9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the books in question are obscene under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. Whether the appellants had the requisite mens rea (guilty mind) for the offense. 3. Appropriate sentencing for the appellants. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Obscenity of the Books: The primary issue was whether the three books-"The Dark Urge," "The Shame of Mary Quinn," and "Find Me in Fire"-were obscene under Section 292 IPC. The court referred to the test of obscenity from the case of R. v. Hicklin (1868) 3 QB 360, which defines obscenity as material that tends "to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication of this sort might fall." The court noted that Victorian standards have evolved, but the core principle remains unchanged, as affirmed in R. v. Reiter (1954) 2 QB 16. - "The Dark Urge" was found to contain descriptions of physical intimacy that were direct and unnecessary for the narrative, likely to corrupt the minds of average readers by arousing immoral sex urges. - "The Shame of Mary Quinn" depicted incest in lurid detail, likely to deprave and corrupt readers by glorifying a form of sexual relationship considered abhorrent. - "Find Me in Fire" depicted physical desires in libidinous detail, with descriptions of the female body that were not artistic but suggestive, likely to arouse prurient interests. The court concluded that all three books were obscene as they pandered to prurient tastes and appealed to baser instincts. 2. Mens Rea (Guilty Mind): The appellants argued that they lacked mens rea, as the books were part of a routine consignment from overseas. However, the court emphasized that possession connotes conscious possession, and mens rea cannot be dispensed with. The court noted that the appellants had a duty to scrutinize the books they received. The very suggestive pictures on the covers should have alerted them to the nature of the books. The court found no evidence that the appellants were mere innocent receptacles of the books, concluding that mens rea was present. 3. Sentencing: The court considered the appropriate sentencing for the appellants. The initial sentence was three months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500, with additional imprisonment in default of payment. The court decided that a sentence of rigorous imprisonment was not necessary and reduced the sentence to a fine of Rs. 250 for appellant No. 1 (in default, six weeks of simple imprisonment) and Rs. 100 for appellant No. 2 (in default, three weeks of simple imprisonment). The conviction under Section 292 IPC was upheld, but no separate sentence was imposed under Section 292/109 IPC. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, with modifications to the sentence as outlined above. The court found the books to be obscene, the appellants to have had the requisite mens rea, and adjusted the sentencing to fines with default imprisonment terms.
|
