Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 16-22, 2024

Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 579-587]X v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 579xxx v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 580Asanul Banna v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 581T. G. Anoop v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 582Satheeshkumar B R v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 583Sheela v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 584Sajith v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 585Suo Moto v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 586Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 587Judgments/Orders this weekVictim/ Informant Must Be Communicated About Deletion Of Names From Array Of Accused In Final Report: Kerala High CourtCase Title: X v State of KeralaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 579The Kerala High Court has held that an investigating officer must notify the informant or victim about removing individuals from the list of accused in the final report, if they were initially named as accused in the FIR. Additionally, the Court emphasized that upon taking cognizance of the offences based on the final report, the Magistrate must also inform the informant or victim of this change. Allowing the criminal revision case, Justice K Babu stated thus, “The learned Magistrate shall issue notice to the informant / victim regarding the finding of the Investigating Officer that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against some of the accused.”Accused Must Be Given A Legibile Copy Of Statement Recorded By Magistrate U/S 164 CrPC: Kerala High CourtCase Title: xxx v State of KeralaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 580The Kerala High Court held that an accused should be given a legible copy of the Section 164 statement before the start of trial as he has the statutory right to use those statements to contradict the maker of the statement during cross-examination.Justice A. Badharudeen found that the order of the Sessions Court was not justifiable.“Indubitably, accused has a statutory right to use 164 statement for contradicting the maker, during cross examination of the maker, with a view to shake the version. In order to enable the said purpose, the statement must be readable and legible.”Fair Trial Has Sacrosanct Purpose, Both Prosecution And Accused Should Be Heard Before Scheduling Trial: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Asanul Banna v State of Kerala and AnotherCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 581The Kerala High Court has directed the trial court to postpone the date of a criminal trial noting that the order of the trial court did not show that the prosecution and accused were heard before the trial was scheduled.Justice K. Babu noted that Rule 77A(2) of Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala 1982 mandates that both sides should be heard before fixing the date for recording evidence. Inquiry U/S 116(2) CrPC Must Be Carried Out In A Similar Manner To Summons Trial: Kerala High CourtCase Title: T. G. Anoop v State of Kerala and AnotherCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 582The Kerala High Court held that the provision in Section 116(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) which says that the recording of evidence and conduct of trial in an inquiry under Section 116 shall be done 'as nearly as maybe practicable' in the manner of a summons trial would mean that the essentials of summons trial should be followed in such an inquiry.Justice A. Badharudeen observed: “Section 116(2) provides that, an inquiry contemplated under Section 116 of Cr.P.C shall be made, as nearly as may be practicable, in the manner prescribed for conducting trial and recording evidence in summons cases. In this context, the text 'as nearly as possible' has to be understood to ensure that the essentials of summons trial should be followed.”Defamatory Posts On Social Media Amount To "Cyber Defamation" U/S 499 IPC, Law Making It 'Cognizable' Offence Will Be Effective: Kerala HCCase Title: Satheeshkumar B R v State of KeralaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 583The Kerala High Court has held that defamation through statements or posts on Facebook and other social media platforms comes under cyber defamation, thus justifying invocation of Section 499 of the IPC, which deals with defamation.In the facts of the case, the Court stated that even excluding the Facebook posts, the petitioner is liable under Section 509 (insulting modesty of woman) of the IPC and Section 120 (o) (penalty for causing nuisance and violation of public order through anonymous call, letter, writing, message, e-mail, messenger ) of the KP Act for sending two defamatory postcards to the father of the de facto complainant.Observing the lacunae in legislation to deal with defamatory Facebook posts, Justice A Badharudeen observed that Section 499 IPC is a non-cognizable offence and emphasized the need for an exhaustive law that makes such offences cognizable, accompanied by stringent punishments.Kerala High Court Refuses To Quash POCSO Case Against Woman For Failing To Report Sexual Assault On Minors In Cottages Provided By HerCase...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 16-22, 2024

Tellmy Jolly

Tags