{"id":253501,"date":"2010-08-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jijo-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-august-2010"},"modified":"2014-05-19T05:01:38","modified_gmt":"2014-05-18T23:31:38","slug":"jijo-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jijo-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Jijo vs State Of Kerala on 12 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Jijo vs State Of Kerala on 12 August, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 454 of 2004(B)\n\n\n1. JIJO, S\/O. KUNJUMON, PODIPPARA HOUSE,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :12\/08\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n            M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n         ===========================\n          CRL.R.P.No. 454   OF 2004\n         ===========================\n\n    Dated this the 12th day of August,2010\n\n                    ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
   Revision   petitioner,   the   accused   in<\/p>\n
S.C.40\/1996  on   the   file    of   Assistant<\/p>\n
Sessions Court, Thiruvalla was convicted and<\/p>\n
sentenced to rigorous      imprisonment    for<\/p>\n
seven years and fine of Rs.1,000\/- and in<\/p>\n
default rigorous     imprisonment     for six<\/p>\n
months for the offence under Section 376<\/a> of<\/p>\n
Indian  Penal  Code.   Petitioner   challenged<\/p>\n
the conviction and sentence before Sessions<\/p>\n
Court,  Pathanamthitta    in   Crl.A.51\/1998.<\/p>\n
Learned Additional Sessions Judge on re-<\/p>\n
appreciation  of   evidence    confirmed   the<\/p>\n
conviction  and   reduced  the   sentence   to<\/p>\n
rigorous     imprisonment   for   four   years<\/p>\n
retaining  the   fine.   Revision   is   filed<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.454\/2004            2<\/span><\/p>\n
challenging the concurrent conviction.<\/p>\n
             2. Prosecution   case   is   that   on<\/p>\n
15\/10\/1995        at  about  2.30   p.m,  PW1   the<\/p>\n
prosecutrix       was  proceeding along  Pullukuthi<\/p>\n
Neelampara public road to call her father, who<\/p>\n
was working in the nearby property.      On the way<\/p>\n
she found        petitioner and PW6 Haridas sitting<\/p>\n
on the side of the road. Petitioner called her<\/p>\n
and followed her. When PW1 reached near the<\/p>\n
culvert, petitioner caught her from behind and<\/p>\n
forcibly        took  her  into  the   culvert  and<\/p>\n
committed rape on her. PW3, her mother searched<\/p>\n
for PW1, as         she did not reach the house,<\/p>\n
though PW4 the father reached there. PW3 found<\/p>\n
the petitioner running from the culvert and<\/p>\n
also PW1 lying inside the culvert.      She dragged<\/p>\n
her out.        By that time PW2, the mother of PW4<\/p>\n
also reached there. They          took PW1 to the<\/p>\n
hospital from where PW7 the         doctor examined<\/p>\n
her on 17\/10\/1995 and prepared Ext.P4 wound<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.454\/2004            3<\/span><\/p>\n
certificate.        PW11  Head   Constable  recorded<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 FI statement of PW1 on 16\/10\/1995, at<\/p>\n
12.30        p.m  and    under  Ext.P8   FIR,  crime<\/p>\n
No.163\/1995        was  registered  by   PW12  under<\/p>\n
Section        376<\/a>  of  Indian Penal   Code.    PW13<\/p>\n
investigated the case and PW14 successor Circle<\/p>\n
Inspector lodged the charge which was taken<\/p>\n
cognizance       by  the    learned  Magistrate  and<\/p>\n
committed        to  the  Sessions   Court.  Learned<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge        made over the case for   trial<\/p>\n
to       Assistant    Sessions  Court,   Thiruvalla.<\/p>\n
Petitioner pleaded not guilty, when the charge<\/p>\n
for the offence under Section 376<\/a> of Indian<\/p>\n
Penal Code was framed and read over to him.<\/p>\n
Prosecution examined 14 witnesses and marked<\/p>\n
Exts.P1 to P8 and identified Mos.1 to 3. When<\/p>\n
petitioner was called upon to enter on his<\/p>\n
defence and adduce evidence, after questioning<\/p>\n
him      under   Section  313<\/a> of  Code  of  Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure        and  hearing  the  prosecution  and<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.454\/2004             4<\/span><\/p>\n
defence and finding that it is not a case<\/p>\n
without any evidence, petitioner examined Dws.1<\/p>\n
and       2.    Learned   Assistant  Sessions   Judge<\/p>\n
thereafter         on appreciation of the evidence<\/p>\n
found the petitioner guilty. He was convicted<\/p>\n
and sentenced for the offence under Section 376<\/a><\/p>\n
of      Indian     Penal  Code.   Learned  Additional<\/p>\n
Sessions        Judge in  the  appeal  filed  by  the<\/p>\n
petitioner        re-appreciated  the   evidence  and<\/p>\n
confirmed        the   conviction  and   reduced  the<\/p>\n
sentence to rigorous          imprisonment   for four<\/p>\n
years. Revision petitioner would contend that<\/p>\n
courts below did not properly appreciate the<\/p>\n
evidence and on the evidence, the conviction is<\/p>\n
unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n
             3.       Learned   counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
the       petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor<\/p>\n
were heard.\n<\/p>\n
             4. Argument of the     learned   counsel<\/p>\n
is     that     prosecution  case  should  have  been<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.454\/2004            5<\/span><\/p>\n
disbelieved as it is highly improbable. It was<\/p>\n
pointed out that as per Ext.P5 scene mahazar<\/p>\n
the culvert is having only a height of 53 cm.<\/p>\n
and width of 1.02 metre         and evidence of PW1<\/p>\n
that she was taken into that culvert by the<\/p>\n
petitioner          forcibly,  undressed   her   and<\/p>\n
committed rape is not at all probable.      Learned<\/p>\n
counsel         argued that Ext.P4 wound certificate<\/p>\n
with       the evidence of PW7 the doctor establish<\/p>\n
that she did not sustain any injury, which<\/p>\n
cannot be the case, if she was taken inside the<\/p>\n
culvert        by force and  that  too  without  her<\/p>\n
consent and thereafter in spite of resistance<\/p>\n
petitioner        laid on her and then committed<\/p>\n
rape. It is therefore argued that evidence of<\/p>\n
PW1       should not have been believed.     Learned<\/p>\n
counsel           argued that    incident  allegedly<\/p>\n
occurred inside the culvert where two persons<\/p>\n
together cannot enter as deposed by PW13 and<\/p>\n
there        are  houses  near  to   the  scene   of<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.454\/2004             6<\/span><\/p>\n
occurrence and if PW1 had cried as claimed by<\/p>\n
her,       neighbouring residents would have    heard<\/p>\n
the cry and in such a place petitioner would<\/p>\n
have       dared    to commit a heinous offence.   It<\/p>\n
is also argued that evidence of PW7 the doctor<\/p>\n
with        Ext.P4    wound  certificate   does   not<\/p>\n
establish any recent sexual intercourse          when<\/p>\n
PW1      was    subjected  to examination.    Learned<\/p>\n
counsel          therefore argued that  case of rape<\/p>\n
should not have been accepted by the courts<\/p>\n
below.         Learned   counsel    also argued that<\/p>\n
though PW7 claimed that        vaginal swab and smear<\/p>\n
were collected and sent for examination, the<\/p>\n
certificate        of   chemical  analysis  was   not<\/p>\n
produced before the court and that could only<\/p>\n
be for the reason that it did not disclose<\/p>\n
presence of spermatozoa and if        there was  rape<\/p>\n
as claimed by PW1, there should necessarily be<\/p>\n
presence of spermatozoa on the         vaginal smear<\/p>\n
and       swab and therefore,    courts below should<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.454\/2004            7<\/span><\/p>\n
have       acquitted  the   petitioner.       Learned<\/p>\n
counsel         finally submitted that in any case,<\/p>\n
considering the fact that incident took place<\/p>\n
in 1995 and         petitioner was only 16 years at<\/p>\n
that time        leniency may be shown, pointing out<\/p>\n
that      PW1   subsequently    married  and  is  now<\/p>\n
leading a happy       married life.\n<\/p>\n
             5. Learned Public Prosecutor    pointed<\/p>\n
out that Assistant Sessions Judge, who had the<\/p>\n
opportunity        to   note   and   appreciate   the<\/p>\n
demeanour          of PW1 had found her evidence<\/p>\n
trustworthy and reliable. It was also pointed<\/p>\n
out      that   there  is  no  improbability  in  the<\/p>\n
evidence        of PW1  and  her  evidence  inspires<\/p>\n
confidence and was corroborated by the evidence<\/p>\n
of Pws.2 and 3 and in such circumstances, there<\/p>\n
is no reason to interfere with the conviction<\/p>\n
and sentence.\n<\/p>\n
             6. PW1 the prosecutrix     unveiled the<\/p>\n
entire incident with all the minute details. In<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.454\/2004             8<\/span><\/p>\n
Ext.P1 FI statement itself she has disclosed<\/p>\n
what transpired while she was walking along the<\/p>\n
road      and    finding petitioner  along  with  PW6<\/p>\n
sitting on the side of the road. Evidence of<\/p>\n
PW2 the mother-in-law of PW3         corroborates the<\/p>\n
evidence of PW3         on material aspects. Evidence<\/p>\n
of      PW2,     the   grand  mother  of   PW1   also<\/p>\n
corroborates the evidence of PW1 on certain<\/p>\n
aspects.        Learned Assistant Sessions Judge and<\/p>\n
learned Sessions Judge found the evidence of<\/p>\n
Pws.1 to 3 credible and trustworthy. Question<\/p>\n
is      whether     appreciation  of   evidence   was<\/p>\n
perverse and whether          conclusions arrived by<\/p>\n
the courts below           could be arrived on the<\/p>\n
evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n
             7.    PW1 was aged only 16 years at the<\/p>\n
time of incident in 1995 as proved by Ext.P6,<\/p>\n
her school admission register, which was not<\/p>\n
disputed at the time of recording the evidence.<\/p>\n
Though          learned   counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.454\/2004           9<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner vehemently argued that the incident<\/p>\n
as     spoken    to by PW1  is  highly  improbable,<\/p>\n
taking into consideration the height and width<\/p>\n
of the culvert and absence of injuries on the<\/p>\n
body      of the victim, on appreciating the entire<\/p>\n
evidence, in the proper perspective, I cannot<\/p>\n
agree with the submission. Though height         of<\/p>\n
the culvert is only 53 cm., that does not make<\/p>\n
the prosecution case or the evidence of PW1<\/p>\n
improbable.\n<\/p>\n
      8.     Though it was argued that  absence  of<\/p>\n
injuries on the body of PW1 improbabalise the<\/p>\n
version of PW1, evidence establish that inside the<\/p>\n
culvert there was no rock or stone and instead<\/p>\n
there was only sand and mud. In such circumstances<\/p>\n
absence of injury on the body of PW1 does not<\/p>\n
falsify her evidence. Though learned counsel argued<\/p>\n
that for the failure of the prosecution to produce<\/p>\n
the report of chemical analysis of the vaginal swab<\/p>\n
and smear, non production of the report  could only<\/p>\n
be for the absence of spermatozoa found , even if<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.454\/2004             10<\/span><\/p>\n
it is taken that there was no sperm found on the<\/p>\n
vaginal swab or smear, that will not make the<\/p>\n
evidence of PW1 unreliable or untrustworthy. To<\/p>\n
constitute an offence under section 376<\/a> of Indian<\/p>\n
Penal Code, it is not the law that semen should<\/p>\n
eminate from the male partner. The          penetration<\/p>\n
itself will be sufficient to constitute an offence.<\/p>\n
Evidence        of PW1   establishes  that  there   was<\/p>\n
penetration.\n<\/p>\n
      9. On a proper analysis of the evidence of PW1<\/p>\n
the evidence       was found  trustworthy, credible and<\/p>\n
reliable.        Her   evidence   has   been    further<\/p>\n
corroborated by the evidence of PW3. Though minor<\/p>\n
contradictions were pointed out by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel appearing for the petitioner, they are not<\/p>\n
fatal. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in<\/p>\n
Dinesh Jaiswal v. State of Madhya Pradesh<\/a> (2010) 3<\/p>\n
SCC 232), Bibhishan v. State of Maharashtra<\/a> (2008)<\/p>\n
3 SCC (Cri) 163), and Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe v.<\/p>\n
State of Maharashtra and another<\/a>(2007) 1 SCC (Cri)<\/p>\n
161 it was argued that         absence of materials to<\/p>\n
prove rape by medical evidence, prosecution case is<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.454\/2004              11<\/span><\/p>\n
to     be     disbelieved, I   cannot  agree  with   the<\/p>\n
submission on the facts of the case. The evidence<\/p>\n
of PW1 corroborated by the evidence of PW3 and to<\/p>\n
certain extent by the evidence of PW2, establish<\/p>\n
the commission of offence. It is to be born in mind<\/p>\n
that even the defence case was that PW1 had sexual<\/p>\n
intercourse on that fateful day. What was suggested<\/p>\n
by the petitioner to the witness was that PW1 had<\/p>\n
an    affair     with  Biju,  her  cousin  brother   and<\/p>\n
petitioner and PW6        taunted  Biju on this account<\/p>\n
and on that fateful day they found Biju proceeding<\/p>\n
towards the house of PW1 and they       followed him and<\/p>\n
on reaching the house, they went to the back side<\/p>\n
of the house and there they found PW1 engaged in<\/p>\n
sex with Biju and they made hue and cry and people<\/p>\n
gathered there and because of the incident the case<\/p>\n
was foisted       against the petitioner.  At the outset<\/p>\n
itself the defence story is so improbable that it<\/p>\n
cannot be believed.        Evidently the case of sexual<\/p>\n
intercourse with Biju was alleged to explain the<\/p>\n
sexual act to which PW1 was subjected to. That<\/p>\n
strengthens her evidence.       Moreover, even if it is<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.454\/2004             12<\/span><\/p>\n
taken that PW1 was having an       affair with Biju, it<\/p>\n
is none of the petitioner’s concern and even if it<\/p>\n
is taken that petitioner interfered with in that<\/p>\n
relationship, it is improbable      to believe that PW1<\/p>\n
or PW3 the mother or PW4 the father would foist a<\/p>\n
case tarnishing the future of their daughter.        In<\/p>\n
the Indian society chastity of a girl is treated as<\/p>\n
paramount importance.       No parent will be prepared<\/p>\n
to risk the honour and the fame       of the family or<\/p>\n
daughter taking       the risk of foisting a false case<\/p>\n
that their daughter was subjected to rape.           So<\/p>\n
also, no girl at the age of PW1 would falsely<\/p>\n
allege that she was subjected to rape and that too<\/p>\n
for the reason that petitioner and his friend had<\/p>\n
insulted        Biju with  whom  she  had  an   alleged<\/p>\n
relationship.        It is to be born in mind that<\/p>\n
whatever be the fate of the case, the allegation of<\/p>\n
rape is affecting the honour of the family as well<\/p>\n
as     the      name and  fame   of  PW1.     In   such<\/p>\n
circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that<\/p>\n
learned       Assistant Sessions  Judge  and    learned<\/p>\n
Addl.Sessions Judge appreciated the evidence in the<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.454\/2004              13<\/span><\/p>\n
proper       perspective   and  found  that  petitioner<\/p>\n
committed        rape  on  PW1.     Conviction  of  the<\/p>\n
petitioner for the offence under section 376<\/a> of<\/p>\n
Indian Penal Code is therefore legal and correct<\/p>\n
and warrants no interference.\n<\/p>\n
      10. Then the only question is regarding the<\/p>\n
sentence.       Though  learned Assistant Sessions Judge<\/p>\n
awarded       rigorous  imprisonment  for  seven  years,<\/p>\n
learned Addl.Sessions Judge reduced the sentence to<\/p>\n
rigorous imprisonment for four years.       The question<\/p>\n
is whether the sentence is to be further modified.<\/p>\n
Though       learned  counsel   argued vehemently   that<\/p>\n
considering       the  time  lag  and  the  age  of  the<\/p>\n
petitioner,        sentence is to be reduced and also<\/p>\n
shown a medical certificate that petitioner was<\/p>\n
involved in a road traffic accident on 31.7.2010<\/p>\n
and      sustained    grievous   hurt,  I   find   these<\/p>\n
circumstances insufficient to interfere with the<\/p>\n
sentence.         An offence of this nature warrants<\/p>\n
proper       punishment.    Still  in  the  interest  of<\/p>\n
justice        the  sentence  is  reduced  to   rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment for three years.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.454\/2004            14<\/span><\/p>\n
      Revision is allowed in part.    Conviction of the<\/p>\n
petitioner for the offence under section 376<\/a> IPC is<\/p>\n
confirmed.       Sentence is modified by reducing the<\/p>\n
substantive sentence to three years from 4 years<\/p>\n
awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in<\/p>\n
Crl.A.51\/1998 maintaining the fine.      Petitioner is<\/p>\n
directed to appear before      Assistant Sessions Judge<\/p>\n
on 15.9.2010.      Assistant Sessions Judge is directed<\/p>\n
to execute the sentence.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                   M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
\n                                            JUDGE
\nuj\/tpl\/-\n<\/p>\n
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
\n
       ———————\n<\/p>\n
         W.P.(C).NO. \/06\n<\/p>\n
       ———————\n<\/p>\n
\n
           JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
        SEPTEMBER,2006<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Jijo vs State Of Kerala on 12 August, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 454 of 2004(B) 1. JIJO, S\/O. KUNJUMON, PODIPPARA HOUSE, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. Justice […]<\/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-253501","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJijo vs State Of Kerala on 12 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jijo-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jijo vs State Of Kerala on 12 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jijo-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-05-18T23:31:38+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jijo-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jijo-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jijo vs State Of Kerala on 12 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-18T23:31:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jijo-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2075,\"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\\\/jijo-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jijo-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jijo-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Jijo vs State Of Kerala on 12 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-18T23:31:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jijo-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jijo-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jijo-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jijo vs State Of Kerala on 12 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Jijo vs State Of Kerala on 12 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jijo-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jijo vs State Of Kerala on 12 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jijo-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-05-18T23:31:38+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jijo-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jijo-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jijo vs State Of Kerala on 12 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-18T23:31:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jijo-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-august-2010"},"wordCount":2075,"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\/jijo-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jijo-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jijo-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-august-2010","name":"Jijo vs State Of Kerala on 12 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-18T23:31:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jijo-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jijo-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jijo-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jijo vs State Of Kerala on 12 August, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/253501","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=253501"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/253501\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=253501"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=253501"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=253501"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}