Kerala Court August 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Asokan Nambiar Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-02-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT12
R. Basant, J.1. What is the effect of a trial held by a Court of Sessions consequent to cognizance taken in breach of the stipulations of Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? Does such breach ipso facto vitiate the trial? Is there any conflict between the two decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Vidyadharan v. State of Kerala (2004 (1) KLT 103) and State of M.P. v. Bhooraji (2001)7 SCC 679)? These questions of contextual relevance are raised in this appeal.2. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had committed the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act'). The final report was submitted by the police before the Special Court notified under Section 14 of the SC/ST P.A. Act.3. Cognizance was taken by the Sessions Court without insisting on committal of the case, obviously on the basis of a decision of the Full Bench of the K...
State of Kerala Vs. Ayoob
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-02-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT441
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The State has come up with this appeal, when the respondent was acquitted of the charges for the offence under Section 376 IPC. PW4, the father of the victim filed a private complaint as CMP No. 678/91 before the then Second Class Magistrate, Parapanangady. It was on 19.2.1991. The Magistrate forwarded it to the police in terms of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. There upon the police registered Ext.P9 FIR as Crime No. 33/91 of Tirurangadi police station. PW.14 and PW.15 conducted investigation. Successor to PW.15 laid the charges. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses and marked 11 documents. The defence evidence consists of the oral testimony of DWs.1 to 6 and Exts.D1 to D15.2. It is contended by the Public Prosecutor that the victim being a minor aged 15 years in March, 1990, below the consenting age provided under clause sixthly of Section 375 IPC and being a student of 7th standard and as there is evidence of she being pregnant and giving birth to a child, the factum...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›