Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

to be held that no offence under Section 294(b) of the IPC has been made out in the instant case.

6. Further, it has been held by the Apex Court and various High Courts that the abusive words or humiliating words or defamatory words will not as such amount to "obscenity" as defined under the law and even if the words used by the accused are, in fact, abusive or humiliating, it will not necessarily make obscene as punishable under Section 294(b) of the IPC. In order to attract the offence under Section 294(b) of the IPC, the definition of "obscenity" should be satisfied. Section 294 of the IPC does not define "obscenity" but, being a continuation of the subject dealt with under Section 292 of the IPC, the definition of "obscenity" under Section 292(1) of the IPC can be applied in a prosecution under Section 294(b) of the IPC also and therefore, 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. The definition of "obscenity" as referred to in Section 292 of the IPC reads as follows:

4. Sub Section (1) of Section 292 IPC provides that for the purposes of sub Section (2), dealing with punishment and sentence for obscenity, "a book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation, figure or any other object, shall be deemed to be obscene if it is lascivious, or appeals to the prurient interest, or if its effect, or (where it comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items, is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons, who ..9..
are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it." Thus sub Section 1 to Section 292 IPC gives a clear idea as to what is meant by obscenity under the law, punishable under Sections 294(2), 293 and 294 IPC.
5. Abusive words or humiliating words or defamatory words will not as such amount to obscenity as defined under the law. Of course there is 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 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 Indian Penal Code. 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."