The Supreme Court has held that the mere use of abusive language such as the word “bastard” does not constitute an offence under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra has differentiated the roles of the two accused. In the case of Senthil (A-1), the Court found no evidence to establish common intention with Sivakumar to cause death or such bodily injury likely to result in death. His role was limited to causing injuries to a witness. Accordingly, his conviction under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC was set aside, while his conviction under Section 324 IPC was upheld. Considering the period already undergone, his sentence was reduced to time served.
The case originated from a 2014 incident involving a boundary dispute between close relatives. The deceased and the accused shared adjoining property, and tensions escalated when the deceased attempted to fence the disputed land despite objections. During the altercation, one accused attacked a witness with an aruval (agricultural tool), while another struck the deceased on the head with a wooden log. The deceased later died due to a grievous head injury, including a skull fracture and brain hemorrhage.
The Trial Court had initially convicted Senthil under Section 324 IPC and Sivakumar under Section 325 IPC, while acquitting two co-accused. However, the Madras High Court later modified the findings, convicting both appellants under Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and Section 294(b) IPC, and sentencing them to five years’ rigorous imprisonment.
A key issue before the Supreme Court was whether the use of the word “bastard” during the altercation amounted to “obscenity” under Section 294 IPC. The Court held that obscenity must involve content that is lascivious or appeals to prurient (sexual) interest. It observed that mere abusive or vulgar language, though offensive or uncivil, does not meet the legal threshold of obscenity. Consequently, the conviction of the appellants under Section 294(b) IPC was set aside.
In contrast, the Court upheld the conviction of Sivakumar (A-2) under Section 304 Part II IPC, noting that he had inflicted the fatal head injury with knowledge that such an act was likely to cause death. However, the Court took into account mitigating circumstances, including the fact that the incident occurred spontaneouly in the heat of the moment, involved close relatives, and that only a single blow was inflicted using a log picked up from the spot. On these considerations, the Court reduced his sentence from five years to three years’ rigorous imprisonment.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the incident arose out of a sudden quarrel without premeditation, and that the evidence did not support repeated or brutal assault. It underscored the importance of distinguishing between intention and knowledge while determining criminal liability, especially in cases involving spontaneous violence.
With these findings, the Court partly allowed the appeals. Senthil, who was already on bail, was not required to surrender, while Sivakumar was directed to surrender and serve the remaining reduced sentence.
Case Details
Case Title: Sivakumar Versus State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police
Citation: JURISHOUR-622-SC-2026
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1807 OF 2019
Date: 06/04/2026
