Judgment : Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16.7.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-3, Nagpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 1999, confirming the judgment and order dated 13.8.1999 passed by J.M.F.C. (Court No.6), Nagpur, in Criminal Case No. 405 of 1998, convicting the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 294 and 323 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him on each count to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days, the present criminal revision application came to be filed by the applicant. 2. In support of revision application, Mr.Mirza learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the courts below have ignored the basic ingredients of Section 294 of Indian Penal Code that the prosecution should prove that the abuses or obscene words are uttered in any public place to the annoyance of others. In the instant case, according to him, the evidence that is on record is that P.W.1 Ratnamala was standing in her court yard while the applicant was standing in his court yard and then he abused her. When P.W.1 Ratnamala asked the applicant the reasons for giving abuses he got annoyed and had beaten her by kicks and hand blows. According to Mr.Mirza the abuses, even according to prosecution were abuses, not hurled in public place but in the court yard and therefore no offence under Section 294 of Indian Penal Code was proved by the prosecution. He then argued that the prosecution failed to prove any injury on the person of P.W.1 Ratnamala-the complainant. He submitted that the courts below ought to have disbelieved the evidence of complainant regarding assault on her by the applicant and ought not to have convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code. Alternatively, Mr.Mirza argued that the applicant is working in Reserve Bank of India as sepoy and should be released on probation for good conduct and is also ready to pay compensation up to Rs.25,000/-to the complainant or as would be decided by this Court and thereby the applicant would be able to save his employment. 3. Mr.Mirza has submitted the paper-book from the District Court and eventually this Court also received the record from the lower court. 3. Mr.Mirza has submitted the paper-book from the District Court and eventually this Court also received the record from the lower court. He also pointed out that in the year 1990, at the instance of P.W.1 Ratnamala, the applicant was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 506(b) and 509 of Indian Penal Code in Regular Criminal Case No. 669 of 1990 but was acquitted of the said offences on 13.9.1991 and therefore this Court should hold that P.W.1 Ratnamala is habitual in making false report against the applicant. 4. Learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the application and argued that the applicant has been in the habit of abusing his neighbours in a very filthy language which can be seen from the evidence in this case and the judgment in the earlier case. He argued that in the earlier case the Court had acquitted the applicant on the ground that the description of abuses was not consistent amongst the witnesses. According to him, the same will make no difference and this Court will have to look into the evidence that was recorded in the instant case. 5. Considering the fact that the applicant has been working in Reserve Bank of India as sepoy, I decided to give my careful thought to the entire evidence which I have seen myself so also the spot panchanama placed on record by the prosecution. At the outset, I find that the evidence of P.W.1 Ratnamala is not the only evidence on record and the prosecution has also examined P.W.2 Vidya and P.W.3 Durginathan old man of 61 years. All these three witnesses have been consistent in reproducing the very filthy abuses given by the accused in a loud tone to P.W.1 Ratnamala. Both the courts below have quoted the abuses in their judgments but I feel it embarassed to quote those abuses in my judgment. Reading of the evidence of these witnesses independently and together, to my mind clearly shows that all theses witnesses have proved the prosecution version to the hilt and in their cross-examination which was made at length, there is nothing for this Court that too in revisional jurisdiction to find any fault with their evidence. Reading of the evidence of these witnesses independently and together, to my mind clearly shows that all theses witnesses have proved the prosecution version to the hilt and in their cross-examination which was made at length, there is nothing for this Court that too in revisional jurisdiction to find any fault with their evidence. The first information report was lodged on the same day ten minutes after the incident to the police station Kamptee and there is hardly any scope for this Court to hold that the complainant and the witnesses had any time to improve the prosecution case or slap a false charge on the applicant/accused. It appears from the evidence of the complainant and those eye witnesses that the complainant Ratnamala was assaulted by the applicant. Therefore, insofar as giving of abuses and assault is concerned, I have no doubt in my mind that the two courts below have correctly appreciated the evidence and come to a proper conclusion. 6. I have given my anxious thought to the submissions made by Mr.Mirza that the offence did not take place in public place. I have gone through the spot panchanama so also the evidence of these three witnesses. Spot panchanama shows that the houses of complainant P.W.1 Ratnamala, applicant and the witness Vidya are situated in a line and to each house there is a courtyard and immediately after the courtyard there is a road going towards Kamptee which means that the courtyards of these persons are abutting the public road going to Kamptee town-which is a public place. The evidence of these witnesses clearly show that the abuses were given by the applicant in a loud tone to the annoyance of not only P.W.1 Ratnamala but also other prosecution witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution. Clause (b) of Section 294 of Indian Penal Code reads thus: “294. Obscene acts and songs. Whoever to the annoyance of others – (a) ….. (b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a terms which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.” 7. Reading of clause (b) of Section 294 of Indian Penal Code clearly shows that it is not necessary that the abuses should be given only in any public place. Reading of clause (b) of Section 294 of Indian Penal Code clearly shows that it is not necessary that the abuses should be given only in any public place. On the contrary, this clause (b) shows that the abuses given in or near any public place will also constitute offence under Section 294 of Indian Penal Code. To my mind, looking to the evidence in the instant case, the courtyards of the applicant and P.W.1 Ratnamala are practically located abutting the road and it can very well be said that the abuses were given in a public place. Even assuming that the applicant was required to stand on a road and give abuses, as argued by Mr.Mirza, clause(b) takes care thereof, since it says that such abuses if given in or near a public place would constitute an offence. I, therefore, do not subscribe to the arguments advanced by Mr.Mirza. 8. As regards the alternative submission made by Mr.Mirza, I find that the applicant got acquittal in the year 1991 in similar type of offence and he ought to have stopped his activity of using such filthy language against a woman who is his neighbour and also then assaulting her. It is true that because of conviction under Section 294 and 323 of Indian Penal Code for abusing and assaulting a woman, the applicant may lose his employment. The offer made by the applicant to compensate the complainant with Rs.25,000/- in this background and looking to the habits of the applicant to abuse his neighbours, as deposed by the witnesses, in a very filthy language in disrespect to the womanhood, I do not think that this Court should show any sympathy. The offence proved against him cannot be washed away by paying money, particularly when he has no respect for womanhood. The applicant had a chance to improve his way of living in neighbourhood since he was acquitted earlier and he should have been careful not to repeat such type of act and showing total disrespect to a neighbouring woman in such a fashion. I, therefore, do not find any reason to extend the benefit of provision of probation to the applicant. I also do not find that giving any amount by way of compensation to the complainant should be accepted in such type of offence against woman. I, therefore, do not find any reason to extend the benefit of provision of probation to the applicant. I also do not find that giving any amount by way of compensation to the complainant should be accepted in such type of offence against woman. In the result, I do not find any merit in this revision and the same stands dismissed. 9. At the request of learned counsel for the revision-applicant, this judgment is suspended for a period of six weeks only.