9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the short story "Shama" published in the 1962 Diwali Issue of Rambha is obscene under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. Whether the conviction and fine imposed by the Bombay High Court on the printer, publisher, and writer of the story were justified. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Obscenity of the Short Story "Shama" under Section 292 IPC: The primary issue was whether the short story "Shama" contained passages that could be deemed obscene under Section 292 IPC. The complainant alleged that certain passages in the story were obscene and capable of corrupting and depraving the minds of readers, especially the young. The complainant provided evidence from Dr. P.G. Sahstrabudhe and Dr. G.V. Purohit to support the claim of obscenity. The accused, including the writer and the publisher, denied these allegations, arguing that the story depicted the frustration in the life of a poet and had literary and artistic merit. The court examined the passages in question and considered the overall context of the story. 2. Conviction and Fine Imposed by the Bombay High Court: The Bombay High Court had reversed the order of acquittal by the Magistrate for the printer and publisher (accused 1) and the writer (accused 2), convicting them under Section 292 IPC. The High Court imposed a fine of Rs. 25/- on each of the accused, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for a week. Additionally, the High Court ordered the destruction of copies of the magazine containing the story. The Supreme Court examined whether this conviction was justified based on the evidence and the legal standards for obscenity. Detailed Analysis: Obscenity of the Short Story "Shama": The Supreme Court noted that the determination of obscenity does not solely depend on oral evidence but on the court's assessment of the material in question. The court referred to the test laid down in Hicklin's case, which considers whether the matter tends to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such influences. The court also referred to the precedent set in Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, emphasizing that the overall view of the work must be taken, and the obscene passages must be considered in context. The story "Shama" was about the life of a poet named Nishikant and his relationships with three women: Neela, Vanita, and Shama. The court found that the story depicted Nishikant's emotional and sensitive nature and his struggles with love and relationships. The court observed that the story did not contain explicit descriptions of sexual acts or vulgar language. Instead, it portrayed the characters' emotions and relationships in a restrained manner. The court concluded that the story did not amount to pornography or pander to prurient interests. The passages in question did not deprave or corrupt readers, nor did they advocate licentious behavior. The court emphasized that the concept of obscenity varies with contemporary societal standards and that the story did not transgress public morality or decency. Conviction and Fine Imposed by the Bombay High Court: The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's finding that the passages in "Shama" offended Section 292 IPC. The court noted that the High Court had not found certain passages objectionable and that the overall context of the story did not support a charge of obscenity. The court held that the story did not have the effect of corrupting the morals of readers or arousing impure thoughts. The court reiterated that contemporary societal standards must be considered and that the story did not fall within the definition of obscene material. The court found that the High Court's conviction and fine were not justified based on the evidence and the legal standards for obscenity. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and fine imposed by the Bombay High Court, and directed the refund of the fine if paid. The court held that the short story "Shama" did not violate Section 292 IPC and did not corrupt or deprave the minds of readers. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering the overall context of literary works and contemporary societal standards in determining obscenity. Appeal allowed.
|
