'Film Won't Sway Judicially-Trained Mind': Kerala High Court Refuses To Stall Movie Allegedly Inspired By Venjaramoodu Mass Murder Case

The Kerala High Court on Friday (April 17) orally remarked that it has no apprehension that a judicially-trained mind would be swayed by a movie while considering a case.

The Division Bench of Justice Gopinath P. and Justice Johnson John was considering an appeal challenging a judgment of the Single Bench, which had dismissed a plea to stall the movie 'Kaalam Paranja Kadha' that is allegedly inspired by the Venjaramoodu Mass Murder case. 

The appeal and the writ petition was filed by the father of the accused, stating that the movie would prejudicially affect the trial since it is currently pending before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram.

"We are unable to accept any suggestion from you that a criminal court, a Sessions Court will decide a case on the basis of what is seen in a film. Assuming that the film is a depiction of the story. Which Sessions Court or Sessions Judge will decide a case on the basis of an impression gathered from watching a film, assuming that the judge watches the film? We can't subscribe to the view that a film is likely to sway the mind of a judicial officer...As judges, we have no apprehension that the judicial mind, at least a judicial mind, will be influenced by any movie," the Court orally said.

The Bench also refused to accept that the trial would be affected due to witnesses in the case being influenced by the movie. It said:

"And witnesses, there are prosecution witnesses who are willing to speak on the prosecution's case. There will be defence witnesses who are willing to speak for the defence, if at all you have any defence witnesses."

Justice Gopinath orally opined that it is too far-fetched to assume that a trial would be affected by a film depiction: "See, it is too far-fetched. I can tell you from our experience sitting on this chair. Mine for 6 years. My brother would have been sitting for 30 years."

He also remarked that public perception is created the moment that an accused is arrested by the police. Though such a perception created by talk shows and media reports may affect a jury, the same cannot be said by a trial conducted by a judicially trained mind.

"If you take the perception of the general public, at least my understanding is that the moment the police arrests an accused, he is guilty; the perception is he has already been found guilty of the offence. Then there will be media version, there will be talk shows in the TV channels. People claiming to be well-versed with the law sit and discuss....You cannot say that this will affect the mind of the witnesses, affect the mind of the trial. If it was jury trial, maybe you could say this. Judicially-trained mind is looking at it, appreciating the evidence," remarked Justice Gopinath.

The counsel appearing for the filmmakers Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has already certified the film and that it will be released soon with the modifications suggested by the Board.

The Court took note of the fact that the petitioner/appellant has not watched the movie and posted it after summer vacation. It orally told that the appellant could watch the movie after its release and point out to the Court if there is anything wrong with it. The Court, however, refused to grant any interim relief in the meanwhile. 

The appeal is moved by Advocates Sajju V. and Ajmal A.

Case No: WA 924/2026

Case Title: Abdal Rahim H. v. Union of India and Ors.