Sivakumar vs State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

2026 INSC 318 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1807 OF 2019

SIVAKUMAR …APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE …RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 677 OF 2020

SENTHIL @ JANAKIRAM …APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE …RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

MANOJ MISRA, J.

1. These two appeals impugn common judgment and order

of the High Court of Judicature at Madras at Madurai1 dated

26.03.2019 and 04.04.2019 respectively passed in connected

Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos. 85 and 167 of 2017. As these

Signature Not Verified 1 High Court Digitally signed by KAVITA PAHUJA Date: 2026.04.06 16:54:32 IST Reason: Page 1 of 18 Criminal Appeal No. 1807/2019 & 000677/2020 appeals impugn common judgment and order, they have been

heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.

FACTS

2. Appellant Senthil (hereinafter referred to as A-1) and

appellant Sivakumar (hereinafter referred to as A-2) were tried

together along with two other persons, namely, Punitha

(hereinafter referred to as A-3) and Jayanthi (hereinafter

referred to as A-4) for offences punishable under Sections

294(b), 323, 324 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code, 18602 arising from Crime No. 189 of 2014

registered at Police Station Thiruvidaimaruthur.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows: Ganesan

and Kaliyamurthy (the deceased) were real brothers. Ganesan

died a decade earlier. A-1 is son of Ganesan whereas A-3 and

A-4 are daughters of Ganesan. A-2 is husband of A-3. Ganesan

and the deceased shared a common boundary regarding which

there was a dispute. On 20.09.2014, at around 11:30 a.m.,

when the deceased was fencing his property, A-1 to A-4

objected to it. However, the deceased insisted on his right to

2 IPC Page 2 of 18 Criminal Appeal No. 1807/2019 & 000677/2020 fence the property which infuriated A-1. As a result, A-1 took

an Aruval (a sickle like tool used for harvesting crops) and

aimed a blow on the deceased. Seeing this, the deceased’s

brother Kalaivanan (PW-4) intervened to protect the deceased.

As a result, the blow fell on PW-4’s shoulder. Thereafter, A-1

struck another blow on PW-4’s leg and injured his toe. In this

melee, when the deceased went to rescue PW-4, A-2 lifted a log

and gave a hard blow on the deceased’s head. As a result, the

deceased fell unconscious. When the deceased was lying

unconscious on the ground, A-3 and A-4 attacked the deceased

and PW4 with sticks and thereafter, the accused ran away.

4. The deceased and PW-4 were rushed to the hospital,

where Dr. Kamarul Jamal (PW15) examined the deceased for

his injuries and found:

“A lacerated wound of about 10 x 2 x 1 cm. on the scalp over the left parietal region of the skull.”

PW-15 referred the deceased for further treatment to another

hospital. As a result, the deceased was taken to another

hospital and later shifted to yet another hospital, where he

died.

Page 3 of 18 Criminal Appeal No. 1807/2019 & 000677/2020

5. Autopsy report of the deceased notices:

“One sutured wound measuring 8 x 8 x 1 cm on the left portion of the head”.

A close examination of the skull revealed a depressed

fracture of the skull bone, elliptical in shape, with fracture of

parietal left region.

Internal examination revealed:

“Lacerated injury over left parietal lobe over skull, fracture side, cavity of the brain filled up with blood clots.” Cause of death, as per opinion of the doctor, was

grievous injury on head and brain.

6. PW-4 was also examined for his injuries. As per the

injury report, a cut injury was noticed on his right shoulder

with contusion, and a cut injury was found on his toe.

7. Trial Court charged the four accused (i.e., A-1 to A-4) as

under:

Number Description of Provisions under which charged of accused Charges

1. A-1 & A-2 S. 294(b) IPC

2. A-1 S. 324 IPC

3. A-2 S. 302 IPC

4. A-3 & A-4 S. 323 IPC

5. A-1, A-3 & A-4 S. 302 read with S. 34 IPC

Page 4 of 18 Criminal Appeal No. 1807/2019 & 000677/2020

8. After considering the evidence on record, the Trial

Court, vide judgment and order dated 27.02.2017, acquitted A-

3 and A-4. However, A-1 and A-2 were convicted and sentenced

as follows:

Name of the Provision of Sentence accused law under which convicted

Senthil (A-1) 324 IPC Fine of Rs.5,000. On default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months Sivakumar(A-2) 325 IPC 2 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000. On default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months

9. Aggrieved by acquittal of A-3 and A-4 from all the charges

and acquittal of A-1 and A-2 from some of the charges

including one punishable under Section 302 IPC, Criminal

Appeal (MD) No. 167 of 2017 was preferred by Chandra (i.e.,

widow of the deceased, who was examined as PW1 in the trial).

Whereas A-1 and A-2, aggrieved by their conviction under

Sections 324 and 325 IPC, preferred Criminal Appeal (MD) No.

85 of 2017.

Page 5 of 18 Criminal Appeal No. 1807/2019 & 000677/2020

10. The High Court, vide impugned judgment and order

dated 26.03.2019, upheld the acquittal of A-3 and A-4.

However, the acquittal of A-1 and A-2 for the offence

punishable under Section 294(b) IPC was reversed and they

were convicted for the said offence. Further, the conviction of A-

1 under Section 324 of IPC was affirmed and he was also

convicted under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC.

Whereas conviction of A-2 for the offence under Section 325 IPC

was altered to one under Section 304 Part II IPC. Thereafter,

vide order dated 04.04.2019, the High Court sentenced A-1 and

A-2 as under:

Sl. Provision of law Accused Sentence No. under which convicted 1. Section 294(b) IPC Senthil (A1) One month rigorous imprisonment 2. Section 304 (II) read Senthil (A1) Five years rigorous with 34 IPC imprisonment, with fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), on default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment 3. Section 324 IPC Senthil (A1) Fine of Rs.5,000/-, on default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, as imposed by the trial Court 4. Section 294(b) IPC Sivakumar One month rigorous (A2) imprisonment 5. Section 304 (II) IPC Sivakumar Five years rigorous (A2) imprisonment, with fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), on

Page 6 of 18

Criminal Appeal No. 1807/2019 & 000677/2020 default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment

11. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court

dated 26.03.2019 and 04.04.2019 respectively, these two

appeals have been filed.

12. We have heard Sri S. Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel

for the appellants; and Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, learned

counsel for the Respondent-State.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF SIVAKUMAR (A-2)

13. On behalf of A-2, the submissions are as follows:

(i) There is no evidence on record to justify conviction under Section 294(b) IPC;

(ii) There was no intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and the injury was not inflicted with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, therefore, A-2 cannot be held guilty of committing culpable homicide.

(iii) Admittedly, the accused and the deceased were related to each other and shared a common boundary regarding which there was a dispute.

The incident occurred because the deceased insisted to fence the disputed boundary despite

Page 7 of 18 Criminal Appeal No. 1807/2019 & 000677/2020 objection from the accused side. In such circumstances, passions surged and in that heat of the moment a blow was inflicted without aiming the head. As the blow fell on the head accidentally, the offence of culpable homicide is not made out.

(iv) It is clear from medical report(s) that except a solitary injury on the head, no other injury was found on the body of the deceased. Besides, the prosecution case that the deceased was assaulted after he fell down has been disbelieved. In these circumstances, it is clear that there was no intention whatsoever to cause death or such bodily injury which in ordinary course is likely to cause death. Moreover, the blow which struck the head of the deceased was not aimed at his head though it fell accidentally on his head. Hence, conviction of A-2 for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II is unsustainable. Therefore, the Trial Court was justified in convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 325 IPC and not 304 Part II.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF SENTHIL (A-1)

14. On behalf of A-1, in addition to the submission that no

offence punishable under Section 294 of IPC is made out, it was

argued that A-1 cannot be saddled with the liability of culpable

Page 8 of 18 Criminal Appeal No. 1807/2019 & 000677/2020 homicide with the aid of Section 34 IPC as there was nothing to

establish that A-1 and A-2 shared common intention of causing

either death or such bodily injury as in the ordinary course

would cause death.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF STATE.

15. Per contra, on behalf of the State, it was argued that from

the evidence on record it is established that the deceased was

abused by using the word “bastard”, therefore, the offence

punishable under Section 294(b) IPC is made out. Besides, the

High Court was justified in convicting A-2 for the offence

punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC and since A-1 was

first to attack the deceased, though the blow fell on PW-4, it

could be said that he shared common intention with A-2,

conviction of A-1 under Section 304 Part II IPC with the aid of

Section 34 IPC is justified. It was thus, prayed that the appeals

be dismissed.

DISCUSSION.

16. We have considered the rival submissions and have

perused the materials on record. There is no dispute as regards

the following facts:

Page 9 of 18

Criminal Appeal No. 1807/2019 & 000677/2020

(i) The deceased and the accused were neighbours as well as close relatives who shared a common boundary regarding which they had a dispute.

(ii) The incident occurred because the deceased was fencing the boundary despite objection by the accused.

(iii) Prior to exchange of blows there were hot talks between the deceased and the accused.

(iv) Injuries were caused by use of Aruval and a log. Aruval is an agricultural tool. There is no evidence that the accused had brought them for assaulting the deceased and PW-4 from some other place. Therefore, probability of those articles being lifted from the spot is high, indicating that in the heat of the moment, those articles were picked up from the spot and used.

(v) Injury caused to PW-4 is not proved to be grievous. Admittedly, A-1 caused injury to PW-4 whereas A-2 caused injury to the deceased. The deceased suffered no other injury except a solitary blow on the head.

Page 10 of 18 Criminal Appeal No. 1807/2019 & 000677/2020

17. Having taken note of the aforesaid facts, we would first

consider whether the offence punishable under Section 294(b)

IPC is made out or not. Section 294 IPC reads thus:

“294. Obscene acts and songs.— Whoever, to the annoyance of others -

(a) does any obscene act in any public place, or

(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.”

18. The word “obscene” is not specifically defined in IPC.

However, by referring to Section 292 of IPC, it has been

construed as something which has the potential to appeal to

prurient interest of a person3.

19. In Apoorva Arora & Anr. v. State (Govt. of NCT of

Delhi) & Anr.4, this Court, by referring to Section 292 of IPC

and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000, observed:

“17. It is evident that “obscenity” has been similarly defined in Section 292 and Section 67 as material which is:

(i) lascivious; or

(ii) appeals to the prurient interest; or

(iii) its effect tends to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.” 3 See: Director General, Directorate General of Doordarshan & Others v. Anand Patwardhan & Another, (2006) 8 SCC 433 4 (2024) 6 SCC 181

Page 11 of 18 Criminal Appeal No. 1807/2019 & 000677/2020 Besides, it was observed, obscenity must be judged having

regard to contemporary mores and national standards.

Additionally, it was observed:

“41. … It is well established (as per para 41, SCC) from the precedents cited that vulgarity and profanities do not per se amount to obscenity. While a person may find vulgar and expletive-filled language to be distasteful, unpalatable, uncivil, and improper, that by itself is not sufficient to be “obscene”. Obscenity relates to material that arouses sexual and lustful thoughts, which is not at all the effect of the abusive language or profanities that have been employed in the episode. Rather, such language may evoke disgust, revulsion, or shock. …”

20. Seen in the light of the aforesaid decision, in our view,

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.

We are, therefore, of the view that conviction of the appellants

for offence punishable under Section 294(b) IPC is not

sustainable and is hereby set aside.

21. Now, we shall examine whether A-1 could be said to have

shared common intention to cause such bodily injury to the

deceased which resulted in his death. The facts of the case

reflect that A-1 charged on the deceased by taking an Aruval in

his hand but, when PW-4 intervened, gave two blows to PW-4,

Page 12 of 18 Criminal Appeal No. 1807/2019 & 000677/2020 which did not result in any grievous injury. No doubt, it has

come in the testimony of PW-4 that A-2 took a log and gave a

hard blow on the head of the deceased while uttering that all

problems are because of the deceased and it is better that he

dies, but this statement is not attributed to A-1. Besides, there

is no evidence that A-1 exhorted A-2 to strike the deceased.

Thus, upon consideration of the circumstances in which the

incident unfolded and the manner in which the deceased was

assaulted by A-2, besides there being no reliable evidence to

show that A-1 had beaten the deceased after he fell to the

ground, in our view, it would not be safe to hold that A-1

shared common intention with A-2 to cause such bodily harm

to the deceased as is likely to cause his death. In this view of

the matter, the conviction of A-1 under Section 304 Part II read

with Section 34 IPC is set aside. However, conviction of A-1 for

causing injury to PW-4 and thereby committing offence

punishable under Section 324 IPC is confirmed.

22. Now we shall consider whether the conviction of A-2 for

the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC is

justified. Notably, the Trial Court had convicted A-2 for the

Page 13 of 18 Criminal Appeal No. 1807/2019 & 000677/2020 offence punishable under Section 325 IPC whereas the High

Court found him guilty of the offence punishable under Section

304 Part II IPC.

23. To convict an accused for commission of an offence

punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC, it must be proved

that the accused has committed culpable homicide as defined

in Section 299 IPC5. The High Court came to the conclusion

that A-2 committed culpable homicide because he had

knowledge that by his act he is likely to cause death. While

holding so, the High Court took notice of the fact that the injury

sustained by the deceased discloses fracture of the skull and

5 299. Culpable homicide. - Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of

causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.

Illustrations

(a) A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing death, or with the knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused. Z, believing the ground to be firm, treads on it, falls in and is killed. A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.

(b) A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it. A, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely to cause Z's death, induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z. Here B may be guilty of no offence; but A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.

(c) A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and steal it, kills B, who is behind a bush; A not knowing that he was there. Here, although A was doing an unlawful act, he was not guilty of culpable homicide, as he did not intend to kill B, or to cause death by doing an act that he knew was likely to cause death.

Explanation 1.—A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death.

Explanation 2.—Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented.

Page 14 of 18 Criminal Appeal No. 1807/2019 & 000677/2020 there were blood clots in the brain. Further, there was no

evidence that the death had occurred on account of improper

treatment. The High Court had also noticed the evidence on

record which indicated that when A-2 had lifted the log he

uttered such words which indicated that A-2 had targeted the

deceased, to finish him off.

24. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, we do

not find any error in the conclusion of the High Court that A-2

is guilty of an offence of culpable homicide. However, whether

A-2 was liable to be convicted for culpable homicide not

amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part I of

IPC, is a question which we refrain to address in absence of an

appeal by the State, or the victim of the crime, for altering the

conviction to a graver offence. In the circumstances, we confirm

the conviction of A-2 under Section 304 Part II IPC.

25. Now, we shall consider whether the sentence awarded by

the High Court is appropriate, or too harsh. High Court

convicted A-1 for offence punishable under Section 324, Section

Explanation 3.—The causing of the death of a child in the mother's womb is not homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part of that child has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been completely born.

Page 15 of 18 Criminal Appeal No. 1807/2019 & 000677/2020 294(b) and Section 304 Part II read with 34 IPC. In so far as the

conviction of A-1 under Section 294(b) and Section 304 Part II

read with 34 IPC is concerned, we have already held above that

the same is unsustainable. However, we have affirmed his

conviction under Section 324 IPC. Under Section 324 IPC, A1

has been awarded fine of Rs. 5,000 and a default sentence of 3

months. As per the custody certificate dated 21.02.2020

annexed along with the memo of appeal, A-1 (Senthil) has

served 01 month 25 days of sentence as on 21.02.2020. The

record reveals that he was released on bail by order of this

Court dated 13.10.2020. In this view of the matter, it appears

that the appellant has partially undergone the default sentence

awarded to him for the offence punishable under Section 324

IPC. Consequently, we reduce and alter the sentence awarded

to A-1 (Senthil) to the period of sentence already undergone.

26. In so far as A-2 (Sivakumar) is concerned, since we have

affirmed his conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC, it would

have to be considered whether the sentence awarded to him

needs to be altered or not. The High Court has awarded him

five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000. The

Page 16 of 18 Criminal Appeal No. 1807/2019 & 000677/2020 custody certificate dated 30.04.2019 issued by Central Prison,

Madurai indicates that by the date of the certificate, the

appellant had served 02 months and 10 days of sentence. The

record reveals that by order of this Court dated 29.11.2019,

appellant Sivakumar (A-2) was granted bail subject to the

satisfaction of the Trial Court. In the circumstances, it appears,

the appellant Sivakumar (A2) has, by now, served less than 01

year of sentence.

27. Having regard to the fact that the incident is of the year

2014 and was preceded by an altercation between neighbours,

who are close relatives, arising from a boundary dispute, and

injury was not caused by using a dangerous weapon, but by a

log lying on the spot, and only a solitary blow was inflicted in

the heat of the moment, we are of the view that ends of justice

would be subserved if the sentence awarded to A-2

(Sivakumar), under Section 304 Part II IPC, is reduced to 03

years from 05 years R.I.

28. Consequently, both the appeals are partly allowed to the

extent mentioned above. Appellant Senthil (A-1) is on bail, he

need not surrender. Insofar as appellant Sivakumar (A2) is

Page 17 of 18 Criminal Appeal No. 1807/2019 & 000677/2020 concerned, he shall surrender before the Court concerned and

serve out the remaining reduced sentence as ordered above.

….………….......................................J. (PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA)

……………......................................J. (MANOJ MISRA)

New Delhi;

April 06, 2026

Page 18 of 18 Criminal Appeal No. 1807/2019 & 000677/2020