Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 02- 08, 2024

Nominal Index [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 554-564]Biju P Vidya @Monai v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 554Chandra Babu @ Babu v State of Kerala & Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 555C. K. Kunjumon v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 556C. K. Kunjumon v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 556Ranjith Balakrishnan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 557Aqib Sohail P. S. v Raneesh V. R., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 558Spices Board v The Principal Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 559George Vattakulam v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 560Mani C Kappan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 561V.M.Abdulkhader @ Kader v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 562V.I. Thankappan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 563Varghese Kuruvila v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 564Judgments/Orders This WeekUnexplained Long Delay Fatal To Prosecution: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case Filed After 16-Yr DelayCase Title: Biju P Vidya @Monai v State of KeralaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 554The Kerala High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner on finding that the prosecution failed to explain the delay of 16 years in filing the rape case.The de facto complainant alleged that the petitioner subjected her to rape in the year 2001, and First Information Statement was given in 2017 only.The Court noted that the delay of 16 years in filing the case was fatal to the prosecution and found the allegations to be unbelievable.Justice A. Badharudeen noted that the fact that the de facto complainant continued the relationship with the petitioner even after having sexual intercourse in 2001 would point out that their relationship was consensual.Presumption Of Innocence Until Proven Guilty Not Just Legal Principle But A Fundamental Human Right: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Chandra Babu @ Babu v State of Kerala & AnotherCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 555The Kerala High Court has held that the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a fundamental human right for the accused. The Court stated that even if a specific statute provides an exception that presumes the guilt of the accused, it must adhere to the standards of reasonableness and personal liberty guaranteed by the Constitution under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. While allowing the appeal and setting aside the conviction of life imprisonment imposed upon the appellants, the Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice G Girish observed that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.Aggrieved Person Can Challenge Sessions Court Order U/S 29 DV Act By Filing Revision Petition: Kerala High CourtCase Title: C. K. Kunjumon v State of Kerala and AnotherCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 556The Kerala High Court has held that an aggrieved person can challenge the decision of a Sessions Court issued under Section 29 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) by way of a Criminal Revision Petition. The judgment was delivered by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Sessions Court which had dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner's wife had moved the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court under Section 12 of the DV Act and had obtained a maintenance order against the petitioner. A challenge against this order was dismissed by the Magistrate.Invocation Of Article 227 Against Final Orders/ Judgments Passed By Sessions Court In Appeal Is 'Almost Barred': Kerala High CourtCase Title: C. K. Kunjumon v State of Kerala and AnotherCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 556The Kerala High Court has held that there is almost an an absolute bar on challenging the final order or judgment passed by a Sessions Court in appeal, under Article 227 of the Constitution. Article 227 deals with the superintendence of the High Court over all courts and tribunals in its territory. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas referred to multiple Supreme Court decisions which held that a person cannot approach the High Court under Article 227 when there is an alternate remedy available. The High Court held that a person has the remedy of criminal revision petition to challenge the final order of Sessions Court in an appeal made under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act.Kerala HC Closes Anticipatory Bail Plea By Film Director Ranjith Upon Being Told Offense Was Committed Before S.354A IPC Was Made Non-BailableCase Title: Ranjith Balakrishnan v State of KeralaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 557The Kerala High has closed the anticipatory bail petition filed by Malayalam Movie Director Ranjith. The petition was closed on the report of the Public Prosecutor that the S. 354 of IPC (outraging modesty) which is alleged against the petitioner was bailable in 2009 when the incident allegedly took place.He submitted that the police are treating the offence as bailable and the ...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 02- 08, 2024

Tellmy Jolly

Tags