JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - The Petitioners stand convicted under, Sections 509 and 323, Indian Penal Code. Out of the four Petitioners, Petitioner Lalu Prasad Sribastav has been released u/s 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, and has been directed to remain under the supervision of the Probation Officer. Each of the remaining three Petitioners has been sentenced to R.I. for 3 months for the offence u/s 323, Indian Penal Code and to S.I. for 2 months for the offence u/s 509, Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case in short is that p.ws. 1 and 2 and one Kumudini Bohidar, all students of the local school, were returning from school on 21-10-1970 when some boys misbehaved with them P.w. 1 reported this matter in her house. Because of this incident p.w. 5, the brother of p.w. 1, was asked to escort p.ws. 1, 2 and Kumudini on their way to school on the next day, i.e. on 22-10-1970 (the date of occurrence) On that day when they were proceeding towards the school and were near the Mangal Bazar crossing, the four Petitioners came out of a hair-cutting saloon in that market and addressed obscene, slang and objectionable words towards p.ws. 1, 3 and Kumudini. At this p.w. 5 protested, but he was immediately surrounded and assaulted by the Petitioners. P.ws. 3 and 4, who were near about that place, also protested against the behaviour attitude and action of the Petitioners, and they also were assaulted by the Petitioners. P.w. 5 thereafter, lodged the F.I.R. Ext. 1 at the police station. The Petitioners were tried for offences under Sections 342, 323 and 509, Indian Penal Code, but they were convicted only under Sections 323 and 509, Indian Penal. Code. The appellate Court confirmed their conviction and sentence. 3. Both the Courts below found that the Petitioners addressed slang, obscene and objectionable words towards p.ws. 1, 2 and Kumudini Bohidar and thereby insulted their modesty; and that when p.w. 5 protested against the aforesaid utterances of the Petitioners, they assaulted p.w. 5 and thereafter p.ws. 3 and 4 on the public road, and caused injuries on their persons. 4. Mr. 1, 2 and Kumudini Bohidar and thereby insulted their modesty; and that when p.w. 5 protested against the aforesaid utterances of the Petitioners, they assaulted p.w. 5 and thereafter p.ws. 3 and 4 on the public road, and caused injuries on their persons. 4. Mr. Mohanty, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, contends that the conviction of the Petitioners u/s 509, Indian Penal Code cannot be upheld as the obscene and slang words allegedly uttered by the Petitioners have not been placed on record. On a careful consideration of the different aspects of the matter I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Mohanty as broadly urged and placed by him. It is of course true that the prosecution should make an honest effort to place before the Court all materials showing the nature of the complained of words. Better it is, if the exact words are placed on record so that it may be easier for the Court to assess therefrom if the requisite ingredients of this offence are satisfied or not. But this rule of fair practice should not be carried so far as to say that on the mere absence of the precise abusive or insulting words on record, even though the said omission was accidental or unintentional or due to some other reasonable cause, the accused would be entitled to an acquittal only on that score. In my opinion if there is convincing evidence on record that actually obscene and slang words were uttered with the intention of insulting the modesty of a woman, then it would be improper, nay illegal, to reject such convincing evidence and/or not to act on the same merely because the precise abusive words uttered by the accused were not placed before the Court. To establish an offence u/s 509, Indian Penal Code it is necessary to establish the following ingredients: (1) Intention to insult the modesty of a woman. (2) The insult must be caused (i) by uttering any words, or making any sound or gesture, or exhibiting any object intending that such word or sound shall be heard or that the gesture or object shall be seen by such woman, or (ii) by intruding upon the privacy of such woman. The intention to insult the modesty of a woman is the essential ingredient of the offence. The intention to insult the modesty of a woman is the essential ingredient of the offence. So, if the Court, on a consideration of the evidence on record in its entirety and the overall facts and circumstances of the case disclosed therefrom, arrives at the finding that the accused had the aforesaid intention, and for that he said something or uttered some words, it can justly hold the accused guilty u/s 509, Indian Penal Code, no matter the exact words uttered by the accused were not placed on record. At times, it may not be possible for a modest and coy school or college girl or a woman of shy nature to utter or reproduce in the public Court the exact slang, obscene and abusive words uttered by the accused against her. Apart home the same, the exact objectionable words may not come on record due to various other honest and bona fide reasons. So it cannot be aid or laid down as a mandatory rule of law that even when the Court is convinced from the evidence on record that words or statements were uttered by the accused intending thereby to insult the modesty of a woman Of that the modesty of a woman was actually affected by such utterances it cannot hold the accused guilty of an offence u/s 509, Indian Penal Code merely because the precise objectionable words could not be placed on record. I get support for my above view from the decision reported ill 1961 Gujrat Law Reporter, 196. 5. Mr. Mohanty, in support of his above mentioned contention, cited the decisions reported in Sarat Chandra Das and Another Vs. The State, and Ballavdas Agarwalla Vs. C.B.L. Bhatnagar. The observations in the said two decisions were in respect of an offence u/s 500, Indian Penal Code. In a trial for defamation based on spoken words it is essential that the words allegedly uttered should be set out and proved. It is the words, so set out and proved, which will constitute the foundation for defamation. But the essential ingredient of an offence u/s 509, Indian Penal Code is the intention of the accused to insult the modesty of a woman. The considerations for constituting the above-mentioned two offences are not the same. Accordingly the observations contained in the above-mentioned two decisions do not squarely apply to the present case. Mr. But the essential ingredient of an offence u/s 509, Indian Penal Code is the intention of the accused to insult the modesty of a woman. The considerations for constituting the above-mentioned two offences are not the same. Accordingly the observations contained in the above-mentioned two decisions do not squarely apply to the present case. Mr. Mohanty could not cite any decision relating to Section 509, Indian Penal Code holding a view contrary to that taken by me in this case; and my view, as stated above, gets support from the above mentioned Gujarat decision. 6. In the present case there is ample evidence to show that while p.ws. 1 and 2 and some other schoolmates of theirs were returning home on the day previous to the date of occurrence some boys misbehaved with them by going to the extent of pulling their hair and veil. P.w. 1 reported this matter in her house, and so on the next day p.w. 5 was asked to escort p.ws. 1 and 2 and Kumudini on their way to school so that the girls might not be tortured, teased and insulted on their way by low-minded and low-thoughted undesirable persons. On that day when the girls were going to school being escorted by p.w. 5 the Petitioners addressed obscene and slang words towards these girls in the market place. It is of course true that neither the girls nor the other eye witnesses reproduced in Court the exact words uttered by the Petitioners on that occasion, though all these witnesses testified to the fact that obscene, slang and very objectionable words were uttered by the Petitioners, and so p.w. 5 immediately reacted against the Petitioners by protesting against their said utterances, due to which the latter part of the incident culminating in the assault on p.ws, 5, 3 and 4 took place. It has not been suggested to, much less elicited from p.ws. 1, 2 and 5 that the Petitioners had any bona fide reason or cause to address any statement or word whatsoever towards the said girls. It is quite evident from the evidence of the girls and p.w. 5 that the Petitioners had absolutely no concern with the said girls. So the Petitioners had no business to utter anything in the market place referring to these school-going girls. It is quite evident from the evidence of the girls and p.w. 5 that the Petitioners had absolutely no concern with the said girls. So the Petitioners had no business to utter anything in the market place referring to these school-going girls. From the evidence on record there is absolutely no doubt that some utterances were made by the Petitioners relating to these girls, which caused resentment amongst the girls, and p.w. 5 immediately reacted by protesting against the said utterances. From all these there is no doubt that some objectionable utterances were certainly made by the Petitioners which evoked such resentment and protest from the girls and p.w. 5. One can under certain circumstances insult the modesty of a woman even by uttering apparently innocuous words, but in this case I have, after a perusal of the evidence on record, absolutely no hesitation to agree with the concurrent finding of the Court below that the Petitioners hurled obscene, slang and objectionable words towards the girls on that occasion. The omission to place those words on record in this case appears to be purely accidental. From the manner, situation and circumstances in which the' said obscene, slang and objectionable words were uttered by the Petitioners, the conclusion is irresistible that the Petitioners by uttering those words did intend to insult the modesty of these girls. Thus on the evidence on record of this case, an offence u/s 509, Indian Penal Code is clearly brought home against the Petitioners. On the facts and circumstances of this case 1 do not find any merit in the aforesaid contention of Mr. Mohanty. 7. Mr. Mohanty has not assailed the conviction of the Petitioners u/s 323, Indian Penal Code. On the concurrent findings of both the Courts below it is well established that the Petitioners assaulted p.ws. 5, 3 and 4 in different manners as found by the Courts below. The evidence in this connection has been discussed by the Courts below in elaborate and convincing manner, and I am satisfied that the conviction of the Petitioners u/s 323, Indian Penal Code is well founded. 8. Thus the conviction of the Petitioners under Sections 509 and 323, Indian Penal Code is confirmed. The sentences passed thereunder against Petitioners Sohanlal Nayak, Mahammed Mustafa and Jagadish Prasad Sribastav are to run concurrently. The order of the Court below to this effect only stands modified. 9. 8. Thus the conviction of the Petitioners under Sections 509 and 323, Indian Penal Code is confirmed. The sentences passed thereunder against Petitioners Sohanlal Nayak, Mahammed Mustafa and Jagadish Prasad Sribastav are to run concurrently. The order of the Court below to this effect only stands modified. 9. With the above modification in the sentences passed against the above-named three Petitioners, the revision is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed