S. Acharya, J.
1. The petitioners stand convicted under Section 504. Indian Penal Code, each of them has been sentenced thereunder to pay a fine of Rupees 15/- in default to undergo R. I, for one week.
2. The prosecution case, in short, is that at about 8 A. M. on the date of occurrence the petitioners went upon the land which was in the cultivating possession of the complainant and tried to sow Kolathi on that land. The complainant at first snatched away the basket of Kolathi from the accused persons and when he stood in front of their ploughs in order not to allow them to sow on that land, they abused and threatened to assault him. On the intervention of the Bhadraloks of the village the accused persons left that place.
3. Charges under Sections 447 and 504. Indian Penal Code were framed against the petitioners. They pleaded not guilty to the charges by denying the entire prosecution case.
4. The Court below, on a consideration of the evidence on record, acquitted the petitioners of the charge under Section 447. Indian Penal Code but convicted them of the charge under Section 504. Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as stated above.
5. Mr. Mohanty. appearing for the petitioners, contends that the Court below has illegally convicted the petitioners under Section 504, Indian Penal Code without taking into consideration certain significant admissions and the highly discrepant statements made by the prosecution witnesses on this particular aspect of the matter. From the discussion of the evidence on record in Para-graph 4 of the impugnd judgment I find that the abusive words alleged to have been used in the aforesaid occurrence: as stated by the complainant and his other witnesses, do not at all tally with each other. While P. W. 1 stated that the accused persons abused him as 'SALA MATRUCHOT ETC'. P. Ws. 2 and 3 stated that, they abused the complainant as 'SALA MANIA ETC.' They have not stated as to what other abusive words were used by the accused persons. Apart from the above discrepancy, P. W. 4, who has been examined as an occurrence witness, very clearly states in cross-examination that he does not know anything else excepting the snatching away of the basket by P. W. 1 from the accused persons. This witness was all along with P. W. 1 from the beginning to the end of the occurrence. His evidence to the above effect completely negatives the Use of any abusive words in the alleged incident. On the prosecution evidence, as discussed in the impugned judgment. it can however be said that a trifling incident happened somewhere in the fields, during the sowing season, between the complainant and the accused persons. It is a common experience that when rustic people have some quarrel or difference amount themselves they generally hurl insulting, abusive and/or, filthy words against each other1. Merely from the use of such words in heated moments it cannot always be said that those words were used with the requisite intention stated in Section 504, Indian Penal Code. A quarrel between two parties may arise out of several reasons, indepedent of the hot. abusive and/or insulting words used by one or both the parties in that incident, and if public peace is affected by such an incident, it cannot be said that that situation was created only because of the use of the said words. In many such incidents it is seen that parties are completely indifferent to the words used therein though very insulting abusive or indecent words are used by one against the other may be one trying to excel the other in that direction, but at the same time these words fall flat and do not create an impression on any one involved in the incident. So. merely from the use of such words on occasions like the above, it cannot be said that the persons concerned used these words with the requisite intention stated in Section 504, Indian Penal Code. An offence under this section by. spoken words cannot be made out so long it is not proved that those words were uttered with the specific intention of insulting a man and the offender intended by that insult to provoke the other person to break the public peace or commit any other offence.
6. In the present case it appears that the parties, due to some reasons or other, had a quarrel between themselves in the corn fields. In that incident it is not unlikely that some hot and offensive words might have been exchanged between themselves; The evidence is not very certain as to what actual words were used by the accused persons against the complainant, as discussed above. It is also difficult to believe that the complainant in that situation was keeping mum all through, having reacted at the outset by snatching away the basket of Kolathi. On such facts and circumstances it cannot be said that the words used by the accused persons in that incident were specifically intended to insult the complainant for the purpose and to the extent required under Section 504, Indian P.C..
7. On the above discussions and considerations. I am satisfied that on the evidence on record,. an offence under Section 504, Indian Penal Code is not made but against the petitioners. Accordingly their conviction for the aforesaid offence is liable to be set aside.
8. In the result.. therefore, the conviction of the petitioners under Section 504, Indian Penal Code and the sentence passed thereunder are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of the same. Fines, if paid be refunded to them.
The revision accordingly is allowed.