Recently, the Supreme Court partly allowed criminal appeals arising from a fatal assault case, holding that mere use of abusive language does not constitute “obscenity” under Section 294 IPC and carefully recalibrating liability for culpable homicide. The Court drew a sharp line between vulgarity and legal obscenity, observing that not every offensive word meets the threshold of criminality.
Brief Facts:
The case stemmed from a 2014 incident involving a boundary dispute between close relatives in Tamil Nadu, where tensions escalated into a violent altercation. During the confrontation, one accused attacked a witness with an agricultural tool, while another delivered a forceful blow with a wooden log to the deceased’s head, leading to fatal injuries including a skull fracture and brain trauma. The Trial Court convicted two accused for lesser offences, while acquitting others. However, the Madras High Court enhanced the conviction to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC and additionally invoked Section 294(b) IPC for use of abusive language, prompting the accused to approach the Supreme Court.
Contentions of the Appellant:
Counsel for the accused argued that the conviction under Section 294(b) IPC was unsustainable as mere abusive words do not amount to obscenity in law. It was further contended that the fatal blow was delivered in the heat of the moment during a sudden quarrel, without intention or knowledge to cause death. For one of the accused, it was specifically argued that there was no common intention under Section 34 IPC, and therefore, liability for culpable homicide could not be extended. The defence stressed that the incident arose out of a spontaneous dispute, with no premeditation and only a single injury inflicted.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The prosecution maintained that the accused had used abusive language in a public setting, attracting Section 294(b) IPC. It was further argued that the nature of the head injury, coupled with the force of the blow and surrounding circumstances, established knowledge sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC. The State also contended that the sequence of events reflected coordinated action, justifying invocation of common intention.
Observations of the Court:
The Court undertook a nuanced examination of the legal threshold for obscenity and culpable homicide. On Section 294(b) IPC, it clarified that obscenity must involve material that appeals to “prurient interest” or has a tendency to deprave or corrupt. Rejecting the High Court’s view, the Bench held that “mere use of the word ‘bastard’, by itself, is not sufficient to arouse prurient interest”, especially in the context of heated exchanges.
On the question of common intention, the Court found no evidence that one accused shared the intention to cause fatal injury, noting the absence of exhortation or coordinated action. It emphasised that liability under Section 34 IPC requires clear proof of shared intent, which was missing in the present case.
However, with respect to the main assailant, the Court upheld the conviction for culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC, observing that delivering a forceful blow to the head with a log, even in a sudden quarrel, carries sufficient knowledge of likely fatal consequences. At the same time, the Court gave weight to mitigating factors such as the absence of premeditation, use of a readily available object, and the fact that only a single blow was inflicted during a sudden altercation.
The decision of the Court:
The Top Court partly allowed the appeals, setting aside convictions under Section 294(b) IPC and the application of Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC against one accused, while affirming his conviction only for causing hurt. The conviction of the second accused under Section 304 Part II IPC was upheld, but his sentence was reduced from five years to three years in view of the circumstances.
Case Title: Sivakumar Vs. E Rep. By The Inspector Of Police
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1807 of 2019
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra
Advocate for the Petitioner: Sr. Adv. S. Nagamuthu, AOR M.P. Parthiban, Adv. Ankur Prakash, Adv. Priyanka Singh, Adv. Bilal Mansoor, Adv. Shreyas Kaushal, Adv. S. Geyolin Selvam, Adv. Alagiri K
Advocate for the Respondent: AOR Sabarish Subramanian, Adv. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Siddhant Singh, Adv. Danish Saifi
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :