Habib Khan and Others vs Mazhar-Ul-Haque Khan

Atkinson, J.—The seven petitioners in this matter seek to have the order of conviction passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer of Bhabua in the District of Shahabad on the 29th of January 1917 set aside. One Mazhar-ul-Haque Khan, on the 20th of December 1916, preferred a complaint against the seven petitionars u/s 504 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that on the 17th of December the complainant commenced irrigating his wheat crop from a certain water tank adjacent to his fields. The complainant claims that when he used the tank the petitioners did not use it, until he had finished. No doubt the petitioners also use the water from the tank for the purpose of irrigating their fields near and surrounding the tank. Be that as it may, we are not concerned in this case with the question as to the ownership of the tank or the right to irrigate. It is sufficient that on the 19th of December, the petitioners, numbering seven in all, came to the complainant''s land and deliberately set themselves to prevent the complainant''s men from irrigating the complainant''s wheat crop. The complainant was informed by his labouring men of what the petitioners were doing; and he went to the spot himself and remonstrated with the petitioners, who, immediately, proceeded to abuse him--one witness states that they used filthy language--and threatened to strike him. All the witnesses are agreed that abuse was used, coupled with a threat to strike. No doubt the complainant admits that this is the first time that there has been a dispute between himself and the accused concerning the use of the water from this tank; but be also admits that for the past two years he and the petitioners have not been on peaceful terms. It is argued before me that an offence u/s 504 of the Indian Penal Code has not been established; because the words of the abuse, which are alleged to have been offered, are not stated. It is contended that it is essential that the words should be stated in order to ascertain whether or not the words so used would constitute an insult to the mind of an ordinary person. Prima facie, I would say that that argument is well founded if the insult alleged consisted of spoken words only; but insult may arise out of the conduct or actions of a man, irrespective of spoken words. If I find seven men going upon the land of another and preventing that other from irrigating his fields and, when remonstrated with, using abuse and threatening to strike, I cannot conceive a stronger case of intention to convey insult; nor a case more calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. No doubt the complainant, in this case, did not accept the provocation because he was a peacefully disposed man; but that would not make the petitioners any the less guilty, if the insult offered was such as would be sufficient to the mind of an ordinary person to provoke a breach of the peace. The complainant no doubt withdrew, but nevertheless all the ingredients necessary to constitute an insult within the meaning of Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code were present in the conduct anil action of the petitioners. The petitioners deliberately, i.e., intentionally, set themselves to prevent the complainant from irrigating his land, and when remonstrated with, offered abuse and threatened to strike. Their intention to provoke a breach of the peace by so doing is apparent from the fact that the threat to beat was asserted by seven persons as against one. Having perused the evidence I find that there was ample evidence upon which the Sub-Divisional Officer was perfectly justified in finding that the petitioners had been guilty of offering an insult within the meaning of Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code and that this insult was such as to cause a breach of the peace; and that the threat to strike was a threat conveying an intention on the part of the accused that they were desirous of provoking a breach of the peace. I, therefore, find that all the three elements referred to in the case reported as Jaykrishna Samanta v. Emperor 36 Ind. Cas. 849 ; 21 C.W.N. 95 ; 24 C.L.J. 137 ; 18 Cri. L.J. 17 are present in this case. Therefore, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer was perfectly justified in convicting the petitioners u/s 504 of the Indian Penal Code and in sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs. 10 each or, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten days each. And in the circumstances of this case, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer was perfectly right in binding the petitioners to keep the peace for a period of one year or, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Accordingly this application is rejected.