M. Munuswami 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, 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 hydrccele) be beaten till his hydrcocele 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, Muniswamni 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, Penal Code, was 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 ask 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, 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 be abuses and waits there to see what would happen, he will, in my opinion, be liable u/s 504, 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 prima facie case u/s 504, 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, Penal Code, even if they are uttered a thousand miles away, if they are conveyed to the men by some

obliging friends; nor can the distance be a criterion. The gravamen of the offence u/s 504, 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.