Abusive or Vulgar Words Are Not ‘Obscene’ Under Section 294(b) IPC; Mere Threats During an Altercation Do Not Constitute Criminal Intimidation: Supreme Court
Case Name: Mani @ Subramaniyam v. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police
Date of Judgment: 17 July 2026
Citation: 2026 INSC 719
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
Held: The Supreme Court held that vulgarity, profanity and abusive language are not synonymous with obscenity under Section 294(b) IPC. To constitute obscenity, the words must be lascivious, appeal to prurient interests or tend to deprave and corrupt susceptible minds, and their utterance must cause annoyance to others in or near a public place. The Court further held that threatening words spoken during an altercation do not constitute criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC unless the prosecution establishes an intention to cause alarm or compel the complainant to perform or omit an act.
Summary: The prosecution alleged that the appellant abused the complainant using vulgar and caste-related expressions during a dispute and thereafter assaulted him with a billhook, causing a nasal bone fracture and other injuries. The Trial Court convicted him under Sections 294(b), 326 and 506(ii) IPC, along with provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Madras High Court acquitted him of the offences under the SC/ST Act but maintained the IPC convictions while reducing the sentences.
Examining Section 294(b), the Supreme Court drew a clear legal distinction between words that are merely abusive, vulgar or profane and words that are obscene. It held that rude or offensive expressions may provoke disgust, anger or revulsion, but they do not become obscene unless they contain a lascivious element, appeal to sexual or prurient interests, or possess the tendency to deprave and corrupt. Annoyance caused to others in a public place is also a mandatory ingredient of the offence.
Applying this test, the Court found that the words attributed to the appellant were undoubtedly abusive and uncivil but lacked the legal elements of obscenity. There was also no evidence that their use caused annoyance to others in a public place. The conviction under Section 294(b) IPC was therefore set aside.
The conviction under Section 506(ii) IPC was also set aside. The Court observed that the alleged threat was made during an altercation, but there was no material showing that it was intended to cause alarm to the complainant or compel him to act or refrain from acting. Mere threatening language, without the requisite intention and resulting alarm, is insufficient to establish criminal intimidation.
However, the Court upheld the conviction under Section 326 IPC. The eyewitness testimony was corroborated by medical evidence establishing a fractured nasal bone caused with a billhook, which constituted grievous hurt inflicted by a dangerous weapon.
Decision: The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC but affirmed his conviction under Section 326 IPC. Considering his age of approximately 70 years, health condition and the background of the land dispute, the sentence was reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court, with a fine of ₹50,000 payable within two months.