

"6..........
As regards the charge for the offence of causing intentional insultto Dwarika (PW-2) with intent to provoke him for breach of peace punishable under Section 504 IPC, the settled view is that the person who claims to have been insulted must narrate the actual word used for such insult which might provoke him to brak the public peace or to commit any other offence. Here the prosecution case is that Dwarika (PW-2), the father of complainant was abused by use of filthy languate. That language has not been reproduced either in the FIR or in the statement of Dwarika himself recorded before the trial Court. The general statement of the fact has been given that the accused was abusiing Dwarika at the time of the incident using filthy language. PW-3 has also not reproduced those insulting words alleged to have been used by the accused against Dwarika. It is PW-1, the complainant only who has given the details of the language used in his statement, but his evidence alone, not finding corroboration in the FIR nor substantiated by the person who is said to have been insulted, will not be of that probative value to the prosecution nor it is worth believing for recording conviction for the said offence punishable under Section 504 IPC.
14. We may also indicate that it is not the law that the actual words or language should figure in the complaint. One has to read the complaint as a whole and, by doing so, if the Magistrate comes to a conclusion, prima facie, that there has been an intentional insult so as to provoke any person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, that is sufficient to bring the complaint within the ambit of Section 504 IPC. It is not the law that a complainant should verbatim reproduce each word or words capable of provoking the other person to commit any other offence. The background facts, circumstances, the occasion, the manner in which they are used, the person or persons to whom they are addressed, the time, the conduct of the person who has indulged in such actions are all relevant factors to be borne in mind while examining a complaint lodged for initiating proceedings under Section 504 IPC.