C N 49 009 v1 Das Mamkpun d abo 45 Ra age ut s S/o d Mmkpn, " year Sonaas au Ocpa-Peon (Da) o Ru Colony, a . Dha cutlon ah R/ dn Dhamtan PS Dhamtn D1stt mtan(CG) The State o Chhattisgarh gh S ha, Dis. Dhan' (C..) '. [B ’H r TP sma J ) S on’ble M . har, sen - S rpa dvocat for h appelln Pret hn D N PaJath1, Ae te at m aj nht P L fr he odet Sh Rendra 'I‘pat, o t State] respnn A- ER (ssed o 09 ei 1. Han. A s coi. Also hid ny h h conent 2. ppeal i admitted for nsideraion ea ma wit te s of pe the artis. 3. Presentappellant h en coniced unr Sectio 29 of the Ina Pea ode y Secia ndge unde Schedue Cas nd Schedule '‘b (Prention Atrocities ct, 1989, Dhi in special ssions trial No 26/ 2008 and sentenced tine of Rs. 2000/ - in default of‘payment of nne of 1 month simple imprisonment. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the on‘ence punishable under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code only on the ground that he used the word Madarchod and thereby caused annoyance to others. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the aforesaid- woni has not literary means and may be oh‘endegng to’the reputation of an l HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR r A. o 2 OF 2 APPELLANT VERSUS f Throu R. Damtxi tt amt G, 9 kEsronnEm CRIMINAL APPEAL UIS 37412) OF Ct P C. ORL ORD Pa n 10I7I20) as be vt de n 4 din. nl C b pl J r l te a lIie‘, ve of A ) amtai se e y person but does not falls under the category of obscene word therefom the conviction and sentence aforesaid is not sustainable under the law. 6; On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondent opposed the petition and'submits that after appreciating the evidence available on record court below has rightly convicted the accused. 7. Judgment impugned reveals that appellant has been convicted by the Court below only on the basisof using ,the Word Madarchod the aforesaid word has no Iiterary means. In‘order to prove the on‘ence punishable under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution is required to prove ‘ that the word used by the accused was ‘ob‘scene. While dealing with the question of obscenity the Apex Court has held in case of Ran'ieet v. State of Maharasta reported in AIR 1965 so 81 Apex Court has held that:- ‘g/ The Word ‘obscene’ as understood in context of penal provisions has come up for consideration before the Supreme Court a number of times. The test of obscenity is this, whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscene is to deprave and corrupt those who minds are ‘ open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication ofthis sort my fall”. 8. In the instant case word used by the appellant is'not falls under the category of obscene word therefore the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable. Consequently, appeal is allowed and judgnent of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside the appellant is set at liberty to tine if paid by the appellant shall be refunded to the appeilant. by Sdl- T. P. Sharma Judge l i