{"id":188907,"date":"2010-06-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hameed-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-june-2010"},"modified":"2018-12-20T00:39:13","modified_gmt":"2018-12-19T19:09:13","slug":"hameed-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hameed-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Hameed vs The State Of Kerala on 29 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Hameed vs The State Of Kerala on 29 June, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 1216 of 2003()\n\n\n1. HAMEED, S\/O. ABDU RAHIMAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE STATE OF KERALA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.BABU S. NAIR\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :29\/06\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n          M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n\n           ---------------------------------------------\n           CRL.R.P.NO.1216 OF 2003\n           ---------------------------------------------\n               Dated      29th     June, 2010\n\n\n                          O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
       Petitioner, accused in C.C.21\/1996<\/p>\n
was  convicted         for         the        offences      under<\/p>\n
Sections 279, 337 and 338 of                         Indian Penal<\/p>\n
Code and Section 184 read with Section 177<\/p>\n
of Motor Vehicles Act by Judicial First<\/p>\n
Class    Magistrate-II,                         Perinthalmanna.<\/p>\n
Petitioner challenged the conviction and<\/p>\n
sentence before Sessions court, Manjeri in<\/p>\n
Crl.A.77\/1999. Learned Additional Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge on re-appreciation of the evidence<\/p>\n
confirmed the conviction and sentence and<\/p>\n
dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in<\/p>\n
this revision.\n<\/p>\n
       2. Revision                    petitioner            would\n\ncontend  that          none          of         the      witnesses\n\nCRRP 1216\/03             2<\/span>\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
identified petitioner as the driver of the<\/p>\n
bus    and   therefore,  conviction   of  the<\/p>\n
petitioner is illegal. It is also contended<\/p>\n
that from the evidence of the witnesses, at<\/p>\n
best it could be said that the bus was being<\/p>\n
run in over speed, which by itself will not<\/p>\n
constitute    the  offences  alleged  and  the<\/p>\n
witnesses     have  not   spoken   about  any<\/p>\n
negligence attributed to the driver and the<\/p>\n
courts below did not properly appreciate the<\/p>\n
material     contradictions,   omissions  and<\/p>\n
discrepancies in the evidence and therefore,<\/p>\n
conviction is unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n
           3. Prosecution   case    is   that\n\npetitioner was the driver of     bus KL-10-B-\n\n1072 which was proceeding along      Melattur-\n\n<\/pre>\n
Perinthalmanna public road on 5\/12\/1995 at<\/p>\n
about 12.45 p.m. Petitioner was driving the<\/p>\n
bus    rashly  and   negligently,  so  as   to<\/p>\n
CRRP 1216\/03           3<\/span><\/p>\n
endanger human life. When it reached near<\/p>\n
Melattur Bazar, it capsized  after covering<\/p>\n
a hump due to the said rash and negligent<\/p>\n
driving and caused hurt and grievous hurt to<\/p>\n
35 passengers. Petitioner thereby committed<\/p>\n
the offence. Petitioner pleaded not guilty.<\/p>\n
Prosecution examined 28 witnesses and marked<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 to P40. Petitioner did not adduce any<\/p>\n
evidence. Learned Magistrate on the evidence<\/p>\n
found that though many of the witnesses<\/p>\n
turned hostile, evidence of Pws.1,3,4,5,6<\/p>\n
and 13 establish that petitioner was the<\/p>\n
driver of the bus and the bus after covering<\/p>\n
a hump due to the rash and negligent driving<\/p>\n
of the petitioner capsized, causing hurt and<\/p>\n
grievous hurt to 35 passengers including<\/p>\n
Pws.1     to 6 and  thereby  committed   the<\/p>\n
offences. Though petitioner contended that<\/p>\n
the incident was not  due to any negligent,<\/p>\n
CRRP 1216\/03              4<\/span><\/p>\n
but due to mechanical defect, relying on the<\/p>\n
evidence      of   PW22,   AMVI  and   Ext.P39<\/p>\n
inspection report it was found that there<\/p>\n
was no mechanical defect to the vehicle and<\/p>\n
the    evidence   establish  that  immediately<\/p>\n
before     the  bus  capsized, petitioner  had<\/p>\n
lighted a cigarette and was not in control<\/p>\n
of the vehicle and in such circumstances, he<\/p>\n
was found guilty of the offences. He was<\/p>\n
sentenced to simple imprisonment for three<\/p>\n
months      and fine  of  Rs.1,000\/-  for  the<\/p>\n
offence      under  Section  279  and   simple<\/p>\n
imprisonment and fine of Rs.500\/- for the<\/p>\n
offence      under  Section  337  and   simple<\/p>\n
imprisonment for six months and fine of<\/p>\n
Rs.1,000\/- for the offence under Section 338<\/p>\n
and fine of Rs.100\/- and in default simple<\/p>\n
imprisonment for ten days for the offence<\/p>\n
under     Section 184 read with Section 177 of<\/p>\n
CRRP 1216\/03              5<\/span><\/p>\n
Motor     Vehicles  Act.  All  the  substantive<\/p>\n
sentences      were   directed   to   be    run<\/p>\n
concurrently .Petitioner was also granted<\/p>\n
set off as provided under Section 428 of<\/p>\n
Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge      re-appreciated  the   evidence   and<\/p>\n
confirmed the conviction and sentence.<\/p>\n
           4. Argument of the learned   counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the petitioner is that none of<\/p>\n
the witnesses identified petitioner as the<\/p>\n
driver of the bus and in any event evidence<\/p>\n
do not disclose that the bus capsized due to<\/p>\n
the rash and negligent driving and on the<\/p>\n
evidence it should have been found that bus<\/p>\n
capsized     only  due  to  mechanical  defect.<\/p>\n
Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that<\/p>\n
the evidence of Pws.1,4,5 and 6 injured<\/p>\n
passengers of the bus who had opportunity to<\/p>\n
identify the driver while travelling in that<\/p>\n
CRRP 1216\/03              6<\/span><\/p>\n
bus, identified petitioner as the driver,<\/p>\n
which       was not    challenged  in    cross<\/p>\n
examination and therefore, petitioner is not<\/p>\n
entitled to dispute his identity as driver<\/p>\n
of the bus. It was also pointed out that the<\/p>\n
evidence of Pws.1,4,5, and 6 along with that<\/p>\n
of Pws.3 and 13     establish that just before<\/p>\n
the bus capsized      there was hump and when<\/p>\n
the bus was covering that hump petitioner<\/p>\n
was lightening a cigarette and the     bus was<\/p>\n
being driven in over speed and as a result<\/p>\n
it capsized and it is also proved that 35<\/p>\n
passengers of     the bus sustained hurt and<\/p>\n
grievous hurt by the evidence of PW7, the<\/p>\n
doctor with Exts.P2 to 36 wound certificates<\/p>\n
and    therefore,   conviction  is   perfectly<\/p>\n
legal.\n<\/p>\n
           5. Though     revision     petition\n\npetitioner     disputed  his  identity,   when\n\nCRRP 1216\/03            7<\/span>\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
Pws.1,4,5,6,14,24,25 and 27 were examined,<\/p>\n
they identified petitioner as the driver of<\/p>\n
the bus at the relevant time. Their version<\/p>\n
that    petitioner was the  driver  was  not<\/p>\n
challenged in cross examination. It is seen<\/p>\n
that when petitioner was questioned under<\/p>\n
Section 313 of    Code of Criminal Procedure<\/p>\n
also, he has no case that he was not the<\/p>\n
driver of the bus. When he was asked whether<\/p>\n
he has anything more to say apart from<\/p>\n
answering to the question put to him, he<\/p>\n
only stated that the incident was not due to<\/p>\n
his negligence but as the leaf of the bus<\/p>\n
had broken. Therefore, petitioner is not<\/p>\n
entitled to contend before the revisional<\/p>\n
court that he was not the driver of the bus<\/p>\n
at the relevant time, as he did not dispute<\/p>\n
that fact when the witnesses were being<\/p>\n
examined.\n<\/p>\n
CRRP 1216\/03              8<\/span><\/p>\n
           6. Fact that passengers of the bus<\/p>\n
sustained hurt and grievous hurt is not<\/p>\n
disputed. As rightly found by the courts<\/p>\n
below     evidence  of  PW7  the  doctor  with<\/p>\n
Exts.P2 to 36 wound certificates establish<\/p>\n
that 35 passengers of the bus was examined<\/p>\n
by him and noted the injuries recorded in<\/p>\n
Exts.P2 to 36 wound certificates. Ext.P2<\/p>\n
wound certificate shows that the injured<\/p>\n
sustained fracture of humor. Exts.P4 to P11<\/p>\n
wound certificates also establish that those<\/p>\n
injured also sustained fractures. The other<\/p>\n
injured     only   sustained  hurt.   In  such<\/p>\n
circumstances, fact that those     victims were<\/p>\n
passengers of the bus and they sustained<\/p>\n
injuries     were also not disputed. Therefore,<\/p>\n
prosecution has established that consequent<\/p>\n
to the capsizing of the bus, 35 passengers<\/p>\n
of the bus sustained injury and several of<\/p>\n
CRRP 1216\/03              9<\/span><\/p>\n
them    sustained   grievous  hurt  and  others<\/p>\n
simple hurt.\n<\/p>\n
            7. Crucial question is whether the<\/p>\n
bus capsized due to the rash and negligent<\/p>\n
driving of the bus by the petitioner. Though<\/p>\n
it is contended by the revision petitioner<\/p>\n
and it was argued by the learned counsel<\/p>\n
that       the evidence of witnesses do not<\/p>\n
establish that there was no negligence on<\/p>\n
the part of the petitioner and at best it<\/p>\n
would only show there was over speed, as<\/p>\n
rightly pointed out by the learned Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor evidence is otherwise. Evidence<\/p>\n
of Pws.1,3,4,5 and 13 establish that just<\/p>\n
before     the  bus  capsized,  petitioner  was<\/p>\n
lightening a cigarette      and was not taking<\/p>\n
proper care       in driving the bus. Their<\/p>\n
evidence also establish that bus was in over<\/p>\n
speed. It is also     in evidence that in spite<\/p>\n
CRRP 1216\/03             10<\/span><\/p>\n
of the fact that there was a hump in the<\/p>\n
road,     petitioner did  not  slow  down  the<\/p>\n
vehicle.      It is   in  such  circumstances,<\/p>\n
petitioner lost control of the vehicle and<\/p>\n
the bus capsized. Though it was contended<\/p>\n
that the bus over turned not    because of the<\/p>\n
negligent driving but because of mechanical<\/p>\n
defect,     as  rightly found  by  the  courts<\/p>\n
below, Ext.P39 report of AMVI with evidence<\/p>\n
of PW22 conclusively establish that there<\/p>\n
was no mechanical defect to the vehicle<\/p>\n
before the incident.     Though leaf was found<\/p>\n
broken, evidence establishes that it was in<\/p>\n
the incident, when the bus capsized the<\/p>\n
damage      was caused  and  not   before  the<\/p>\n
incident. Even if leaf was broken the bus<\/p>\n
would       not  have   capsized.   In    such<\/p>\n
circumstances,     finding of the courts below<\/p>\n
that petitioner was driving the bus rashly<\/p>\n
CRRP 1216\/03             11<\/span><\/p>\n
and negligently, so as to endanger human<\/p>\n
life and by such driving caused grievous<\/p>\n
hurt    and  hurt  to  35  passengers  is  in<\/p>\n
accordance    with  the   evidence.  In  such<\/p>\n
circumstances, conviction of the petitioner<\/p>\n
for the offences is perfectly legal and<\/p>\n
warrants no interference.\n<\/p>\n
           8. Then  the   only   question  is<\/p>\n
regarding    the  sentence.  Argument of  the<\/p>\n
learned     counsel is that incident occurred<\/p>\n
in 1995 and at this distant point of time<\/p>\n
petitioner may not be sent to prison and<\/p>\n
leniency may be shown.     Petitioner was the<\/p>\n
driver of the stage carriage bus. Life of<\/p>\n
the passengers of the bus is definitely in<\/p>\n
the hands of the driver of the bus. Evidence<\/p>\n
establish     that  petitioner   was   grossly<\/p>\n
negligent in driving the bus. Considering<\/p>\n
the   fact   that  the  driver  of  the stage<\/p>\n
CRRP 1216\/03              12<\/span><\/p>\n
carriage     bus  are  unconcerned   about  the<\/p>\n
safety of the passengers and incidents of<\/p>\n
this are common, interest of justice does<\/p>\n
not     warrant    any   leniency.    In   such<\/p>\n
circumstances, I find no reason to interfere<\/p>\n
with the sentence also.\n<\/p>\n
           Revision fails and is dismissed.<\/p>\n
                          M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
\n                                      JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
uj.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Hameed vs The State Of Kerala on 29 June, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1216 of 2003() 1. HAMEED, S\/O. ABDU RAHIMAN, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.BABU S. NAIR For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN […]<\/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-188907","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nHameed vs The State Of Kerala on 29 June, 2010 - 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\/hameed-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hameed vs The State Of Kerala on 29 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hameed-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-june-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-06-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-19T19:09:13+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hameed-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hameed-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hameed vs The State Of Kerala on 29 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-19T19:09:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hameed-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1406,\"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\\\/hameed-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hameed-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hameed-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Hameed vs The State Of Kerala on 29 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-19T19:09:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hameed-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hameed-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hameed-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hameed vs The State Of Kerala on 29 June, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Hameed vs The State Of Kerala on 29 June, 2010 - 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\/hameed-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hameed vs The State Of Kerala on 29 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hameed-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-19T19:09:13+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hameed-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hameed-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hameed vs The State Of Kerala on 29 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-19T19:09:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hameed-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-june-2010"},"wordCount":1406,"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\/hameed-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hameed-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hameed-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-june-2010","name":"Hameed vs The State Of Kerala on 29 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-19T19:09:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hameed-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hameed-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hameed-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hameed vs The State Of Kerala on 29 June, 2010"}]},{"@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\/188907","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=188907"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188907\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=188907"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=188907"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=188907"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}