JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - The Petitioners stand convicted u/s 504, Indian Penal Code and each of them has been sentenced thereunder to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default to undergo R.I. for 15 days. 2. The Petitioners were tried for offences under Sections 352, 427 and 504, Indian Penal Code. The trial Court acquitted them of the charge u/s 352, Indian Penal Code and convicted them under Sections 427 and 504, Indian Penal Code. The appellate Court found that the offence u/s 427, Indian Penal Code was not established against the Petitioners beyond reasonable doubt and on that ground acquitted them of the said offence. On an independent consideration of the evidence on record the appellate Court upheld the conviction of the Petitioners u/s 504, Indian Penal Code. 3. The relevant portion of the prosecution case constituting the basis for the conviction u/s 504, Indian Penal Code, in short, is that when the Petitioners started digging a foundation on their own land the complainant protested against their said action as she apprehended that the said act of the Petitioners would cause damage to her adjacent wall. At this the Petitioners abused the complainant in highly filthy language sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to insult the complainant and thereby provoke her to break the public peace. On the day following also the Petitioners hurled filthy abuses against the complainant when she again protested against further digging of the said foundation by the Petitioners. 4. The Petitioner stated that they dug the foundation on their own land but they never abused the complainant in any manner. 5. Mr. A.K. Rao, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, tried his best to assail the findings and conclusions of the Court below mostly on the ground of incorrect appreciation of the evidence on record. He urged that the Court below did not attach proper weight to the discrepancies appearing in the evidence on record regarding the alleged abusive words used against the complainant. According to him as the evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding the abusive words allegedly hurled at the complainant does not tally with each other the offence u/s 504, Indian Penal Code cannot be said to have been established against the Petitioners. According to him as the evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding the abusive words allegedly hurled at the complainant does not tally with each other the offence u/s 504, Indian Penal Code cannot be said to have been established against the Petitioners. The Court below has taken note of the fact that there are some discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witness to the above effect, and on a consideration of the same it has, in a convincing manner, resolved the said discrepancies, and on good grounds it has arrived at the finding that the Petitioners abused the complainant in filthy language sufficient to insult her to the extent required for constituting an offence u/s 504, Indian Penal Code. On a perusal of the evidence to this effect I find that in stating the abusive words the witnesses no doubt have differed to some extent, but they all stated about the use by the Petitioners of some common abusive words against the complainant which by them selves and by any standard are sufficiently bad enough to insult the complainant, a woman, to the extent required u/s 504, Indian Penal Code. The occurrence took place when the Petitioners were engaged in digging a foundation on their own land. The complainant protested against their said action, as a result of which all the accused persons started abusing the complainant in filthy language. That being so one cannot expect meticulous consistency in the statement of the witnesses to that effect. From the evidence on record there is absolutely no doubt that the complainant was abused by the Petitioners in filthy language, which in the ordinary course of nature is sufficient to insult any woman to the extent required for the purpose of constituting an offence u/s 504, Indian Penal Code. The Court below on a thorough discussion and consideration of the evidence on record has rightly concluded that the Petitioners by abusing the complainant in filthy language have committed the offence u/s 504, Indian Penal Code and I do not see any reason to differ from the said concurrent finding of fact. Accordingly the conviction of the Petitioners u/s 504, Indian Penal Code is well founded. 6. When the Petitioners started digging foundation on their own land the complainant whet near the Petitioners and objected and protested against their aforesaid act. Accordingly the conviction of the Petitioners u/s 504, Indian Penal Code is well founded. 6. When the Petitioners started digging foundation on their own land the complainant whet near the Petitioners and objected and protested against their aforesaid act. The complainant?s case that she suffered damage due to the aforesaid act of the Petitioners could not be established beyond reasonable doubt. As the cause for abusing the complainant started in the above context and circumstances I find that the sentence passed against the Petitioners is quite adequate and proper, and enhancement of the same is not called for in this case. Accordingly the conviction of the Petitioners u/s 504, Indian Penal Code and the sentence passed against them thereunder are confirmed. The rule for the enhancement of sentence is discharged.