JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - Petitioners Gani Jena, Budhi Jena and Kartik Jena stand convicted under Sections 379 and 504, Indian Penal Code and each of them have been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30/- on each count, in default to undergo S.I. for 10 days on each count. The other three Petitioners stand convicted only u/s 504, Indian Penal Code and each of them have been sentenced thereunder to pay a fine of Rs. 30/-, in default to undergo S.T. for 10 days. 2. Mr. R.C. Patnaik, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners did not challenge the conviction of the above named three Petitioners for the offence u/s 379, Indian Penal Code. He solely challenged the conviction of the Petitioners u/s 504, Indian Penal Code, on the contention that by the mere use of the abusive words ?Sala Sasura?, as found to have been addressed by the Petitioners towards the complainant, would not constitute an offence u/s 504, Indian Penal Code as these words are generally and commonly used in course of any both exchange of words by people of ordinary standing, and those words are not of such provocative nature as to in suit any person of normal temper so as to cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence. In support of his above contention he cited a few decisions where use of certain abusive expressions were held not to have constituted an offence under Section, 504, Indian Penal Code. These decisions turned out on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each of these cases, and are not very helpful to decide the present case, as the significance to be attached to the words used in each case ?would depend upon the facts, circumstances, the occasion, the manner in which they are used, and the persons to whom they are addressed. Certain words or expressions, though apparently offensive, may be addressed to a person not with a view to bring down his reputation or cast aspersion on his character or to insult or annoy him in any manner. Some such words and expressions are very often used amongst friends without in any way conveying or causing any insult or abuse or annoyance to anyone of them. Some such words and expressions are very often used amongst friends without in any way conveying or causing any insult or abuse or annoyance to anyone of them. But the same expressions when used in a different context, manner and occasion, and between unfriendly persons, or even between friends in an inopportune moment, might cause harm to the reputation or the character of a person, or might cause insult or annoyance to him which might provocate him to the extent of breaking the public peace or to commit any other offence. Moreover use of offensive words as such is not a requirement u/s 504, Indian Penal Code. Intentional insult howsoever conveyed, is an essential ingredient of an offence under the said section, and the flame may afflictively be conveyed, under certain circumstances and settings, though even apparently innocuous, words, or conduct of a man, irrespective of spoken words. So the words and expressions as such are not the deciding factor. The meaning which the complained of words and expressions convey in a particular situation, and their significance in each case would decide if they were used for the purpose of intentionally insulting a person. Again mere intentional insults alone would not constitute an offence u/s 504, Indian Penal Code, it is necessary that these insults must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted by which it was either intended or known that he was likely to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The significance of the word ?insult? is to treat with offensive disrespect and/or to offer indignity to a person. 3. In the present case the consistent prosecution case, as found by the Court below, is that while the complainant and p.ws. 2 and 3 were talking about the conduct of the Petitioners, Borne of whom removed the paddy seedlings from the complainant?s land, all the accused persons came to the spot and abused the complainant (p.w. 1) by calling him "Sala Sasura" and also threatened to assault the complainant. It is also found by the Court below that the above mentioned offensive words were used in a loud and insolent voice, and that if the complainant had not kept quiet on being so abused and insulted by the Petitioners, there would have been a breach of peace at that place. It is also found by the Court below that the above mentioned offensive words were used in a loud and insolent voice, and that if the complainant had not kept quiet on being so abused and insulted by the Petitioners, there would have been a breach of peace at that place. At the time when the paddy seedlings were being removed by three of the Petitioners the complainant shouted "Chor Chor", as a result of which the Petitioners became furious and started abusing the complainant in the aforesaid manner and also threatened to assault him. From the tone, premises, context and circumstances in which the above mentioned offensive and insulting words were hurled at the complainant, there can be no doubt that the Petitioners actually intended to insult the complainant, and that the manner and the occasion in which the said insult was caused was sufficient to give provocation to the complainant, and that such provocation was caused either with the intention or knowledge that the complainant thereby was likely to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The complainant however kept quiet over the matter. But his reaction to the insulting words hurled at him is not the determining factor. The offence is not made to depend upon the immediate reaction of the person insulted. He may, due to his own temperament, culture and/or for certain personal reasons exercise restraint on himself on a particular occasion. Another person of sensitive feeling or of excitable nature may react easily and sharply to anything which might not have been intended to insult him so as to provoke him to the extent required under the section. But such temperamental attitude of individuals in each case is not the deciding factor. The existence of the required intention or knowledge of the offender as stated above, is the determining feature, and that has to be ascertained with circumspection in each case. The tone, manner, occasion, circumstance and the premises in which the above mentioned insulting words were hurled at the complainant leave no doubt that the accused persons had the requisite intention and the knowledge in this particular case, though the complainant kept quiet and did not react even when he was insulted in the aforesaid manner. 4. The tone, manner, occasion, circumstance and the premises in which the above mentioned insulting words were hurled at the complainant leave no doubt that the accused persons had the requisite intention and the knowledge in this particular case, though the complainant kept quiet and did not react even when he was insulted in the aforesaid manner. 4. On the above facts, discussions and considerations I am satisfied that the offence of intentional insult punishable u/s 504 Indian Penal Code is properly brought home against the accused, the Petitioners in this case. Thus the conviction of the Petitioners u/s 504 Indian Penal Code is well founded. 5. There is therefore no merit in this revision, which is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed