Citations: Abraham Vs State and Anr., AIR 1960 Ker 236
Date of Judgment: 18 January 1960
Equivalent Citations: AIR 1960 Ker 236
Case No: Revision Petition C.C No.929 of 1959
Case Type: Criminal Revision Petition
Petitioner: Abraham
Defendant: State and Anr.
Bench: Hon’ble Justice A Chandy
Court: Kerala High Court
Statutes Referred:
- Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 447, 504
Cases referred:
- Philip Rangel Vs Emperor, AIR 1932 Bom 193
Facts:
- The accused is a jeweller at Thirunakkara, Kottayam and the complainant, the Resident Engineer of the Kottayam Electricity Agency.
- The accused had to make a payment of current charges amounting more than Rs. 1000/- on 16/11/1957 which was not paid in spite of repeated reminders. The complainant hence, sent his men to the accused’s shop to remove the fuse placed inside the building. But the men failed due to the accused’s opposition to do so.
- On 16/11/1957 at about 10.30 A.M they cut the aerial fuse outside the shop and disconnected the current supply. At about 2 P. M. the complainant went to the accused’s shop and told him that his act of obstructing his men to remove the indoor fuse was improper.
- On the same day at about 4.30 P.M, the accused trespassed into the complainant’s office attached to the power house with the object of insulting and annoying him and actually insulted him by the use of obscene language. The accused is alleged to have told the complainant, “Neither your master nor you nor your father will be able to remove the fuse from my building. All this is mere ‘foul gas’ to me”.
Issues Involved:
- Whether the accused shall be held liable under Section 447 and Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code?
Contention of Petitioner:
The counsel for Petitioner contented that:
- It was not a case of intentional insult, much less insult that was intended or known to be likely to provoke a breach of the public peace or the commission of any other offence.
- The elements necessary to sustain a conviction under Sections 504 are not fulfilled.
- In Philip Rangel Vs Emperor, it was held by Chief Justice Beaumont that:
“When the charge is an insult by words, the words must amount to something more than what in English law is called ‘mere vulgar abuse’. If abusive language is used in such circumstances, then the court comes to the conclusion that it cannot possibly have been intended, and cannot have been understood by those to whom it was addressed to have been intended, to be taken literally, the language cannot be held to amount to an intentional insult.”
Contention of Defendant:
The counsel for Defendant contented that:
- The accused had to make a payment of current charges amounting more than 1000/- which was not paid in spite of repeated reminders. The complainant hence, sent his men to the accused’s shop to remove the fuse placed inside the building. But the men failed due to the accused’s opposition to do so.
- On 16/11/1957 at about 10.30 A.M they cut the aerial fuse outside the shop and disconnected the current supply. At about 2 P. M. the complainant went to the accused’s shop and told him that his act of obstructing his men to remove the indoor fuse was improper.
- On the same day at about 4.30 P.M, the accused trespassed into the complainant’s office attached to the powerhouse with the object of insulting and annoying him and actually insulted him by the use of obscene language. The accused is alleged to have told the complainant, “Neither your master nor you nor your father will be able to remove the fuse from my building. All this is mere ‘foul gas’ to me”.
Judgment:
The Accused was acquitted.
The court held that all the ingredients necessary to commit an offence under Section 504 are not fulfilled. Therefore, the order of conviction and sentence passed against the Revision Petitioner (accused) is quashed.
Ratio Decidendi:
- An analysis of the accused’s words would show that the first portion of his statement seems to be nothing more than a pompous boast. The latter portion of. the sentence comparing the attempts made by the complainant to remove the fuse to “foul gas” would at worst amount to vulgarity but could hardly, be considered as an insult.
- The circumstances under which they were uttered indicate that the accused’s intention was to express or to have the satisfaction of having had the last word in a conversation.
- It cannot be held that the accused intended or knew it to be likely that the provocation given by the insult would cause the complainant to break the public peace or commit some other offence. The complainant though did not react but the reaction reasonably to be expected from any ordinary man.
Conclusion:
To conclude, in the above case, the circumstances under which the insulting language was used was not said with an intention. People do speak abusively in anger. Such kind of reaction is expected by any ordinary man. Hence, he is vacated from all the charges but a petition can be filed under Section 447 of Indian Penal Code for trespass.
Drafted By: Kimi Kantak, Govind Ramnath Kare College of Law
Edited by: Aashima Kakkar, Associate Editor, Law Insider
Published On: October 18, 2021 at 13:29 IST