- (1.) S. R. Bhargava, J. This criminal revision by Padam Singh and Ujagar Singh was admitted on the point of sentence only. Having heard learned Counsel for the revisionists and having perused the lower appeallate Court judgment I am of the view that this revision should be disposed of on merits of the case.
(2.) PROSECUTION case against the revisionists was that on 4th October, 1983 at about 2 p. m. complainant Sml. Chandrawati and her son Malkhan Singh were looking after a grove. Revisionists appeared on the scene and said to the complainant that a sum of Rs. 150/- was due against her husband and she should pay the same. Complainant said that the money was not due from her and the same should be demanded from her husband. Then, the revisionists started hurling abuses at the complainant who asked them why they were hurling abuses. At this revisionists assaulted the complainant with Lathi Danda. Both the lower Courts accepted the prosecution evidence and convicted the revisionists with offences under Sections 323, 504 and 505, I. P. C. Trial Court sentenced the revisionists to fine of Rs. 200/- each under Section 323, I. P. C. fine of Rs. 100/- each under Section 504, I. P. C. and fine of Rs. 500/- each under Section 506, I. P. C. Learned Lower appellate Court confirmed the sentences of the revisionists. So far as the conviction and sentence of the revisionists for offence under Section 323, I. P. C. is concerned, it requires no interference. The question is whether on the prosecution story the revisionists could have been convicted with offences under Sections 504 and 506, I. P. C. Section 503, I. P. C. defines criminal intimidation and that definition makes it clear that for offence of criminal intimidation there mist be a threat with any injury to person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested. Then it is clear from the definition that behind the threat there should be intention to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is leagally entitled to do, as means of avoiding execution of such threat. For offence under Section 504, I. P. C. there must be intentional insult which may cause gave provocation to the other person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence.
(3.) IN the instant case the prosecution story is that the revisionists demanded mony due to the husband of the complainant and on her assertion that money may be demanded from the husband from whom it was due, the revisionists hurled abuses upon the complainant. A lady may be weak or helpless. Even then there can be no presump tion that she cannot be provoked to commit an offence or breack public peace. Even if abuses are hurled on a woman she may become violent and may loudly retaliate by abuses. That too would constitute breaking the public peace. I hold that by hurling abuses offence under Section 504, I. P. C. was committed. But the prosecution story does not contain any averment that the revisionists threatened the complaianant. All that they did was that on the protest of the com plainant against absuses they assaulted her. I hold that the prosecution story does not contain the necessary constituent of criminal intimidation, namely, threat. Hence no offence of criminal intimidation punishable under Section 506 is made out.;