Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.29 seconds)Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Gorige Pentaiah vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 20 August, 2008
10. Reference being made to another judgment of the Apex
Court which bears consideration in Hitesh Verma's case (supra) in
the case of GORIGE PENTAIAH v. STATE OF A.P.2 is apposite
wherein the Apex Court holds as under:
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Hitesh Verma vs The State Of Uttarakhand on 5 November, 2020
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court, in the aforesaid judgment, had delineated the
concept of abuses in public place or in a public view which is further
amplified by a three Judge Bench in Hitesh Verma's case (supra).
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Swaran Singh vs Swaran Kaur And Ors. on 12 January, 2004
14. Another key ingredient of the provision is
insult or intimidation in "any place within public view".
What is to be regarded as "place in public view" had
come up for consideration before this Court in the
judgment reported as Swaran Singh v. State [Swaran
Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435: (2008) 3 SCC (Cri)
527]. The Court had drawn distinction between the
expression "public place" and "in any place within
public view". It was held that if an offence is
committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a
house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the
road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn
would certainly be a place within the public view. On
the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building,
but some members of the public are there (not merely
relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence
since it is not in the public view (sic) [Ed.: This sentence
appears to be contrary to what is stated below in the extract
from Swaran Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 435, at p. 736d-e, and in
the application of this principle in para 15, below:"Also, even
if the remark is made inside a building, but some members
of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then
also it would be an offence since it is in the public view."] .
The Court held as under: (SCC pp. 443-44, para 28)
"28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod
Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by Appellants
2 and 3 (by calling him a "chamar") when he stood
near the car which was parked at the gate of the
premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place
within public view, since the gate of a house is
certainly a place within public view. It could have been
11
a different matter had the alleged offence been
committed inside a building, and also was not in the
public view. However, if the offence is committed
outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house,
and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road
or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would
certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even
if the remark is made inside a building, but some
members of the public are there (not merely relatives
or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is
in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse
the expression "place within public view" with the
expression "public place". A place can be a private
place but yet within the public view. On the other
hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place
which is owned or leased by the Government or the
municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an
instrumentality of the State, and not by private
persons or private bodies."