LexSIVAKUMAR versus STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 368 : 2026 INSC 318 Sivakumar v. State Rep. By The Inspector of Police (Criminal Appeal No. 1807 of 2019) 06 April 2026 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court whereby it reversed the acquittal of A-1 and A-2 for the offence punishable u/s.294(b) IPC and convicted them for the said offence; conviction of A1 u/s. 324 IPC affirmed and also convicted u/s.304 Part II rw s.34, whereas conviction of A-2 for the offence u/s.325 altered to one u/s. 304 Part II, and both were sentenced accordingly. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.294(b), 323, 324 and 302 rw s.34 – Culpable homicide – Use of the word ‘bastard’, if obscene – Boundary dispute between close relatives-victim and his nieces and nephew, leading to hot talks between the parties – A-1 caused injuries to the witness who intervened, and A-2 caused fatal injury to the victim – Trial court acquitted the nieces and convicted A-1 and A-2 u/ss.324 and 325, respectively, acquitting them of charges u/s.302 – High Court reversed the acquittal of A-1 and A-2 for the offence punishable u/s.294(b) and convicted them for the said offence; conviction of A1 u/s.324 affirmed and also convicted u/s.304 Part II rw s.34, whereas conviction of A-2 for the offence u/s. 325 altered to one u/s.304 Part II, and both were sentenced accordingly – Correctness: Held: Mere use of the word ‘bastard’, by itself, not sufficient to arouse prurient interest of a person, more so, when such words are commonly used in modern era during heated conversations – Thus, conviction of the appellants for offence punishable u/s. 294(b) not sustainable and set aside – Upon consideration of the circumstances in which the incident unfolded and the manner in * Author [2026] 4 S.C.R. 369 Sivakumar v. State Rep. By The Inspector of Police 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, not 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 – Thus, conviction of A-1 u/s.304 Part II rw s.34 set aside – However, conviction of A-1 for causing injury to the witness and thereby committing offence punishable u/s. 324 confirmed – Further, no error in the conclusion of the High Court that A-2 guilty of an offence of culpable homicide, thus, his conviction u/s.304 Part II confirmed – As regards the award of sentence, it appears that A-1 has partially undergone the default sentence awarded to him for the offence punishable u/s.324, thus, the sentence awarded to A-1 reduced and altered to the period of sentence already undergone – It appears that A2 has, by now, served less than 01 year of sentence – 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, ends of justice would be subserved if the sentence awarded to A-2 u/s.304 Part II, is reduced to 03 years from 05 years R.I. [Paras 20, 21, 24-27] Case Law Cited Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab [2005] Supp. 2 SCR 307 : (2005) 6 SCC 1; Director General, Directorate General of Doordarshan & Others v. Anand Patwardhan & Another [2006] Supp. 5 SCR 403 : (2006) 8 SCC 433; Apoorva Arora & Anr. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. [2024] 3 SCR 1147 : (2024) 6 SCC 181 – referred to. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. List of Keywords Culpable homicide; Use of the word ‘bastard’, if obscene; Boundary dispute between close relatives; Common intention; Bodily harm likely to cause death. 370 [2026] 4 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1807 of 2019 From the Judgment and Order dated 26.03.2019 and 04.04.2019 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras at Madurai in CRLAMD Nos. 85 and 167 of 2017, respectively With Criminal Appeal No. 677 of 2020 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant(s): S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., M.P. Parthiban, Ankur Prakash, Mrs. Priyanka Singh, Bilal Mansoor, Shreyas Kaushal, S. Geyolin Selvam, Alagiri K. Advs. for the Respondent(s): Sabar
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.