DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM

PROJECT ON

CHAPTER 22- CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION, INSULT AND ANNOYANCE

SUBJECT

Indian Penal Code- II

SUBMITTED TO

Prof. (Dr.) Bhavani Prasad Panda

Prof. Vijaya Lakshmi

PROJECT SUBMITTED WITH ROLL NO., SEMESTER AND SECTION

PRAVALYA KAMIREDDY

2018067

Fourth semester

Section A

1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

I am highly indebted to my Hon’ble IPC Professors, Prof. Dr. Bhavani Prasad Panda and
Prof. Vijaya Lakshmi, for giving me a wonderful opportunity to work on the topic: “Chapter
22- Criminal Intimidation, Insult and Annoyance” and it is because of his excellent
knowledge, experience and guidance, this project is made with great interest and effort. I
would also like to thank my seniors who have guided my knowledge of doing research on
such significant topic. I would always also take this as an opportunity to thank my parents
for their support. I have no words to express my gratitude to each person who have guided
and suggested me while conducting my research work.

2
 Indian Penal Code-II

Synopsis

Tittle of the research project: Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code,1860--- “Criminal
Intimidation, Insult and Annoyance”.

Introduction:

Chapter XXII of Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with Criminal Intimidation, Insult and
Annoyance. It comprises of eight sections from Section 503 to section 510. These are
offences which does not affect physically but are still punishable. Section 503 IPC deals with
Criminal Intimidation. Section 504 deals with Intentional Insult with intent to provoke
breach of the peace. Section 505 IPC deals with Statements conducting to Public Mischief.
The Punishment for criminal intimidation is dealt under Section 506 IPC. Section 507 IPC
deals with Criminal Intimidation by an anonymous communication. An act caused by
inducing person to believe that he will be rendered an object of the Divine displeasure is
dealt under Section 508 IPC. Section 509 IPC deals with Word, gesture or act intended to
insult the modesty of a woman. Misconduct in public by a drunken person is dealt under
Section 510 IPC.

Research Questions:

1. Whether an act is punishable even though it does not physically affect a person?
2. Whether a person committed any offence if he publishes any statement with an intent
to cause fear to public?
3. Whether any statement made by a person to create or promote enmity or hatred
between classes is an offence?
4. Whether any word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman is an
offence or not?

Literature Review:

1. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Indian Penal Code:

3
 This book is preferred by the researcher because this book has a good number of
comments and illustrations regarding the section of IPC which makes the researcher
to understand the said section very clearly.

2. K. D Gaur, Indian Penal Code:

This book is preferred by the researcher because this book has good number of
practical illustrations under the sections. This book has various comments and
explanations under each section of IPC.

Research Methodology:

Nature of the study: Analytical and critical and descriptive study

Sources of study:

Primary sources- Indian Penal Code, 1860 Bare Act and Judgements of High Courts
and Supreme Court of India.

Secondary sources: R & D Indian Penal code and the K.D Gaur Indian Penal Code.

Mode of citation: Blue book 19th edition.

Scope of the study: The study of researcher is limited to the extent of the Indian penal
code and it is confined to only chapter XXII of IPC

Significance of the study:

The significance of the project is to understand and analyse the sections under chapter
XXII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The researcher also deals with various case laws
and analyse those case laws which are covered under sections 503 to 510 of IPC.

Contents/ chapters: (tentative)

1. Introduction to the chapter XXII of IPC

2. Sections contained in chapter XXII of IPC
2.1 section 503 of IPC and its analysis and case laws.
2.2 section 504 of IPC and its analysis and case laws.
2.3 section 505 of IPC and its analysis and case laws.
2.4 section 506 of IPC and its analysis and case laws.

4
 2.5 section 507 of IPC and its analysis and case laws.
2.6 section 508 of IPC and its analysis and case laws.
2.7 section 509 of IPC and its analysis and case laws.
2.8 section 510 of IPC and its analysis and case laws.
3. Relevancy of these sections in the era of 21st century
4. Conclusion
5. Bibliography.

PRAVALYA KAMIREDDY
18LLB067
Semester 4
Section A

5
LIST OF CASES UNDER CHAPTER 22
Case Name Citation

Romesh Chandra Arora v State 1960 Cri LJ 177: AIR 1960 SC 154

S. Khushboo v Kanniammal (2010) 5 SCC 600: (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1299

Rupal Deol Bajaj v K.P.S Gill (1995) 6 SCC 194: 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059

Apparel Export Promotion Council v A.K (1999) 1 SCC 759

Chopra
J. Jaishankar v Govt. of India (1996) 6 SCC 204

Gopalan v King AIR 1949 Mad 233

Venkataratnam v Emperor 1947 MWN 279

Mohammed Sabed Ali v Thulseswar Porah ILR (1954) 6 Assam 274

Manuswami Naiker v Kannaippa Naiker 1942 MWN 837

Kedarnath v State of Bihar AIR 1952 SC 955

Shamsher Alam v State of U.P 2002 Cr LJ 3588 (All)

Tanumal Udham Singh v Emperor AIR 1944 Sind 203

Ashok Kumar v Radha Kishan Vij 1983 Cr LJ 48, Delhi
Jugal Kishore v State 1972 Cr LJ 371

Kishori Mohan v State of Bihar 1976 Pat LJ 270

Sriram Chandra v K. Chandra 1970 Cr LJ 264

Bankey v State AIR 1961 All 131

Jogendra Kumar Sarkar v Hem Chandra Roy (1964) 1 Cr LJ 255 (Cal)

6
Mohinder Singh v State of Punjab (1993) Cr LJ 85

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................8
2. PART-A CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION........................................9
3. PART-B INTENTIONAL INSULT................................................16
4. PART-C ANNOYANCE..................................................................24
5. PENAL CODE REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT.....................25
6. CRIME HEAD-WISE CASES REPORTED UNDER IPC...........26
7. SUGGESTIONS OF THE STRAITS TIMES.................................26
8. LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA RECOMMENDATIONS........27
9. 156TH LAW COMMISSION REPORT...........................................27
10. CONCLUSION.................................................................................29
11. BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................29

7
Introduction:

Chapter 22 of Indian Penal Code can be divided into three parts- Part A, Part B and Part C.
Part- A deals with Criminal Intimidation which covers Sections 503, 506, 507 and 508 IPC.
The offence of Criminal Intimidation is dealt under Section 503 IPC. Section 506 IPC deals
with the punishment for the offence of Criminal Intimidation. Sections 507 and 508 IPC
deals with punishment for aggravated forms of Criminal Intimidation.

Part- B deals with Intentional Insult. It covers those sections dealing with Intentional insult
i.e., sections 504, 505 and 509 IPC. Section 504 IPC deals with Intentional Insult with intent
to provoke breach of peace. Statements conducing to public mischief are dealt under Section
505 IPC. Insult to the Modesty of a woman is also covered under this part. Section 509 IPC
deals with Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.

Part- C deals with Annoyance. It covers Section 510 of Indian Penal Code. Section 510 IPC
deals with Misconduct in public by a drunken person.

The term ‘Criminal Intimidation’ is defined as “Whoever, threatens another with any
injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in
whom that person is interested, with intent 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 legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat,
commits criminal intimidation.”1

The term ‘Insult’ is defined as “to treat with insolence, indignity or contempt or to affect
offensively or damagingly.”2

1
Dadan Prasad Abhay, Glossary of Criminal Law pg. 154.
2
Merriam- Webster Dictionary.

8
The term ‘Annoyance’ refers to “Discomfort, Vexation. Annoyance and inconvenience
relate as much to physical as to mental conditions. It includes feeling of imposition and
oppression.”3

Part-A: Criminal Intimidation

Section 503- Criminal Intimidation:

Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the
person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause harm
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 legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the
execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.4

This means If any person threatens another with injury to his person, property or reputation,
and to avoid that, the other person is made to do an act he is not legally bound to do, or
which caused alarm to that person, then that person is said to have committed criminal
intimidation. It is extending a threat to another, which results in a particular set of actions
from the other as a means of avoiding the threat.5

Section 503 also includes the threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom
the person threatened is interested. The punishment for the offence of Criminal Intimidation
is prescribed in Section 506 I.P.C.

Ingredients:

The Supreme Court discussed the ingredients of offence of Criminal Intimidation in the case
of Ramesh Chandra Arora v State.6

The essential ingredients of offence of Criminal Intimidation are:

3
Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary pg. 115 (4 th ed.).
4
Dadan Prasad Abhay, Glossary of Criminal Law [Definitions, Explanations and Interpretations] pg 154.
5
P.S.A Pillai, Criminal Law, pg 955(9th ed.).
6
Ramesh Chandra Arora v State, AIR 1960 SC 154.

9
 1) Threatening a person with injury to his person, reputation or property or to the
person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested; and
2) The threat must be with the intention-
i. To cause alarm to that person; or
ii. To cause that person to do any act which that person is legally not bound to
do; or
iii. To cause a person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled
to do as the means of avoiding the execution of that threat.7

In the above case, a person (accused) took indecent pictures of a girl and threatened the
father of that girl to pay ‘Hush- money’ and if the said amount is not given, the accused
threatened that he will make the pictures public. The trial court and the appellate court
convicted him for the offence of criminal intimidation under Section 503 and punished him
under Section 506 I.P.C. The accused appealed before Supreme Court and contended that he
is not guilty under Sections 503 and 506 and also contended that he would have been guilty
under Section 384 (extortion) read with Section 511 (attempt to extortion). As the charges
were not framed under those sections, he is entitled to acquittal.

The Supreme Court divided Section 503 into two parts- the first part refers to the act of
threatening another with injury to his person, reputation or property of any one in whom that
person is interested and the second part refers to the intent to cause alarm and cause that
person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do any act which that
person is legally entitled to do so, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat. As
the conditions of two parts are satisfied, the appellant (accused) is guilty of offence of
Criminal Intimidation under Section 503 and punished under Section 506 IPC.

Nature of the threat:

The nature of the threat need not be a direct threat always. The threat may not be a direct
threat which means it may not be in the presence of the complainant. The question of
liability of the accused person will not be impacted whether the threat did or did not frighten
any person to constitute an offence under this section. In Re Gopalan8 case, it was held that
if a speaker at a public meeting threatened the members of the police force stationed in

7
R. N. Saxena, Indian Penal Code, pg 631(19 th ed. 2012)
8
Re Gopalan case, AIR 1949 Mad 233

10
Malabar with injury to their person, property or reputation, then he was said to have
committed the offence of Criminal Intimidation.

The injury threatened to be caused must be illegal to constitute an offence under Section 503
of Indian Penal Code, this is, Criminal Intimidation.

Threatens another with any injury-

For constituting the offence of Criminal Intimidation, the communication of threat is

necessary. There is no question of intimidation if the threat is not communicated or intended
to be communicated.9 The offence is determined by taking into account the effect of threat
on the mind of the person threatened. It is also necessary that the threat should be one which
can be put into execution by the person threatening.

Cases:

In Chander Kala v Ram Kishan,10 the complainant (Smt. Chander Kala) was working as a
teacher in a Govt. Middle School and the respondent (Ram Kishan) was the headmaster of
the same school. The accused, after a series of events, called the complainant to his house
and threatened to attack her modesty if she refused to sign three blank papers. And when she
did, he threatened that he will use those signed papers to blackmail her by recording any
statement on the papers, if she refused to act according to his wishes. He was held guilty of
the offence of criminal intimidation.

In Communist Party of India v Bharat Kumar, 11 the question before Supreme Court was
that whether the provisions under Section 503 IPC can be attracted in the cases of bandh,
agitations, strikes, etc. The Supreme Court held that if there is any threat to cause injury to
anyone’s person, property or reputation during observance of bandh, strikes or agitations
then it will constitute an offence under Section 503 IPC.

This section does not come into action if there is any threat of social boycott. This is because
the nature of this threat does not satisfy the conditions of Section 503 IPC.12

9
Ganga Chandra Sen v Gour Chunder Bankiya, (1883) ILR 15 Cal 671
10
Chander Kala v Ram Kishan, AIR 1985 SCC 1968.
11
Communist Party of India v Bharat Kumar, AIR 1998 SC 184.
12
Hanuman Prasad Matadin, AIR 1949 Mad. 546.

11
In Jowahir Pathak v Prabhoo Ahir,13 it was held that if a person threatens another to ruin
him by cases, then he cannot be convicted under this section as there is no offence
committed by him. But, if a person threatens to ruin false cases, then he will be convicted of
the offence of Criminal Intimidation under Section 503 IPC.

Criminal Intimidation and Extortion:

Section 503 IPC deals with Criminal Intimidation; Extortion is dealt under Section 383 IPC.
The object of Criminal Intimidation is to induce the person threatened to do or refrain from
doing which he is not legally bound to do or omit whereas in extortion, the object is to obtain
money or money’s worth by threat of life or injury. In the offence of Criminal Intimidation,
the threat need not be directly addressed to the person intended to be threatened whereas in
Extortion, the threat is directly addressed to the victim who is present before the offender. In
criminal intimidation, there is no delivery of the property by the victim to the accused, but in
extortion, delivery of property is of the essence of the offence. The punishment for the
offence of criminal intimidation is dealt under Section 506 IPC with imprisonment upto two
years whereas for extortion, it is punishable under Section 384 with imprisonment upto three
years. Criminal Intimidation is a bailable and non- cognizable offence and a less severe
offence when compared to extortion. Extortion is a non- bailable and cognizable offence.

Criminal Intimidation and Assault:

Assault is committed by making some gesture or preparation as to cause any person present
to apprehend that criminal force is about to be used to him, but in criminal intimidation there
is threat of injury to one’s person, reputation or property.

Section 506- Punishment for Criminal Intimidation:

Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.14

If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc- and if the threat be to cause death or
grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence
punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with

13
Jowahir Pathak v Prabhoo Ahir, (1902) 30 Cl. 418.
14
R. N. Saxena, Indian Penal Code, pg 637(19th ed. 2012)

12
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine,
or with both.15

Section 506 can be divided into two parts. First part deals with the offences of Criminal
Intimidation and the punishment may extend to two years imprisonment or fine or both.
Whereas second part deals with those cases where the threat or intimidation is severe and the
threat is to cause death or grievous hurt and the punishment may extend upto seven years
imprisonment instead of two years. First part is less severe when compared to second part of
this section.

Ingredients of the offence:

The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 506 are as follows:

1) The accused threatened someone with injury to his person, reputation or property or
the person, reputation and or property of another in whom the former was interested;
2) The accused did so with intent to cause alarm to the victim of offence;
3) He did so to cause the victim to perform any act which he was not legally bound to
do.16

Threat Causing Alarm:

The meaning of the term ‘Alarm’ was examined in the case Amulya Kumar Behera v
Nabhagana Behera.17 It was held that “Intention must be to cause alarm to the victim and
whether he is alarmed or not is really of no consequence. But material has to be brought on
record to show that intention was to cause alarm to that person. Mere expression of any
words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring an application of
Section 506 IPC. The gist of the offence is the effect, which the threat is intended to have
upon the mind of the person threatened. Before it can have effect on his mind it must be
either made to him by the person threatening or communicated to him in some way.”

Cases:

15
Raman Devgan, Criminal Intimidation( January 4, 2020, 11:05 am), http://devgan.in/ipc/?
a=ipc&q=intimidation
16
R. N. Saxena, Indian Penal Code, pg 638(19th ed. 2012)
17
Amulya Kumar Behera v Nabhagana Behera, 1995 Cri LJ 3559 (Ori).

13
In Ramesh Chandra Arora v State, 18 the accused was held guilty of Section 503 IPC
punished under Section 506 IPC.

For the offence to constitute under Section 506 IPC, the grounds under Section 506 must be
satisfied to convict a person. In Saraswati v Tamil Nadu,19 the accused merely asked a
person not to work in a private garden and go away from there and threatened to thrash him
if he does not leave. The court acquitted the person stating that the grounds for invoking
section 506 IPC and for convicting the accused under Criminal Intimidation are not
sufficient as it was a mere warning without any intention to cause any harm or injury to the
complainant.

In State of Himachal Pradesh v Prem Singh,20 on the allegation that the respondent had
sexually ravished the complainant and had outraged the modesty of not only complainant,
but of several other girl students of the school where the respondent was a teacher, law was
set in motion. The respondent was further charged for commission of offences relating to
threatening the prosecutrix with dire consequences in case she disclosed the incident to
somebody else. The accused was held guilty under Sections 506 along with other relevant
sections and sentenced him to two years and six months imprisonment under Section 506
IPC.

Section 507- Criminal Intimidation by an anonymous

communication:

Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication, or

having taken precaution to conceal the name or abode of the person from whom the threat
comes, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to two years, in addition to the punishment provided for the offence by the last
preceding section.21 Here preceding section refers to Section 506 IPC which deals with
punishment for Criminal Intimidation.

Ingredients of the offence:

18
Ramesh Chandra Arora v State, AIR 1960 SC 154.
19
Saraswati v Tamil Nadu, 2002 Cr LJ 1420 (Mad).
20
State of Himachal Pradesh v Prem Singh, AIR 2009 SC 1010.
21
R.N Saxena, Indian Penal Code pg 639(19th ed. 2012).

14
The ingredients of the offence under Section 507 are the ingredients of Section 506. The
essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 507 are:

1) The accused threatened someone with injury to his person, reputation or property, or
to the person or reputation of any one in whom the former was interested;
2) The accused did so with intent to cause alarm to the said person;
3) The accused caused the victim to perform any act which he was not legally bound to
do;
4) The accused made the threat by anonymous communication sent to the victim of
offence.22

Scope:

Section 507 is an aggravated form of intimidation. Intimidation, which was covered under
Section 506 is a direct intimidation and by a known person. This section 507 covers cases
when the intimidator commits the offence of intimidation through an anonymous letter,
signed with a false name or by hiding his address or personal details. The punishment in such
cases of anonymous intimidation will be an additional punishment of two years terms, apart
from the punishment provided under Section 506 IPC.

The offence is non- cognizable, bailable and non- compoundable and triable by a magistrate
of first class.23

Section 508- Act caused by inducing person to believe that he will be rendered an
object of Divine displeasure

Whoever voluntarily causes or attempts to cause any person to do anything which that
person is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do anything which he is legally entitled to do,
by inducing or attempting to induce that person to believe that he or any person in whom he
is interested will become or will be rendered by some act of the offender an object of divine
displeasure if he does not do the thing which it is the object of the offender to cause him to
do, or if he does the thing which it is the object of the offender to cause him to do, or if he
does the thing which it is the object of the offender to cause him to omit, shall be punished

22
R.N Saxena, Indian Penal Code pg 639(19th ed. 2012).
23
P.S.A Pillai, Criminal Law, pg 963(9th ed.).

15
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with
fine, or with both.24

Section 508 IPC seeks to punish any act or omission which induces a person to believe that
he will be rendered an object of divine displeasure if he does or omits to do something. The
illustration under this section implies to control the practices of Dharnas as it causes divine
displeasure to a person against whom the Dharnas are done. If a person initiates a Dharna
against a person with a view to bring divine displeasure, then the former shall be punished
under this section.

This is non- cognizable, bailable, compoundable and triable by any magistrate.25

Ingredients of the offence:

The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 508 are:

1) The accused voluntarily caused or attempted to cause any person to do anything

which that person is not legally bound to do or omit to do a thing which he is legally
bound to do;
2) The accused induced that person to believe that either he himself or any person
interested in him will become an object of divine displeasure unless such thing was
so done.26

Case Laws:

In Tanumal Udham Singh v Emperor,27 a letter was sent to a widow by the accused stating
that her husband owes some money to him during the lifetime of the deceased. He also stated
that if the widow didn’t repay the debt, the accused would recover it from her husband in
heaven. The widow filed a complaint against the accused under Section 508 IPC contending
that the matter in the letter sent by accused created Divine Displeasure to the widow. The
court held that the accused not guilty under Section 508 IPC due to the inapplicability of the
section because to constitute an offence under Section 508, the threat should be that of

24
R.N Saxena, Indian Penal Code pg 639(19th ed. 2012).
25
P.S.A Pillai, Criminal Law pg 1267(10th ed. 2008).
26
R.N Saxena, Indian Penal Code pg 640(19th ed. 2012).
27
Tanumal Udham Singh v Emperor, AIR 1944 Oudh 203.

16
Divine displeasure to the victim whereas in this case threat was addressed to the husband of
the widow in Heaven and not to the widow.

In another case De Cruz,28 it was held that a person who is excommunicated by his priest
does not become an object of divine displeasure.

Part- B: Intentional Insult

Section 504- Intentional Insult with intent to provoke breach of

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.29

Section 504 IPC deals with those cases where there is an intentional insult to any person
leading to provocation or at least intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation
or at least intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause the person to
whom the intentional insult is offered to break the public peace or to commit any other
offence.

Ingredients of the offence:

There are three essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 504 IPC. They
are:

1) Intentional Insult;
2) The insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted; and
3) The accused must intend to know that such provocation would cause him to break
the public peace or to commit any other offence.30

Nature and Scope of the offence:

28
De Cruz, (1884) 8 Mad. 110.
29
R.N Saxena, Indian Penal Code pg 633(19th ed. 2012).
30
Prof. S.N. Misra, Indian Penal Code pg 945 (12 th ed. 2016).

17
The offence can be constituted under this section only if the above mentioned elements are
satisfied including intention or knowledge of the offender that provocation given by him will
cause the complainant to break the public peace beyond all reasonable doubt.

The section provides a remedy when abusive language or insulting language is used. But
mere abuse does not come within the purview of this section. There must be intent of the
accused that the abusive language used must be with an intention to abuse. As held in the
case of Kishori Mohan v State of Bihar 31 mere taking of a photograph of the complainant
cannot be regarded as an intentional insult and cannot constitute offence under Section 504
IPC.

The Rajasthan High Court has given clear meaning of the term ‘insult’ in the case of
Ramesh Kumar v Sushila Srivastava.32 Here ‘insult’ signifies ‘to treat with offensive
disrespect, to offer indignity to.’ If the offender with the intention to cause intentional insult
knowing that it will amount to commit a breach of the public peace by the person whom he
intended to insult, then this section comes into action as the above mentioned ingredients are
satisfied. In judging whether particular abusive language is attracted by Section 504 IPC, the
court has to find out what in the ordinary circumstances, would be the effect of the abusive
language used and not what the complainant actually did as a result of his temperament or
sense of discipline.

The tone and manner in which the words were spoken will also be taken into consideration
while dealing with cases of insult. Whether an insult was intentional or not is a question of
fact but not the question of law and to constitute an offence under this section there must be
a provocation to cause a breach of the public peace. It was also clarified from many cases
that use of obscene words amounts to an offence of Intentional Insult.

The threat of breach of peace must be immediate after the provocation or so soon thereafter.

Section 504 comes into action only when the accused utters the words in the presence of the
victim or has them conveyed to him by letter or messenger. If the words of abuse were
uttered in the absence of victim, then the accused cannot be convicted under Section 504
IPC.

Case Laws:
31
Kishori Mohan v State of Bihar, 1976 Pat LJ 270.
32
Ramesh Kumar v Sushila Srivastava, 1997 Cri LJ 282 (Raj).

18
In Abraham v State of Kerala, 33 it was held that to constitute an offence under Section 504
IPC, the intention of accused is taken into consideration but does not depend upon the
reactions of complainant. Mere breach of good manners does not constitute an offence.

In Md. Ibrahim v State of Bihar,34 the complainant alleged that the accused forged the sale
deeds of complainant’s property. Upon enquiry, it was found that the accused was alleged to
have said that he will take possession of property as per sale deeds and complainant may do
whatever he likes. The court held that this statement does no amount to insult intended to
provoke breach of peace under Section 504 IPC.

Vulgar and abusive imputation against the chastity of the mother and sister of the
complainant were held to be intentional insult which were likely to provoke breach of public
peace and therefore held to be an offence under Section 504 IPC.35

In Gopal v State,36 it was held that the offence of intentional insult under Section 504 IPC
does not contemplate that breach of public peace must have actually been resulted, where
there is likelihood that the person targeted would commit breach of peace, the section will be
applicable.

Insult and Defamation - Difference:

 Insult is dealt under Section 504 IPC and Defamation is dealt under Section 409 IPC.
 The object of insult is provocation with intent to cause a breach of the peace and the
object of defamation is to injure the reputation of a person.
 All insults are not defamations but all defamations involve some insult.
 Defamation requires publication of the defamatory matter to some person other than
the defamed person but insult is directly addressed to the person insulted. If
defamatory matter is directly addressed to the person defamed is not defamation but
may amount to insult and if such matter is likely to provoke a breach of the peace it
shall be criminal insult within the purview of Section 504 IPC.
 A true statement of facts does not amount to defamation but it may amount to insult.
 Defamation is punishable only with simple imprisonment, but insult under Section
504 may be punishable with rigorous imprisonment also.37
33
Abraham v State of Kerala, AIR 1960 Ker 236.
34
Md. Ibrahim v State of Bihar, (2010) 2 Cri. L.J. 2223 (S.C.).
35
State v Kurban Ali, (1956) Cr LJ 500(Bom).
36
Gopal v State, 1952 Mad. WN 236.
37
Prof. S.N. Misra, Indian Penal Code pg 946 (12 th ed. 2016).

19
Insult and Assault- Difference:

 Assault consists in the intention to cause an apprehension in the mind of the person
towards whom it is directed that the offender is about to use criminal force against
him, while in insult the intention is to cause a breach of the peace through
provocation.
 Mere words do not amount to assault but may amount to insult.

Section 505- Statements conducing to public mischief:

1. Whoever makes, publishes, or circulates any statement, rumour or report-

a. With intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, any officer, soldier, sailor or
airman in the Army, Navy or Air Force of India to mutiny or otherwise
disregard or fail in his duty as such; or
b. With intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or
to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an
offence against the state or against the public tranquillity; or
c. With the intent to incite, or which is likely to incite, any class or community
of persons to commit any offence against any other class or community;

shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years or fine, or
with both.

2. Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill- will between classes-

Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing rumour or
alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or
promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or
community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill- will
between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or caste or
communities, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years,
or with fine, or with both.
3. Offence under sub- section (2) committed in places of worship, etc- Whoever
commits an offence specified in sub- section (2) in any place of worship or in any
assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies,

20
 shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also
be liable to fine.38

Exception: There is an exception to section 505 which says a person is not punishable when
the person making, publishing or circulating any such statement, report or rumour, has
reasonable grounds for believing that such statement, rumour or report is true and makes,
publishes or circulates it in good faith and without any such intent as aforesaid.39

Ingredients of the offence:

To constitute an offence under Section 505, the essential ingredients are:

1) The accused made, published or circulated any statement, rumour or report;

2) He did so-
i. With intent to cause was which he knew it likely to cause any officer, soldier,
sailor or airman to mutiny or otherwise disregarded or failed in his duties;
ii. With intent to cause or which he knew it likely to cause fear or alarm to the
public thereby inducing any person to commit an offence against the state or
public tranquillity;
iii. With intent to incite or which he knew it likely to incite any class or
community to commit any offence against any other class or community.40

This section is general in nature and the purpose of inserting this section is to disseminate the
false and mischievous news which creates public disturbances.

Nature and Scope of the section:

This section was affirmed to be constitutional and is not violative of freedom of speech and
expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India in the case of
Kedarnath v State.41 The restrictions imposed under this section are reasonable restrictions
as mentioned in the Constitution of India.

The offence under this section is different from Sedition as sedition has to be against the
state without affecting the persons enumerated in the section.

38
P.S.A Pillai, Criminal Law pg 1273(10th ed. 2008).
39
P.S.A Pillai, Criminal Law pg 1273(10th ed. 2008).
40
R.N Saxena, Indian Penal Code pg 637(19th ed. 2012).
41
Kedarnath v State, AIR 1962 SC 955.

21
Case laws:

In Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v State of Andhra Pradesh, 42 the accused spread communal hatred
among Muslims of Hyderabad by allegedly spreading a rumour among Muslims that the
Muslims were being tortured by Indian forces in Kashmir. He was charged with the offences
under Section 505 and few other relevant sections of IPC. Held, the court acquitted the
accused stating that the accused had only referred to the alleged oppression and harassment
by Army personnel who neither constitute any community nor any religious, social or
regional group. To constitute an offence there must be two or more castes or communities
involved.

In Kalicharan Mohapatra v Srinivasa Sahu, 43 it was held that publication of a pamphlet is

not an offence under this section unless the contents of the pamphlet amount to incitement to
violence.

Section 509- Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty

of a woman:

Whoever, intended to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound
or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that
such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such
woman shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one
year, or with fine or with both.44

The object of this section is to protect the modesty of a woman and to curb any aggression
which intents to outrage the modesty of woman.

Ingredients of the offence:

The offence under Section 509 IPC can be constituted if the following ingredients are
satisfied.

1) Where an offender utters a word, makes any sound or gesture or exhibits any object;
2) With the intention that it be heard, seen or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman;

42
Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1997 SC 3483
43
Kalicharan Mohapatra v Srinivas Sahu, AIR 1960 ori 65
44
P.S.A Pillai, Criminal Law pg 1275(10th ed. 2008).

22
 commits the offence.45

Nature and Scope of Section 509 IPC:

The offence under Section 509 IPC is cognizable, bailable, non- compoundable and triable
by a magistrate of first class.46

If the modesty of any woman or women is insulted by any word or sound or gesture, the
intention is taken into consideration. The intention must be to insult the modesty of woman
or women but not merely any class or section of women. The exact words spoken by the
accused need not be placed on record and proved for constituting an offence under Section
509 IPC.

Case Laws:

In Re Tarak Das Gupta,47 a letter by post was sent by accused to an unmarried nurse
containing indecent overtures. They have no acquaintance with each other. It was held that
the accused guilty under Section 509 IPC as he insulted the modesty of the nurse by
exhibiting the object irrespective of the fact that the letter was in a closed envelope and sent
through an agent called post office. It is not necessary that the offender himself should
personally exhibit the object.

The question before Supreme Court in the case State of Punjab v Major Singh48 was
whether the age is a relevant factor to consider the offence under Section 509 and whether
the offender can be held guilty for outraging the modesty of woman if the victim is not
conscious about the offensive act being committed on her. Whether the modesty of an infant
child can be outraged or not is also answered in the present case. In the above case, the
offender entered a room of 7 ½ month old infant female and outraged the modesty of that
infant. It was held that the act of outraging the modesty of a woman was not limited by the
age of the victim and whether the victim knew or was conscious about the offensive act
being committed on her. The reaction of the woman is very relevant, but its absence is not
always decisive. So the accused was convicted for the offence of outraging the modesty of a
woman under relevant sections of IPC.

45
P.S.A Pillai, Criminal Law, pg 973(9th ed.).
46
P.S.A Pillai, Criminal Law, pg 973(9th ed.).
47
Re Tarak Das Gupta, AIR 1926 Bom 159.
48
State of Punjab v Major Singh, AIR 1967 SC 63.

23
The Supreme Court in the case J Jaishankar v Government of India 49 held that the
conviction of the offender under Section 509 IPC involved moral turpitude.

In Bankey v State of U.P50 the accused was held guilty under Section 509 IPC for outraging
the modesty of a woman by entering the room of that woman in the night when she was
sleeping alone in an attempt to have sexual intercourse and stood naked before her and also
held that intrusion upon the privacy of the woman if sufficiently proved can constitute an
offence under Section 509 IPC. However he was not held guilty for attempt to rape.

PART- C: Annoyance

Section 510- Misconduct in public by a drunken person:

Whoever, in a state of intoxication, appears in any public place, or in any place which it is a
trespass in him to enter, and there conducts himself in such manner as to cause annoyance to
any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to
twenty- four hours, or with fine which may extend to ten rupees or with both.51

Merely, if a person is in a drunken state is not sufficient to constitute an offence under this
section. If a person is in a drunken state cause annoyance to the people in a public place, then
the offence under Section 510 IPC can be constituted.

Ingredients of the offence:

The essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 510 IPC are:

1) The accused must have appeared at a public place (or at other place by committing a
trespass);
2) He must be drunk; and
3) He must have conducted himself in such a manner as to cause annoyance to some
person.52

Nature and Scope of the section:

49
J Jaishankar v Government of India, 1996(6) SCC 204.
50
Bankey v State, AIR 1961 All 131.
51
P.S.A Pillai, Criminal Law, pg 977(9th ed.).
52
P.S.A Pillai, Criminal Law, pg 977(9th ed.).

24
The offence under Section 510 IPC is non- cognizable, bailable, non- compoundable and
triable by any magistrate.53

The acts of an intoxicated person who causes annoyance to others and general public are
covered under this section. Mere intoxication is not sufficient to constitute an offence under
this section. Only those acts which cause annoyance to general public by drunken person are
covered under this section. The nature of the offence also includes the refusal of an
intoxicated person to leave a place where he has no right to enter without permission of the
owner. Mens Rea is not an essential ingredient for the offence under Section 510.

Section 34 of the Police Act, 1898 also provides punishment for this offence, which may
extend to imprisonment upto eight days and fine.54

Penal Code Review Committee Report:

The Penal Code Review Committee Report is submitted on the month of August in the year
2018 to the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law. The member of the committee
includes ministers, Judges of Supreme Court, Professors from various Law Schools across
Globe, etc. The objective of the Committee is to conduct a thorough and comprehensive
review of the Penal Code, and make recommendations on reforming the Penal Code.

The Committee categorized the recommendations into seven chapters in which ‘updating the
penal code’ is one among them.

One of the recommendations says to amend Section 506 IPC (Criminal intimidation) ‘to
remove reference to imputation of unchastity to a woman’ to update the archaic language.
This is because Acts involving “imputing chastity to a woman” included examples such as
threatening to release obscene pictures of a woman to the public. The enhanced punishment
for “imputing unchastity to a woman” probably reflected societal norms at the time, where
the reputational damage of imputing unchastity to a woman was higher than it is today. It
also recommended to introduce a new offence criminalising the placing of any article in any
place whatever, or dispatching any article by post or any means whatever of sending things
from one place to another, with the intention of inducing in any person a belief that this
article is likely to cause hurt or damage to property by any means. It shall not be necessary

53
P.S.A Pillai, Criminal Law, pg 977(9th ed.).
54
R.N Saxena, Indian Penal Code pg 641(19th ed. 2012).

25
for the offender to have any particular person in mind in whom he intends to induce the
relevant belief.55

Another recommendation “Sexual exposure” is a sexual offence, and ought to be listed under
Chapter XVI of the Penal Code (in the sub-Chapter on Sexual Offences), instead of Chapter
XIV (Offences affecting the public tranquillity, public health, safety, convenience, decency
and morals) or Chapter XXII (Criminal intimidation, insult and annoyance).56

Crime head-wise cases reported under Indian Penal Code (IPC)

during 2014:

A report was prepared by the Government of India and is also available in the website
data.gov.in. The source of the report prepared by the Government of India is Crime in
India, 2014- National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). The granularity of the record is
annual.

According to the report, the number of cases reported under Section 509 IPC which speaks
about Insult to the modesty of women in the state of Andhra Pradesh is 2649. This category
was further divided into different sub categories. The sub categories are “at office premises;
places related to work other than office; in public transport system; and other places” and the
number of cases reported is 3; 84; 65 and 2497 respectively. In the state of Goa, the number
of cases reported is 57 of which 55 cases are of the ‘other places’ category. A total of 237
cases were reported in the State of Jammu & Kashmir and the majority of the cases belong to
the category ‘other places’. In the State of Maharashtra, a number of 1575 cases were
reported under Section 509 IPC, whereas in the State of Uttar Pradesh, a total of 29 cases
were reported. 1142 cases were reported under Section 509 IPC in the State of Telangana. 5
cases were reported in Andaman & Nicobar Islands of which all the five belongs to the sub-
category of ‘other places’. In the UT of Delhi, 1361 cases were reported and 8 cases were
reported in Puducherry.

Combining all the states, a total of 8356 cases were reported all over India (states) of which
the majority comes under the category of ‘other places’ and the least number belonged to ‘at
office premises’ category and 1379 cases were reported in a total in Union Territories which
makes a total of 9735 cases combining states and Union Territories.
55
Penal Code Review Committee report, pg. 71
56
Penal Code Review Committee report, pg. 87

26
Suggestions of The Straits Times:

The spokesperson to the Straits Times suggested that the Section 509 IPC, which speaks only
about women, should also include other genders stating that “men as well as women deserve
protection against offensive sexual speech, gestures and intrusions into privacy.” 57 He stated
that section 509 IPC should not be limited to women and suggested that instead of defining
the offence in terms of modesty, a gender-neutral phrase such as "word or gesture of a sexual
nature intended to offend" could be used.

Law Commission of India- recommendations:

The Law Commission of India prepared a report called Forty- Second report on Indian Penal
Code in the year 1971 on the month of June and made recommendations on some of the
provisions of Indian Penal Code.

The Law Commission of India recommended to insert a new section 506-A which states
“Threat of suicide with intent to coerce a public authority- Whoever holds out a threat of
suicide a public authority, with intent to cause that authority to do any act which it is not
legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which it is legally entitled to do, as the means of
avoiding the execution of such threat, and does any act towards the execution of such threat,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
three years or with fine or with both.” and also to make the offence cognizable and triable by
a Magistrate of the First Class.

It also recommended to revise section 504 as “Intentional insult with intent to provoke
breach of the peace- Whoever intentionally insults any person, intending or knowing it to be
likely that such insult will provoke that person 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.” This is recommended to bring out more
directly the connection between the insult and the breach of peace.

The other recommendation made by the Law commission was to remove section 505
because that section can be covered under the offences against public tranquility and can be
covered in Chapter 8 as section 158 B. The commission also recommended to omit Section

57
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/law-adopted-from-1860-indian-penal-code

27
510 IPC stating that in areas where Section 54 of Police Act is not applicable, there is hardly
any need of section 510 IPC as such misconduct is not noticeable.

156th Law Commission Report, 1997:

The Law Commission of India in its 156 th report submitted on August in the year 1997 gave
some recommendations on various provisions of IPC of which it recommended to insert a
new section 507A.

According to the report, Section 507A states:

1. Whoever
a) Affixes to, or inscribes or exhibits on, any place open to public view any
objectionable matter, or
b) Damages, destroys or defaces any place open to public view,

Shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

2. In this section-
a) “place open to public view” includes any private place or building,
monument, statue, post, wall, fence, tree or other thing or contrivance visible
to a person being in, or passing along, any public place;
b) “objectionable matter” means any effigy or any bill, notice, document, paper,
or other thing containing any words, signs or visible representations which is-
i. Likely to incite any person to commit, murder, sabotage or any
offence involving violence; or
ii. Likely to seduce any member of any of the armed forces of the Union
or of the police forces from his allegiance or his duty, or prejudice the
recruiting of persons to serve in any such force or prejudice the
discipline of any such force; or
iii. Likely to incite any section of the public to sets of violence against
any other section thereof; or
iv. Deliberately intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class of
citizens of India by insulting or blaspheming or profaning the religion
or the religious beliefs of that class; or

28
 v. Grossly indecent or scurrilous or obscene or intended for blackmail.58

The report also suggested to amend Section 510 IPC which deals with Misconduct in public
by drunken person. It recommends to enhance the quantum of punishment from “with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty- four hours, or with fine which may
extend to ten rupees or with both” to “with imprisonment till rising of the court or with fine
which may extend to one hundred rupees”.59

Conclusion:

We can conclude that there are certain offences which do not affect anybody physically but they
are still punishable of which the best example is Criminal Intimidation, Insult and Annoyance
under Chapter 22 of Indian Penal Code. Although these offences seem straight-forward, there are
several ways in which one can commit them. The punishment for these offences may include
imprisonment for up to 7 years depending on its nature.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1) Glossary of criminal law
2) Merriam- Webster Dictionary
3) www.manupatra.com
4) www.scconline.com
5) www.westlaw.com
6) P.S.A Pillai, Criminal Law
7) R.N Saxena, Indian Penal Code

8) http://devgan.in/ipc/?a=ipc&q=intimidation
9) Prof. S.N Mishra, Indian Penal Code
10) https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/law-adopted-from-1860-indian-penal-code

58
156th Law Commission Report.
59
156th Law Commission Report.

29
30