1 AJ-549.93 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE - CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.549 OF 1993 Ravindra Vishnu Ranade, age about 47 years, Occupation: Service, r/o Islampur, Tal.Walva, District: Sangli. .... Appellant - Versus - State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Shri Amit Sale for the Appellant. Ms Geeta P. Mulekar, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent-State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: MARCH 31, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal is directed against the appellant s conviction for the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC ) and the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court with a fine of Rs.500/-, or in default SI for two months, imposed upon the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangli, upon conclusion of trial of Criminal Case No.3 of 1993 before 2 AJ-549.93 him. 2. Facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under: The appellant was working as a Range Forest Officer in Sangli District and was posted in Sagareshwar forest. Complainant Sunil and eye-witness Ramchandra were working as watchmen or labourers under him. On the night of 19-1-1993 when complainant Sunil and his colleague Ramchandra reported for duty at 6:30 p.m., the appellant is alleged to have told them that one of them should do the duty of a wactchman in the forest and the other should perform the duty on the next day as the Sub- Divisional Forest Officer was to visit the forest. The complainant and the witness refused, expressing fear that a lone watchman working in a forest may be mauled by an animal and expressed that it was not safe. The appellant, however, insisted that they perform their duties as directed and upon the complainant s persistent refusal, addressed the complainant as Mahardya and asked him to go and do whatever he could. The complainant is alleged to have pelted a stone towards the appellant which hit the appellant s lips. The 3 AJ-549.93 appellant caught hold of the complainant and took him to the police station and lodged a report. The complainant s report was also recorded on the next day by the police. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was sent-up. 3. The learned Sessions Judge charged the appellant of the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the SCST Act ), Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act and Section 504 of the IPC. Since the appellant pleaded not guilty, he was put on trial at which the prosecution examined in all four witnesses in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the appellant. After considering their evidence in the light of the defence of false implication raised by the appellant, the learned Sessions judge acquitted the appellant of the offences punishable under Section 3(1) (x) of the SCST Act and Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act but proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 504 of the IPC, as indicated earlier. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 4 AJ-549.93 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned APP for the State. With the help of both the learned counsel I have gone through the record. Since the learned Sessions Judge held that the complainant had embraced Buddhism, addressing him as Mahardya did not amount to an insult punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCST Act or under Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act. The learned Sessions Judge held that the appellant had, as a fact, addressed the complainant as Mahardya and asked him to go and do whatever he liked. According to the learned Judge, this amounted to an intentional insult. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant, first submitted that this finding was not justified in the context of the fact that the complainant himself admitted in the cross- examination that a forest guard by name Katti had submitted a report to the appellant that on the night of 18-1-1993, that is the previous night, the complainant PW-1 Sunil as also PW-2 Ramchandra were found sleeping while on duty. He had also admitted that on the report of the forest guard, the appellant had marked the 5 AJ-549.93 complainant Sunil and Ramchandra as absent and eventually both of them did not receive pay for that day. He admitted that when they went to report for duty at 6:30 p.m. on 19-1-1993, the appellant told them that he had marked them as absent as they were found sleeping on the previous night. He also admits that the appellant had cautioned him and Ramchandra that if both of them left the office he will mark them absent on the muster roll. In the context of this admission, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it was perfectly possible that the complainant was annoyed and hurled stone at the appellant, injuring the appellant and because the appellant took the complainant to the police station and had him lodged in custody, false allegation by the complainant of having been addressed as Mahardya was made. When some use of words constitutes an offence, Courts would have to be circumspect in finding out whether the words concerned could have been uttered by the person accused of uttering them or if a false accusation of use of words had been levelled against such accused. It would be easy to make an allegation and it would be difficult to refute it. In this case, in the face of the admission of the complainant that both he and 6 AJ-549.93 PW-2 Ramchandra were found sleeping on the previous night and the appellant had told them that they were marked absent and had also cautioned about performing the duty in the manner in which the complainant did not like, as also the fact that the complainant admits that he did pelt a stone at the appellant, the possibility of the complainant making a false accusation against the appellant on the next day cannot be ruled out. The learned Judge should have been alive to this possibility and should have extended the benefit of the said probability to the appellant. 6. Presuming that the appellant did utter the word attributed to him, the learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that offence punishable under Section 504 of the IPC could not have been made out since mere utterance of insulting words would not constitute an offence punishable under Section 504 of the IPC. He also questioned as to whether addressing the complainant as Mahardya would at all amount to an insult. For proving an offence punishable under Section 504 of the IPC, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused had intentionally insulted and thereby given provocation to the person with the intention or 7 AJ-549.93 knowledge that it was likely that such provocation may cause him to break public peace or to commit any other offence. Thus, the person insulting must intend that by the insult which he hurled, the person insulted would be provoked into committing a breach of public peace or some other offence. The learned APP submitted that the complainant had in fact been provoked into committing the offence since he pelted a stone at the appellant and the appellant lodged a report about the same offence. Therefore, according to her, offence punishable under Section 504 of the IPC was rightly held as proved by the learned Sessions Judge. I am afraid that the interpretation sought to be put by the learned APP on Section 504 of the IPC may not be correct. It is not the result or reaction of the person insulted that is material, but it is the intention of the offender or the knowledge which the offender has, that would be decisive whether an offence punishable under Section 504 of the IPC is made out or not. It would be harsh to imagine that the appellant would harbour any such intention, even if it was to be presumed for a while that the appellant did address the complainant as Mahardya. Therefore, even on this ground, the learned Sessions Judge was not 8 AJ-549.93 justified in handing down conviction for the appellant of the offence punishable under Section 504 of the IPC. 7. In view of this, the appeal succeeds. The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 504 of the IPC and the sentence with fine imposed upon him are set aside and he is acquitted of the said offence. Fine, if paid, be refunded to the appellant. The bail bonds stand cancelled. Sd/- (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)