The Supreme Court has ruled that abusive or vulgar language, by itself, does not amount to “obscenity” under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code unless it is shown to be lascivious, appeals to prurient interests, and has the tendency to deprave or corrupt those exposed to it.
In a judgment delivered on July 17, 2026, the Court partly allowed the appeal filed by Mani @ Subramaniyam, setting aside his convictions under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC while affirming his conviction under Section 326 IPC for voluntarily causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon.
However, considering the appellant’s age of about 70 years, health condition, and the nature of the dispute, the Court reduced the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the Court along with a fine of ₹50,000.
Case Details
- Case Title: Mani @ Subramaniyam v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
- Judgment Date: 17 July 2026
- Citation: 2026 INSC 719
- Appeal: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4516 of 2025
The prosecution alleged that a dispute over land between the appellant and the complainant’s family culminated in a violent incident on August 24, 2017. According to the prosecution, after an earlier altercation regarding the land, the appellant quarrelled with the complainant’s nephew.
When the complainant intervened, the appellant allegedly abused him, used caste-based remarks, fetched a billhook from his residence, and assaulted him on the forehead, nose and thumb, causing multiple injuries. An FIR was registered under various provisions of the IPC and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Following investigation, the charge under Section 324 IPC was altered to Section 326 IPC after medical examination revealed grievous injuries. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 294(b), 326 and 506(ii) IPC as well as provisions of the SC/ST Act.
On appeal, the Madras High Court acquitted him of the offences under the SC/ST Act but maintained the IPC convictions while reducing the sentence. The appellant thereafter approached the Supreme Court.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
The principal question before the Court was
whether the appellant’s conviction under Sections 294(b), 326 and 506(ii) IPC could legally be sustained after the High Court had already acquitted him of the offences under the SC/ST Act.
Supreme Court on the Meaning of “Obscene” Under Section 294 IPC
Justice Sanjay Karol, writing for the Bench, undertook an extensive survey of the Court’s earlier precedents interpreting obscenity. The judgment explained that Section 294 IPC criminalises obscene acts or words only when they are uttered in or near a public place and cause annoyance to others.
The Court observed that the expression “obscene” is not defined in the IPC. Referring to landmark decisions including Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, Samaresh Bose v. Amal Mitra, Madhanagopal v. Lalitha, and Apoorva Arora v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Bench reiterated that obscenity is distinct from vulgarity. Material or words become obscene only if they are lascivious, appeal to prurient interests, and possess the tendency to deprave and corrupt those likely to encounter them.
The Court made one of the most significant observations of the judgment:
“Legally, obscenity is not synonymous with ‘vulgarity’, ‘abuse’ or ‘profanity’. Use of mere swear words, profanities and vulgar expletives, however distasteful or uncivil they may be, cannot be equated with obscenity.”
Abuse Does Not Automatically Constitute Obscenity
Applying these principles, the Supreme Court examined the abusive words allegedly spoken by the appellant during the altercation.
The Court held that although the language attributed to the appellant was offensive and insulting, it did not satisfy the legal requirements of obscenity. It is observed that abusive or vulgar expressions may evoke disgust, shock or revulsion but do not become obscene merely because they contain offensive language.
The judgment further noted that the prosecution had also failed to establish another mandatory ingredient of Section 294(b), that the alleged utterances annoyed others in a public place.
The Court therefore concluded:
“Such words, howsoever abusive, unpalatable or uncivil, do not satisfy the requirement of Section 294(b) IPC… In absence thereof, we find that the offence under Section 294(b) IPC is not made out.”
Accordingly, the conviction under Section 294(b) IPC was set aside.
Conviction Under Section 506(ii) IPC Also Set Aside
The Supreme Court next examined the conviction for criminal intimidation.
The prosecution relied upon the allegation that after the assault, the appellant threatened the complainant by stating that he would not rest until he hacked him.
The Court held that mere threatening words spoken during an altercation do not automatically constitute criminal intimidation. To attract Section 506 IPC, the prosecution must establish that the accused intended to cause alarm or intended to compel the victim to do or refrain from doing some act.
The Bench found no material demonstrating that the appellant intended to create such alarm.
The Court observed:
“Mere use of threatening words during the course of an altercation, without the proof that it was intended to cause alarm… would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this provision.”
Consequently, the conviction under Section 506(ii) IPC was also quashed.
Conviction for Grievous Hurt Upheld
While granting relief on the other offences, the Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the conviction under Section 326 IPC.
The medical evidence established that the complainant had sustained:
- A laceration on the forehead.
- A laceration on the nose.
- Multiple lacerations on the fingers and palm.
- A fracture of the nasal bone revealed through CT scan.
The Court observed that a fracture squarely falls within the definition of “grievous hurt” under Section 320 IPC. The injuries were fully corroborated by the medical evidence of the Senior Civil Surgeon as well as the eyewitness testimony.
Rejecting the appellant’s argument that the injuries were not incised wounds, the Bench held that the fracture caused by the billhook clearly attracted Section 326 IPC. The conviction under that provision was therefore affirmed.
Sentence Reduced in View of Age and Circumstances
Although maintaining the conviction under Section 326 IPC, the Supreme Court substantially modified the sentence.
The Court noted that:
- the incident arose out of a land dispute;
- there was longstanding animosity between the parties;
- the appellant was around 70 years old; and
- his health condition warranted a compassionate approach.
Taking these factors into consideration, the Court directed that the appellant would undergo imprisonment only till the rising of the Court on a date fixed by the concerned court. It also enhanced the fine to ₹50,000, directing that it be paid within two months.
Final Directions
Allowing the appeal in part, the Supreme Court:
- Set aside the conviction under Section 294(b) IPC.
- Set aside the conviction under Section 506(ii) IPC.
- Affirmed the conviction under Section 326 IPC.
- Reduced the substantive sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the Court.
- Directed payment of a fine of ₹50,000 within two months.
- Disposed of all pending applications.
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
