{"id":197160,"date":"2007-01-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-01-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-aneesh-on-31-january-2007"},"modified":"2017-11-09T06:24:31","modified_gmt":"2017-11-09T00:54:31","slug":"state-of-kerala-vs-n-aneesh-on-31-january-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-aneesh-on-31-january-2007","title":{"rendered":"State Of Kerala vs N.Aneesh on 31 January, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
State Of Kerala vs N.Aneesh on 31 January, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL A No. 390 of 1999(C)\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. N.ANEESH\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY\n\n Dated :31\/01\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                             J.B.KOSHY, J.\n\n                     -------------------------------\n\n            Criminal Appeal.No.390 OF 1999 ()\n\n                   -----------------------------------\n\n        Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2007\n\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      This   appeal   is   filed   by   the   State   against   the   order   of<\/p>\n
acquittal   in   S.C.No.194\/1995   on   the   file   of   the   Additional<\/p>\n
Assistant Sessions Judge, Thalassery.   The case was registered<\/p>\n
as   Crime   No.39\/1994   of   Maloor   Police   Station   under   Sections<\/p>\n
143, 147, 148, 452, 427, 324, 326 and 307 read with Section<\/p>\n
149  of   the  Indian  Penal   Code.  The  prosecution  case   is   that  in<\/p>\n
furtherance of their common object to commit murder of PW2<\/p>\n
Balakrishnan   due   to   their   animosity   towards   him   that   on<\/p>\n
information furnished by him the Asst.Superintendent of Police,<\/p>\n
Thalassery   has   conducted   a   raid   and   utensils   and   other<\/p>\n
apparatus used for illicit distillation belonging to the 1st accused<\/p>\n
were   seized   and   destroyed,   the   six   accused   with   deadly<\/p>\n
weapons   like   chopper   on   21.6.1994   at   8.15   p.m.   committed<\/p>\n
trespass   into   the   shoproom   No.MP.VIII\/228   belonged   to   PW3<\/p>\n
Sahadevan   at   Thrikaderipoyil   Tholambra   amsom   desom   and<\/p>\n
inflicted   injuries on  PWs.2  and  3  by  accused  Nos.1  and 2   and<\/p>\n
CRL.APPEAL.390\/1999                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
the   other   four   accused   committed   mischief   by   damaging   the<\/p>\n
jeep KL 3879 which was parked in front of the said shop.   The<\/p>\n
accused   left   the   place   and   the   injured   were   taken   to<\/p>\n
Govt.Hospital,   Thalassery.     After   first   aid   they   were   taken   to<\/p>\n
Medical   College   Hospital,   Kozhikode   for   treatment.     PW1<\/p>\n
Gangadharan  went to  Maloor  Police   station  and   gave   the first<\/p>\n
information   statement   and   an   FIR   was   registered   and<\/p>\n
consequently   all   the   six   respondents   were   charge   sheeted.\n<\/p>\n
Trial   court   convicted   them   for   offences   punishable   under<\/p>\n
Section 143, 148, 452, 427, 324 and 307 read with Section 149<\/p>\n
of  I.P.C.       On  reappreciation  of  the   evidence,   appellate   court<\/p>\n
found that the charges levelled against them were not proved<\/p>\n
and   they   were   acquitted   and   the   order   of   acquittal   is<\/p>\n
challenged in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      2.   For convicting the accused,   prosecution mainly relied<\/p>\n
on the evidence of PWs.1 to 7, out of which PWs.2 and 3 were<\/p>\n
injured.  PWs.6 and 7 were the neighboring shop owners.  PW3<\/p>\n
is the owner of the grocery shop in which the alleged attack on<\/p>\n
PW2 was committed.    In his first information statement,  case<\/p>\n
of   PW1   was   that   Nelleri   Aneesh,   Panikken   Pavithran,   Kottai<\/p>\n
CRL.APPEAL.390\/1999                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
Babu,   Kottai   Sukumaran,   Natancheri   Sivaraman   and   Kotten<\/p>\n
Raju   formed   themselves   into   an   unlawful   assembly   with<\/p>\n
choppers chased PW2 and when PW2 Balakrishnan ran into the<\/p>\n
shop of PW3 Sahadevan, uttering that you cannot be permitted<\/p>\n
to   leave,   assaulted   him   and   Aneesh   inflicted   cut   injuries   with<\/p>\n
chopper   on   the   head,   both   the   hands   and   stomach   of<\/p>\n
Balakrishnan and Balakrishnan fell down in between the articles<\/p>\n
kept   for   sale   in   the   shop.     Natancheri   Pavithran   with   the<\/p>\n
chopper in his hand uttered that you will also be murdered and<\/p>\n
inflicted a cut injury on the face and head of Sahadevan PW3,<\/p>\n
the shop owner.  The others Kottai Babu, Pavithran, Sivaraman,<\/p>\n
Kotten   Raju   were   committing   damage   on   the   jeep   KLL   3879<\/p>\n
parked   in   front   of   the   shop   with   the   choppers   in   their   hand.\n<\/p>\n
After inflicting  injuries and  damaging  the  jeep all the  accused<\/p>\n
ran   towards   the   tea   shop   of   one   Raman.     When   this   first<\/p>\n
informant   was   examined   before   the   court   as   PW1   his   case   is<\/p>\n
that   Aneesh,   Pavithran,   Babu,   Mukundan,   Sivaraman   and<\/p>\n
Reghu seen chasing Balakrishnan who entered into the shop of<\/p>\n
PW3.     The   names   of   Kottai   Sukumaran   and   Kotten   Raju<\/p>\n
mentioned   in   his   first   statement   were   not   mentioned   in   the<\/p>\n
witness   box   and   instead   of   these   two,   the   names   of   the   2nd<\/p>\n
CRL.APPEAL.390\/1999                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
accused   Pavithran   and   4th            accused   Kotten   Raghu   @<\/p>\n
Reghuthaman were mentioned and according to him two other<\/p>\n
names were mentioned by members.       The motive alleged by<\/p>\n
PW1   is   that   two   days   prior   to   the   incident,     the   Assistant<\/p>\n
Superintendent   of   Police,   Thalassery     conducted   a   raid   at   the<\/p>\n
shop of Aneesh and Pavithran and they were under  the belief<\/p>\n
that   the   information   was   given   to   the   police   by   PW2<\/p>\n
Balakrishnan  and   thus   PW2   was   attacked.       He   also   stated   in<\/p>\n
the   cross   examination   that   some   of   the   facts   mentioned   in<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 statement are not correct.  He admitted that he himself<\/p>\n
and PW3 are residing in the same house and Balakrishnan is a<\/p>\n
close friend of him.\n<\/p>\n
      3.     PW2,   injured   witness   deposed   regarding   the   injuries.\n<\/p>\n
According   to   him,   Aneesh   inflicted   cut   injuries   on   his   head,<\/p>\n
hand and shoulder and below the chest and he felt in between<\/p>\n
the gunny bags and A2 Pavithran inflicted cut injury on his face<\/p>\n
and other four accused damaged his jeep parked in front of the<\/p>\n
shop.   He was taken to Thalassery Govt.Hospital and after first<\/p>\n
aid he was admitted in Medical college hospital, Calicut where<\/p>\n
he   was   treated   for   42   days.     PW3   was   also   injured   in   the<\/p>\n
CRL.APPEAL.390\/1999                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
incident.     Both   the   injured   witnesses   narrated   the   incident   in<\/p>\n
different ways.  Lot of  discrepancies between 161 statement of<\/p>\n
PW3   and   his   deposition   were   also   brought   out   in   cross<\/p>\n
examination.  According to PW3,  police incorrectly recorded his<\/p>\n
statement.     The   evidence   of   other   defense   was   correctly<\/p>\n
analysed   by   the   appellate   court   and   appellate   court   found   as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
      “Now   I   may   point   out   that   the   main   argument   put<\/p>\n
      forward   by   the   appellants’   counsel   before   me   are<\/p>\n
      that   first   of   all   except   PW2,   the   others   are   close<\/p>\n
      relatives.     Though   an   incident   has   happened   at   a<\/p>\n
      time  when all the nearby  shops were kept  opened,<\/p>\n
      only   PWs.6   and   7   who   are   shop   owners,   far   away<\/p>\n
      from the shop of PW3, have been cited as witnesses.<\/p>\n
      The witnesses admitted that on the opposite side of<\/p>\n
      the   road   of   the   shop   of   PW3   there   is   a   shop   of<\/p>\n
      Sekharan and standing at the Sekharan’s shop, the<\/p>\n
      shop   of   PW3   is   visible.     But   neither   Sekharan   or<\/p>\n
      anybody who were present in the shop were cited as<\/p>\n
      witness or examined.   Only the close relatives were<\/p>\n
      cited   as   eye   witnesses   to   the   incident.     It   may   be<\/p>\n
      noted   that   the   case   of   PW3   and   PW5   is   that   while<\/p>\n
      PW2  came running  into the shop of PW3, PW3  was<\/p>\n
      packing some materials to be sold.  But nobody has<\/p>\n
      got   a   case   that   any   stranger   was   present   there   to<\/p>\n
      purchase any material.   None of the witnesses have<\/p>\n
      got   a   case   that   they   came   to   the   shop   for<\/p>\n
      purchasing any material from the shop.  This cannot<\/p>\n
      be believed.  According to the appellants to support<\/p>\n
      a false case, the near relatives alone were made eye<\/p>\n
      witnesses and a false case has been foisted against<\/p>\n
      these accused.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nCRL.APPEAL.390\/1999                     6<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The   appellate   court   also   found   that   motive   was   not   proved.\n<\/p>\n
There was no evidence in this case that a raid was conducted<\/p>\n
by the police in a distillation centre of A1 and A2.  If that be so,<\/p>\n
police   could   have   made   some   evidence   regarding   the   same.\n<\/p>\n
There   was   also   no   evidence   either   documentary   or   oral   that<\/p>\n
there   was   sufficient   light   in   the   shop   of   PW3   so   that   witness<\/p>\n
could   have   seen   the   incident.   The   incident   occurred   at   8.15<\/p>\n
p.m.  When PWs.1 to 5 were examined before the court on the<\/p>\n
prosecution   side   not   even   a   single   question   was   put   to   them<\/p>\n
regarding the presence of light, for that matter to bring out any<\/p>\n
evidence that there was sufficient light inside the shop so that<\/p>\n
the witnesses could  see the incident to  identify the assailants<\/p>\n
properly.   So also in the scene mahazar prepared, though it is<\/p>\n
stated that wiring is seen inside the shop there is no mention of<\/p>\n
the   presence   of   even   any   electric   bulbs   or   that   electricity<\/p>\n
supply is available in the shop.  There was also no electric light<\/p>\n
inside the shop and court below found that the burden   of the<\/p>\n
prosecution is to prove that there was sufficient light to see the<\/p>\n
incident.     The   material   witnesses   have   wrongly   named   in   the<\/p>\n
previous   statement.         PWs.2   and   3   gave   wrong   names   as<\/p>\n
accused to the Doctor who issued the wound certificate, apart<\/p>\n
CRL.APPEAL.390\/1999                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
form the fact that names of A4 and A6 were not mentioned in<\/p>\n
the   F.I.Statement.     With   regard   to   Ext.P4   wound   certificate,<\/p>\n
regarding   the  wound   of   PW2   it  was   stated   by   PW2   himself   to<\/p>\n
Doctor   that   Nelleri   Aneesh,   Kottai   Sukumaran,   Kottai   Babu,<\/p>\n
Kotten   Raju,   Sivaraman   and   Mukundan   inflicted   injury   with<\/p>\n
chopper.     But   it   has   deposed   that   it   is   A2,   Pavithran   who<\/p>\n
inflicted   several injuries on him.   There was  also correction in<\/p>\n
the wound certificate,  ‘Kotten Reghu’ was corrected as ‘Kotten<\/p>\n
Raju’.  In any way, Kottai Sukumaran and Kotten Raju were not<\/p>\n
accused   in   this   case.     According   to   Ext.P5   wound   certificate<\/p>\n
with   regard   to   PW3,   his   definite   case   was   that   Pavithran   had<\/p>\n
inflicted   cut   injury   on   his   face   and   head.     PWs.1   to   5   are<\/p>\n
definite that accused 1 and 2 are the persons who ran behind<\/p>\n
PW2, entered into the shop and 1st accused inflicted injuries on<\/p>\n
PW2.   But before the court PW3 has no case that 2nd  accused<\/p>\n
Pavithran   was   present   and   he   is   the   assailant   who   inflicted<\/p>\n
injuries   on   him.     There   is   no   case   that   2nd  accused   Pavithran<\/p>\n
was present at the time of incident and one Katten Reghu was<\/p>\n
present   at   the   time   of   incident.       Thereafter   court   found   as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
CRL.APPEAL.390\/1999                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
       “Both PWs.2 and 3 the injured in their deposition also<\/p>\n
       admitted that they have given the history of alleged<\/p>\n
       injuries to the doctor.   Therefore it is very clear that<\/p>\n
       at   the   time   of   incident   PWs.1   to   3   have   mistaken<\/p>\n
       identity regarding the persons who have attacked on<\/p>\n
       them.     Immediately   after   the   incident   they   were<\/p>\n
       under   the   impression   that   Kottai   Sukumaran   and<\/p>\n
       Katten Raju were present and they have not identified<\/p>\n
       the   2nd  accused   Pavithran   or   the   4th  accused   Reghu<\/p>\n
       among them.  Here the inconsistent aspect is that the<\/p>\n
       definite   case   in   the   witness   box   by   the   occurrence<\/p>\n
       witnesses   is   that   2nd  accused   Pavithran   inflicted   cut<\/p>\n
       injury  on   the  face   and   head   of   PW3  Sahadevan.    So<\/p>\n
       there is very clinching and clear evidence that so far<\/p>\n
       as   the   person   who   inflicted   injury   on   the   face   of<\/p>\n
       Sahadevan   PW3,   the   occurrence   witnesses   have<\/p>\n
       mistaken   identity.     This   further   proves   the   fact   that<\/p>\n
       there   was   no   sufficient     light   in   the   shop   room   to<\/p>\n
       identify the persons who have made the attack.  They<\/p>\n
       have   mistakenly   identified   two   persons   as   Kottai<\/p>\n
       Sukumaran   and   Katten   Raju   and   after   thought   they<\/p>\n
       have   deleted   these   two   persons   and   implicated   2nd<\/p>\n
       accused   Pavithran   and   Katten   Reghu.     Therefore   as<\/p>\n
       has   been   rightly   pointed   out   by   the   learned   counsel<\/p>\n
       for   the   appellants,   I   am   to   held   that   there   is   no<\/p>\n
       convincing evidence available on record to show that<\/p>\n
       there   is   sufficient   light   in   the   shop   room   for   the<\/p>\n
       witnesses   to   see   the   incident   and   to   identify   the<\/p>\n
       persons   who   have   made   the   attack.     This   cuts   the<\/p>\n
       room of the prosecution case.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      On   reappreciation   of   evidence,   appellate   court   clearly<\/p>\n
found that prosecution was not able to prove the case beyond<\/p>\n
reasonable   doubt.     It   cannot   be   stated   that   view   of   the  court<\/p>\n
below   is   not   a   possible   one.     Against   the   order   of   acquittal<\/p>\n
CRL.APPEAL.390\/1999                      9<\/span><\/p>\n
appellate   court   will   not   interfere   unless   it   is   satisfied   by   this<\/p>\n
Court   that   view   of   the   court   below   is   perverse   or   patently<\/p>\n
illegal.  In the above circumstances, I see no ground to interfere<\/p>\n
in the order of acquittal and hence this appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE<\/p>\n
prp<\/p>\n
                     J.B.KOSHY<\/p>\n
         ————————–\n<\/p>\n
Criminal.Appeal.390 OF 1999<\/p>\n
       —————————-\n<\/p>\n
                    JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
          31st January, 2007<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court State Of Kerala vs N.Aneesh on 31 January, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL A No. 390 of 1999(C) 1. STATE OF KERALA … Petitioner Vs 1. N.ANEESH … Respondent For Petitioner :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR For Respondent :SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH The Hon’ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY Dated :31\/01\/2007 O R D E […]<\/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-197160","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Kerala vs N.Aneesh on 31 January, 2007 - 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\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-aneesh-on-31-january-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Kerala vs N.Aneesh on 31 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-aneesh-on-31-january-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-09T00:54:31+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-aneesh-on-31-january-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-aneesh-on-31-january-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Kerala vs N.Aneesh on 31 January, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-09T00:54:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-aneesh-on-31-january-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1836,\"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\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-aneesh-on-31-january-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-aneesh-on-31-january-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-aneesh-on-31-january-2007\",\"name\":\"State Of Kerala vs N.Aneesh on 31 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-09T00:54:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-aneesh-on-31-january-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-aneesh-on-31-january-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-aneesh-on-31-january-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Kerala vs N.Aneesh on 31 January, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Kerala vs N.Aneesh on 31 January, 2007 - 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\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-aneesh-on-31-january-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Kerala vs N.Aneesh on 31 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-aneesh-on-31-january-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-09T00:54:31+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-aneesh-on-31-january-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-aneesh-on-31-january-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Kerala vs N.Aneesh on 31 January, 2007","datePublished":"2007-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-09T00:54:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-aneesh-on-31-january-2007"},"wordCount":1836,"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\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-aneesh-on-31-january-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-aneesh-on-31-january-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-aneesh-on-31-january-2007","name":"State Of Kerala vs N.Aneesh on 31 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-09T00:54:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-aneesh-on-31-january-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-aneesh-on-31-january-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-aneesh-on-31-january-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Kerala vs N.Aneesh on 31 January, 2007"}]},{"@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\/197160","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=197160"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197160\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=197160"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=197160"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=197160"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}