{"id":231799,"date":"2009-08-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razack-cheriyan-krk-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-august-2009"},"modified":"2014-02-05T09:33:16","modified_gmt":"2014-02-05T04:03:16","slug":"abdul-razack-cheriyan-krk-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razack-cheriyan-krk-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Abdul Razack @ Cheriyan @ Krk vs State Of Kerala on 27 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Abdul Razack @ Cheriyan @ Krk vs State Of Kerala on 27 August, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL.A.No. 1771 of 2005()\n\n\n1. ABDUL RAZACK @ CHERIYAN @ KRK,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA.\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.SAMSUDIN\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN\n\n Dated :27\/08\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                                                                   ' C.R.'\n\n      K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.\n\n             ````````````````````````````````````````````````````\n                  Crl. Appeal No. 1771 OF 2005\n             ````````````````````````````````````````````````````\n             Dated this the 27th day of August, 2009\n\n                           J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
Balakrishnan Nair, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            The appellant, feeling aggrieved by his conviction and<\/p>\n
the sentence imposed on him in Sessions Case No.262\/01 on the<\/p>\n
files of the Court of Sessions, Manjeri, has preferred this Criminal<\/p>\n
Appeal. The case against the appellant was as follows:-<\/p>\n
      The appellant was residing with his wife Rasiya and two<\/p>\n
children in a rented building bearing Door No.7\/87 of Edakara<\/p>\n
Grama Panchayat.         On the fateful day, there was a quarrel<\/p>\n
between the husband and wife and this led to the appellant<\/p>\n
pouring kerosene over Rasiya and setting fire to her at about 10<\/p>\n
p.m. She was taken to the nearby hospital at Nilambur and from<\/p>\n
there to the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode.                   While<\/p>\n
undergoing treatment, she breathed her last on 2.9.1997. Based<\/p>\n
on the F.I. Statement given by the deceased and the dying<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1771\/05
\n                                 : 2 :<\/span><\/p>\n
declaration made before the learned Magistrate, the police charge-<\/p>\n
sheeted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section<\/p>\n
302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC). The Judicial First<\/p>\n
Class Magistrate, before whom the charge-sheet was filed,<\/p>\n
committed the case for trial by the Sessions Court.<\/p>\n
      2.     Before the trial court, the appellant pleaded not guilty<\/p>\n
to the charge. The prosecution, to prove its case, examined PWs<\/p>\n
1 to 15 and marked Exts.P1 to P16. Material objects MO1 to MO6<\/p>\n
were also produced. The trial court found the appellant guilty of<\/p>\n
the offence under Section 302 of the IPC, sentenced him to<\/p>\n
undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of<\/p>\n
Rs.10,000\/-. In default, it was ordered that he should undergo<\/p>\n
rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year.<\/p>\n
      3.     The aggrieved appellant attacks the judgment of the<\/p>\n
court below on various grounds. One of the contentions raised<\/p>\n
before us was that the defence counsel arranged by the Sessions<\/p>\n
Court, in terms of Section 304 of the Cr.P.C. read with Rules 3<\/p>\n
and 4 of the Legal Aid to Accused Rules, 1992 was a raw junior.<\/p>\n
The examination of the witnesses in this case started on 7.2.2005.<\/p>\n
Going by Annexure-A1 produced along with Crl.M.A.No.8247\/09, it<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1771\/05
\n                                  : 3 :<\/span><\/p>\n
is pointed out that the lawyer, who defended the appellant, was<\/p>\n
enrolled only on 20.10.2002. That means, he has less than three<\/p>\n
years’ practice and so, the engagement of such a lawyer was<\/p>\n
contrary to the aforementioned provision of the Cr.P.C. and the<\/p>\n
Rules of the Legal Aid to Accused Rules, 1992, it is submitted.<\/p>\n
The defence arranged by the State for the appellant, who cannot<\/p>\n
afford to engage a lawyer by himself, was so poor that he did not<\/p>\n
get a fair trial. So, the conviction and sentence imposed on him is<\/p>\n
unsustainable in law, it is submitted.     In support of the above<\/p>\n
submission, reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court<\/p>\n
in Kishore Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh [1991 (1) SCC<\/p>\n
286].   The appellant, apart from attacking the conviction and<\/p>\n
sentence, on other grounds, highlighted the above vitiating<\/p>\n
circumstance affecting the trial and prayed for remand of the<\/p>\n
matter, so that he can get the service of an experienced lawyer for<\/p>\n
cross-examination of the witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
      4.     We heard the learned Public Prosecutor on the above<\/p>\n
point. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that going by the<\/p>\n
facts of the case, no prejudice has been caused to the appellant<\/p>\n
and even if there is violation of Section 304 of the Cr.PC. or of the<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1771\/05
\n                                  : 4 :<\/span><\/p>\n
aforementioned Rules, unless prejudice is established, it is not<\/p>\n
necessary for this Court to remand the matter.<\/p>\n
      5.     We considered the rival submissions made at the Bar.<\/p>\n
We have gone through the entire evidence on record, including the<\/p>\n
deposition of the witnesses and the Exhibits produced by the<\/p>\n
prosecution. Before dealing with the contentions of the parties, we<\/p>\n
will presently refer to the relevant statutory provisions. Section<\/p>\n
304 Cr.P.C. reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                   ” 304. Legal aid to accused at State<\/p>\n
             expense in certain cases – (1) Where, in a<\/p>\n
             trial before the Court of Session, the accused<\/p>\n
             is not represented by a pleader, and where it<\/p>\n
             appears to the Court that the accused has<\/p>\n
             not sufficient means to engage a pleader, the<\/p>\n
             Court shall assign a pleader for his defence<\/p>\n
             at the expense of the State.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (2)   The High Court may, with the<\/p>\n
             previous approval of the State Government,<\/p>\n
             make rules providing for –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (a)   the mode of selecting pleaders<\/p>\n
             for defence under sub-section (1);<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   (b)   the facilities to be allowed to<\/p>\n
             such pleaders by the Courts;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (c)   the fee payable to such pleaders<\/p>\n
             by the Government, and generally, for<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1771\/05
\n                                   : 5 :<\/span><\/p>\n
             carrying out the purposes of sub-section (1).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   (3)   The State Government may, by<\/p>\n
             notification, direct that, as from such date as<\/p>\n
             may be specified in the notification, the<\/p>\n
             provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall<\/p>\n
             apply in relation to any class of trials before<\/p>\n
             other Courts in the State as they apply in<\/p>\n
             relation to trials before the Courts of<\/p>\n
             Session.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The Kerala High Court has framed Rules under sub-section 2 of<\/p>\n
Section 304 of the Cr.P.C. as Legal Aid to Accused Rules, 1992.<\/p>\n
Rules 3 and 4 of the aforementioned Rules read as follows:-<\/p>\n
                   ” 3. Panel of Pleaders – (1) Every<\/p>\n
             Criminal Court shall maintain a panel of<\/p>\n
             pleaders consisting of not less than five, for<\/p>\n
             the purpose of these Rules.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (2)   All  Magistrate     Courts  of  co-<\/p>\n
             ordinate jurisdiction functioning at a place<\/p>\n
             shall be treated as one Court for the purpose<\/p>\n
             of this Rule and the number of pleaders in the<\/p>\n
             panel shall not be less than five times the<\/p>\n
             number     of   such   courts    of co-ordinate<\/p>\n
             jurisdiction and the seniormost among the<\/p>\n
             Magistrates shall prepare the panel.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (3)   All benches of the Sessions Court<\/p>\n
             (including Additional Sessions and Assistant<\/p>\n
             Sessions) functioning at a place shall be<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1771\/05
\n                                   : 6 :<\/span><\/p>\n
             treated as one court for the purpose of this<\/p>\n
             Rule and the number of pleaders in the panel<\/p>\n
             shall not be less than five times the number of<\/p>\n
             such benches and the Sessions Judge shall<\/p>\n
             prepare the panel.\n<\/p>\n
                   (4)    Additional Sessions Courts and<\/p>\n
             Assistant Sessions Courts functioning at a<\/p>\n
             place different from the seat of the Sessions<\/p>\n
             Judge of a particular Sessions Division shall<\/p>\n
             have a separate panel in accordance with<\/p>\n
             these Rules and the Additional or Assistant<\/p>\n
             Sessions Judge shall prepare the panel.\n<\/p>\n
                   (5)    The panels to be prepared under<\/p>\n
             sub-rules (3) and (4) shall consist of two<\/p>\n
             panels of Advocates, a senior panel and a<\/p>\n
             junior panel and the number of Advocates to<\/p>\n
             be included in each panel shall be the same.<\/p>\n
                   (6)    (a) No Advocate who has put in<\/p>\n
             less than 5 years of actual practice shall be<\/p>\n
             eligible for inclusion in the senior panel.<\/p>\n
                   (b)    No Advocate who has put in less<\/p>\n
             than 2 years of actual practice shall be<\/p>\n
             eligible for inclusion in the junior panel.<\/p>\n
                   4.     Appointment       of   Pleaders  –\n<\/p>\n
             Advocates in the senior panel alone shall,<\/p>\n
             ordinarily, be appointed in sessions case and<\/p>\n
             in other cases where the offence is punishable<\/p>\n
             with imprisonment for more than 10 years. In<\/p>\n
             all other cases, including criminal appeals<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1771\/05
\n                                  : 7 :<\/span><\/p>\n
             and revisions, Advocates in the Junior panel<\/p>\n
             shall, as far as possible, be appointed unless<\/p>\n
             the Court is of the opinion that an Advocate<\/p>\n
             from the senior panel is necessary in view of<\/p>\n
             the complexity of the case.”\n<\/p>\n
      6.     Going by Rule 4 of the above quoted Rules, for<\/p>\n
sessions trials, where the offence is punishable with imprisonment<\/p>\n
for more than ten years, ordinarily a member of the senior panel<\/p>\n
shall be engaged to render legal aid to the accused. Sub-rule 6 of<\/p>\n
Rule 3 provides that only the persons having five years’ actual<\/p>\n
practice shall be eligible for inclusion in the senior panel. So, the<\/p>\n
defence lawyer was engaged in this case in violation of Rules 3<\/p>\n
and 4 quoted above.         During the trial, even if any statutory<\/p>\n
provision is violated, ordinarily, the same will not by itself vitiate<\/p>\n
the trial or the resultant conviction. The point to be considered is<\/p>\n
whether any prejudice has been caused. When we went through<\/p>\n
the evidence, we noticed that on many material points no effective<\/p>\n
cross-examination was made by the defence lawyer.                The<\/p>\n
contradictions in the deposition of the witnesses with reference to<\/p>\n
their earlier statements before the police were not put to them or<\/p>\n
marked. The omissions in the earlier statements with reference to<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1771\/05
\n                                : 8 :<\/span><\/p>\n
the statements made in the box were also not brought to the<\/p>\n
notice of the witnesses concerned.      Further, concerning many<\/p>\n
material witnesses, we find practically there was no cross-<\/p>\n
examination. So, we are of the view that the engagement of a<\/p>\n
junior lawyer to defend the accused has seriously prejudiced the<\/p>\n
appellant.     He did not get a fair trial.    Article 39A of the<\/p>\n
Constitution of India proclaims that the State shall secure that the<\/p>\n
operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal<\/p>\n
opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by<\/p>\n
suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that<\/p>\n
opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by<\/p>\n
reason of economic or other disabilities. In discharge of the above<\/p>\n
obligation, Parliament has framed Section 304 of the Cr.P.C. In<\/p>\n
obedience to the mandate of sub-section 2 of Section 304, the<\/p>\n
High Court has framed Legal Aid to Accused Rules, 1992. Article<\/p>\n
21 proclaims that no person shall be deprived of his life or<\/p>\n
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.<\/p>\n
The view that any law is sufficient to deprive the life or personal<\/p>\n
liberty, taken in A.K.Gopalan Vs. State of Madras [AIR 1950 SC<\/p>\n
27] has been buried deep and now it is well settled that the<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1771\/05
\n                                        : 9 :<\/span><\/p>\n
procedure contemplated under Article 21 should be a just, fair and<\/p>\n
reasonable procedure.         See the leading decision on this point<\/p>\n
Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India [AIR 1978 SC 597]. The<\/p>\n
same principle has been dealt with by the Apex Court in the<\/p>\n
decision in Suk Das Vs. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh<\/p>\n
[1986 (2) SCC 401]. It is equally well-settled now that if fair trial is<\/p>\n
denied to an accused and as a result, his life or liberty is deprived,<\/p>\n
the same will amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of<\/p>\n
India. In Kishore Chand(Supra), the decision cited by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellant, it was held as follows:-<\/p>\n
                    ” 12. ………………………… Undoubtedly,<\/p>\n
             heinous crimes are committed under great<\/p>\n
             secrecy and that investigation of a crime is a<\/p>\n
             difficult and tedious task. At the same time<\/p>\n
             the liberty of a citizen is a precious one<\/p>\n
             guaranteed      by      Article        3   of Universal<\/p>\n
             Declaration of Human Rights and also Article<\/p>\n
             21 of the Constitution of India and its<\/p>\n
             deprivation shall be only in accordance with<\/p>\n
             law. The accused has the fundamental right<\/p>\n
             to defend himself under Article 10 of<\/p>\n
             Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The<\/p>\n
             right to defence includes right to effective<\/p>\n
             and meaningful defence at the trial.               The<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1771\/05
\n                                       : 10 :<\/span><\/p>\n
             poor accused cannot defend effectively and<\/p>\n
             adequately.           Assigning    an  experienced<\/p>\n
             defence counsel to an indigent accused is a<\/p>\n
             facet of fair procedure and an inbuilt right to<\/p>\n
             liberty and life envisaged under Articles 14,<\/p>\n
             19 and 21 of the Constitution.        ………………<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                     13. Though          Article  39-A     of      the<\/p>\n
             Constitution provides fundamental rights to<\/p>\n
             equal justice and free legal aid and though<\/p>\n
             the State provides amicus curiae to defend<\/p>\n
             the indigent accused, he would be meted out<\/p>\n
             with unequal defence if, as is common<\/p>\n
             knowledge the youngster from the bar who<\/p>\n
             has     either     a   little   experience     or      no<\/p>\n
             experience is assigned to defend him. ………”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       7.    Though the learned Public Prosecutor tried to<\/p>\n
distinguish the decision on facts, we think the principle laid down<\/p>\n
therein is a sound principle which binds us also. We also notice<\/p>\n
that poor lawyering of the defence lawyer is taken as a ground,<\/p>\n
vitiating the trial, in all civilised countries. The U.S. Supreme Court<\/p>\n
in Strickland Vs. Washington [80 Lawyers’ Edition 2d 674] has<\/p>\n
held that ineffective assistance of defence counsel in criminal trial<\/p>\n
will violate the “due process” clause.             Similarly, the Court of<\/p>\n
Appeal in Regina Vs. Ensor [1989 (1) WLR 497] observed that ” If<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1771\/05
\n                                   : 11 :<\/span><\/p>\n
the court had any lurking doubt that the appellant might have<\/p>\n
suffered some injustice as a result of fragrantly incompetent<\/p>\n
advocacy by his advocate, the court would quash the conviction”.<\/p>\n
       8.    Keeping the above principles in mind, when the facts of<\/p>\n
this case are considered, we feel that the defence counsel has<\/p>\n
failed to properly conduct the case.         The statements of the<\/p>\n
witnesses have become evidence without subjecting the same to<\/p>\n
proper cross-examination. The defence of the accused was not<\/p>\n
effectively projected. As suggested by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant, if the case was properly defended, the appellant might<\/p>\n
have been acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt. Without<\/p>\n
meaning any disrespect to the counsel, who defended the<\/p>\n
accused, we are constrained to say that there was incompetent<\/p>\n
advocacy attributable to lack of experience and the same resulted<\/p>\n
in vitiating the trial of the appellant. On this ground alone, we are<\/p>\n
of the view that the conviction of the appellant is liable to be set<\/p>\n
aside. Therefore, it is unnecessary to go into other grounds raised<\/p>\n
by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
       9.    In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed.      The<\/p>\n
conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant is set aside.<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1771\/05
\n                                : 12 :<\/span><\/p>\n
Hereafter, he shall be treated as an undertrial prisoner. The trial<\/p>\n
court shall issue warrant for production of the appellant before it.<\/p>\n
Upon his production, if bail application is moved, the trial court<\/p>\n
shall deal with the same in accordance with law. If bail is not<\/p>\n
granted, he shall be kept in judicial custody in the jail, where<\/p>\n
remand prisoners from the trial court are lodged, ordinarily.<\/p>\n
      10.    The trial court shall arrange a competent lawyer to<\/p>\n
defend the appellant. The witnesses examined shall be recalled<\/p>\n
and the said counsel shall be given an opportunity to cross-<\/p>\n
examine them. Needless to say, the prosecution will be given a<\/p>\n
chance to re-examine them.        Thereafter, the trial court shall<\/p>\n
proceed with the case in accordance with law.<\/p>\n
             The Criminal Appeal is allowed as above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                              Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                              (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
                                                              Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                      (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
aks
\n                           \/\/ True Copy \/\/<\/p>\n
                                   P.A. to Judge<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1771\/05
\n                         : 13 :<\/span><\/p>\n
                               K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &<\/p>\n
                                P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.\n<\/p>\n
                         “““““““““““““““““““““`
\n                            Crl. Appeal No. 1771 OF 2005
\n                         “““““““““““““““““““““`<\/p>\n
                                    J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
                                27th day of August, 2009<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Abdul Razack @ Cheriyan @ Krk vs State Of Kerala on 27 August, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL.A.No. 1771 of 2005() 1. ABDUL RAZACK @ CHERIYAN @ KRK, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA. … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.P.SAMSUDIN For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. The Hon’ble MR. […]<\/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-231799","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAbdul Razack @ Cheriyan @ Krk vs State Of Kerala on 27 August, 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\/abdul-razack-cheriyan-krk-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Abdul Razack @ Cheriyan @ Krk vs State Of Kerala on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razack-cheriyan-krk-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-august-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=\"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-02-05T04:03:16+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-razack-cheriyan-krk-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-razack-cheriyan-krk-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Abdul Razack @ Cheriyan @ Krk vs State Of Kerala on 27 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-05T04:03:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-razack-cheriyan-krk-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2375,\"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\\\/abdul-razack-cheriyan-krk-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-razack-cheriyan-krk-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-razack-cheriyan-krk-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Abdul Razack @ Cheriyan @ Krk vs State Of Kerala on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-05T04:03:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-razack-cheriyan-krk-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-razack-cheriyan-krk-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-razack-cheriyan-krk-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Abdul Razack @ Cheriyan @ Krk vs State Of Kerala on 27 August, 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":"Abdul Razack @ Cheriyan @ Krk vs State Of Kerala on 27 August, 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\/abdul-razack-cheriyan-krk-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Abdul Razack @ Cheriyan @ Krk vs State Of Kerala on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razack-cheriyan-krk-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-02-05T04:03:16+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razack-cheriyan-krk-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razack-cheriyan-krk-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Abdul Razack @ Cheriyan @ Krk vs State Of Kerala on 27 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-05T04:03:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razack-cheriyan-krk-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-august-2009"},"wordCount":2375,"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\/abdul-razack-cheriyan-krk-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razack-cheriyan-krk-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razack-cheriyan-krk-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-august-2009","name":"Abdul Razack @ Cheriyan @ Krk vs State Of Kerala on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-05T04:03:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razack-cheriyan-krk-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razack-cheriyan-krk-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razack-cheriyan-krk-vs-state-of-kerala-on-27-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Abdul Razack @ Cheriyan @ Krk vs State Of Kerala on 27 August, 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\/231799","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=231799"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/231799\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=231799"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=231799"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=231799"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}