The Supreme Court on Friday answered whether abusive language would amount to the offence of obscenity under criminal law, saying that it could, but only under very specific circumstances.
<figure class="art
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M Pancholi held that abusive language and vulgar expletives, however offensive or uncivil, will not amount to obscenity unless they are lascivious, appeal to prurient interests, and have the tendency to deprave or corrupt those exposed to them.
The court made the observation while partly allowing the appeal of a man who was convicted for obscenity for using the words “motherf***ker”, “son of a wh*re” and other vulgar expletives during an altercation over a land dispute.
“Let’s be clear, 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…Words which are merely vulgar or abusive may evoke a feeling of disgust, revulsion or shock, but that by itself does not make them obscene in law,” the Court noted, reported Bar and Bench.
However, the Court upheld his conviction for causing grievous hurt with a billhook after finding that he had fractured the complainant’s nasal bone. It reduced his sentence to imprisonment until the court rose and directed him to pay a fine of ₹50,000.
About the case
The case arose out of a dispute over agricultural land inTamil Nadu in August 2017. According to the prosecution, an altercation first broke out between the accused, identified as Mani, and the complainant’s brother-in-law over the land.
The complainant’s nephew also allegedly got involved.
The prosecution alleged that the accused abused the complainant using vulgar expletives and caste-based slurs when he intervened in the dispute. The accused then allegedly fetched a billhook from his house and attacked him.
The complainant sustained injuries to his forehead, nose and thumb. A CT scan later revealed that his nasal bone had been fractured.
The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 294(b) (obscenity), 326 (grievous hurt) and 506(ii) (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, besides provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
TheMadras high court later acquitted the accused of the offences under the SC/ST Act but upheld his convictions under the IPC. That is how the case landed in the Supreme Court.
What the Supreme Court said
TheSupreme Court said on the obscenity conviction that the law does not treat every abusive or vulgar expression as obscene.
The Bench explained that for words to amount to obscenity under Section 294(b) IPC, they must be lascivious, appeal to prurient interests and have the tendency to deprave and corrupt those exposed to them. It must also be shown that the utterance caused annoyance to others.
Based on that, the bench held that even if the prosecution’s allegations were accepted in full, the words attributed to Mani were merely abusive or vulgar and did not satisfy the ingredients of the offence of obscenity.
“In the present case, during the altercation, the appellant allegedly uttered that “Hey Motherfucker! You son of a whore! Are you coming in support of your elder sister’s son? Just fuck off, you ‘Kurutha’ Fucker..” Such words, howsoever abusive, unpalatable or uncivil, do not satisfy the requirement of Section 294(b) IPC… Further, it is nobody’s case that use of such words caused annoyance to others in a public place, which is a mandatory ingredient of the Section,” the apex court noted, according to the report.
The Court also set aside the accused’s conviction for criminal intimidation under Section 506(ii) IPC.
It held that merely using threatening words during an altercation is not enough to constitute the offence unless the prosecution proves that the accused intended to cause alarm or compel the victim to do or refrain from doing a particular act.
However, the Bench found no reason to interfere with the conviction under Section 326 IPC. It noted that the medical evidence corroborated the complainant’s testimony that he had been assaulted with a billhook and had suffered a fractured nasal bone, which squarely fell within the definition of grievous hurt.
Taking into account that the incident arose out of a land dispute, as well as the appellant’s age of around 70 years and his health condition, the court modified his sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court. It also directed him to pay a fine of ₹50,000 within two months.
