2026 INSC 719
Mani @ Subramaniyam v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police
HEAD NOTES
A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 294(b) — Obscene words — Meaning of "obscene" — Abusive or vulgar language — Distinction.
(Paras 11 to 17)
Held, mere use of abusive, vulgar or profane language, however offensive or uncivil, does not constitute an offence under Section 294(b) IPC. Obscenity in law requires that the words or acts must be lascivious, appeal to prurient interests and possess the tendency to deprave and corrupt susceptible minds. Vulgarity or profanity by itself is not synonymous with obscenity.
B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 294(b) — Essential ingredients.
(Paras 11, 14 & 17)
Held, to sustain a conviction under Section 294(b) IPC, the prosecution must establish that (i) obscene words or acts occurred in or near a public place; and (ii) such obscenity caused annoyance to others. In the absence of proof of both ingredients, conviction under Section 294(b) cannot be sustained.
C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 506(ii) — Criminal intimidation — Mere threatening words — Insufficient.
(Paras 18 & 19)
Held, mere utterance of threatening words during the course of an altercation does not constitute criminal intimidation unless the prosecution proves that the threat was intentionally made to cause alarm or to compel the victim to do or omit an act which he was legally entitled to do or abstain from doing. Mere assertion of threat without proof of intention to cause alarm is insufficient for conviction.
D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 326 — Grievous hurt by dangerous weapon — Fracture of nasal bone.
(Paras 20 & 21)
Held, fracture of the nasal bone squarely falls within the definition of "grievous hurt" under Section 320 IPC. Where medical evidence establishes such fracture and corroborates eyewitness testimony that the injury was inflicted with a dangerous weapon such as a billhook, conviction under Section 326 IPC is fully justified.
E. Criminal Evidence — Injured witness — Medical corroboration.
(Para 21)
Held, where the testimony of the injured witness is fully corroborated by eyewitnesses as well as contemporaneous medical evidence establishing grievous injuries caused by the weapon recovered, the prosecution successfully establishes the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
F. Sentencing — Reduction of substantive imprisonment — Advanced age and surrounding circumstances.
(Para 22)
Held, while affirming conviction under Section 326 IPC, the Court may reduce the substantive sentence considering mitigating circumstances such as the advanced age and health of the accused, absence of premeditation and the fact that the occurrence arose out of a property dispute, by directing imprisonment till the rising of the Court coupled with enhanced fine.
Analysis of Facts
The prosecution alleged that during a dispute arising out of a land disagreement, the appellant abused the complainant using vulgar expressions and thereafter assaulted him with a billhook, causing injuries to his forehead, nose and thumb. Medical examination subsequently revealed a fracture of the nasal bone.
The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 294(b), 326 and 506(ii) IPC along with offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The High Court acquitted him of the offences under the SC/ST Act but maintained the convictions under the IPC while reducing the sentence.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant challenged the surviving convictions. The Court found that although the words used by the appellant were abusive and vulgar, they did not satisfy the legal test of obscenity under Section 294(b) IPC, nor was there any evidence that such words caused annoyance to others. Likewise, the prosecution failed to establish that the alleged threats were intended to cause alarm so as to attract Section 506(ii) IPC.
However, the consistent testimony of the injured witness, corroborated by independent eyewitnesses and medical evidence proving fracture of the nasal bone caused by a billhook, clearly established the offence under Section 326 IPC.
Analysis of Law
The Court reaffirmed the following principles:
The expression "obscene" under Section 294 IPC is distinct from vulgarity or abusive language.
Obscenity requires lascivious content appealing to prurient interests with a tendency to deprave and corrupt susceptible minds.
Conviction under Section 294(b) IPC additionally requires proof that the obscene act or words caused annoyance to others.
Criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC requires proof that the threat was intentionally made to cause alarm or compel a particular course of conduct.
Fracture of a bone constitutes grievous hurt under Section 320 IPC.
Where medical evidence fully corroborates eyewitness testimony regarding grievous injuries caused by a dangerous weapon, conviction under Section 326 IPC is warranted.
Advanced age, health condition and circumstances of the occurrence may justify reduction of sentence without interfering with the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi
Abusive, vulgar or profane language, however offensive, does not by itself amount to obscenity under Section 294(b) IPC unless it is shown to be lascivious, appealing to prurient interests, capable of depraving susceptible minds and causing annoyance to others. Similarly, mere threatening words uttered during an altercation do not constitute criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC in the absence of proof of intention to cause alarm. Nevertheless, where reliable eyewitness testimony is corroborated by medical evidence establishing fracture caused by a dangerous weapon, conviction under Section 326 IPC is fully sustainable, though the sentence may be suitably modified in view of mitigating circumstances.
