Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 344

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Sivakumar – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by the Inspector of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1807 of 2019
WITH
Senthil @ Janakiram – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by the Inspector of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 677 of 2020
Decided On : 06-04-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. M.P. Parthiban, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Obscene acts – Mere use of word ‘bastard’, by itself, is not sufficient to arouse prurient interest of a person.
(2) To convict accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC, it must be proved that accused has committed culpable homicide as defined in Section 299 IPC.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 302 read with Section 34 – Murder, hurt and obscene acts – Common intention – Conviction and sentence – Mere use of 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 – Conviction of appellants for offence punishable under Section 294(b) IPC is not sustainable and hereby set aside – To convict accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC, it must be proved that accused has committed culpable homicide as defined in Section 299 IPC – Incident is of year 2014 and was preceded by altercation between neighbours, who are close relatives, arising from a boundary dispute, and injury was not caused by using a dangerous weapon, but by a log lying on the spot, and only a solitary blow was inflicted in heat of moment – Ends of justice would be subserved if sentence awarded to A-2, under Section 304 Part II IPC, reduced to 3 years from 5 years R.I. (Paras 20, 23, 27 and 28)
Facts of the case:
These two appeals impugn common judgment and order of High Court of Judicature at Madras at Madurai1 dated 26.03.2019 and 04.04.2019 respectively passed in connected Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos. 85 and 167 of 2017.
Findings of Court:
Appellant has partially undergone default sentence awarded to him for offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. Consequently, we reduce and alter sentence awarded to A-1 (Senthil) to period of sentence already undergone.
Result : Appeals partly allowed.

Judgement Key Points

- The word "bastard" alone is not sufficient to attract prurient interest and cannot sustain a conviction under Section 294(b) IPC (obscene acts) in this context. (!) - For Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), a conviction requires proof of culpable homicide as defined in Section 299 IPC; the Court affirmed A-2’s conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC after analyzing intent and circumstances. (!) (!) - The Court reduced the sentences for A-1 (Senthil) and A-2 (Sivakumar) based on the age of the incident, heat-of-the-moment nature, nature of injuries, and portions already served, including reduction from 5 years to 3 years for A-2 and partial reduction for A-1 consistent with period already undergone. (!) (!) - The High Court’s conviction for A-1 under Section 324 IPC was upheld, while Section 294(b) and Section 304 Part II with Section 34 IPC were found unsustainable for A-1. (!) (!) - The incident involved neighbors and close relatives with a boundary dispute; injuries were caused by a log and an aruval, with one solitary blow to the deceased and injuries to PW-4. The court emphasized heat of the moment and lack of intent to cause death. (!) (!) (!) - A-3 and A-4 were acquitted by both Trial Court and High Court; the appellate court maintained their acquittals. (!) (!) - The judgment clarifies that to convict under 304 Part II, proof of culpable homicide under 299 IPC is required, and it is improper to infer common intention without clear evidence of exhortation or actionable shared intent. (!) (!)

What is the scope of Section 294(b) IPC regarding obscene words like "bastard" in heated neighbor disputes?

What is the appropriate standard to convict under Section 304 Part II IPC when determining culpable homicide under Section 299 IPC?

What are the applicable sentence reductions or modifications when the evidence shows heat-of-the-moment acts with limited injuries and no use of dangerous weapons?

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ MISRA, J.

1. These two appeals impugn common judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras at Madurai¹ [High Court] dated 26.03.2019 and 04.04.2019 respectively passed in connected Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos. 85 and 167 of 2017. As these appeals impugn common judgment and order, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.

FACTS

2. Appellant Senthil (hereinafter referred to as A-1) and appellant Sivakumar (hereinafter referred to as A-2) were tried together along with two other persons, namely, Punitha (hereinafter referred to as A-3) and Jayanthi (hereinafter referred to as A-4) for offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860² [IPC] arising from Crime No. 189 of 2014 registered at Police Station Thiruvidaimaruthur.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows: Ganesan and Kaliyamurthy (the deceased) were real brothers. Ganesan died a decade earlier. A-1 is son of Ganesan whereas A-3 and A-4 are daughters of Ganesan. A-2 is husband of A-3. Ganesan and the deceased shared a common boundary regarding which there was a dispute. On 20.09.2014, at around 11:30 a.m. when the deceased was fencing his property, A-1 to A-4 objected to it. However, the deceased insisted on his right to fence the property which infuriated A-1. As a result, A-1 took an Aruval (a sickle like tool used for harvesting crops) and aimed a blow on the deceased. Seeing this, the deceased’s brother Kalaivanan (PW-4) intervened to protect the deceased. As a result, the blow fell on PW-4’s shoulder. Thereafter, A-1 struck another blow on PW-4’s leg and injured his toe. In this melee, when the deceased went to rescue PW-4, A-2 lifted a log and gave a hard blow on the deceased’s head. As a result, the deceased fell unconscious. When the deceased was lying unconscious on the ground, A-3 and A-4 attacked the deceased and PW4 with sticks and thereafter, the accused ran away.

4. The deceased and PW-4 were rushed to the hospital, where Dr. Kamarul Jamal (PW-15) examined the deceased for his injuries and found:

“A lacerated wound of about 10 x 2 x 1 cm. on the scalp over the left parietal region of the skull.”

PW-15 referred the deceased for further treatment to another hospital. As a result, the deceased was taken to another hospital and later shifted to yet another hospital, where he died.

5. Autopsy report of the deceased notices:

A close examination of the skull revealed a depressed fracture of the skull bone, elliptical in shape, with fracture of parietal left region.

Internal examination revealed:

“Lacerated injury over left parietal lobe over skull, fracture side, cavity of the brain filled up with blood clots.”

Cause of death, as per opinion of the doctor, was grievous injury on head and brain.

6. PW-4 was also examined for his injuries. As per the injury report, a cut injury was noticed on his right shoulder with contusion, and a cut injury was found on his toe.

7. Trial Court charged the four accused (i.e. A-1 to A-4) as under:

Number of Charges	Description of accused	Provisions under which charged
1.	A-1 & A-2	S. 294(b) IPC
2.	A-1	S. 324 IPC
3.	A-2	S. 302 IPC
4.	A-3 & A-4	S. 323 IPC
5.	A-1, A-3 & A-4	S. 302 read with S. 34 IPC

8. After considering the evidence on record, the Trial Court, vide judgment and order dated 27.02.2017, acquitted A-3 and A-4. However, A-1 and A-2 were convicted and sentenced as follows:

Name of the accused	Provision of law under which convicted	Sentence
Senthil (A-1)	324 IPC	Fine of Rs. 5,000. On default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months
Sivakumar (A-2)	325 IPC	2 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,0

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(SC) 344

What is the scope of Section 294(b) IPC regarding obscene words like "bastard" in heated neighbor disputes?

What is the appropriate standard to convict under Section 304 Part II IPC when determining culpable homicide under Section 299 IPC?

What are the applicable sentence reductions or modifications when the evidence shows heat-of-the-moment acts with limited injuries and no use of dangerous weapons?

Cases Referred (2)

Related Judgments

Sivakumar VS State Rep. by the Inspector of Police - 2026 3 Supreme 601

Sivakumar vs State - 2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 1621

Kolati Nagaraju @ Raju, Guntur Dt. VS State Of AP Rep PP - 2024 Supreme(AP) 317

State of Uttarakhand VS Sachendra Singh Rawat - 2022 2 Supreme 585

Mahadevan VS State of Tamilnadu, Represented by Inspector of Police, Villupuram - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 2159

Raju vs State Of Madhya Pradesh - 2024 Supreme(MP) 722

V. Dileep Kumar @ Dileep VS State Of A. P. - 2024 Supreme(AP) 702

Mamidi Bangari (A-1),Vizianagaram District vs State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad - 2025 Supreme(AP) 256

V. Dileep Kumar @ Dileep VS State Of A P - 2024 Supreme(AP) 492

JARAR OSAMAN VANDHA VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2021 Supreme(Guj) 998