Everything About Section 506 Indian Penal Code

Introduction to Section 506 IPC

Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the punishment when the accused has committed the offense of criminal intimidation. Criminal intimidation has been defined under Section 503 IPC. The offense of criminal intimidation constitutes the threat of injury to a person’s person, reputation or property or to another person’s person, reputation or property in which that person is interested with the intention to cause alarm or cause him to do an act which he is not legally bound to do.

Section 506 – Punishment for Criminal Intimidation – Whoever commits, the offense of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;

If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc – And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offense punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

At first reading of Section 506, it can be seen that the punishment prescribed in this section falls in two categories:

1. In simple cases of criminal intimidation, the punishment is imprisonment for a term up to two years or fine or both.
2. If the threat be to cause death of the threatened person, or grievous hurt, or destruction of property by fire, or to cause an offense to be committed which is punishable with death or life imprisonment or with imprisonment for a term up to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman; then the prescribed punishment is simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term up to seven years or fine or both.

Part II deals with more graver forms of criminal intimidation, and in that sense, requires a higher threshold to be brought into play. To warrant Part II of the section, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the threat to cause death or grievous hurt was accompanied by some act of the accused in pursuance of the threat.

Case Law

In the case of Rajinder Datt v State of Haryana[1], it was held that mere outburst of the accused at the time of the assault that he will kill the injured, will not attract Section 506. This is particularly so when the injuries caused are not grievous and are not caused to any vital part of the body of the injured.

In Keshav Baliram Naik v State of Maharashtra[2], the accused was alleged to have touched the hand of the prosecutrix, a blind girl, when she was asleep, removed the quilt and put his hand in her dress. He threatened to kill her if she disclosed his name. However, the prosecutrix shouted due to which her parents woke up. The High Court convicted the accused.

In the case of Ghanshyam v State of Madhya Pradesh, which also involved entering a house by the accused in the night armed with a knife, and threatening the inmates with death, the conviction under Section 506 Part II was held applicable and proper.

Where criminal intimidation was committed by threatening X and his daughter with injury to their reputation by having the indecent photographs of the daughter published, the appellant was held guilty of criminal intimidation. The intent was to cause alarm to X and his daughter[3].

In the case of Manik Taneja and Anr v State of Karnataka, the appellant and his wife met with an auto-rickshaw accident. They paid all the hospital expenses of the injured and met the Constable present at the time of the accident who they allege behaved with them in a rude manner. Thereafter, they posted comments on the Bangalore Traffic Police Page on Facebook, about the officer’s misbehavior. Their conviction was set aside as it was said that this act cannot constitute as one that would make up the offense of criminal intimidation.

Classification Of Offence

Part I of the offense of criminal intimidation is a non-cognizable, bailable and compoundable offense. Part II, on the other hand, is a non-cognizable, bailable and non-compoundable offense.

Conclusion 

To conclude, the punishment for criminal intimidation is duly given. The standard for ascertaining the offense of criminal intimidation is that of a reasonable person and hence, prevents any discrepancy or ambiguity in the law. The Supreme Court has applied the substance of this offense without vagueness. This can be seen through the various judgments discussed above. The standard of a reasonable person is that standard defining how a person should behave when placed in similar situation and circumstances. Punishment for criminal intimidation will only be attracted when the accused does not adhere to this standard of accepted behavior in society.

[1] (1993) Cr LJ 1025 (P&H)

[2] (1996) Cr LJ 1111 (Bom)

[3] Romesh Chandra v State, AIR 1960 SC 154

Never Underestimate The Influence Of Criminal Provision Of Defamation – Section 499 And 500 Of IPC

Defamation is an oral or written statement that injures someone’s reputation. Section 499 and Section 500 of IPC deals with the defamation as an offense. It is considered as the statement of fact, which is unprivileged and not true, that must harm someone’s reputation, either by spoken or written, and the same must be published before the third party. The term Defamation covers mainly the false allegation or communication, which tarnished the reputation or decreased the respect that they hold in the society at large. Written defamation is known as “libel,” which is also considered as the permanent form of the defamation,  while spoken defamation is known as “slander.” Both forms of defamation, i.e., libel and slander, derive its origins from English common law, but they are not treated as distinct from each other in Indian jurisprudence.

Every person has a right to have his reputation preserved free from the violation. This right of reputation is acknowledged as an inherent personal right of each and every person as part of the right of personal security under article 21 of the Constitution of India and also considered as one of the most important natural rights. An affection towards reputation inspires people to do great things, acquire fame and name, which is the mainspring of life in every walk of life. The main objective of the provision of the defamation is to protect one’s reputation, honor, and integrity in society.

Defamation in India at present

In India, defamation can be seen as both Civil as well as criminal offenses. The Sufferer or the person who got defamed is offered a legal remedy in both civil as well as criminal. In civil law, the remedy is covered under the Law of Torts where sufferer or victim may go to High Court or any subordinate courts for compensation or damages in monetary form and c, Section 499 provides the definition of “Defamation” and  legal remedy which is the punishment of simple imprisonment which may exceed up to 2 years or Fine or Both, defined under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1862.

Section 499 of the IPC defined as

A person or anyone, by his words either spoken or  which shown as a clear intention to be read, or by signature or by any kind of representations which is visible, makes or publishes any charges or allegation which refers any person, intending to harm, or  have knowledge or having a reason to make believe that these kinds of allegation will harm, the reputation or dignity of such person, is to be understood by, except in the case hereinafter expected to defame that person.

The section further goes on to provide some other vital explanation to determine what would create or constitute defamation. Defamation under the IPC may constitute an imputation of a deceased person that would harm the reputation of that person if he is alive and showing clear intention which may be hurtful to the feelings and emotions of their family or any other relatives. It may also amount to defamation to make an imputation refers to an association or company or any collection of persons as such.

The Section however also state that no imputation is said to injures a person’s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the respected character or moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of their caste or of their calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a disgusting state, or a state generally considered as disgraceful.

Section 499 of the IPC also explain some exceptions. These include “imputation of truth” which is essentially required for the “welfare of the public” and thus has to be published, on conduct of government officials which involves public duty, the act of any person touching any public question and merits of the public performance, if someone publishes reports of proceedings of Courts, merits of the case decided in Court of law or act and conduct of witnesses and others concerned with, etc.

Defamation under section 499 and Section 500 IPC vs. Freedom of Speech under Article 19(1)(a): –

The law of the defamation is not punishable in many countries or as we can understand by the way that defamation laws are not criminal laws in some countries of the world, for that the same reason a renowned lawyer-politician Mr. Subramanian Swamy along with several other petitioners (Rahul Gandhi, Mr. Kejriwal, etc.) came together to challenge the constitutionality of criminal defamation, i.e., (Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC) before the apex court i.e., Supreme Court.

 a)- Reason behind the Criminal Provision of Defamation (u/s 499/500) was challenged: –

The basic reason was that it was an unreasonable restriction on the constitutionally-guaranteed Right, i.e., Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code gives us the Right to sue for Defamation if  the person’s reputation was damaged or intended to damage by any other, and the petitioner challenged this on the ground that this was prima facie infringement of Freedom of Speech and Expression provided by the Constitution of India under Article 19(1)(a).

 b)- Some of the arguments that why this criminal provision of defamation(u/s 499/500) must declare unconstitutionally: –

Firstly, Criminal provision of the defamation (u/s 499/500) do not constitute a “reasonable restriction” on speech, and even truth is not an exact defense because the defense only works when the statement is for the public good, which is a question of fact by the court. This could be arbitrary because Instead of making the plaintiff prove that the accused made a false statement, section 499 gives the accused the burden of proving that the statement was not only true but also for the welfare of the public at large.

Secondly, mere on the allegation, a magistrate may issue criminal process that the accused conspired with the person who actually made the allegedly defamatory written statements, also  a criminal suit u/s 499 can be filed even for speech given by the political leaders, which is considered as the most protected speech to sustain democracy.

Lastly, there is also an argument that it is not clear even why the criminal provision of defamation has existed because petitioners are in the opinion that civil remedy is more than sufficient for that.

 c)- Court Held: –

However,  the apex court of the country, i.e., the Supreme Court upheld criminal defamation (u/s 499/500) and its constitutional validity. The judgment delivered on May 13, 2016, by the Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy V. The Union of India (“Judgement“) was delivered by Justice Dipak Misra, with Justice Prafulla C. Pant. The Judgment in the case started by analyzing the meaning of the terms ‘defamation’ and ‘reputation’, and their interaction of these terms with the right of the freedom of speech and expression mentioned under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.

The reputation of an individual must be secured as it was included in the protection of ‘dignity’, which is a very important aspect of the constitutionally protected right to life under article 21 of COI. Also, Defamation, in the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article (19)(1)(a)  is subject to reasonable restrictions. The Judgement also recognizes principles of reasonable restriction are that the restrictions which should serve the interest of public and should not be excessive; and held that reputation of an individual is a basic element enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution and balancing of fundamental rights is a constitutional necessity.

In addition, the court also emphasize for upholding the validity of the criminal defamation is online defamation, in the age of the Internet it can be effectively countered only by making it a criminal offense, and this particular law is concerning part of the state’s “compelling interest” to protect the dignity and reputation of citizens.

Finally, the Supreme Court holds that this criminal provision of defamation is not disproportionate. The reasonableness and its proportionality of a restriction are examined from the standpoint of the interest of the general public, and not from the person upon whom the restrictions are imposed. Applying this, the Court adjudged that criminal defamation law (u/s 499/500) to be proportionate. Further, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition which challenges the constitutionality of the criminal provision of defamation, holding that it was a reasonable restriction on the right to freedom of expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

 A person is bound to allow the existence of something that one may dislike or disagrees within other words -criticism, dissent, and discordance, but not expected to tolerate a rush which may tarnish the reputation of that person. (SC in Subramanian Swamy V. The Union of India [AIR 2016 SC 2728]  ).

Original blog is published at LEGODESK  please read the blog for more content and for legal help and service.

Legodesk is a legal practice management tool using which lawyers can manage their matters, win new clients and do their legal research all in one platform. Legodesk’s unique case management features helps to keep your legal practice organized and accessible everywhere.