Full Judgment
J.M. Mahapatra, J.
1. The revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 22-8-1987 of the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur maintaining the conviction of the petitioner Under Section 294,IPC and sentence of fine of Rs. 250/-, in default to undergo S. I, for 30 days.
2. Shortly stated the fact of the case are that on 31-10-1984 the petitioner a teacher of Hirakud High School came to the school late but entered in the Attendance Register as 10 30 A. M. The informant (PW 1), the Headmaster of the school objected to this and underlined the wrong entry in the attendance register The petitioner coming to know of this challenged PW 1 ; and it is alleged that he hurled abuses in obscene words at PW 1 to the effect 'ETA KAAN LAUDA'. He also threatened PW 1 with dire consequences. On the report of the Headmaster PW 1, a case was registered, investigation taken up and charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner Under Section 294, IPC.
3. The plea of the petitioner at the trial was one of denial. It is specifcally pleaded that in the strike that took place in the school he having taken leading part, PW 1 has falsely implicated him in this case.
4. In support of its case prosecution has examined four witnesses of whom PW 1 is the informant, PWs 2 and 3 the eye-witnesses and PW 4 is the I. O. On appraisal of the materials on record, the learned trial Court accepted the prosecution case relying on the testimony of PWs 1 to 3, and held that the petitioner by using obscene words inside the office room of PW 1, had committed the offence Under Section 294, IPC and had accordingly convicted him thereunder. The learned appellate Court agreeing with the findings of the trial Court confirmed the finding and up-held the conviction and sentence.
5. Mr. Misra urged that the offence under Sec, 294, IPC is not made out even if the facts alleged against the petitioner are taken to be established. It is submitted that the words used have not been proved to be obscene, nor can the place where the incident took place be said to be a public place as understood in the context of the offence as defined in Section 294, IPC. There is also no evidence to show that any annoyance to the public was caused. Mr. Mohanty appearing for the State fairly concedes that the impugned judgment is not supportable, as the ingredients of the offence Under Section 794, IPC have not been proved.
6. Section 294. IPC may be extracted for proper appreciation :
'294. Obscene acts and songs-Whoever, to the annoyance of other ;
(a) does any obscene act in any public place, or
(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene songs, ballad or words, in or near any public place,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.'
On a plain reading of the section if would be clear that the section is intended to prevent obscene acts being performed in public to the annoyance of the public at large. Annoyance to others is an essential ingredient to the offence under the section. Considering the facts of the case in the legal perspective I find that the words used even if construed to be obscene, the act complained of was not committed in the public place, and there is also no evidence to show that any annoyance was caused to any member of the public. If the petitioner by the overt acts had actually intended to insult or intimidate PW 1, prosecution could have chosen to book him Under Section 504 or 506, IPC , but prosecution of the petitioner Under Section 294, IPC as discussed earlier, is clearly misconceived. The ingredients of the offence Under Section 294, IPC having not been brought home against the petitioner, prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case against the petitioner. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to acquittal.
7. In the result, the revision is allowed, and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner is set aside.