To establish an offence under Section 504, IPC, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally insulted the complainant, that the insult was such as to give provocation to the complainant, and that the accused intended or knew that such provocation would cause the complainant to break the public peace or commit any other offence.

JUDGEMENT :-

This is an appeal preferred by the complainant against the order of acquittal passed by Sri P.C. Patro Judicial Magistrate, second class, Cuttack on 21-1-66 in complaint case No. 259 C-1/64.

2. The prosecution case is that the complainant was called to the shop of the accused through the latter's son on 27-3-64 at 11 a.m. When he reached the shop the accused suddenly flared up and abused him in filthy language. The words of abuse used by the accused have been quoted both in the complaint petition and also in the judgement of the trial Court. After abuse, the accused rushed towards the complainant and threatened him with assault. A gentleman of the locality intervened and the matter subsided. On these allegations charges under Ss.504 and 352 were framed against the accused.

3. The trial Court has found as a fact, which is no longer in dispute, that the accused has got a shop and the complainant was abused. The motive as stated in the complaint petition has been sought to be made out in the following facts :

The complainant purchases goods from the shop of the accused on credit. There is an account maintained in the shop in his name in which the goods purchased on credit are entered. The complainant, however, had advanced a sum of money to the accused some five years ago for getting the lands of one Rangalata Dai conveyed to him. The accused was to act as intermediary in that transaction of sale. Nothing came out of it, and no sale took place. Despite repeated reminders the accused had not repaid that money. On the day previous to the date of occurrence when the accused was absent and the shop was being attended to by his son, the complainant purchased goods equivalent to the amount advanced by him for purchase of land and got the same amount entered in his credit account. The accused on coming to know of it later on, felt that he had been tricked by the complainant. This angered him which led to the incident on the date of occurrence.

4. The defence is one of a denial. The accused not only denied the occurrence, but also the allegations that he had received a sum of money from the complainant for seeing through the sale transaction.

5. The trial Court has found that the complainant is a regular customer of the accused who owns a grocery shop in the village. He also finds that there is no satisfactory evidence regarding the advance of any money by the complainant to the accused for getting some lands conveyed by Rangalata to him.

6. The first finding is not disputed and the second finding appears, on a perusal of the evidence on record to be correct. P.W. 1's evidence on this point is uncorroborated. He admits that there were witnesses for this advance of money, but such corroborative evidence has not been put in.

7. As regards the motive, P.W. 1, the complainant says that five years ago he had advanced a sum of Rs. 56.11 to the accused who was to act as intermediary in the matter of getting some land of Rangalata sold to him. The sale never took place and the complainant as a matter of fact had advanced the money. The accused had verbally told the complainant that the money would be paid back by way of adjusting price of articles which the complainant takes on credit from his shop. Relying on such assurance, the complainant had in fact taken articles equivalent to the value of the amount advanced to the accused from the latter's shop just the previous day. If this evidence is true, there is apparently no cause for the accused to be angry and to behave in the manner he did, on the date of occurrence. If the accused had agreed to such a thing, there is no conceivable reason why he would alter his attitude. Thus, the motive for the occurrence is a very weak one.

8. There was a delay of six days in filing the complaint-petition. Some explanation for the delay has been stated in the complaint-petition. It is said that some gentlemen desired to settle the matter and detained him in the village for that purpose and this caused th