384 of the IPC is also not made out. Reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Issac Isanga Musumba & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Others reported in (2014) 15 SCC 357. It is further argued that so far as the charge under Section 506 of the IPC is concerned, there must be an act of threatening of causing an injury to the person, reputation or property to the person threatened or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and there must be with the intent to cause alarm to the persons threatened. Mere expression of any word without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufcient to bring in the application of Section 506 of the IPC. From the evidence available on record, it is clear that after using the alleged threatened word, the appellant himself returned back from the spot. With regard to the charge under Section 294 of the IPC is concerned, it is argued that the alleged abusive word was used by the appellant inside the Market Ofce which is not a public place, therefore, ofence under Section 294 of the IPC is also not made out.
