Supreme Court Sets Aside Section 294(b) IPC Conviction; Clarifies ‘Bastard’ Not Obscene and Modifies Culpable Homicide Sentence to 3 Years

Case Name: Sivakumar v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police & Connected Appeals
Citation: 2026 INSC 318
Date of Judgment/Order: 06 April 2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra

Held: The Supreme Court held that mere use of abusive words such as “bastard” does not constitute obscenity under Section 294 IPC as it does not arouse prurient interest, and further held that in a sudden altercation arising out of a property dispute, a solitary blow inflicted in the heat of the moment may amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, warranting a proportionate reduction in sentence.

Summary: The case arose from a neighbourhood dispute between close relatives over a common boundary, culminating in a violent altercation where one accused inflicted a fatal head injury using a wooden log, while another caused minor injuries to an intervening witness. The Trial Court convicted the accused for lesser offences, but the High Court enhanced the conviction to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC and also convicted them under Section 294(b) IPC. Before the Supreme Court, the principal issues were whether abusive language used during the incident amounted to obscenity under Section 294 IPC, whether common intention under Section 34 IPC could be attributed, and whether the conviction for culpable homicide was justified. The Court analysed the concept of obscenity, relying on settled jurisprudence, and held that vulgar or abusive expressions, without sexual connotation or prurient appeal, do not meet the legal threshold of obscenity. It further found that there was no evidence of shared common intention between the accused, as one accused did not participate in the fatal assault. However, as regards the accused who inflicted the fatal blow, the Court upheld the finding of culpable homicide, noting that although the act was committed in the heat of the moment without premeditation, the knowledge that such a blow could cause death could be attributed.

Decision: The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals by setting aside the conviction of both appellants under Section 294(b) IPC and the conviction of one appellant under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC, while affirming the conviction of the other appellant under Section 304 Part II IPC but reducing his sentence from five years to three years rigorous imprisonment; the sentence of the co-accused for minor injury was reduced to the period already undergone, and directions were issued accordingly.