Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

“294. Obscene acts and songs - Whoever, to the annoyance of others,
(a) ....
(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene songs, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.” The word “obscene” is not defined in Indian Penal Code. But there is reference to the word “obscene” in Section 292 I.P.C Section 292 (1) reads as follows :
“...the test of obscenity is this whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences.” This test has been uniformly followed in India. The Supreme Court has http://www.judis.nic.in accepted the correctness of the test in Ranjit D Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra. In Samuel Roth v. U.S.A. Chief Justice Warren said that the test of 'obscenity' is the “substantial tendency to corrupt by arousing lustful desires.” Mr.Justice Harlan observed that in order to be 'obscene' the matter must “tend to sexually impure thoughts”. I do not think that the words uttered in this case have such a tendency. “With respect, I agree with the view expressed by the Kerala High Court. I am fortified in expressing such a view by the indication given in Section 292 I.P.C., with regard to the obscene books.

(vi) Manoj v. State of Kerala, 2015 SCC Online Ker 22214 “4. The main allegation raised against the petitioners accused in the impugned Anx.3 final report/charge sheet is that the petitioners had used vulgar and abusive language against the defecto complainant, etc. It has been held by this Court in the case Latheef v. State of Kerala reported 2014 (2) KLT 987, based on the earlier rulings of this Court as in P.T Chacko v. Nainan Chacko reported in 1967 KLT 799 and Sangeetha Lakshmana v. State of Kerala reported in 2008 (2) KLT 745 that abusive words or humiliating words or defamatory words will not as such amount to obscenity as envisaged in Secs.292 and 294(b) of the I.P.C. To make the words obscene, as punishable under Section 294(b) IPC, it must satisfy the definition of obscenity and that being a continuation of the subject dealt with under Sec.292 I.P.C., http://www.judis.nic.in the definition of obscenity under Sec.292(1) IPC can be applied in a prosecution under Sec.294(b) of the I.P.C., as there is no separate definition for obscenity in Sec.294. That to make it punishable the alleged words must be in a sense lascivious, or it must appeal to the prurient interest, or will deprave and corrupt persons. That the alleged words uttered must be capable of arousing sexually impure thoughts in the minds of its hearers and thus to make the alleged words of obscene it must involve some lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or feelings or the words must have the effect of depraving persons and defiling morals by sex appeal or lustful desires. That merely because the words are abusive, defamatory or humiliating will not make by obscene so as to attract offence under Sec.294(b) of the I.P.C. The legal position in this regard was laid down by this Court in paragraph 5 of Latheef's cases supra, which reads as follows :

'5. Abusive words or humiliating words or defamatory words will not as such amount to obscenity as defined under the law. Of course there in no doubt that the words alleged to have been used by the revision petitioner are in fact abusive and humiliating. But to make it obscene, punishable under Section 294(b) IPC, it must satisfy the definition of obscenity. Section 294 IPC does not define obscenity. Being a continuation of the subject dealt with under Section 292 IPC the definition of obscenity under 292(1) IPC can be applied in a prosecution under Section 294 IPC also. To make punishable, the alleged words must be in a sense lascivious, or it must appeal to the prurient interest, or will deprave and corrupt persons. In P.T Chacko v. Nainan Chacko reported in (1967 KLT 799) this Court held that, “the test of obscenity is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences. “In Sangeetha Lakshmana v. State of Kerala reported in (2008 (2) KLT 745) this Court held thus, “in http://www.judis.nic.in order to satisfy the test of obscenity, the words alleged to have been uttered must be capable of arousing sexually impure thoughts in the minds of its hearers. “Thus it is quite clear that, to make obscene the alleged words must involve some lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or feelings or the words must have the effect of depraving persons, and defiling morals by sex appeal or lustful desires. I find that the words alleged to have been used by the revision petitioner in this case are really abusive and humiliating, but those words cannot be said to be obscene. As already stated, every abusive word or every humiliating word cannot, by itself, be said to be obscene as defined under the Penal Code, 1860. I find that the conviction against the revision petitioner under Section 294(b) IPC in this case, on the basis of the above words alleged to have been used by him, is liable to be set aside, and the revision petitioner is entitled to be acquitted.'