Words Like "Bastard" Commonly Used In Modern Era During Heated Conversations; Not Sufficient To Arouse Prurient Interest: Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction U/S 294(b) IPC
The Court noted that the language fails to satisfy the established legal test of appealing to prurient interests or arousing sexual thoughts.
Justice P.S. Narasimha, Justice Manoj Misra, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that the mere utterance of the word "bastard" during a heated physical altercation between relatives does not meet the legal threshold for "obscenity". Furthermore, it noted that commonly used abusive words, even in heated conversations, do not amount to obscenity, and therefore set aside the conviction of two accused under Section 294 IPC.
The Court while referring to Apoorva Arora & Anr. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr (2024) 6 SCC 181 noted that while such language may be distasteful or uncivil, it fails to satisfy the established legal test of appealing to prurient interests or arousing sexual thoughts. Further, noted that vulgarity and profanities do not per se amount to obscenity unless they appeal to prurient interests or tend to deprave and corrupt the audience.
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra observed, “…in our view, mere use of the word ‘bastard’, by itself, is not sufficient to arouse prurient interest of a person. More so, when such words are commonly used in modern era during heated conversations. We are, therefore, of the view that conviction of the appellants for offence punishable under Section 294(b) IPC is not sustainable and is hereby set aside”.
Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu appeared for the appellants and Sabarish Subramanian, AOR appeared for the respondents.
In the matter, the dispute was regarding a 2014 boundary dispute between two brothers, Ganesan and Kaliyamurthy, in Thiruvidaimaruthur. On September 20, 2014, while the deceased, Kaliyamurthy, was fencing his property, his nephews Senthil (A-1) and Sivakumar (A-2) objected, leading to a violent confrontation. A-1 initially attacked with an Aruval, injuring a witness who intervened. During the ensuing struggle, A-2 lifted a wooden log and struck the deceased once on the head, causing a fatal depressed fracture.
The Trial Court originally acquitted two female relatives and convicted A-1 and A-2 under Sections 324 and 325 IPC, respectively, notably acquitting them of murder charges. On appeal, the Madras High Court reversed the acquittals for Section 294(b) and enhanced the convictions of both appellants to Section 304 Part II IPC, sentencing them to five years of rigorous imprisonment.
However, the Court found that the High Court erred in applying Section 294(b) IPC, as the language used did not satisfy the "prurient interest" test. Regarding A-1, the Court held there was no evidence he shared a common intention with A-2 to kill the deceased, as his specific acts were directed at another witness and he did not exhort A-2 to strike the fatal blow.
However, the Court upheld the culpable homicide conviction for A-2, noting that striking a head with a log carries the requisite knowledge of likely death. Nevertheless, the Bench reduced A-2’s sentence from five to three years, citing the lack of premeditation and the use of a weapon found at the spot rather than one brought for the purpose.
“On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, we do not find any error in the conclusion of the High Court that A-2 is guilty of an offence of culpable homicide. However, whether A-2 was liable to be convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part I of IPC, is a question which we refrain to address in absence of an appeal by the State, or the victim of the crime, for altering the conviction to a graver offence. In the circumstances, we confirm the conviction of A-2 under Section 304 Part II IPC”, the Bench observed.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the convictions under Section 294(b) for both appellants and the Section 304 Part II conviction for A-1, reducing A-1’s sentence to the period already undergone. A-2’s sentence for culpable homicide was reduced to three years of rigorous imprisonment.
Cause Title: Sivakumar v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 318]
Appellants: Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu, M.P. Parthiban, AOR.
Respondents: Sabarish Subramanian, AOR.