Ghurwa Ram @ Netu Chandrakar vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.5.2001 passed by Special Judge under the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act 1989, Rajnandgaon in Special Case No.09/2001, wherein the said Court convicted the

appellant for commission of offence under Sections 294 and 506 Part-II IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months

and RI for six months respectively for using obscene words in public place on 11.10.2000 at about 8 am at village Masool and for intimidating

Korbaharin Bai to kill her.

To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses. Tilakdas (PW-2), Tijuram (PW-3), Kansram (PW-7),

Ramgopal (PW-8) have not supported the version of the prosecution.

As per the version of Thakurdas (PW-1), Dukhan (PW-4), Khorbaharin Bai (PW-5), Anandram (PW-6), the appellant used words eknj pksn

egkjhu. As per the version of these witnesses, the appellant also uttered the words that he will bury the body of Khorbaharin Bai.

Now the point for consideration is whether the words uttered by the appellant falls within the mischief under Section 294 IPC. It is settled law that

words which are common in nature and words of common colloquial are not obscene words. Only words related to sex or moral are obscene words.

In the present case, the words used by the appellant cannot be termed as obscene words because the same is used frequently and unintentionally.

For commission of offence mens rea is essential part and if any word is uttered unintentionally it cannot be said that there is intention to commit any

criminal act. Looking to the words as stated by the witnesses it cannot be held guilty for commission of offence under Section 294 IPC.

So far as offence under Section 506 Part-II is concerned, mere uttering of the words is not sufficient to constitute the offence but it has to be

established that the appellant was in a position to execute the threat on the spot. The words were uttered in fury which has only sound and the same is

without substance. When the appellant was not having any arms at the time of commission of offence or soon shown determination as to how he will

be able to kill the complainant, the words are not sufficient to constitute the offence under Section 506 Part II of the IPC. The trial Court failed to

appreciate this aspect of the matter and recorded the finding against the settled principles of law which is not sustainable.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges framed

against him. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds shall remain operative for a further period of six months from today in terms of

Section 437A of the CrPC.