Sivakumar vs State Rep. By The Inspector of Police

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 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]