Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 1621

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Manoj Misra, JJ
Sivakumar – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1807 of 2019 | Criminal Appeal No. 677 of 2020

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Nagamuthu
For the Respondents: Sabarish Subramanian

The judgment clarifies that vulgarity and profanity do not per se constitute obscenity, which requires an appeal to prurient interest. It further establishes that common intention requires evidence of a shared purpose, and culpable homicide is proven by the knowledge that an act is likely to cause death.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 294(b), 304 Part II, 324, 34 - Obscenity - Culpable homicide - Common intention - Sentencing.

(B) Obscenity - Vulgarity and profanity do not per se amount to obscenity - Obscenity requires material that appeals to prurient interest - Use of abusive language in heated conversation does not constitute obscenity - Obscenity must be judged having regard to contemporary mores and national standards. (Paras 19-20)

(C) Common Intention - Section 34 IPC - Requires evidence of shared intention - Mere presence or separate acts without prior concert or exhortation does not establish common intention - Liability cannot be saddled without evidence of a shared purpose to cause death or grievous bodily harm. (Para 21)

(D) Culpable Homicide - Section 304 Part II IPC - Requires proof of knowledge that the act is likely to cause death - Assessment of injury and circumstances of the assault - Where a fatal blow is struck with knowledge of its likely consequence, the offence is made out. (Paras 23-24)

Facts of the case:
Neighbors and relatives engaged in a dispute over a property boundary. During a confrontation, one individual struck another with a tool, while another individual struck the deceased on the head with a log, resulting in death. The trial court convicted the accused for various offences, which was modified by the high court, leading to the present appeals.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the use of abusive language did not meet the threshold for obscenity. It held that the individual who struck the fatal blow was guilty of culpable homicide, but the other individual did not share a common intention to cause death. The sentence for the culpable homicide conviction was reduced based on the circumstances of the incident.

Issues: Whether the use of abusive language constitutes obscenity under the law; whether the conviction for culpable homicide was justified; and whether common intention was established between the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: Vulgarity is not synonymous with obscenity, which requires an appeal to prurient interest. Common intention requires evidence of a pre-arranged plan or shared purpose, which was absent. Culpable homicide is established when the accused has the knowledge that their act is likely to cause death, regardless of the absence of a specific intent to kill.

Result: Appeals partly allowed; conviction for obscenity set aside; conviction for culpable homicide affirmed for one, reduced for the other; sentence modified.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and factual background regarding the criminal incident and trial court findings. (Para 1)

MANOJ MISRA, J.

1. These two appeals impugn common judgment and order of the 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. As these Signature Not Verified

1 High Court

Digitally signed by KAVITA PAHUJA Date: 2026.04.06

Reason:

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 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

2 IPC

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 (PW15) 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:

“One sutured wound measuring 8 x 8 x 1 cm on the left portion of the head”.

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:

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:

9. Aggrieved by acquittal of A-3 and A-4 from all the charges and acquittal of A-1 and A-2 from some of the charges including one punishable under Section 302 IPC, Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 167 of 2017 was preferred by Chandra (i.e., widow of the deceased, who was examined as PW1 in the trial). Whereas A-1 and A-2, aggrieved by their conviction under Sections 324 and 325 IPC, preferred Criminal Appeal (MD) No.

85 of 2017.

10. The High Court, vide impugned judgment and order dated

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 1621

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Manoj Misra, JJSivakumar – AppellantVersusState – RespondentCriminal Appeal No. 1807 of 2019 | Criminal Appeal No. 677 of 2020

Cases Referred (2)

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Manoj Misra, JJ
Sivakumar – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1807 of 2019 | Criminal Appeal No. 677 of 2020