Vulgarity and profanities uttered during heated altercations do not amount to obscenity under Section 294(b) IPC.

The appellants, Senthil (A-1) and Sivakumar (A-2), were involved in a boundary dispute with their relatives, Ganesan and the deceased (Kaliyamurthy)

On September 20, 2014, while the deceased was fencing the disputed property, A-1 and A-2 objected, leading to a physical altercation

A-1 attempted to strike the deceased with an Aruval (sickle) but instead injured PW-4, who had intervened

Subsequently, A-2 struck the deceased on the head with a wooden log, causing a depressed skull fracture and brain hemorrhage, which ultimately led to his death

The Trial Court convicted A-1 under Section 324 IPC and A-2 under Section 325 IPC, acquitting them of murder

On appeal, the High Court altered the convictions to Section 304 Part II IPC for both appellants and added convictions under Section 294(b) IPC for using obscene language ("bastard")

The Court applied Section 294(b) IPC regarding obscene acts and songs, interpreting "obscenity" through the lens of Section 292 IPC and the "prurient interest" test established in Apoorva Arora v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

It invoked Section 299 and Section 304 Part II IPC to define culpable homicide not amounting to murder, focusing on the "knowledge" of the likelihood of causing death

Section 34 IPC was applied to determine the existence of common intention, requiring proof of a prior meeting of minds or shared intent to commit the specific resulting crime

The Court considered Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons) and Section 325 IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt)

The Court analyzed the obscenity charge by clarifying that vulgarity and profanities do not per se amount to obscenity; for a word to be "obscene" under Section 294(b), it must arouse sexual or lustful thoughts, which the word "bastard" does not

Regarding common intention, the Court found that A-1’s actions were directed at PW-4 and there was no evidence of him exhorting A-2 or sharing a pre-arranged plan to kill the deceased; thus, Section 34 could not be invoked to link A-1 to the death

For A-2, the Court affirmed the conviction under Section 304 Part II, reasoning that while there was no "intention" to kill during the sudden quarrel, striking someone on the head with a log with enough force to fracture the skull implies "knowledge" that the act is likely to cause death

However, the Court noted mitigating circumstances: the parties were relatives, the incident was not premeditated, and it arose from a sudden surge of passion over a boundary dispute

A-1’s conviction under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC was set aside, but his conviction under Section 324 IPC for injuring PW-4 was affirmed, with the sentence reduced to the period already undergone

A-2’s conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC was affirmed, but his sentence was reduced from five years to three years of rigorous imprisonment

A-1 was ordered not to surrender, while A-2 was directed to serve the remainder of the reduced sentence