Law and You > Criminal Laws > Indian Penal Code > Criminal Intimidation (Ss. 503 and 506)
Insult can generally be defined as words or actions that are abusive or demeaning to a person which may or may not be a deliberate effort to offend them or wound their feelings. Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is a provision under Part XXII which deals with the offence of “intentional insult with intent to provoke the breach of peace” with provisions for punishment. There are certain conditions that need to be fulfilled for it to constitute an offence and hold the offender liable.
Section 504 IPC:
Intentional Insult with Intent to Provoke Breach of the Peace:
Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Essential Ingredients of Section 504 IPC:
- That the accused has intentionally insulted some person; and
- That the insult is such as to give provocation to the person insulted; and
- That the accused has either intended or known that such provocation would cause the person insulted to break the public peace or to commit an offence.
Nature of Offence: Non-cognizable, Bailable, Compoundable by the person insulted, Triable by any Magistrate.
Punishment: imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) prescribes punishment for the offence of ‘intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace’. The purpose of this section is to stop people from using abusive, insulting language intentionally, which leads to provocation and causes the person being rebuked to break the peace. It’s not necessary for there to have been an actual disturbance of peace for commission of an offence under Section 504, IPC.
Example:
X intentionally abuses Y involving the chastity of his mother and sister. He does so with the knowledge that such an insult is likely to provoke him to cause breach in public peace. X has committed an offence under Section 504, IPC even if Y does not act upon such provocation.
Case Laws:
In Kunti Kumari v. State of Jharkhand, Criminal Appeal No. 791 of 2010 case, where the complainant, who was the President of the village education committee, had organized a budget meeting in which the appellant was present. The complainant was handing out meal packets to the members for lunch. When she was handing the meal packet to the appellant, the appellant snatched the packet out of her hand and started abusing her with respect to her community, uttering disrespectful statements against his case, and saying that even a dog would not eat the food she serves. The appellant had abused her in front of all the teachers and trainees, which had caused her mental harassment. The Jharkhand High Court convicted the appellant and punished with four months of simple imprisonment under Section 504 of the IPC.
In Fiona Shrikhandhe v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2014 SC 957 case, where the accused had moved in with her husband to a flat in Mumbai that belonged to the husband and her brother-in-law. There were internal family tussles regarding claims over the property, and the accused was indulging in several unlawful activities in order to force her brother-in-law and his wife out of the flat. The accused tried to prevent the entry of the family members into the puja room and would shout and yell at them. She had tried to move the “devara” (an arrangement where the idols of the deities are placed) out of the flat, and in that attempt, she damaged and dislodged the picture frames and the idols. These activities had hurt the religious sentiments of the complainant and caused her anguish. The High Court of Bombay laid down the essential elements of Section 504 in this case as follows:
- Intentional insult.
- The insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted.
- The accused must have the intention or knowledge that the provocation will cause another to break public peace or commit any other offence.
The Court held that one of the essential elements is the act of intentional insult, which leads to a breach of public peace, and that merely abusing the complainant is not sufficient to convict the plaintiff under Section 504 of the IPC.
In Kishori Mohan v. Dwarika Nath Singh (May 8, 1974) case, the complainant, Kanhaiya Lal, was the head assistant-cum accountant of a Gharka Block, and the petitioners, Kishori Lal and Dwarika Nath, were, at the time of the incident, the junior statistical supervisor and panchayat sewak of the block, respectively. During a non-gazetted employees’ strike, the complainant came out for some work. At this time, he was suddenly surrounded by the staff, and Dwarika Nath humiliated him in front of them by making him wear a garland of shoes, and Kishori Nath took a picture of him. The magistrate had convicted both petitioners under Section 504 and charged them both with six months of rigorous imprisonment. The appellate court, however, after the revision of the judgement, set aside Kishori Lal’s charges. The Patna High Court referred to the case of Gauri Shankar v. Bachha Singh (1938) and held that there was no evidence of publication or brandishing of the photographs. Thus, simply taking photos can neither be held as an undignified conduct nor does it lead to provocation to break public peace.
Conclusion:
The object of Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is to maintain peace and order in society. It provides for stringent punishment for those engaged in intentionally insulting someone with an ulterior motive to provoke them to disrupt public peace. To constitute the offence, the accused must have intentionally communicated the abuse/insult ‘directly’ to the victim.