Supreme Court Clarifies Vulgarity or Obscenity in Section 294(b) IPC

While hearing an appeal challenging the conviction in case of obscenity and culpable homicide, the Supreme Court set aside the convictions in Section 294(b) IPC (Section 296(b) BNS) and reducing the sentence in Section 304 IPC (Section 105 BNS) holding that the content of the acts does not satisfy the legal test for prurient interest under relevent sections.

Background: The matter is setmmed from a violent confrontation from the year 2014, between close relatives and neighbors in the state of Tamil Nadu, where the deceased, Kaliyamurthy, attempted to fence a contested boundary despite objections from the appellants, Senthil (A-1) and Sivakumar (A-2) and during the melee, A-1 attacked a witness (PW-4) with an Aruval (sickle), while A-2 struck the deceased on the head with a wooden log picked up from the spot, the deceased succumbed to a depressed skull fracture which resulted in death.

In this judgment the Apex Court provided significant clarity on the distinction between vulgarity and obscenity, as well as the nuances of joint liability in spontaneous acts of violence:

Vulgarity vs. Obscenity under Section 294(b) IPC: Emphasizing that the term "obscene" in the Indian Penal Code relates to material that appeals to prurient interest the Apex Court relied on its earlier judgment in case of Apoorva Arora v. State, where it observed that while a person may find expletive-filled language "distasteful, unpalatable, and improper," such profanity does not per se amount to obscenity. Pointing specifically to the use of the word "bastard" during a heated conversation was held insufficient to arouse prurient interest.

Common Intention in Sudden Fights: The Apex Court scrutinized the application of Section 34 IPC regarding A-1. It noted that A-1’s attack was directed at a third party (PW-4) and there was no evidence that he exhorted A-2 to strike the deceased or participated in the assault once the deceased fell.

On the subject of "Culpable Homicide" the Court confirmed that A2 committed culpable homicide as he hit the head with knowledge that it was likely to cause death. However, in mitigating the sentence, the Court looked at the "heat of the moment" context the Apex Court observed that the weapon (a log) was likely picked up from the spot rather than being a pre-planned dangerous weapon, and the delivery of a solitary blow during a boundary dispute among relatives warranted a more balanced sentence.

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, modifying the High Court's findings on three critical fronts. - First, it quashed the convictions under Section 294(b) IPC, holding that vulgar language used in a heated exchange does not automatically constitute "obscenity" and that the word "bastard", though vulgar, does not satisfy the legal test for prurient interest under Section 294(b) IPC.

- Second, the Apex Court examined the application of Section 34 IPC in sudden fights and reduced the sentence for culpable homicide where a solitary blow was inflicted using a weapon picked up at the scene. Thus setting aside A-1’s conviction for culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC, finding no evidence of a shared common intention to cause death.

- Finally, while confirming A-2’s conviction for culpable homicide, the Apex Court reduced his five-year sentence to three years, citing the lack of premeditation and the nature of the weapon used.

Consequently, the Supreme Court held that without reliable evidence of a "reciprocal commitment" or shared intent to cause death, A-1 could not be saddled with liability for the fatal blow struck by A-2, and Court confirmed that A2 committed culpable homicide as he hit the head with knowledge that it was likely to cause death.

CORAM: JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA & JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA.