Sivakumar Vs. State Represented by the Inspector of Police [Criminal Appeal No. 1807 of 2019 (2026 INSC 318)] – 06.04.2026
The concise facts of the case is that, A1, Senthil and A2, Sivakumar were tried together along with two other persons, namely, Punitha (A3) and Jayanthi (A-4) for offences Punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code arising from Crime No. 189 of 2014 registered at Police Station Thiruvidaimaruthur. The Trial Court, vide judgment and order dated 27.02.2017, acquitted A3 and A-4 and convicted A-1 and A-2 under Section 324 and 325 IPC respectively. Further, aggrieved by the 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 the wife of the deceased). Whereas A-1 and A-2, aggrieved by their conviction under Sections 324 and 325 IPC respectively, preferred Criminal Appeal before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The High Court, by 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 A1 under Section 324 of IPC was affirmed and he was also convicted under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC. Whereas the conviction of A-2 for the offence under Section 325 IPC was altered to one under Section 304 Part II IPC. Hence, the Appeal.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court on scrutiny of the Appeal had held that 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. The Hon’ble Supreme Court took the view that conviction of the appellants for offence punishable under Section 294(b) IPC is not sustainable and thereby was set aside. On 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, the charge under Section 34 IPC against A1 and A2 was set aside. However, conviction of A-1 for causing injury to PW-4 and thereby committing offence punishable under Section 324 IPC was confirmed. 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 IPC. In the case on hand, as the offence of culpable homicide has been made out the conviction of A2 under Section 304 Part II was upheld. However, the question as to 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 cannot be addressed in the absence of an appeal by the State, or the victim of the crime, for altering the conviction to a graver offence and so the conviction under section 304 Part II IPC was affirmed.
