JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - The Petitioner stands convicted u/s 504, Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced thereunder to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo S.I. for one month. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on the date of occurrence p.w. 6, the Block Development Officer of Nuagan Panchayat Samiti, was returning to his headquarters with p.ws. 1 to 4 and 7 in a jeep. When they reached the Mahipur junction the accused, who was the ex-Chairman of the Nuagan Panchayat Samiti stopped the jeep and abused the informant in filthy, objectionable and insulting language and tried to pull him out of the jeep by catching hold of his left hand. Many people intervened and took away the accused from that place. P.w. 6 proceeded to Nuagan P.S. and reported the matter there at about 8.30 p.m. the same day.. The police submitted charge sheet against the accused for offences u/s 341, 294 and 504, Indian Penal Code. 3. In the trial the accused completely denied the prosecution allegation and alleged that this false case was foisted against him as a counterblast to the criminal case started by him against the informant. 4. The trial Court convicted the accused only u/s 504, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as stated above. The appellate Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence of the Petitioner. 5. Mrs. Padhi. the learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Court below has lost sight of the discrepancies in the prosecution evidence about the abusive words allegedly uttered by the Petitioner against p.w. 6 and as such its decision is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. In this connection Mrs. Padhi submits that in view of the discrepancies in the prosecution evidence regarding the actual abusive words allegedly uttered by the Petitioner, it becomes extremely difficult to know and to assess if the words allegedly uttered by the accused were such as to insult p.w. 6 to the extent required u/s 504, Indian Penal Code. 6. Both the Courts of fact on an elaborate and independent consideration of the evidence on record have arrived at the concurrent findings of fact that certain abusive and insulting words as found by the Courts were actually used by the Petitioner against p.w. 6. 6. Both the Courts of fact on an elaborate and independent consideration of the evidence on record have arrived at the concurrent findings of fact that certain abusive and insulting words as found by the Courts were actually used by the Petitioner against p.w. 6. On a perusal of the relevant evidence on record to the above effect and its discussion in the judgments of both the Courts below, I am satisfied that the findings of the Courts below on this aspect of the matter are well founded. True it is that in stating the abusive and insulting words, and sentences uttered by the Petitioner Some of the witnesses have stated certain things which have not been stated by some others. But on a careful perusal of the evidence I find that certain common words, which by themselves are abusive and insulting, have been stated by all the witnesses. In an occurrence of this nature, where existence of confusion and disturbance is almost a certainty, it is not always possible for all the witnesses to catch and/or remember in a very correct and precise manner all that was uttered by a man. It is also possible that a witness to such an occurrence would hear and remember some of the words which some others might miss or might not remember or reproduce later. When witnesses are asked after a long lapse of time to reproduce what was stated by the persons concerned in an occurrence of that nature some discrepancies in their statements to that effect is bound to occur in the ordinary course of affair. Insistence on too much of precision and unanimity in their statements to that effect would be an unrealistic proposition. On a perusal of the evidence on record, I am satisfied that abusive and insulting words were hurled at p.w. 6 by the accused on that occasion. From the tone, manner, the circumstances and the premises in which those offensive and insulting words were hurled at p.w. 6, there is no doubt that the Petitioner intended to insult the informant and actually insulted him in the public road in the presence of many persons present there. It is also difficult to avoid the conclusion therefrom that the accused by insulting p.w. 6 in the aforesaid manner gave him sufficient provocation to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. It is also difficult to avoid the conclusion therefrom that the accused by insulting p.w. 6 in the aforesaid manner gave him sufficient provocation to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The manner in which p.w. 6 actually reacted to the situation is not a determining factoring case of this nature. It has been held in Gani Jena 5 Ors. v. Nanda Biswal 1971 (37) C.L.T. 207 , that an offence u/s 504, Indian Penal Code is not made to depend upon the immediate reaction of the person insulted. A person, due to his own temperamental attitude, culture, social position or some personal reasons, may exercise restraint on himself and may not react to the insulting words on a particular occasion. His actual attitude on a particular occasion is not a deciding factor. An offence u/s 504, Indian Penal Code is constituted whenever it is found that the accused intentionally insulted a person and thereby gave provocation to him intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation would cause that person to break the public peace or commit any other offence. On a careful perusal of the evidence on record and its discussion in the judgments of the two Courts of fact, the conclusion is irresistible that the accused, Petitioner in this Revision, intentionally insulted p.w. 6 in a manner and to the extent amply satisfying the requirements of Section 504. Indian Penal Code. 7. I do not find any weight and substance in the contentions put forward by Mrs. Padhi in the above aspect of the matter. Mrs. Padhi could not assail the findings and conclusions of the Courts below on any other ground. I do not find any merit in this Revision and it is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed