{"id":238488,"date":"2007-09-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pulikkal-beerankutty-cheth-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007"},"modified":"2015-08-28T08:37:31","modified_gmt":"2015-08-28T03:07:31","slug":"pulikkal-beerankutty-cheth-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pulikkal-beerankutty-cheth-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007","title":{"rendered":"Pulikkal Beerankutty @ Cheth … vs The State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Pulikkal Beerankutty @ Cheth … vs The State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL A No. 1108 of 2004(C)\n\n\n1. PULIKKAL BEERANKUTTY @ CHETH FAIZAL @\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. PANGADAN ABDUL RAZAK, S\/O.KUNHIKAMMU,\n3. KRISHNADAS @ UNNI NAIR,\n4. EDAYADAN SAIDALAVI, S\/O. MUHAMMED,\n5. CHAKKACHANPARAMBATH FAIZAL,\n6. AREEKKAN FAZALUL RAHMAN,\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 K.THANKAPPAN\n\n Dated :11\/09\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                                  K. Thankappan, J.\n             - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                           Crl. A. No. 1108 of 2004\n             - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                 Dated this the 11th day of September, 2007\n\n                                     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
        Accused in S.C. No. 477\/2001 on the file of the Court of the Addl.<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No.I (Adhoc), Manjeri are the appellants.<\/p>\n
They faced trial for offence punishable under section 395 IPC. The<\/p>\n
prosecution allegation against the appellants is that at about 9.15 p.m. all the<\/p>\n
accused in furtherance of their common intention to commit decoity chased<\/p>\n
the de-facto complainant in a jeep No.KL.10J.6147 and blocked scooter<\/p>\n
bearing No.KLG 7327 driven by the defacto complainant and caught hold<\/p>\n
the defacto complainant and manhandled him and accused 2 and 3 took<\/p>\n
away MO1 bag containing Rs.50,000\/- kept in the scooter and all the<\/p>\n
accused    assisted them in perpetrating the crime and therefore they<\/p>\n
committed the offence. Before committal proceedings, the 2nd accused in the<\/p>\n
original crime was declared absence and his case was split up and the<\/p>\n
present appellants were faced trial as accused Nos.1 to 6 in the above case.<\/p>\n
To prove the charge against the appellant, PWs.1 to 12 were examined and<\/p>\n
Exts.P1 to P16 and        Mos. I and II were marked.                       After closing the<\/p>\n
Crl.A.1108\/04                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
evidence on the prosecution side, the appellants were questioned under<\/p>\n
section 313 of Cr.P.C. They denied the allegation. On the side of the<\/p>\n
defence, DWs.1 and 2 were examined. After considering the evidence, the<\/p>\n
trial court found the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under<\/p>\n
section 395 IPC and they were convicted thereunder and sentenced to<\/p>\n
undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each and to pay fine of<\/p>\n
Rs.15,000\/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three<\/p>\n
years. The trial court also directed that if the fine amount was realized that<\/p>\n
should be paid to the victim. The conviction and sentence awarded against<\/p>\n
the appellant are assailed in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
        2. Heard.\n<\/p>\n
        3.    Learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following<\/p>\n
contentions to challenge the impugned judgment:- Firstly, it is contended<\/p>\n
that the trial court had committed serious error in believing the evidence of<\/p>\n
the prosecution to find the appellants guilty under section 395 IPC.<\/p>\n
Secondly, it is contended that there was no proper identification of the<\/p>\n
accused. Thirdly, it is contended that the trial court has committed serious<\/p>\n
error in finding the appellant guilty under section 395 IPC on the basis of<\/p>\n
the confession statement alleged to have been given by the 1st accused to<\/p>\n
PW11 Sub Inspector of Police.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.A.1108\/04                         3<\/span><\/p>\n
         4. The trial court had considered the evidence of PW1 and came to<\/p>\n
the conclusion that PW1 had properly identified the 1st accused. In this<\/p>\n
context, it is relevant to note that in Ext.P1 he stated that while he was<\/p>\n
riding his scooter, his scooter was blocked by a jeep. He stopped the scooter<\/p>\n
due to the blockage and at that moment 4 travellers in the said jeep<\/p>\n
suddenly jumped out and two of them caught hold of his neck and he was<\/p>\n
manhandled for few minutes. He fell down in the tarred road . The said two<\/p>\n
persons continued manhandling him by kicking his chest and dragging him<\/p>\n
through the tarred road. The other two robbers snatched the bag containing<\/p>\n
money. Due to the unexpected manhandling, he could not come his voice<\/p>\n
for a short while. Thereafter he lost his presence of mind and he remained<\/p>\n
there for few minutes. When he regained his presence of mind, he made<\/p>\n
loud cry and on hearing his cry, local people reached there. In chief<\/p>\n
examination he stated that he identified the 1st accused. When he was<\/p>\n
cross-examined, he stated that he had identified the 1st accused at the police<\/p>\n
station. When he was further cross-examined he stated that ”<\/p>\n
driver  5             \" .\n\nThis witness also stated that \"A1                              police\n\n            \" In this context, the evidence of\n\nCrl.A.1108\/04                         4<\/span>\n\n<\/pre>\n
PW10 would show that he had previous occasion to see the 1st accused<\/p>\n
visiting the house of one Saidalavi and the said Saidalavi has got criminal<\/p>\n
antecedents concerning theft of vehicles and he knew that Saidalavi was<\/p>\n
involved in similar cases. He also stated that once PW10 had noticed the<\/p>\n
arrival of the 1st accused to the house of the said Saidalavi in an omni van.<\/p>\n
He further stated that on the relevant night he had seen the 1st accused at<\/p>\n
Parambil Peedika, just one hour prior to the incident and on suspicion he<\/p>\n
enquired with one Musthafa and came to know his name as Cheth Faisal.<\/p>\n
The evidence of PW10 is only hear say evidence. Hence, the evidence of<\/p>\n
PW10 cannot be considered as a corroborative piece of evidence. Evidence<\/p>\n
of PWs.1 and 2 would not show the identity of the persons as the accused<\/p>\n
who jumped out of the jeep, caught hold of him and robbed his bag as<\/p>\n
alleged by the prosecution. In this context the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant brought to the notice of a decision of the Supreme Court reported<\/p>\n
in Budhsen and another V. State of U.P. (AIR 1970 SC 1321). In the above<\/p>\n
decision the Apex Court held that as a general rule, the substantive<\/p>\n
evidence of a witness was a statement made in court. The evidence of mere<\/p>\n
identification of the accused persons at the trial for the first time was from<\/p>\n
its very nature inherently of a weak character. The Apex Court also held<\/p>\n
that it was accordingly considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look<\/p>\n
Crl.A.1108\/04                           5<\/span><\/p>\n
for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses in court as to the<\/p>\n
identify of the accused who are strangers to them, in the form of earlier<\/p>\n
identification proceeding. The learned counsel for the appellant submits<\/p>\n
that the prosecution had not conducted any identification parade to identity<\/p>\n
the accused as the persons who committed the alleged offence. In this<\/p>\n
context, it is also to be noted that PW1 was questioned by the police more<\/p>\n
than six times and all these times PW1 could not have given any evidence<\/p>\n
regarding the identity of the accused who involved in the commission of the<\/p>\n
offence. The trial court found that the first information statement do not<\/p>\n
contained any clue regarding the identity of the accused. PW11<\/p>\n
investigating officer has no case before the court that PW1 had identified<\/p>\n
the accused.    If that be so, the trial court had committed serious error in<\/p>\n
finding that PW1 identified the accused.\n<\/p>\n
        5. The next question to be considered is with regard to the<\/p>\n
confession statement given by the 1st accused to PW11. Admittedly, there is<\/p>\n
no recovery under section 27 of the Evidence Act. If that be so, the trial<\/p>\n
court is not correct in placing reliance on PW11 regarding the alleged<\/p>\n
confession statement given by the 1st accused.          With regard to the<\/p>\n
acceptance of confession statement made by the 1st accused, as per<\/p>\n
sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act confession made by an accused to a<\/p>\n
Crl.A.1108\/04                          6<\/span><\/p>\n
police officer is not admissible in evidence. If that be so, the trial court has<\/p>\n
committed serious error in placing reliance on the confession statement<\/p>\n
alleged to have been given by the 1st accused. There was no evidence to<\/p>\n
show that Mos.1 and 2 were recovered on the basis of the alleged<\/p>\n
confession statement given by the accused to PW11. If that be so, the<\/p>\n
confession statement alleged to have been given by the 1st accused cannot<\/p>\n
be used against the accused. In this context, the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant brought to the notice of this court a decision reported in<\/p>\n
Kalpanath Rai V. State (through CBI) (AIR 1998 SC 201). In the above<\/p>\n
decision the Apex Court held that under sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence<\/p>\n
Act no confession made by an accused to a police officer, or to any person<\/p>\n
while he was in police custody could be admitted in evidence and under<\/p>\n
section 162 of the Cr.P.C. no statement made by any person during<\/p>\n
investigation to a police office could be used in a trial except for the<\/p>\n
purpose of contradiction and for the purpose of section 27 of the Evidence<\/p>\n
Act.\n<\/p>\n
        6. Another point to be considered is with regard to the production of<\/p>\n
Mos.1 and 2. There is no evidence given either by PW11 or any other<\/p>\n
witness regarding the recovery or seizure of MOs.1 and 2. Though in re-<\/p>\n
examination PW1 identified MO1, description of MO1 bag was not given .<\/p>\n
Crl.A.1108\/04                         7<\/span><\/p>\n
Even if MOs.1 and 2 were recovered and produced on any confession<\/p>\n
statement recorded by investigating officer, it should be proved properly by<\/p>\n
adducing evidence. In this context, the trial court committed serious error in<\/p>\n
accepting the evidence of PW1. PWs.3, 4 and 5 had given evidence before<\/p>\n
the court that they saw PW11 Sub Inspecator of Police seizing certain<\/p>\n
amount from accused Nos.3, 4 and 5. The seizure is also not properly<\/p>\n
proved before court and the material objects were not properly identified<\/p>\n
by PW1 or PW11 and the recoveries of MOs.1 and 2 are not under section<\/p>\n
27 of the Evidence Act.\n<\/p>\n
         7. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that the<\/p>\n
finding of the trial court is not based on any acceptable evidence. Hence,<\/p>\n
the convictions and sentence ordered against the appellants are hereby set<\/p>\n
aside and the appellants are acquitted. Fine amount, if any, deposited by<\/p>\n
the appellants, it shall be refunded to them as per law. Bail bond executed<\/p>\n
by the appellants shall stand cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
        The appeal is allowed as above.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         K. Thankappan,
\n                                                         Judge.<\/p>\n
\nmn\n\nCrl.A.1108\/04    8\n\n\n\n\n                      K. Thankappan,J.\n                     - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                    Crl.A. No. 266 of 2006\n                     - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\n\n\n                            Judgment\n                            11-7-2007\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Pulikkal Beerankutty @ Cheth … vs The State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL A No. 1108 of 2004(C) 1. PULIKKAL BEERANKUTTY @ CHETH FAIZAL @ … Petitioner 2. PANGADAN ABDUL RAZAK, S\/O.KUNHIKAMMU, 3. KRISHNADAS @ UNNI NAIR, 4. EDAYADAN SAIDALAVI, S\/O. MUHAMMED, […]<\/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-238488","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPulikkal Beerankutty @ Cheth ... vs The State Of Kerala on 11 September, 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\/pulikkal-beerankutty-cheth-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pulikkal Beerankutty @ Cheth ... vs The State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pulikkal-beerankutty-cheth-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-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=\"2007-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-28T03:07:31+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\\\/pulikkal-beerankutty-cheth-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pulikkal-beerankutty-cheth-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pulikkal Beerankutty @ Cheth … vs The State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-28T03:07:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pulikkal-beerankutty-cheth-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1546,\"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\\\/pulikkal-beerankutty-cheth-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pulikkal-beerankutty-cheth-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pulikkal-beerankutty-cheth-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007\",\"name\":\"Pulikkal Beerankutty @ Cheth ... vs The State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-28T03:07:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pulikkal-beerankutty-cheth-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pulikkal-beerankutty-cheth-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pulikkal-beerankutty-cheth-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pulikkal Beerankutty @ Cheth … vs The State Of Kerala on 11 September, 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":"Pulikkal Beerankutty @ Cheth ... vs The State Of Kerala on 11 September, 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\/pulikkal-beerankutty-cheth-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pulikkal Beerankutty @ Cheth ... vs The State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pulikkal-beerankutty-cheth-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-28T03:07:31+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\/pulikkal-beerankutty-cheth-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pulikkal-beerankutty-cheth-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pulikkal Beerankutty @ Cheth … vs The State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2007","datePublished":"2007-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-28T03:07:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pulikkal-beerankutty-cheth-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007"},"wordCount":1546,"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\/pulikkal-beerankutty-cheth-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pulikkal-beerankutty-cheth-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pulikkal-beerankutty-cheth-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007","name":"Pulikkal Beerankutty @ Cheth ... vs The State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-28T03:07:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pulikkal-beerankutty-cheth-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pulikkal-beerankutty-cheth-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pulikkal-beerankutty-cheth-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-september-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pulikkal Beerankutty @ Cheth … vs The State Of Kerala on 11 September, 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\/238488","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=238488"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/238488\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=238488"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=238488"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=238488"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}