Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 793

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Karol, Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ.
Mani @ Subramaniyam – Appellant
Versus
State Rep By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 3241 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 4516 of 2025)
Decided On : 17-07-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. C.paramasivam, Adv. Mr. M.p.parthiban, Adv. Mr. Y.arunagiri, Adv. Mr. R. Sudhakaran, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR

Legal obscenity under penal provisions is not synonymous with vulgarity; it requires a lascivious element tending to deprave or corrupt. Criminal intimidation mandates proof of intent to cause alarm, and physical injury involving a bone fracture inherently qualifies as grievous hurt.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 294(b), 326, 506(ii) - Obscenity vs. Abuse - Criminal Intimidation - Grievous Hurt - Use of mere swear words, profanities, and vulgar expletives, however distasteful, does not constitute obscenity unless it is lascivious or appeals to prurient interests - Criminal intimidation as punishable requires proof of specific intent to cause alarm or compel an act, not mere impulsive verbal threats during an altercation - Fracture of a bone qualifies as grievous hurt, mandating conviction upon proof of use of dangerous weapon. (Paras 13-15, 18-19, 21)

(B) Sentencing - Discretion of Court to reduce imprisonment based on age, health, and nature of the dispute, ensuring the punishment is commensurate with the gravity of the offence. (Para 22)

Facts of the case:
A physical altercation occurred between parties concerning a land dispute. Following verbal abuse and an assault with a sharp instrument, the claimant sustained multiple injuries, including a fracture of the nasal bone. The trial court convicted the accused on multiple counts, which was partially modified by the appellate authority, leading to the current challenge.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that while the accused committed the offence of grievous hurt, the criteria for obscenity and criminal intimidation were not met. The abusive language used, while uncivil, lacked the lascivious intent requisite for obscenity in law, and the threat lacked the subjective intent to cause alarm. The sentence was reduced to the period already undergone in light of the accused’s age and health conditions.

Issues: Main issues were the legal threshold for obscenity in verbal abuse, the requirements for proving criminal intimidation during an altercation, and the criteria for establishing grievous hurt.

Ratio Decidendi: Obscenity must not be conflated with vulgarity or verbal abuse; legal obscenity requires a tendency to deprave and corrupt through lasciviousness. Criminal intimidation requires proof of intent beyond spontaneous verbal threats. A fracture definitively confirms the classification of physical injuries as grievous hurt, justifying sentencing under the appropriate penal provision.

Result: Appeal allowed in part; convictions for obscenity and intimidation set aside, conviction for grievous hurt affirmed with reduced sentence.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and factual background leading to the current appeal regarding criminal conviction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. defining obscenity as distinct from mere vulgarity or verbal abuse under section 294(b) ipc. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
3. criteria for conviction under section 506(ii) ipc requires specific intent to cause alarm via threat. (Para 18 , 19)
4. grievous hurt under section 326 ipc requires medical proof of dangerous weapon usage or permanent injury. (Para 20 , 21)
5. judicial discretion in sentencing based on age, health, and mitigating circumstances. (Para 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 13.08.2024, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, in Criminal Appeal No.800 of 2018, whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal preferred by the appellant-convict. However, while partly confirming judgment passed by the Special Court for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Principal Sessions Court), Erode¹[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’.] , in Special Case No.19 of 2018, the High Court vide the impugned order acquitted the appellant of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015²[‘SCST Act 2015’ for short] and modified the sentence awarded to the appellant in the following manner:

Section	Trial Court	High Court
294(b) IPC	3 Months of S.I. with fine of Rs.2,000/-	3 Months of S.I. with fine of Rs.2,000/-
326 IPC	5 Years of S.I. with fine of Rs.3,000/-	1 Year with fine of Rs.3,000/-
506 (II) IPC	5 Years of S.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/-	6 Months with fine of Rs.1,000/-

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.08.2017, an altercation allegedly took place between the appellant and Ramasamy, complainant’s brother-in-law, over a land dispute. Two days thereafter, on 24.08.2017 at about 10:45 A.M., the appellant alleged to have quarrelled with and abused the complainant’s nephew (PW-4) over the said land dispute. When the complainant (PW-1) intervened and confronted the appellant, the latter allegedly used obscene words and caste-based slurs against him. It is further alleged that the appellant, thereafter, brought a billhook (M.O.1) from his house and assaulted PW-1 on his forehead, nose and left thumb, inflicting multiple injuries. PW-1 was immediately rushed to the Government Hospital, Bhavani, where he was examined by Dr. R. Dhinakar (PW-2), a Senior Civil Surgeon.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid, Sub-Inspector of Police (PW-6) registered an FIR No.227/2017 on 24.08.2017 at PS Appakoodal, under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860³[‘IPC’ for short] and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SCST Act 2015.

5. Upon completion of the investigation, Additional Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District (PW-7), filed a chargesheet on 24.10.2017. While all the sections mentioned in the FIR were retained, the charge under Section 324 IPC was altered to Section 326 IPC, in view of the grievous injuries sustained by PW-1. The case was thereafter committed to trial wherein four charges were framed against the appellant, who pleaded not guilty.

6. To bring home the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents. The defence, however, neither examined any witnesses nor adduced any documentary evidence.

7. The Trial Court, in Special Case No.19 of 2018, vide judgment and order dated 16.11.2018, convicted the appellant under Sections 294(b) IPC; 3(l)(r) & 3(1) (s) of the SC/ST Act 2015; 326 IPC r/w 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act 2015; and 506(ii) IPC r/w 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act 2015. The Court held that the testimonies of Mahalingam (PW-1), Gunavathi (PW-3) and Ramachandran (PW-4) clearly establish occurrence

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(SC) 793

SUPREME COURT OF INDIASanjay Karol, Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ.Mani @ Subramaniyam – AppellantVersusState Rep By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police - RespondentCriminal Appeal No. 3241 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 4516 of 2025)Decided On : 17-07-2026

Legal obscenity under penal provisions is not synonymous with vulgarity; it requires a lascivious element tending to deprave or corrupt. Criminal intimidation mandates proof of intent to cause alarm, and physical injury involving a bone fracture inherently qualifies as grievous hurt.

Cases Referred (11)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Karol, Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ.
Mani @ Subramaniyam – Appellant
Versus
State Rep By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 3241 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 4516 of 2025)
Decided On : 17-07-2026