MANI @ SUBRAMANIYAM
Vs.
STATE REP BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
( Before : Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ. )
Criminal Appeal No. ….of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.4516 of 2025)
Decided on : 17-07-2026
Mere utterance of threatening or abuse/vulgarity words during altercation, without intent to Cause Alarm, insufficient for Criminal Intimidation Under S.506 IPC
A. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 294(b) — Obscenity — Distinction between "obscene" and "abusive"/"vulgar" language — Test of — Held, to attract S. 294(b) IPC, prosecution must prove: (i) an obscene act done, or obscene word/song/ballad uttered, in or near a public place; and (ii) such act/utterance caused annoyance to others — Word "obscene" undefined under IPC but judicially construed, in the context of S. 292 IPC, to mean material which, taken as a whole, is lascivious, appeals to prurient interest, and tends to deprave and corrupt persons likely to be exposed to it — "Community standard test" (Aveek Sarkar) applicable, not the Hicklin test — Mere vulgarity, abuse or profanity, however distasteful, uncivil or shocking, does not ipso facto constitute obscenity — Vulgarity may evoke disgust or revulsion but lacks the depraving/corrupting tendency essential to obscenity — Appellant's utterance of abusive and expletive-laden words against complainant during a quarrel, though coarse and offensive, held neither lascivious nor appealing to prurient interest nor shown to have caused annoyance to others in the public place — Conviction under S. 294(b) IPC set aside. (Paras 11-17)
Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 52; Chandrakant Kalyandas Kakodkar v. State of Maharashtra, (1969) 2 SCC 687; Aveek Sarkar v. State of W.B., (2014) 4 SCC 257; Samaresh Bose v. Amal Mitra, (1985) 4 SCC 289; S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600; Madhanagopal v. Lalitha, (2022) 17 SCC 818; Apoorva Arora v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 6 SCC 181 — relied on.
B. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 506(ii) — Criminal intimidation — Ingredients of — Held, offence requires: (1) threat of injury to person, reputation or property of the complainant or of someone in whom he is interested; and (2) such threat made with intent to cause alarm, or to compel the person to do/omit an act which he is not legally bound/entitled to do — Bare utterance of threatening words during an altercation, unaccompanied by proof of intent to cause alarm or to coerce a particular act or omission, insufficient to sustain conviction — Allegation that appellant waved a billhook and uttered threatening words, even if accepted in entirety, held not to disclose the requisite intent — Conviction under S. 506(ii) IPC set aside. (Paras 18-19)
Naresh Aneja v. State of U.P., (2025) 2 SCC 604 — relied on.
C. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 326 r/w Section 320 — Grievous hurt by dangerous weapon — Fracture of nasal bone — Whether attracted — Held, essential ingredients: (i) voluntary causing of hurt; (ii) hurt being grievous within S. 320 IPC; and (iii) such hurt caused by dangerous weapon or means — Fracture of a bone, including nasal bone, squarely falls within cl. "Seventhly" of S. 320 IPC — Medical evidence (CT scan confirming nasal fracture) corroborated ocular testimony that injuries were inflicted with a billhook — Contention that S. 326 IPC inapplicable in absence of incised wounds, rejected — Nature of weapon, not form of wound, determinative — Conviction under S. 326 IPC affirmed. (Paras 20-21)
Mathai v. State of Kerala, (2005) 3 SCC 260 — relied on.
D. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) — Acquittal by High Court — Not appealed by State/complainant — High Court's acquittal of appellant under the SC/ST Act, on finding absence of caste-based motive and no reference to complainant's community in the altercation, attained finality, having gone unchallenged. (Paras 8-9)
E. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 401/S. 482 read with Penal Code, 1860, S. 326 — Sentencing — Modification — Advanced age and health of convict — Appellant, about 70 years of age, convicted under S. 326 IPC — Considering the origin of the incident in a land dispute and consequent animosity between families, and appellant's advanced age and health condition, sentence modified to imprisonment till the rising of the Court, with fine of Rs 50,000 payable within two months. (Para 22)
Held, appeal partly allowed — Conviction under Ss. 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC set aside; conviction under S. 326 IPC affirmed with modified sentence as above. (Para 23)
