Abusive or Vulgar Language Lacking Lascivious Elements Does Not Constitute Obscenity Under Section 294(b) IPC

The appellant was accused of assaulting the complainant (PW-1) with a billhook (M.O.1) on 24.08.2017 following a land dispute involving the complainant’s family

The prosecution alleged the appellant used obscene language and caste-based slurs during the incident

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 294(b), 326, and 506(ii) of the IPC, and the SC/ST Act

On appeal, the High Court of Madras acquitted the appellant of the SC/ST Act charges but confirmed the IPC convictions, though it reduced the sentences

The appellant moved the Supreme Court challenging the remaining IPC convictions

1. Whether the use of abusive or vulgar language during an altercation constitutes "obscenity" under Section 294(b) of the IPC

2. Whether mere threatening words uttered during a quarrel satisfy the requirements for "criminal intimidation" under Section 506(ii) of the IPC

3. Whether a nasal bone fracture caused by a billhook meets the criteria for "grievous hurt" by dangerous weapons under Section 326 of the IPC

Section 294(b) IPC, noting it requires an "obscene act" causing "annoyance to others"

"Community Standard Test" from Aveek Sarkar v. State of W.B. to define obscenity as material that is lascivious or appeals to prurient interests

distinguished "vulgarity" from "obscenity" based on Samaresh Bose v. Amal Mitra, holding that slang and profanity do not necessarily deprave or corrupt morals

Regarding Section 506 IPC, the court followed Naresh Aneja v. State of U.P., requiring proof of intent to cause alarm

For Section 326 IPC, it applied the definition of "grievous hurt" under Section 320 (Seventhly) IPC, which includes a "fracture or dislocation of a bone"

The Court found that the appellant’s utterances ("Motherfucker," etc.), while abusive and vulgar, lacked a lascivious or prurient character intended to deprave the mind, and thus did not meet the legal threshold for "obscenity" under Section 294(b)

Regarding Section 506(ii), the Court reasoned that threatening words used during a heated altercation do not constitute criminal intimidation unless there is specific evidence of intent to cause alarm or compel action, which was absent here

Conversely, the Court upheld the conviction under Section 326 IPC because medical evidence (PW-2) and a CT scan confirmed a nasal bone fracture—a "grievous hurt" under Section 320—caused by a dangerous weapon (billhook), corroborated by eyewitness testimony

It affirmed the conviction under Section 326 IPC but, citing the appellant’s age (70 years) and the nature of the dispute, modified the sentence to "imprisonment till the rising of the Court" and a fine of Rs. 50,000 to be paid within two months