Sivakumar v. State 2026 INSC 318 - S.294 IPC - Obscene Word - Bastard
"Mere use of the word ‘bastard’, by itself, is not sufficient to arouse prurient interest of a person. More so, when such words are commonly used in modern era during heated conversations."
Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 294- The word “obscene” it has been construed as something which has the potential to appeal to prurient interest of a person - Mere use of the word ‘bastard’, by itself, is not sufficient to arouse prurient interest of a person. More so, when such words are commonly used in modern era during heated conversations. (Para 18-19) [Context: The case arises out of a 2014 boundary dispute between close relatives in Tamil Nadu, during which Senthil (A1) attacked the deceased’s brother with an aruval while Sivakumar (A2) struck a single blow with a log on the deceased’s head, causing his death. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of both A1 and A2 under Section 294(b) IPC (holding that use of the word “bastard” is abusive but not “obscene” in the sense of arousing prurient interest), and also set aside A1’s conviction under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC while sustaining only his conviction under Section 324 IPC and reducing his sentence to the period already undergone. For Sivakumar (A2), the Court upheld his conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, but reduced his sentence from five years’ rigorous imprisonment to three years’ rigorous imprisonment, considering the solitary blow, the heat‑of‑the‑moment quarrel, relationship of the parties, and use of a log lying at the spot.]
Case Info
Case name:Sivakumar v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police; Senthil @ Janakiraman v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police (two connected criminal appeals decided by a common judgment)
Neutral citation:2026 INSC 318
Appeal numbers:Criminal Appeal No. 1807 of 2019 (Sivakumar – A2)Criminal Appeal No. 677 of 2020 (Senthil @ Janakiraman – A1)
Court and Coram:Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate JurisdictionCoram:
- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra
Judgment date:April 06, 2026 (as stated at the end of the judgment)
Caselaws and Citations Referred
- Director General, Directorate General of Doordarshan & Others v. Anand Patwardhan & Another, (2006) 8 SCC 433– Referred on the concept of “obscenity” under Section 292 IPC.
- Apoorva Arora & Anr. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr., (2024) 6 SCC 181– Relied upon for defining “obscenity” and clarifying that vulgar or abusive language (even profanities) does not by itself amount to obscenity unless it appeals to prurient interest.
Statutes / Laws Referred
Indian Penal Code, 1860:
- Section 294(b) – Obscene acts and songs
- Section 323 – Voluntarily causing hurt
- Section 324 – Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means
- Section 325 – Voluntarily causing grievous hurt
- Section 299 – Definition of culpable homicide
- Section 302 – Punishment for murder
- Section 304 Part II – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder (knowledge, without intention)
- Section 34 – Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention
- Section 292 – Definition of obscenity (read with 294(b) to interpret “obscene”)
Information Technology Act, 2000:
- Section 67 – Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form (only referred in passing in Apoorva Arora while discussing obscenity).
