M. Muniswami Naicker vs P. Kanniappa Naicker

Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.—This is an interesting case. The First Class Bench Court, Tiruvottiyur, discharged the respondent Kanniappa, in a

case u/s 504, Indian Penal Code. The respondent abused the petitioner in obscene terms stating ""May his wife be ravished ! May the hydrocelic

fellow (the petitioner is said to have hydrocele) be beaten till his hydrocele is blown to bits !"" This abuse was uttered in the absence of the

petitioner, but the people who heard the abuse, they were, members of the Panchayat, conveyed it to the petitioner, Muniswami Naicker, who felt

highly put out on hearing their report and felt like committing a breach of the peace but restrained himself with an effort.

The question is whether, in these circumstances, an offence u/s 504, Indian Penal Code, was or was not made out prima facie. Mr. Asker Ali,

for the petitioner, urged with great vehemence, that there is really no distinction between a man who utters such words to panchayatdars and asks

them to convey the words to the petitioner and a person who sends such insulting words by letter to the petitioner and, that it has been held by the

Bombay High Court, in Silvester Vaz Vs. Louis Dias, that if insulting words likely to provoke a person to a breach of the peace are conveyed to

him in a letter by post the man sending such a letter will be liable u/s 504, Indian Penal Code. The learned Public Prosecutor agrees, and I too

agree. But the point here is whether the respondent not only uttered the abuse to the panchayatdars but asked the panchayatdars to convey it to

the petitioner. If a man stands before another''s house, or near where he is, and utters insulting words calculated to provoke a breach of the peace

even in his absence and wants them to be conveyed to the man he abuses and waits there^ to see what would happen, he will, in my opinion, be

liable u/s 504, Indian Penal Code, as such a message, by messengers, stands on even a stronger footing than a message by letter. But, as the

learned Public Prosecutor has rightly urged, there is no evidence in this case to show that the respondent asked the panchayatdars before whom he

uttered the insulting words regarding the petitioner to convey them to the petitioner. Such a request is, in my opinion, essential to make a pritna

facie case, u/s 504, Indian Penal Code. As that is absent, the discharge was right. Mr. Asker Ali argues that if insulting words like these are

uttered, and are conveyed to the person about whom they are uttered, they are likely to provoke a breach of the peace when the victim is told

about them whether the utterer asks them to be conveyed to him or not, and would therefore, amount to an offence u/s 504. I cannot agree. If that

were so, any defamatory words, like that a man''s wife or daughter is immoral, will come u/s 504, Indian Penal Code, even if they are uttered a

thousand miles away, it they are conveyed to the man by some obliging friends; nor can the distance be a criterion. The gravamen of the offence u/s

504, Indian Penal Code, lies in the utterer provoking the victim by his words to commit an immediate breach of the peace. That can only occur if

he utters the words in the presence of the victim or has them conveyed to him by letter or messenger. Few sane persons will commit a breach of

the peace on mere hearsay evidence of abuse, and without even verification. In this case, as there is no evidence to show that the utterer asked the

panchayatdars to convey his insulting words, uttered in his absence, to the petitioner, I am of opinion that the lower Court''s order discharging the

respondent cannot be said to be illegal, incorrect, improper or irregular, or to have occasioned a failure of justice.

The petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.