Holding

The Supreme Court held that the utterance of the word ‘bastard’ does not constitute obscenity under Section 294(b) IPC and that there was no common intention by A‑1 to cause the death, thereby setting aside those convictions while upholding A‑1’s conviction under Section 324 IPC and A‑2’s conviction under Section 304 II IPC.

Summary

The case arose from a boundary dispute between close relatives in which the deceased Ganesan’s brother was killed after a heated altercation. The accused Senthil (A‑1) and Sivakumar (A‑2) were originally convicted of offences under Sections 324 and 325 IPC respectively, while the trial court acquitted them of the more serious charges including Section 302 and Section 294(b). The High Court reversed the acquittals, convicting both of the obscene‑words offence under Section 294(b) and elevating A‑2’s conviction to culpable homicide under Section 304 II, also finding a common intention under Section 34 for A‑1. The Supreme Court held that the mere use of the word “bastard” does not constitute obscenity under Section 294(b) and that there was no evidence of a common intention by A‑1 to cause the death, setting aside those convictions, while confirming A‑1’s conviction under Section 324 and A‑2’s conviction under Section 304 II. The Court reduced A‑1’s sentence to the period already served and reduced A‑2’s sentence from five years to three years of rigorous imprisonment. Accordingly, the appeals were partly allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the utterance of the word “bastard” amounts to an obscene act punishable under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code.
Whether Accused A‑1 shared a common intention with Accused A‑2 to cause bodily injury likely to cause death, invoking Section 34 of the IPC.
Whether Accused A‑2’s act constitutes culpable homicide under Section 304 II of the IPC.
Whether the sentences imposed by the High Court are appropriate in view of the facts.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 294(b), s. 302, s. 304 Part II, s. 323, s. 324, s. 325, s. 34

Headnote

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 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 –

Subjects

Culpable homicideObscenityUse of the word ‘bastard’Boundary dispute between close relativesCommon intentionBodily harm likely to cause death

Judgment

[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):
Sabarish Subramanian, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Siddhant Singh,
Danish Saifi.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment
Manoj Misra, J.

1. These two appeals impugn common judgment and order of the
High Court of Judicature at Madras at Madurai1 dated 26.03.2019
and 04.04.2019 respectively passed in connected Criminal Appeal
(MD) Nos. 85 and 167 of 2017. As these appeals impugn common
judgment and order, they have been heard together and are being
decided by a common judgment.

FACTS
2. Appellant Senthil (hereinafter referred to as A-1) and appellant
Sivakumar (hereinafter referred to as A-2) were tried together along
with two other persons, namely, Punitha (hereinafter referred to as A-3)
and Jayanthi (hereinafter referred to as A-4) for offences punishable

1 High Court
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 371

Sivakumar v. State Rep. By The Inspector of Police

under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 302 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 18602 arising from Crime No. 189 of 2014
registered at Police Station Thiruvidaimaruthur.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows: Ganesan and
Kaliyamurthy (the deceased) were real brothers. Ganesan died a
decade earlier. A-1 is son of Ganesan whereas A-3 and A-4 are
daughters of Ganesan. A-2 is husband of A-3. Ganesan and the
deceased shared a common boundary regarding which there was a
dispute. On 20.09.2014, at around 11:30 a.m., when the deceased
was fencing his property, A-1 to A-4 objected to it. However, the
deceased insisted on his right to fence the property which infuriated
A-1. As a result, A-1 took an Aruval (a sickle like tool used for
harvesting crops) and aimed a blow on the deceased. Seeing this,
the deceased’s brother Kalaivanan (PW-4) intervened to protect the
deceased. As a result, the blow fell on PW-4’s shoulder. Thereafter,
A-1 struck another blow on PW-4’s leg and injured his toe. In this
melee, when the deceased went to rescue PW-4, A-2 lifted a log and
gave a hard blow on the deceased’s head. As a result, the deceased
fell unconscious. When the deceased was lying unconscious on the
ground, A-3 and A-4 attacked the deceased and PW4 with sticks
and thereafter, the accused ran away.
4. The deceased and PW-4 were rushed to the hospital, where
Dr. Kamarul Jamal (PW15) examined the deceased for his injuries
and found:
“A lacerated wound of about 10 x 2 x 1 cm. on the scalp
over the left parietal region of the skull.”
PW-15 referred the deceased for further treatment to another hospital.
As a result, the deceased was taken to another hospital and later
shifted to yet another hospital, where he died.
5. Autopsy report of the deceased notices:
“One sutured wound measuring 8 x 8 x 1 cm on the left
portion of the head”.
A close examination of the skull revealed a depressed fracture of
the skull bone, elliptical in shape, with fracture of parietal left region.

2 IPC
372 [2026] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Internal examination revealed:
“Lacerated injury over left parietal lobe over skull, fracture
side, cavity of the brain filled up with blood clots.”
Cause of death, as per opinion of the doctor, was grievous injury
on head and brain.
6. PW-4 was also examined for his injuries. As per the injury report,
a cut injury was noticed on his right shoulder with contusion, and a
cut injury was found on his toe.
7. Trial Court charged the four accused (i.e., A-1 to A-4) as under:

Number of Description of Provisions under which charged
Charges accused
1. A-1 & A-2 S. 294(b) IPC
2. A-1 S. 324 IPC
3. A-2 S. 302 IPC
4. A-3 & A-4 S. 323 IPC
5. A-1, A-3 & A-4 S. 302 read with S. 34 IPC

8. After considering the evidence on record, the Trial Court, vide
judgment and order dated 27.02.2017, acquitted A-3 and A-4.
However, A-1 and A-2 were convicted and sentenced as follows:

Name of the Provision of law Sentence
accused under which
convicted
Senthil (A-1) 324 IPC Fine of Rs.5,000. On default, to
undergo simple imprisonment
for three months
Sivakumar(A-2) 325 IPC 2 years rigorous imprisonment
with fine of Rs.10,000. On
default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months

9. Aggrieved by 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 Chandra (i.e., widow of the deceased, who was
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 373

Sivakumar v. State Rep. By The Inspector of Police

examined as PW1 in the trial). Whereas A-1 and A-2, aggrieved by
their conviction under Sections 324 and 325 IPC, preferred Criminal
Appeal (MD) No. 85 of 2017.
10. The High Court, vide impugned 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 A-1 under Section 324 of IPC was affirmed and he was
also convicted under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC.
Whereas conviction of A-2 for the offence under Section 325 IPC was
altered to one under Section 304 Part II IPC. Thereafter, vide order
dated 04.04.2019, the High Court sentenced A-1 and A-2 as under:

Sl. Provision of law Accused Sentence
No. under which
convicted
1. Section 294(b) Senthil (A1) One month rigorous
IPC imprisonment
2. Section 304 (II) Senthil (A1) Five years rigorous
read with 34 IPC imprisonment, with fine
of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one
thousand only), on default,
to undergo three months
simple imprisonment
3. Section 324 IPC Senthil (A1) Fine of Rs.5,000/-, on
default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for three
months, as imposed by
the trial Court
4. Section 294(b) Sivakumar One month rigorous
IPC (A2) imprisonment
5. Section 304 (II) Sivakumar Five years rigorous
IPC (A2) imprisonment, with fine
of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one
thousand only), on default,
to undergo three months
simple imprisonment
374 [2026] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

11. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court dated
26.03.2019 and 04.04.2019 respectively, these two appeals have
been filed.
12. We have heard Sri S. Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel for the
appellants; and Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, learned counsel for the
Respondent-State.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF SIVAKUMAR (A-2)
13. On behalf of A-2, the submissions are as follows:
(i) There is no evidence on record to justify conviction under
Section 294(b) IPC;
(ii) There was no intention of causing such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death, and the injury was not inflicted with the
knowledge that it is likely to cause death, therefore, A-2 cannot
be held guilty of committing culpable homicide.
(iii) Admittedly, the accused and the deceased were related to each
other and shared a common boundary regarding which there
was a dispute. The incident occurred because the deceased
insisted to fence the disputed boundary despite objection from
the accused side. In such circumstances, passions surged and
in that heat of the moment a blow was inflicted without aiming
the head. As the blow fell on the head accidentally, the offence
of culpable homicide is not made out.
(iv) It is clear from medical report(s) that except a solitary injury
on the head, no other injury was found on the body of the
deceased. Besides, the prosecution case that the deceased
was assaulted after he fell down has been disbelieved. In
these circumstances, it is clear that there was no intention
whatsoever to cause death or such bodily injury which in
ordinary course is likely to cause death. Moreover, the blow
which struck the head of the deceased was not aimed at his
head though it fell accidentally on his head. Hence, conviction
of A-2 for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II
is unsustainable. Therefore, the Trial Court was justified in
convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section
325 IPC and not 304 Part II.
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 375

Sivakumar v. State Rep. By The Inspector of Police

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF SENTHIL (A-1)
14. On behalf of A-1, in addition to the submission that no offence
punishable under Section 294 of IPC is made out, it was argued that
A-1 cannot be saddled with the liability of culpable homicide with the
aid of Section 34 IPC as there was nothing to establish that A-1 and
A-2 shared common intention of causing either death or such bodily
injury as in the ordinary course would cause death.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF STATE.
15. Per contra, on behalf of the State, it was argued that from the evidence
on record it is established that the deceased was abused by using
the word “bastard”, therefore, the offence punishable under Section
294(b) IPC is made out. Besides, the High Court was justified in
convicting A-2 for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II
IPC and since A-1 was first to attack the deceased, though the blow
fell on PW-4, it could be said that he shared common intention with
A-2, conviction of A-1 under Section 304 Part II IPC with the aid of
Section 34 IPC is justified. It was thus, prayed that the appeals be
dismissed.

DISCUSSION.
16. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the
materials on record. There is no dispute as regards the following facts:
(i) The deceased and the accused were neighbours as well as
close relatives who shared a common boundary regarding
which they had a dispute.
(ii) The incident occurred because the deceased was fencing the
boundary despite objection by the accused.
(iii) Prior to exchange of blows there were hot talks between the
deceased and the accused.
(iv) Injuries were caused by use of Aruval and a log. Aruval is an
agricultural tool. There is no evidence that the accused had
brought them for assaulting the deceased and PW-4 from some
other place. Therefore, probability of those articles being lifted
from the spot is high, indicating that in the heat of the moment,
those articles were picked up from the spot and used.
376 [2026] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(v) Injury caused to PW-4 is not proved to be grievous. Admittedly,
A-1 caused injury to PW-4 whereas A-2 caused injury to the
deceased. The deceased suffered no other injury except a
solitary blow on the head.
17. Having taken note of the aforesaid facts, we would first consider
whether the offence punishable under Section 294(b) IPC is made
out or not. Section 294 IPC reads thus:
“294. Obscene acts and songs.— Whoever, to the
annoyance of others -
(a) does any obscene act in any public place, or
(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, 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.”
18. The word “obscene” is not specifically defined in IPC. However, by
referring to Section 292 of IPC, it has been construed as something
which has the potential to appeal to prurient interest of a person3.
19. In Apoorva Arora & Anr. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.4,
this Court, by referring to Section 292 of IPC and Section 67 of
Information Technology Act, 2000, observed:
“17. It is evident that “obscenity” has been similarly defined
in Section 292 and Section 67 as material which is:
(i) lascivious; or
(ii) appeals to the prurient interest; or
(iii) its effect tends to deprave and corrupt persons who
are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to
read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.”
Besides, it was observed, obscenity must be judged having regard
to contemporary mores and national standards. Additionally, it was
observed:

3 See: Director General, Directorate General of Doordarshan & Others v. Anand Patwardhan & Another,
(2006) 8 SCC 433
4 (2024) 6 SCC 181
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 377

Sivakumar v. State Rep. By The Inspector of Police

“41. … It is well established (as per para 41, SCC) from
the precedents cited that vulgarity and profanities do not
per se amount to obscenity. While a person may find vulgar
and expletive-filled language to be distasteful, unpalatable,
uncivil, and improper, that by itself is not sufficient to be
“obscene”. Obscenity relates to material that arouses
sexual and lustful thoughts, which is not at all the effect
of the abusive language or profanities that have been
employed in the episode. Rather, such language may
evoke disgust, revulsion, or shock. …”
20. Seen in the light of the aforesaid decision, in our view, 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. We are, therefore, of the
view that conviction of the appellants for offence punishable under
Section 294(b) IPC is not sustainable and is hereby set aside.
21. Now, we shall examine whether A-1 could be said to have shared
common intention to cause such bodily injury to the deceased which
resulted in his death. The facts of the case reflect that A-1 charged
on the deceased by taking an Aruval in his hand but, when PW-4
intervened, gave two blows to PW-4, which did not result in any
grievous injury. No doubt, it has come in the testimony of PW-4 that
A-2 took a log and gave a hard blow on the head of the deceased
while uttering that all problems are because of the deceased and
it is better that he dies, but this statement is not attributed to A-1.
Besides, there is no evidence that A-1 exhorted A-2 to strike the
deceased. Thus, upon 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, in our
view, it would not be 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. In this view of the matter, the conviction of A-1
under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC is set aside.
However, conviction of A-1 for causing injury to PW-4 and thereby
committing offence punishable under Section 324 IPC is confirmed.
22. Now we shall consider whether the conviction of A-2 for the offence
punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC is justified. Notably, the Trial
378 [2026] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Court had convicted A-2 for the offence punishable under Section
325 IPC whereas the High Court found him guilty of the offence
punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC.
23. 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 IPC5.
The High Court came to the conclusion that A-2 committed culpable
homicide because he had knowledge that by his act he is likely to
cause death. While holding so, the High Court took notice of the
fact that the injury sustained by the deceased discloses fracture of
the skull and there were blood clots in the brain. Further, there was
no evidence that the death had occurred on account of improper
treatment. The High Court had also noticed the evidence on record
which indicated that when A-2 had lifted the log he uttered such words
which indicated that A-2 had targeted the deceased, to finish him off.
24. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, we do not find any
error in the conclusion of the High Court that A-2 is guilty of an offence
of culpable homicide. However, 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 we refrain to address
in absence of an appeal by the State, or the victim of the crime, for

5 299. Culpable homicide. - Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death,
or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that
he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.

Illustrations

(a) A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing death, or with the knowledge
that death is likely to be thereby caused. Z, believing the ground to be firm, treads on it, falls in and
is killed. A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.
(b) A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it. A, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely
to cause Z’s death, induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z. Here B may be guilty of no
offence; but A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.
(c) A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and steal it, kills B, who is behind a bush; A not knowing
that he was there. Here, although A was doing an unlawful act, he was not guilty of culpable
homicide, as he did not intend to kill B, or to cause death by doing an act that he knew was likely
to cause death.
Explanation 1.—A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease
or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his
death.
Explanation 2.—Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall
be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the
death might have been prevented.
Explanation 3.—The causing of the death of a child in the mother’s womb is not homicide. But it may
amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part of that child has been brought
forth, though the child may not have breathed or been completely born.
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 379

Sivakumar v. State Rep. By The Inspector of Police

altering the conviction to a graver offence. In the circumstances, we
confirm the conviction of A-2 under Section 304 Part II IPC.
25. Now, we shall consider whether the sentence awarded by the High
Court is appropriate, or too harsh. High Court convicted A-1 for offence
punishable under Section 324, Section 294(b) and Section 304 Part II
read with 34 IPC. In so far as the conviction of A-1 under Section
294(b) and Section 304 Part II read with 34 IPC is concerned, we
have already held above that the same is unsustainable. However,
we have affirmed his conviction under Section 324 IPC. Under
Section 324 IPC, A1 has been awarded fine of Rs. 5,000 and a
default sentence of 3 months. As per the custody certificate dated
21.02.2020 annexed along with the memo of appeal, A-1 (Senthil)
has served 01 month 25 days of sentence as on 21.02.2020. The
record reveals that he was released on bail by order of this Court
dated 13.10.2020. In this view of the matter, it appears that the
appellant has partially undergone the default sentence awarded to
him for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. Consequently,
we reduce and alter the sentence awarded to A-1 (Senthil) to the
period of sentence already undergone.
26. In so far as A-2 (Sivakumar) is concerned, since we have affirmed his
conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC, it would have to be considered
whether the sentence awarded to him needs to be altered or not. The
High Court has awarded him five years rigorous imprisonment with
fine of Rs. 1,000. The custody certificate dated 30.04.2019 issued by
Central Prison, Madurai indicates that by the date of the certificate,
the appellant had served 02 months and 10 days of sentence. The
record reveals that by order of this Court dated 29.11.2019, appellant
Sivakumar (A-2) was granted bail subject to the satisfaction of the
Trial Court. In the circumstances, it appears, the appellant Sivakumar
(A2) has, by now, served less than 01 year of sentence.
27. 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, we are
of the view that ends of justice would be subserved if the sentence
awarded to A-2 (Sivakumar), under Section 304 Part II IPC, is reduced
to 03 years from 05 years R.I.
380 [2026] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

28. Consequently, both the appeals are partly allowed to the extent
mentioned above. Appellant Senthil (A-1) is on bail, he need not
surrender. Insofar as appellant Sivakumar (A2) is concerned, he shall
surrender before the Court concerned and serve out the remaining
reduced sentence as ordered above.

Result of the case: Appeals partly allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain