002-NLR-NLR-V-14-FRASER-v.-SINNAIYA.pdf
( 3 )
Present: Wood Renton J.July 27,1010
FRASER v. SINNAIYA.
420, P. C., Matale, 34,850.
Irmdt—Affirmative evidence to prove that insult caused actual provocationnot necessary—Penal Code, s. 484,
In a prosecution under section 484 of the Penal Code it is notnecessary for a conviction that there should be affirmative evidenceto the effect that the insult caused actual provocation. It issufficient, if the insult is clearly of a provocative character,—of acharacter likely to produce a breach of the public peace on the partof the person towards whom it is directed,—and if the Court issatisfied from all the circumstances of the case that the accusedmust have intended to produce, or must have known that hewould produce, that result.
T
HE accused, a cooly, excited by the refusal of the respondentto give him and other coolies their discharge, made use of
insulting language towards the respondent, and stepped out infront of the other coolies and, showing him a stick which he held
( 4 )
July 27^3910 jn hjs hand, said I “If you. come to the estate, I will break yourFruiter v. head.” He was charged under section 484, Penal Code, and wasStnnaiya sentenced to six weeks' rigorous imprisonment.
The accused appealed.
Wadsworth, for accused, appellant, admitted that the words usedwere insulting, but contended that there was no proof that thecomplainant was thereby provoked to commit a breach of the peace.He cited P. C., Hatton, 7,282* and Corea v. Anthonipillair
Vernon Grenier, for respondent.—The Courts have always re-garded, not so much the actual effect caused by the insulting words,but the probability of an offence resulting from the use of thewords. See R. i Jogaya,:1 Senanavake w Don John,* Sri Mudali r.Sebastian/*
Cur. adv. vult.
July 27, 1910. Wood Renton J.—
His Lordship, after disposing of the other points raised by thecounsel for the appellant, continued :—
There remains only the third point as to whether or not it isnecessary that either the complainant or some of his witnessesshould, in a case of this character, give affirmative evidence to theeffect that the insult, which forms the subject of the charge, causedactual provocation. I was inclined during Mr. Wadsworth's argu-ment to think that this question should be answered in favour of theappellant, although, even if I had taken that view, I should nothave set aside the conviction and sentence, but simply have sentthe case back for the purpose of enabling formal evidence on thepoint to be given. After having heard Mr. Grenier on behalf of therespondent, and considered all the cases cited by Mr. Wadsworthand him in their careful and helpful arguments, I think it is notnecessary that the complainant should say in so many words “ I wasprovoked by the conduct to which I complain.” It is sufficient, Ithink, if the insult is clearly of a provocative character, of a charac-ter likely to produce a breach of the public peace on the part of therespondent towards whom it is directed and if the Court is satisfiedfrom all the circumstances of the case that the accused must haveintended to produce, or must have known that he would produce,that result. It seems to me that this is the view of the law takenby Mr. Justice Lawrie in the case Senanayake v. Don John*. There
‘ (3910) 2 C. L. R. 1C. 22.*(1887) I. L. R. 10 Mad. Wl.
2 (1006) ?> Tam. AS4 (1901) 7 ,V. L. R. 22.
*{1X98) 4 Bah 123,
( :> )
is nothing contrary to it in the decision of Mr. Justice Wendt inCorea i>. Anthonipillaiwhere the . ratio decidendi clearly isthat the absence, at the time when the insult was given, of theperson said to have been insulted rendered it impossible thathe could have received the immediate provocation which section4X4 contemplates. The same view of the law as I am adoptinghere, was taken by Sir Arthur Collins C.J. and two other Judges inQueen Empress r. Venkatisagadu and others – under section 504 ofthe Indian Penal Code, which corresponds with section 484 of ourown. I may also refer in the same connection to the decision ofSir John Bonser C.J. in Sri Mudali v. Sebastian,:i that section 484 isdirected to the case of an open and avowed insult, which mightcause the person insulted to assault the person who insults him. Onthe facts of the present case there can be no doubt but that suchbehaviour as the appellant has shown to have adopted towards hisemployer was provocative in a high degree, and there is someevidence showing that the respondent regarded it in that light, forhe forthwith put the case in the hands of the police. On thesegrounds the appeal must be dismissed.
Jvfy27, ivto
WoodKkntoj* J.
Fraser v,Sinnaiya
Appeal dismissed.