JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - This is an appeal u/s 417(3), Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of acquittal passed by the Munsif-Magistrate, Narsinghpur in I.C.C. Case No. 1 of 1968/202 Tr./68 dated 12-11-1969. 2. The complainant and the accused, Respondent herein, are related as brothers. There were civil and criminal litigations between them. A criminal case between the two brothers (Criminal Misc. Case No. 2 of 1967) was decided against the accused on 23-12-1967. By the date of occurrence a civil suit between them was pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Cuttack. Being unsuccessful in the aforesaid criminal case, the accused, on 31-12-1967, a bused the complainant in filthy and vulgar language when he was sitting near a shop in the market place. The complainant was, however, enraged, but he controlled himself and did not react in any particular manner to the abusive words hurled at him by the accused. The accused also threatened to assault the complainant, but he could not do so at the intervention of persons present near about the place of occurrence. The accused thereafter also continued to abuse the complainant in filthy language and went away from that place. 3. The complainant in his deposition states that he was very much annoyed by the abusive and insulting words hurled at him by the accused, and his status in the society was lowered in the estimation of the public. The complainant, besides himself, examined two other witnesses of the locality who lend sufficient corroboration to the complainant?s allegations against the accused on almost all the material particulars. They also give out a consistent narration about all that happened during the occurrence. 4. The accused denied the occurrence. 5. The Court below on a discussion and consideration of the evidence on record has arrived at the following findings of fact: (i) The witnesses examined by the complainant are all independent witnesses and there is no reason to disbelieve their testimony; (ii) The accused used abusive and filthy words against the complainant at a public place. 5. The Court below on a discussion and consideration of the evidence on record has arrived at the following findings of fact: (i) The witnesses examined by the complainant are all independent witnesses and there is no reason to disbelieve their testimony; (ii) The accused used abusive and filthy words against the complainant at a public place. The words hurled by the accused defamed the wife of the complainant by seriously attacking her chastity; (iii) The words used by the accused, without doubt, were vulgar, filthy and abusive words: (iv) The accused on being defeated in the criminal case in the Court of the S.D.O. Athgarh was enraged against the complainant and so on the date of occurrence when he saw the complainant, he abused him in filthy language attacking the chastity of his wife, who happens to be his own Bhauja. 6. After arriving at the aforesaid findings the Magistrate by a queer reasoning arrives at the finding that there is no evidence on record that the accused addressed these vulgar, filthy and abusive words towards the complainant with the intention to give provocation to the latter to break the public peace. He ultimately holds that in this case the prosecution has failed to prove all the ingredients of Section 504, Indian Penal Code against the accused. On a perusal of the evidence on record, its discussion in the impugned judgment and the findings of the Court below, I am satisfied that the Court below has erred in appreciating the facts of this case in the correct legal perspective and has acted illegally in acquitting the accused in this case. 7. The abusive words addressed by the accused towards the complainant according to p.w. 1 are as follows: The other prosecution witnesses have substantially and materially corroborated the statement of p.w. 1 to the above effect. There is no doubt that the language in which the accused addressed the complainant is filthy, vulgar and abusive. The Court below is also of the same view. It is established on the evidence on record that the said abusive vulgar and filthy words were addressed by the accused towards the complainant in the presence of many persons in the market place. The complainant is an aged lawyer of the Athgarh bar and is the elder brother of the accused. It is established on the evidence on record that the said abusive vulgar and filthy words were addressed by the accused towards the complainant in the presence of many persons in the market place. The complainant is an aged lawyer of the Athgarh bar and is the elder brother of the accused. It is quite evident from the evidence on record that the accused came towards the complainant with an aggressive attitude and hurled the aforesaid abusive language attacking the solemnity of the Court?s judgment and the chastity of the complainant?s wife. There is nothing on record to show that the complainant in any manner tickled the sensitiveness or wounded the feelings of the accused at that time. The meaning of the word "insult"is to treat with offensive disrespect and/or to offer indignity to a person. From the ignoble and filthy language uttered by the accused and the above facts established on the evidence on record there is no doubt that the accused intended to insult, and actually insulted the complainant, a lawyer of the bar, in the presence of many persons in the market place. There is also no doubt that the accused by intentionally insulting the complainant in the manner aforesaid gave sufficient provocation to him, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation would cause him to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The complainant, however, did not actually react to the situation in any of the aforesaid manners probably because of his age (69 years) and status in the society. But his actual reaction to the insults hurled at him is not a determining factor to constitute an offence u/s 504 Indian Penal Code. The person insulted may, due to his temperamental attitude, culture, personal bearings and/or for other personal reasons exercise restraint on himself even though the insulting words hurled at him are sufficient to provoke him to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. An offence u/s 504, Indian Penal Code is committed if the accused 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. So the actual reaction, conduct and attitude of the person on the occasion he was insulted are not relevant factors in a case of this nature. So the actual reaction, conduct and attitude of the person on the occasion he was insulted are not relevant factors in a case of this nature. In the present case, from the tone, the manner, occasion and the place in which the accused uttered the above mentioned insulting words there is absolutely no doubt that the accused intentionally insulted the complainant with the requisite intention and knowledge sufficient to constitute an offence u/s 504, Indian Penal Code. Accordingly on the evidence on record I have no hesitation to hold that the accused is guilty of an offence u/s 504, Indian Penal Code, and the Court below acquitted the accused on incorrect and inappropriate appreciation of the facts of the case and the relevant law on the question. 8. I, therefore, set aside the order of acquittal passed in this case, convict the accused-Respondent herein, of the offence u/s 504, Indian Penal Code and sentence him thereunder to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo R.I. for two months. The appeal accordingly is allowed. Final Result : Allowed