Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 344

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRA
Sivakumar – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by the Inspector of Police – Respondent

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

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(SC) 344

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRASivakumar – AppellantVersusState Rep. by the Inspector of Police – Respondent

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

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRA
Sivakumar – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by the Inspector of Police – Respondent