“ 7.As far as the offence under Section 506(2) is concerned, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the threat was not a real one, that it was of the kind of words, which are currently and frequently used by people when they are angry and that further the threat was not spoken to by P.W.3 and P.W.4, who by that time had already come to the scene of occurrence. It is, in fact, found from the records that the threat would have been lashed out after P.Ws.3 and 4 came to the place and separated both the husband and the wife. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 should have been corroborated by the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 who were necessary witnesses to the occurrence. Since they did not corroborate the testimony of P.W.1 in this aspect, the offence cannot be held to be proved. Further, for beings an offence under Section 506 (2), which is rather an important offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years, the threat should be a real one and not just a mere word, when the person uttering does not exactly mean what he says and also when the person to whom threat is launched does not feel threatened actually. If fact, P.W.1, when she filed the complaint to the Police Officer, did not express any fear any fear for her life nor asked for any protection. Therefore, the offence under Section 506(2) is not made out.”
