1 2025:CGHC:50875 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 344 of 2017 1 - Mahaveer Prasad S/o Late Ramnath Kashyap, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Village Amgaon, Police Station Shankergarh, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Anand Prasad Kashyap, S/o Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Amgaon, Police Station Shankergarh, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Devanti W/o Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Amgaon, Police Station Shankergarh, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh , District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Rekha, D/o Mahaveer Kashyap, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Amgaon, Police Station Shankergarh, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh , District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Balrampur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant (Respondent) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Applicants : Mr. Shubham Tripathi, Advocate. For State : Mr. Sanjiv Pandey, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Judgment on Board 13-10-2025 1. The present criminal revision has been filed by the applicants against the impugned judgment dated 05-03-2016 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Surguja (Ambikapur) in Special Sessions Case No. 09/2015 Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2025.10.27 18:59:51 +0530 2 whereby the applicants have been convicted under Section 294 of the IPC and sentenced for the period already undergone by them with fine of Rs. 500/- to each of the applicants with default sentence additional imprisonment for 15 days. 2. Since the applicants were sentenced imprisonment for 6 days and there could be no appeal in petty cases as provided under Section 376 of the Cr.P.C. the present criminal revision has been filed by the applicants. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 30-08-2014 at about 05:15 p.m. when the complainant PW-1 was working in his filed, some altercation took place with the applicants on the issue of dispute regarding their field. On 31-08-2014 a report has been lodged by the complainant to the police for which the offence under Section 294, 506B, 34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short ‘the SC/ST Act) was registered against the accused persons and they were arrested and after investigation charge sheet was filed. 4. The learned trial Court has framed the charge against the applicants for offence under Section 294, 506 Part II of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) [(amended Section 3(1)(r)] of the SC/ST Act. The accused persons denied the charge and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove the charge against the applicants the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses. The statement of the applicants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. have also been recorded in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence and submitted that they have falsely been implicated in the offence. 6. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence laid by the prosecution, the learned trail Court has acquitted the accused persons from 3 the offence under Section 506 Part II of the IPC and 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, however, they have been convicted for the offence under Section 294 of the IPC and sentenced as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence, this criminal revision. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the learned trial Court has not exercised its jurisdiction vested in it by not considering the nature of evidenced and material discrepancies in the alleged obscene words uttered by the applicants. The learned trial Court has also not considered the material discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses and they should have been given benefit of doubt particularly when the applicants have been acquitted from the other offences. There was a land dispute between the parties and there is every possibility of their false implication by the complainant. There is no sufficient ingredients in the case for the offence under Section 294 of the IPC and therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence may be set aside and the applicants may be acquitted from the alleged offence. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and has submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly considered the evidence available on record and came into conclusion about the guilt of the applicants for the offence under Section 294 of the IPC, which does not require any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court. 10. The conviction of the applicant is only for the offence under Section 294 of the IPC, which reads as under:- "294. Obscene acts and songs ─ Whoever, to the annoyance of others─ 4 (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." 11. From the perusal of the written complaint Ex.-P/1 lodged by the complainant (PW-1) it transpires that there was dispute exist between him and the applicants and general and omnibus allegations have been leveled in the complaint against the applicants that “pekj Maxjk [kk;k” and there is no obscene word alleged to be uttered by the applicants have been mentioned in it. 12. From the evidence of PW-1, complainant it transpires that he aggravated his evidence and stated a particular word uttered by the applicants at the time of alleged incident. The word allegedly uttered by the applicants does not fulfill the requisite ingredients of obscene word. Had the applicants uttered any obscene word, he would have definitely mention it in his complaint Ex.-P/1. Even from the statement of PW-2, wife of the complainant, there is no sufficient ingredients with respect to the offence under Section 294 of the IPC and the word uttered during their quarrel does not satisfy the requirement of obscene word which may cause annoyance to the complainant, although the complainant has stated in his evidence that annoyance has been caused to him, however, in view of the fact that the dispute exist between them there was altercation at the time of incident and the word allegedly uttered by the applicants does not fulfill the requirement of obscene word, it cannot be said that the complainant was annoyed by any obscene word allegedly uttered by the applicants, yet the applicants have been convicted by the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 294 of the IPC which in opinion of this Court exceeding their jurisdiction. 5 13. In the matter of N.S. Madhanagopal & Anr. Vs. K. Lalitha, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 844, it has been held in para No.6 of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that:- 6. ……Thus, all that has been averred in the complaint is that the appellant Madanagopal hurled unparliamentary words towards the complainant. Section 294(b) of the IPC talks about the obscene acts and songs. Section 294 of the IPC as a whole 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." It is to be noted that the test of obscenity under Section 294(b) of the I.P.C. is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences. The following passage from the judgment authored by Justice K.K. Mathew (as his Lordship then was) reported in P.T. Chacko v. Nainan (1967 KLT 799) explains as follows:- "The only point argued was that the 1st accused has not committed an offence punishable under Section 294(b) IPC., by uttering the words above-mentioned. The courts below have held that the words uttered were obscene and the utterance caused annoyance to the public. I am not inclined to take this view. In the Queen v. Hicklin, [L.R.] 3 Q.B. 360 at 371 Cockburn C.J. Laid down the test of 'obscenity' in these words: 6 “…..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 accepted the correctness of the test in Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 881. In Samuel Roth v. U.S.A., 354 US 476 (1957), 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. It may be that the words are defamatory of the complainant, but I do not think that the words are 'obscene' and the utterance would constitute an offence punishable under S. 294(b) IPC". It has to be noted that in the instance case, the absence of words which will involve some lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or feelings or words cannot attract the offence under Section 294(b). None of the records disclose the alleged words used by the accused. It may not be the requirement of law to reproduce in all cases the entire obscene words if it is lengthy, but in the instant case, there is hardly anything on record. Mere abusive, humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 294(b) IPC. To prove the offence under Section 294 of IPC mere utterance of obscene words are not sufficient but there must be a further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others, which is lacking in the case. No one has spoken about the obscene words, they felt annoyed and in the absence of legal evidence to show that the words uttered by the appellants accused annoyed others, it can 7 not be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294 (b) of IPC is made out.” 14. In view of the above discussion and the the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the abovementioned judgment, this Court is of the opinion that the applicants have been able to make out their case to interfere with the impugned judgment of their conviction and sentence. 15. Consequently, the present criminal revision is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against the applicants under Section 294 of the IPC is set aside and as such, now they stand acquitted from all the charges framed against them. The applicants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds shall continue for a further period of six months as per requirement of Section 437- A of the Cr.P.C. 16. Record of the trial Court be sent back to the learned trial Court along with copy of this judgment. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil