LATHEEF Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner challenges the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence against him under S. 294(b) Cr.P.C. The crime against him was initially registered under Sections 341, 323, 353 and 294(b) I.P.C, on the allegation that at about 1.55 p.m. on 17.6.1998 the revision petitioner wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant, who is a K.S.R.T.C, driver, in connection with some dispute regarding running time, used abusive words against him in public place, and assaulted him. After investigation, the police submitted final report in the court of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chittoor under Sections 341, 323, 353 and 294(b) I.P.C. The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty in the trial court when the particulars of offences were read over and explained by the learned Magistrate, and claimed to be tried. During. trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses including the de facto complainant, and also marked Exts.P1 to P4. No evidence was adduced by the revision petitioner in defence. On an appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Magistrate found the revision petitioner guilty under Sections 341, 294(b) and 353 I.P.C, As regards the offence under S. 323 I.P.C, the accused was acquitted by the learned Magistrate. On conviction he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days under S. 341 I.P.C, rigorous imprisonment for one month under S. 294(b) I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under S. 353 I.P.C, by judgment dated 22.2.2001 in S.T. No. 3810/1998. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence the revision petitioner approached the Court of Session, Palakkad with Crl.A. No. 105/2001. In appeal the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Palakkad found the revision petitioner not guilty under Sections 341 and 353 I.P.C. and accordingly acquitted him. The conviction and sentence under S. 294(b) I.P.C. was confirmed in appeal.

(2.) THE very short point for decision in this revision is whether the words alleged to have been used by the revision petitioner will constitute obscenity as defined under the law. The abusive words alleged to have been used by the revision petitioner herein are Of course as regards wrongful restraint and assault the two courts below found the revision petitioner not guilty, and he stands acquitted. As regards the above words alleged to have been used by the petitioner both the courts below found that it is obscene. Of course it stands proved by the evidence of P.W.1 that the revision petitioner had in fact used such words in the alleged incident. So, much discussion is not required on that aspect. The question for decision in revision is whether those words will amount to obscenity as defined under the law. If the finding is that such words will not amount to obscenity, the revision petitioner will have to be acquitted.