{"id":120430,"date":"2009-01-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shobhana-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009"},"modified":"2017-10-27T10:27:39","modified_gmt":"2017-10-27T04:57:39","slug":"shobhana-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shobhana-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"Shobhana vs State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Shobhana vs State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOP.No. 7859 of 2002(I)\n\n\n1. SHOBHANA, W\/O. LATE SASI,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,\n\n3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,\n\n4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR, PHILIP,\n\n5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.X.VARGHESE\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER\n\n Dated :15\/01\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                                A.K. Basheer, J.\n                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                           O.P. No. 7859 of 2002\n                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n              Dated this the 15th day of January, 2009\n\n                                  JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      Petitioner and her late husband Sasi were arraigned as accused in<\/p>\n
crime No.84 of 1991 of Vellathooval Police Station for the offence<\/p>\n
punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC in connection<\/p>\n
with the death of one Joy, Son of John whose dead body was found in a<\/p>\n
pond near the residence of the petitioner in the morning of June 18,<\/p>\n
1991. Petitioner and her husband were arrested in connection with the<\/p>\n
above crime and they were in judicial custody for some time. Later,<\/p>\n
both of them were released on bail. But ultimately the Police did not<\/p>\n
file charge sheet in the above crime since sufficient materials could not<\/p>\n
be collected to establish the involvement of the petitioner and her<\/p>\n
husband. The case was referred as undetected.                     In the meanwhile,<\/p>\n
petitioner’s husband passed away in the year 1999.<\/p>\n
      2. This writ petition was filed in March 2002 praying for issue of<\/p>\n
a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to pay a<\/p>\n
sum of Rs.10 lakhs to her “by way of public law remedy for continued<\/p>\n
illegal incarceration and the continuous dragging of the petitioner and<\/p>\n
her deceased husband after implicating in a false case”. There is a<\/p>\n
further prayer to issue a direction to respondent No.1 to institute an<\/p>\n
enquiry into the above episode of inhuman treatment meted out to the<\/p>\n
petitioner and her deceased husband at the instance of the Police<\/p>\n
Officers, to fix the responsibility of the culprits and to realise the<\/p>\n
amount of compensation to be awarded by respondent No.1 to the<\/p>\n
OP.No.7859\/02.                      2<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner from those officers.\n<\/p>\n
      3. As mentioned earlier, the dead body of one Joy was found in<\/p>\n
a small pool of water or pond (ole) at Koothupara in Idukki District<\/p>\n
in the morning of June 18, 1991 near the residence of the petitioner,<\/p>\n
who was living with her husband Sasi at the relevant point of time.<\/p>\n
Sri.Sasi reported the matter to Vellathoval Police at about 9.15 a.m.<\/p>\n
on that day. Initially the Police registered Crime No.84 of 1991 under<\/p>\n
the caption “un-natural death”.         Later,   Section 302 IPC was<\/p>\n
incorporated, on the basis of the post mortem report which indicated<\/p>\n
that late Joy was dumped in the pond while he was in an unconscious<\/p>\n
state.\n<\/p>\n
      4. The investigation conducted by the local police did not yield<\/p>\n
any result. Therefore the case was transferred to the crime Branch CID<\/p>\n
in November 1991. It is on record that petitioner and her husband Sasi<\/p>\n
were arrested by the CB CID on November 9, 1992 on the allegation<\/p>\n
that in the course of the investigation both of them had confessed to the<\/p>\n
crime and that the weapon used for the murder (an axle handle made of<\/p>\n
arecanut tree) had been recovered from near their residence under<\/p>\n
Section 27 of the Evidence Act. While petitioner was released on bail<\/p>\n
in December 1992 itself (about a month after her arrest), petitioner’s<\/p>\n
husband was released from judicial custody only in March 1993 and<\/p>\n
that too since the Police had failed to file the charge sheet against the<\/p>\n
accused.\n<\/p>\n
      5. As has been noticed already, this writ petition was filed in<\/p>\n
OP.No.7859\/02.                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
March 2002 alleging that the Police had brutally assaulted and tortured<\/p>\n
petitioner and her husband after taking them into custody for the<\/p>\n
purpose of investigation of the above crime. For instance, it is stated by<\/p>\n
the petitioner that on June 18, 1991 when the Circle Inspector of Police<\/p>\n
attached to Adimali Police Station had visited the scene of occurrence,<\/p>\n
he had directed petitioner’s husband to report at the Police Station on<\/p>\n
the next day. Accordingly petitioner’s husband had reported before the<\/p>\n
Circle Inspector and given a statement.         On the next day, the<\/p>\n
Superintendent of Police and the Circle Inspector came to petitioner’s<\/p>\n
residence and recorded her statement as well as that of her husband.<\/p>\n
Petitioner’s husband was again summoned to the Police Station. On<\/p>\n
that day, according to the petitioner, her husband was “threatened and<\/p>\n
tortured” at the Police station. After about a week the Circle Inspector<\/p>\n
had      summoned petitioner’s husband once again and allegedly<\/p>\n
“tortured him brutally”. Petitioner further proceeds to state that her<\/p>\n
husband was thereafter frequently summoned to the Police Station and<\/p>\n
was “tortured for the next nine months”. According to the petitioner<\/p>\n
“next ten months passed like this”. After ten months,             officers<\/p>\n
attached to Crime Branch office, Moolamattom summoned the<\/p>\n
petitioner and her husband. According to her,       both of hem were<\/p>\n
brutally attacked at the Police Station and it was only then that she<\/p>\n
realised that the attempt of the Crime Branch was to implicate them in<\/p>\n
the murder.\n<\/p>\n
      6.    Petitioner further states that on a day when petitioner’s<\/p>\n
OP.No.7859\/02.                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
husband was at the Crime Branch office, Moolamattom and was being<\/p>\n
tortured brutally, some persons were brought to the Police Station in a<\/p>\n
police jeep   “who were suspected to be murderers”.        But shortly<\/p>\n
thereafter, “a group of political leaders of the ruling party forcibly<\/p>\n
entered the Crime Branch office and got the “murderers” released.<\/p>\n
Thereafter the officers continued to torture petitioner’s husband. But<\/p>\n
according to the petitioner, after the above incident, the Officers did<\/p>\n
not make any attempt to proceed against the real culprits. On the<\/p>\n
contrary, they summoned innocent and helpless locals to the station<\/p>\n
and began to torture them. She further alleges that one Arjunan who<\/p>\n
was also questioned by the Police in connection with the above crime<\/p>\n
had committed suicide.\n<\/p>\n
      7.    Ultimately, after brutal torture of her husband for five<\/p>\n
days, he was released and one month thereafter some officers of the<\/p>\n
Crime Branch came to her residence and again took him into custody.<\/p>\n
Petitioner alleges that her husband was taken to Vellathooval Police<\/p>\n
Station by the Circle Inspector and four Police Constables. They<\/p>\n
removed his clothes and tied his hands in the upward position. He was<\/p>\n
beaten and kicked on his chest and lower abdomen. He was asked to<\/p>\n
lie down on the floor and one Police Constable stepped on his body and<\/p>\n
another constable rolled a roller over his legs.\n<\/p>\n
      8. It is further alleged that petitioner’s husband began to vomit<\/p>\n
blood and when he asked for some water he was given urine and was<\/p>\n
made to drink it forcibly. The case of the petitioner is that this<\/p>\n
OP.No.7859\/02.                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
prolonged inhuman treatment forced her husband to agree to make a<\/p>\n
confession that he and his wife (petitioner) had committed the above<\/p>\n
crime.\n<\/p>\n
      9. Petitioner has further alleged that she was also summoned to<\/p>\n
the Crime Branch office at Moolamattom and detained there while her<\/p>\n
husband was lying in the other room suffering the acts of torture. It is<\/p>\n
further alleged that she was also beaten after tying her hands and<\/p>\n
hanging from the ceiling beams in a naked condition. She was<\/p>\n
beaten and kicked on her chest and lower abdomen, her hair was pulled<\/p>\n
out and she was severely tortured. She was also made to drink urine.<\/p>\n
According to her, when she knew that her husband had confessed to<\/p>\n
the crime, she also followed suit, as she was on the brink of death.<\/p>\n
Her uterus ruptured resulting in severe bleeding.<\/p>\n
      10. According to the petitioner, on the next day she and her<\/p>\n
husband were taken to the office of the Superintendent of Police,<\/p>\n
Kottayam and asked to follow the directions of the officers in order to<\/p>\n
make recovery of the alleged weapon of the crime. To make a long<\/p>\n
story short, the petitioner states that she and her husband ultimately<\/p>\n
confessed to the crime before the Police.   The weapon was recovered<\/p>\n
on the basis of the alleged information furnished by them. They were<\/p>\n
arrested and produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate.<\/p>\n
      11. I have referred to the averments and allegations made by the<\/p>\n
petitioner in the writ petition about the alleged acts of torture of not<\/p>\n
only the petitioner but also of her husband a little too elaborately, only<\/p>\n
OP.No.7859\/02.                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
to have a clear picture of what the petitioner and her husband allegedly<\/p>\n
suffered at the hands of the Police. As mentioned earlier, petitioner was<\/p>\n
released from judicial custody after about a month of her arrest on<\/p>\n
December 15, 1992 as is revealed from Ext.P8. Petitioner’s husband<\/p>\n
Sri.Sasi was of course in judicial custody for about four months. He<\/p>\n
was released only in March 1993.\n<\/p>\n
      12. It is true that petitioner has raised a contention that she and<\/p>\n
her husband had submitted Ext.P4 representation before the Chief<\/p>\n
Minister of Kerala on October 7, 1996 complaining against their false<\/p>\n
implication in the above crime. Significantly, there is not even a<\/p>\n
whisper in      Ext.P4     representation about the alleged brutalities<\/p>\n
committed either by the local Police or the Crime Branch against the<\/p>\n
petitioner or her husband.\n<\/p>\n
      13. Petitioner has also invited my attention to the serialised<\/p>\n
reports (Exts.P5 to P7) published in one of the Malayalam newspapers,<\/p>\n
which, according to the petitioner had “candidly” reported about the<\/p>\n
inhuman torture by the Police inflicted on the petitioner and her<\/p>\n
husband.\n<\/p>\n
      14. Petitioner has also produced Ext.P9 medical certificate dated<\/p>\n
May 3, 2006 allegedly issued        by a retired Ayurveda      Doctor at<\/p>\n
Rajakkad. In the said certificate it is seen stated by the Medical officer<\/p>\n
that the petitioner had been under his treatment since November 1993<\/p>\n
and that petitioner had informed him of her torture in police custody. It<\/p>\n
is further stated that petitioner had injuries on chest and other parts of<\/p>\n
OP.No.7859\/02.                      7<\/span><\/p>\n
her body. The Medical Officer has further stated that the injuries<\/p>\n
referred to above could have been sustained due to police torture.<\/p>\n
       15. The same Medical Officer had issued Ext.P8 certificate<\/p>\n
regarding the treatment allegedly administered to the late husband of<\/p>\n
the petitioner since November 1993.           According to the Doctor,<\/p>\n
petitioner’s husband was suffering from “head ache, chest pain and<\/p>\n
blood vomiting”. It is further stated in the certificate that petitioner’s<\/p>\n
husband had complained that he was tortured in police custody. It is<\/p>\n
further stated by the Doctor that the injuries mentioned above could<\/p>\n
have been sustained in the course of police torture. But it is significant<\/p>\n
to note that both these certificates are seen issued in 2006.<\/p>\n
      16. Apart from the documents referred to above, petitioner has<\/p>\n
not produced any material to show that either she or her husband had<\/p>\n
made any complaint before any authority about the alleged custodial<\/p>\n
torture perpetrated by the Police at the Police Station or at the Crime<\/p>\n
Branch office at Moolamattom between June 1991 till November 1992.<\/p>\n
Going by the nature of the alleged acts of torture as described in the<\/p>\n
writ petition, it cannot be assumed that either the petitioner or her<\/p>\n
husband would have kept quiet without approaching the Court or other<\/p>\n
appropriate authorities for about 9 years. It may also be noticed that<\/p>\n
the specific case of the petitioner is that her uterus had been ruptured<\/p>\n
resulting in bleeding because of the alleged ill treatment by the Police.<\/p>\n
      17. It is true that the Police had failed to collect sufficient pieces<\/p>\n
of evidence to charge sheet the petitioner and her husband in the above<\/p>\n
OP.No.7859\/02.                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
crime. The case was ultimately referred as “undetected” in the year<\/p>\n
1998.     As mentioned earlier, petitioner’s husband passed away in<\/p>\n
March 1999. Till his death he had not taken any action against the<\/p>\n
erring Police Officers, (some of whom have been named in this<\/p>\n
petition), even though it was known prior to his death that Police had<\/p>\n
referred the case as undetected.\n<\/p>\n
       18. Petitioner has chosen to file this Original Petition after<\/p>\n
inordinate and unexplained delay of more than nine years and that too<\/p>\n
on the basis of some bald and uncorroborated allegations of torture. In<\/p>\n
my view, petitioner cannot be granted any relief in this Original<\/p>\n
Petition on the strength of such uncorroborated and unsubstantiated<\/p>\n
allegations of torture.\n<\/p>\n
       19. Before parting with the case, it has to be mentioned that the<\/p>\n
investigation of the above crime was apparently conducted in a very<\/p>\n
slipshod and haphazard manner. In the course of hearing the learned<\/p>\n
Director General of Prosecution was requested to produce the C.D file<\/p>\n
since it was noticed that the officers in charge of investigation had<\/p>\n
come to different conclusions as regards sustainability of the charge<\/p>\n
against the accused. It is revealed from the files that the Officer who<\/p>\n
was initially in charge of the investigation had come to the conclusion<\/p>\n
that the petitioner and her husband were involved in the case. But his<\/p>\n
successor thought otherwise.\n<\/p>\n
      20. As stated earlier, the local Police had registered Crime No.84<\/p>\n
of 1991 on June 18, 1991 under the caption “unnatural death”. Shortly<\/p>\n
OP.No.7859\/02.                    9<\/span><\/p>\n
thereafter,  the Police had incorporated Section 302 IPC since the<\/p>\n
postmortem report revealed that the victim had suffered 19 ante<\/p>\n
mortem injuries on his body and that he was dumped in the pond while<\/p>\n
he was      in an unconscious condition. The CB CID took over<\/p>\n
investigation on November 28, 1991. The Officer in charge of the<\/p>\n
investigation came to the conclusion, allegedly on the basis of the<\/p>\n
confession statement made by the petitioner and her husband and also<\/p>\n
pursuant to the recovery of the weapon allegedly used for the murder,<\/p>\n
that petitioner and her husband were involved in the case. It is revealed<\/p>\n
from the CD file that on the basis of the factual report submitted by the<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer (Sri.Philip Joseph, Detective Inspector), the CB<\/p>\n
CID    Headquarters by its order dated June 5, 1995 had accorded<\/p>\n
sanction to charge sheet the case.\n<\/p>\n
      21. But the files further reveal that the Officer who succeeded<\/p>\n
Sri.Philip Joseph apparently took the view that his predecessor had not<\/p>\n
conducted a proper investigation in the case. This view was tacitly<\/p>\n
approved by the superior officers. Therefore further investigation was<\/p>\n
conducted in the case ignoring the earlier sanction order issued by the<\/p>\n
CB CID Headquarters. Ultimately, the Investigating Agency came to<\/p>\n
the conclusion that involvement of the petitioner and her husband in<\/p>\n
the crime had not been established and accordingly final report was<\/p>\n
submitted by the then Superintendent of Police, CB CID Kottayam on<\/p>\n
March 5, 1998 stating that there was no clue as            to  who was<\/p>\n
responsible for the murder of Joy and also that there was no possibility<\/p>\n
OP.No.7859\/02.                     10<\/span><\/p>\n
of    making any break through in the case in the near future. The<\/p>\n
Officer therefore requested to treat the case as undetected. The said<\/p>\n
report is available in the CD file.\n<\/p>\n
      22. Sri.P.G.Thampi. learned Director General of Prosecution,<\/p>\n
on the face of the apparent contradictory stand taken by the same<\/p>\n
investigating agency in the crime had filed a statement in an attempt to<\/p>\n
cover up the embarassment of the entire Police machinery. It was<\/p>\n
informed by him that a departmental enquiry had been initiated against<\/p>\n
Sri.Philip Joseph. However the delinquent officer was not found guilty<\/p>\n
and he was exonerated. The file relating to the enquiry has also been<\/p>\n
made available for my perusal. I do not propose to deal with the<\/p>\n
contents of either the CD file or the enquiry file at this stage, since in<\/p>\n
my view,     it may not serve any purpose at this distance of time.<\/p>\n
Reference has been made to the above aspects only to highlight the<\/p>\n
fact that the grievance projected by the petitioner may not be entirely<\/p>\n
baseless.\n<\/p>\n
      23. But this Court will not be justified in awarding damages in<\/p>\n
exercise of its extra ordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article<\/p>\n
226 of the Constitution of India, since the averments made by the<\/p>\n
petitioner are totally bald, sketchy and uncorroborated. It is true that in<\/p>\n
appropriate cases this Court can award compensation or damages in<\/p>\n
exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, if it is<\/p>\n
established with the aid of the materials available on record that any<\/p>\n
right guaranteed under the Constitution of India had been violated<\/p>\n
OP.No.7859\/02.                   11<\/span><\/p>\n
resulting in injury. But these are only exceptions. Under normal<\/p>\n
circumstances the aggrieved party has to necessarily approach the civil<\/p>\n
court especially in cases where no clinching materials are available in<\/p>\n
support of the claim.    More importantly, in this case, petitioner is<\/p>\n
guilty of laches. She had not chosen to approach the court with due<\/p>\n
diligence and promptitude that       is   normally expected in such<\/p>\n
situations.\n<\/p>\n
       24. The Apex Court in Sube Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.<\/a><\/p>\n
(2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 54 had this to say:\n<\/p>\n
              “45. Cases where violation of Article<\/p>\n
           21 involving custodial death or torture is<\/p>\n
           established or is incontrovertible stand<\/p>\n
           on a different footing when compared to<\/p>\n
           cases where such violation is doubtful or<\/p>\n
           not    established. Where there is no<\/p>\n
           independent evidence of custodial torture<\/p>\n
           and where there is       neither medical<\/p>\n
           evidence about any injury or disability,<\/p>\n
           resulting from custodial torture, nor any<\/p>\n
           mark\/scar, it may not be prudent to<\/p>\n
           accept claims of human rights violation,<\/p>\n
           by persons having criminal records in a<\/p>\n
           routine     manner      for     awarding<\/p>\n
           compensation. That may open           the<\/p>\n
OP.No.7859\/02.                    12<\/span><\/p>\n
           floodgates for false claims, either to<\/p>\n
           mulct money from the State or as to<\/p>\n
           prevent or thwart further investigation.<\/p>\n
           The courts should, therefore, while<\/p>\n
           zealously protecting the fundamental<\/p>\n
           rights of those who are illegally detained<\/p>\n
           or subjected to custodial violence, should<\/p>\n
           also stand guard against false, motivated<\/p>\n
           and frivolous claims in the interests of<\/p>\n
           the society and to enable the police to<\/p>\n
           discharge their duties fearlessly and<\/p>\n
           effectively. While custodial torture is not<\/p>\n
           infrequent, it should be borne in mind<\/p>\n
           that every arrest and detention does not<\/p>\n
           lead to custodial torture”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                 (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
Having carefully perused the entire materials available on record. I am<\/p>\n
not persuaded to issue any direction to respondent No.1 to pay<\/p>\n
compensation to the petitioner.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      The Original Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                           A.K. Basheer\nan.                                            Judge.\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Shobhana vs State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM OP.No. 7859 of 2002(I) 1. SHOBHANA, W\/O. LATE SASI, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF … Respondent 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, 4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR, PHILIP, 5. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-120430","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShobhana vs State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shobhana-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shobhana vs State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shobhana-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-27T04:57:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shobhana-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shobhana-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shobhana vs State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-27T04:57:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shobhana-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2903,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shobhana-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shobhana-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shobhana-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009\",\"name\":\"Shobhana vs State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-27T04:57:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shobhana-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shobhana-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shobhana-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shobhana vs State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shobhana vs State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shobhana-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shobhana vs State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shobhana-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-27T04:57:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shobhana-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shobhana-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shobhana vs State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-27T04:57:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shobhana-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009"},"wordCount":2903,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shobhana-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shobhana-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shobhana-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009","name":"Shobhana vs State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-27T04:57:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shobhana-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shobhana-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shobhana-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shobhana vs State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120430","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=120430"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120430\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=120430"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=120430"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=120430"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}