{"id":66446,"date":"2010-03-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunhiraman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010"},"modified":"2017-08-20T12:09:07","modified_gmt":"2017-08-20T06:39:07","slug":"kunhiraman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunhiraman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Kunhiraman vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Kunhiraman vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL.A.No. 1437 of 2003()\n\n\n1. KUNHIRAMAN, S\/O. KANARA KURUP,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. SREEDHARAN, S\/O. KRISHNA KURUP,\n3. CHINNAN, S\/O. KANARA KURUP,\n4. PREMAN @ PREMARAJAN, S\/O. KANARA KURUP\n5. RAJEEVAN, S\/O. POKKAN, AGED 28 YEARS,\n6. BABU, S\/O. KANARAN, AGED 30 YEARS,\n7. BALAKRISHNAN, S\/O. KUNHIRAMAN, AGED\n8. BALAN, S\/O. KELAPPAN NAMBIAR,\n9. KUNHIRAMAN, S\/O. KANNAN,\n10. BABU, S\/O. CHOYI (LATE),\n11. CHANDRAN, S\/O. KRISHNAKURUP,\n12. MANI, S\/O. KANARAN, AGED 29 YEARS,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN\n\n Dated :31\/03\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                             V.K.MOHANAN,J.\n                           ------------------------------\n                      Crl.Appeal No.1437 of 2003\n               -----------------------------------------------------\n              Dated this the 31st         day of March, 2010\n\n                                 JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      The appellants, 12 in numbers, preferred the above appeal<\/p>\n
challenging their convictions and           sentence vide Judgment dated<\/p>\n
26.07.2003 in S.C.No.9\/2001            of Court of Additional District and<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge Fast Track (ADHOC-II), Kozhikode for the offences<\/p>\n
under Sections 143,147,148, 324, 307, r\/w Section 149 I.P.C.<\/p>\n
      2. The prosecution case is that at about 7.30 PM on 6.02.1997<\/p>\n
the accused, 12 in numbers, formed themselves into an unlawful<\/p>\n
assembly armed with weapons like chopper, stick etc., in the public<\/p>\n
road on the south-west to the unnumbered concrete building of<\/p>\n
Nhallora Sreedharan on the eastern side of the Ambalakulangara-<\/p>\n
Vattakkandippara road in Nittoor desom of Vadayam Amsom, with<\/p>\n
the common object       to commit riot and to commit murder of PW1<\/p>\n
Asokan due to political enmity and to achieve the object committed<\/p>\n
rioting and the first accused cut PW1 with chopper on his hand and<\/p>\n
hit behind the left ear when PW1 was proceeding to his house and<\/p>\n
thus caused injuries on his hand and hit behind the ear and in the<\/p>\n
meantime, A12 beat PW1 with a stick on his leg and thus tried to kill<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1437 of 2003             2<\/span><\/p>\n
PW1 and thereby the accused have committed the offences<\/p>\n
punishable under Sections 143,147,148, 324,307 r\/w Section 149 of<\/p>\n
I.P.C. On the basis of the above allegation Crime No.46\/1997 was<\/p>\n
registered in the Kuttiadi Police Station for the above offence against<\/p>\n
the accused. After completing the investigation, a report was filed<\/p>\n
before the            Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nadhapuram<\/p>\n
whereupon committal proceedings were instituted and by order dated<\/p>\n
01.01.2001 the learned Magistrate committed the case to the<\/p>\n
Sessions Court. The case was received in the Sessions Court<\/p>\n
and instituted          S.C.No.9\/2001 and subsequently made over the<\/p>\n
same to the Court of Assistance Session Court, Vadakara and while<\/p>\n
the matter was pending there, the case was withdrawn by the<\/p>\n
Sessions Court and transferred to the trial court for disposal.<\/p>\n
       3. On appearance of the accused, hearing the prosecution as<\/p>\n
well as the defence, a formal charge was framed under Section<\/p>\n
143,147,148, 324, 307 r\/w Section 149 of I.P.C and the same was<\/p>\n
read over and explained to the accused and they denied the charge<\/p>\n
and pleaded not guilty. Thereupon the prosecution adduced its<\/p>\n
evidence which consists of oral testimonies of PWs. 1 to 12 and the<\/p>\n
documentary evidence such as Ext.P1 to P11.            Material objects<\/p>\n
MOs.1 and 2 were identified and marked. No evidence either oral or<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1437 of 2003         3<\/span><\/p>\n
documentary was adduced by the defence.               The incriminating<\/p>\n
circumstances and evidence which emerged during the prosecution<\/p>\n
evidence were put to the accused and they denied the same and<\/p>\n
they took a stand of total denial and according to them they were<\/p>\n
implicated in the crime due to political vengeance. On the basis of<\/p>\n
the materials and evidence on record and the rival pleadings, the<\/p>\n
trial court formulated two points for its consideration and finally found<\/p>\n
that the accused are guilty of the charges framed against them.<\/p>\n
Consequently, the accused       Nos.1 to 12 are found guilty of the<\/p>\n
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,148, 324, 307, r\/w 149<\/p>\n
of I.P.C and they are accordingly convicted and sentenced to<\/p>\n
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months, each for the offence<\/p>\n
punishable under Section      143 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 6<\/p>\n
months each for the offence punishable under Section 147 IPC,<\/p>\n
rigorous imprisonment for 1 year each for the offence punishable<\/p>\n
under Section 148 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 2 years each for<\/p>\n
the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000\/- and in<\/p>\n
default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1<\/p>\n
year each for the offence punishable under Section 307 r\/w 149 IPC.<\/p>\n
If the fine amount is realised pay a sum of Rs.24,000\/- as<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1437 of 2003            4<\/span><\/p>\n
compensation to PW1 under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. Sent the<\/p>\n
accused to Central Prison Kannur to undergo the sentence. Set off<\/p>\n
the remand period from the total sentence. The accused need to<\/p>\n
undergo        the     substantive sentence awarded     under   Section<\/p>\n
143,147,148, 324, 307 r\/w 149 IPC. concurrently. It is the above<\/p>\n
conviction and sentence challenged in this appeal.<\/p>\n
       4. According to the prosecution due to political animosity PW1<\/p>\n
was attacked at about 7.30 p.m on 06.02.1997 when PW1 was going<\/p>\n
to his house after his work. It is the specific case of the prosecution<\/p>\n
that the accused who were awaiting in front of the shop of Nhallora<\/p>\n
Sreedharan and on seeing PW1 they came near to PW1 from the<\/p>\n
shop, shouting to kill him and thus attacked PW1. When PW1 tried<\/p>\n
to escape from the seen, the accused surrounded him and first<\/p>\n
accused cut him with a chopper on his hand and the 12th accused<\/p>\n
beat him with stick on his leg. Thereupon PW1 pleaded for mercy<\/p>\n
and fell on the ground. According to the prosecution in the meantime<\/p>\n
the first accused cut him with a chopper on his neck and it hit on the<\/p>\n
back side of the left year and caused an injury. On hearing the hue<\/p>\n
and cry of PW1, PW2 and others reached to the seen of incident<\/p>\n
with torch and then the accused escaped from the seen of<\/p>\n
occurrence. It is the further case of the prosecution that immediately<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1437 of 2003          5<\/span><\/p>\n
thereafter PW1 was resting on the varandha of ration shop and<\/p>\n
within 10 minutes PW3, the brother of PW1, reached at the spot<\/p>\n
removed PW1 firstly to the Government Hospital, Kuttiady and from<\/p>\n
there to Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode for treatment. PW12,<\/p>\n
the Doctor attached to the Medical College Hospital attended him on<\/p>\n
06.02.1997 itself and after examining the injured he was admitted as<\/p>\n
an inpatient in the hospital. Pursuant to the intimation received from<\/p>\n
the Medical College Hospital PW8-the Head Constable attached to<\/p>\n
the Kuttiady Police Station went to the Medical College Hospital and<\/p>\n
recorded Ext.P1 FI statement of PW1 on the basis of which PW8<\/p>\n
registered Ext.P5 FIR for the above offences. Thus PW11, the then<\/p>\n
Circle Inspector of Police, Kuttiady took up the investigation and he<\/p>\n
proceeded to the seen of occurrence and prepared Ext.P2 scene<\/p>\n
mahazar. PW4 is an attester of Ext.P2 scene mahazar. PW9<\/p>\n
questioned certain witnesses and recorded their statement and<\/p>\n
seized the dress with bloodstain of PW1 as produced by PW3. Thus<\/p>\n
he prepared Ext.P3, seizure mahazar of MO1 shirt and MO2 dhoty,<\/p>\n
of which PW6 is an attester. PW10             the successor of PW9<\/p>\n
questioned PW12 and obtained Ext.P11 wound certificate of PW1.<\/p>\n
Ext.P4, is the sketch of the place of occurrence, prepared by PW7<\/p>\n
Village Assistant of Kuttiady Village Office. PW11 is the successor in<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1437 of 2003            6<\/span><\/p>\n
office of PW10 who completed the investigation and laid the charge<\/p>\n
before the court. On the basis of the above materials and the<\/p>\n
evidence, the trial court found that the accused are guilty of all the<\/p>\n
charges levelled repelling the contentions raised by the defence<\/p>\n
during the trial.\n<\/p>\n
       5.      I have      heard Mr.Sreedharan Pillai, learned counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the appellant and also the learned Public Prosecutor. I<\/p>\n
have also perused the materials and evidence of record.<\/p>\n
       6. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued<\/p>\n
that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the identity of<\/p>\n
the real offenders. It is the contention of the learned counsel that<\/p>\n
even according to the prosecution there was no street light and<\/p>\n
sufficient light and therefore it is for the prosecution to establish the<\/p>\n
identity of the accused, especially, when the incident was allegedly<\/p>\n
taken place at about 7.30 p.m. It is also the case of the learned<\/p>\n
counsel that there is inordinate delay in reaching the FIR in the<\/p>\n
court. It is pointed out that even though according to the prosecution<\/p>\n
the incident was at 7.30 p.m on 06.02.1997. PW8 recorded Ext.P1<\/p>\n
FI statement in the afternoon of the next day. According to the<\/p>\n
learned counsel there is no proper explanation for such delay. The<\/p>\n
learned counsel submitted that even in the FI statement the overt act<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1437 of 2003           7<\/span><\/p>\n
alleged by PW1 is only against A1 and A12, other accused were<\/p>\n
implicated due to political animosity. The learned counsel further<\/p>\n
pointed out that even though the prosecution had a specific case<\/p>\n
that injuries are inflicted by using chopper and stick,       no such<\/p>\n
material objects were recovered by the prosecution and the same in<\/p>\n
a fundamental defect against the prosecution. The learned counsel<\/p>\n
submitted that the name of A7 and A11 are incorporated in the FIR<\/p>\n
due to sheer political animosity especially when names of A7 and<\/p>\n
A11 were not seen in Ext.P11 wound certificate which recorded at<\/p>\n
the date of the incident itself. It is also pointed out by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel that even in Ext.P10 case sheet only the names of A1, A2,<\/p>\n
A3 and A12 were mentioned, but as a result of an afterthought, 8<\/p>\n
more persons were included in Ext.P11 and thus in Ext.P5 FIR the<\/p>\n
number of accused is        shown as 12.     According to the learned<\/p>\n
counsel the creation of artificial evidence is obvious by bringing PW2<\/p>\n
to the place of incident. The learned counsel pointed out that no<\/p>\n
other witness has any claim that PW2 was found near or about the<\/p>\n
place of occurrence at any point of time.         The learned counsel<\/p>\n
pointed out that the non-examination of the shop owner Sreedharan,<\/p>\n
is fatal to the prosecution. According to the prosecution the incident<\/p>\n
was taken place in front of the shop of the said Sreedharan and the<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1437 of 2003             8<\/span><\/p>\n
prosecution witnesses claimed with identity of the accused on the<\/p>\n
basis of light from the shop of said Sreedharan. It is also pointed<\/p>\n
out that there was no attempt to obtain any materials or documents<\/p>\n
from the Kuttiady General Hospital, where,          PW1 was allegedly<\/p>\n
taken firstly for treatment. Finally the learned counsel submitted that<\/p>\n
the variation in the number of accused responsible for the assault,<\/p>\n
allegedly contained in Ext.P11 wound certificate and Ext.P10 case<\/p>\n
sheet, would          show the falsity of the prosecution case and said<\/p>\n
variations are not properly explained by the prosecution.         Thus<\/p>\n
according to the learned counsel the trial court has miserably failed<\/p>\n
to appreciate the contradiction and inconsistency that occurred in<\/p>\n
the case of the prosecution and the insufficiency of evidence to<\/p>\n
connect the accused with the crime. Hence according to the learned<\/p>\n
counsel the appellants are entitled to get a clear acquittal.<\/p>\n
       7. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted<\/p>\n
that the evidence of PW1 alone is sufficient to connect the accused<\/p>\n
with the incident. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that even<\/p>\n
according to PW1 he had acquaintance with the accused from years<\/p>\n
together and according to PW1 he was surrounded by the accused<\/p>\n
and attacked. So there is no mistake in identity as disclosed from<\/p>\n
the evidence of PW1. The learned Public Prosecutor invited my<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1437 of 2003          9<\/span><\/p>\n
attention to         Ext.P11 wound certificate, which is the document<\/p>\n
prepared immediately after the incident and such document contain<\/p>\n
all the names of the assailants.        According to him   there is no<\/p>\n
recording in Ext.P1 FI statement of PW1 by PW8 and thus the<\/p>\n
prosecution has succeeded in collecting the necessary evidence and<\/p>\n
materials and the same were produced before the court. Thus<\/p>\n
according to the learned Public Prosecutor, the trial court, after<\/p>\n
considering the materials and evidence on its right perspective, the<\/p>\n
accused are found guilty of all the charges levelled against them and<\/p>\n
no interference is warranted.\n<\/p>\n
       8. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor and also perused the evidence and materials on record.<\/p>\n
       9. PW1 is the injured in this case, and when he was examined<\/p>\n
he had deposed categorically        about the incident.    There is no<\/p>\n
substantial variations from his Ext.P1 FI statement. PW1 deposed<\/p>\n
before the court that he is the brother of PW3, who is an active<\/p>\n
worker of CPI(M) and when PW1 was coming to his house he was<\/p>\n
intercepted and attacked by the accused after surrounding him. Even<\/p>\n
in Ext.P1 FI statement he had narrated the entire incident and<\/p>\n
mentioned overt act of A1 and A12. The names of A1, A2, A5, A12<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1437 of 2003           10<\/span><\/p>\n
are certainly found        a place in Ext.P10 case sheet and also in<\/p>\n
Ext.P11 wound certificate.        Ext.P10 case sheet document and<\/p>\n
Ext.P11 wound certificate are the contemporaneous document<\/p>\n
prepared immediately after the incident that taken place at 7.30 p.m<\/p>\n
on 06.02.97. In this document the names of A1, A2, A3 and A12 are<\/p>\n
specifically stated and it is true as      pointed out by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellant that the name of A7 and A11 mentioned in<\/p>\n
the FIR do not find a place in Ext.P10 and Ext.P11. It is also relevant<\/p>\n
to note that as indicated earlier Ext.P10 and Ext.P11 are<\/p>\n
contemporaneous documents prepared on the date of the incident,<\/p>\n
that too immediately after the incident Ext.P5 FIR was drawn on the<\/p>\n
next day evening that was after recording Ext.P1 FI statement at<\/p>\n
about 2.30 p.m on 07.02.1997.         Therefore, the contention of the<\/p>\n
counsel, that in the meanwhile, after deliberations with others PW1<\/p>\n
had deliberately implicated the name A7 and A11, cannot be repelled<\/p>\n
as baseless. If actually A7 and A11 were involved in the incident,<\/p>\n
certainly the names of those accused should have been found a<\/p>\n
place in Ext.P10 and P11. It is also relevant to note that in Ext.P10<\/p>\n
only the names of A1, A2, A3 and A12 were given but when PW1<\/p>\n
given the names of accused in Ext.P11, the number of accused<\/p>\n
involved in the incident increased from more than 12 persons and the<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1437 of 2003          11<\/span><\/p>\n
names of one Rajan and Vijayan were given.            But when the FI<\/p>\n
statement was given, those names were deleted and names of A7<\/p>\n
and A11 were included.         Therefore, the implication of accused<\/p>\n
numbers A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10, and A11 can be seen only as<\/p>\n
a result of deliberation and especially when there is no overt act are<\/p>\n
alleged against those accused.        Therefore, according to me the<\/p>\n
above accused are entitled to get the benefit of doubt. With respect<\/p>\n
to A1, A2, A3 and A12 as their names are found in Ext.P10 and<\/p>\n
Ext.P11 and in Ext.P1 FI statement specific overt act are alleged<\/p>\n
against them and those allegations further substantiated through the<\/p>\n
evidence of PW1 the injured.\n<\/p>\n
       10. It is true the prosecution has also relied upon the evidence<\/p>\n
of PW2 to connect the accused with the incident.\n<\/p>\n
        Going by the deposition of PW2 it can be seen that he has no<\/p>\n
claim that he arrived at the spot before the starting of the incident.<\/p>\n
He had categorically stated that he came to the place of occurrence<\/p>\n
after the incident and on hearing the cry of the injured. Therefore,<\/p>\n
the prosecution is no way benefited in examining PW2 to establish<\/p>\n
the incident. It is also relevant to note that from the deposition of<\/p>\n
PW2 nothing discernible that he had witnessed either the incident or<\/p>\n
the overt act alleged by the prosecution. Thus from the above<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1437 of 2003        12<\/span><\/p>\n
discussion it can be seen that the only evidence that is available on<\/p>\n
record      in support of the prosecution case    with respect to the<\/p>\n
incident is that of the injured, namely PW1.           I have already<\/p>\n
considered the evidence of PW1 and the resultant conclusion is that<\/p>\n
the prosecution has succeeded, only in establishing the case against<\/p>\n
A1, A2, A3, and A12 and there is no acceptable and cogent evidence<\/p>\n
against the other accused. In the absence of any concrete evidence<\/p>\n
against the accused namely A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10 and A11,<\/p>\n
the only conclusion that can be arrived is that the prosecution has<\/p>\n
miserably failed to establish the case against those accused and<\/p>\n
consequently they are entitled to get an acquittal. In the light of the<\/p>\n
above discussion, and the materials referred above, I am of the view<\/p>\n
that the conviction recorded by the trial court with respect to A1, A2,<\/p>\n
A3, and A12 are liable to be confirmed and I do so.\n<\/p>\n
       11. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, the<\/p>\n
incident was taken place during the year 1997 and now 13 years are<\/p>\n
over and now the accused, A1 to A3 and 12, are now at the age<\/p>\n
between 35 to 50 and therefore a lenient view may be taken. It is<\/p>\n
also pointed out by the learned counsel that the alleged injury<\/p>\n
sustained by PW1 are not so serious and therefore the matter can<\/p>\n
be disposed of by ordering compensation to the injured, in lieu of<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1437 of 2003         13<\/span><\/p>\n
sentence of imprisonment, whereas the learned Public Prosecutor<\/p>\n
counsel pointed out that the main injury was inflicted on the back side<\/p>\n
of the left ear from which it can be gathered the intention of the<\/p>\n
assailants.      Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the<\/p>\n
case, I am of the view that some modifications can be made with<\/p>\n
respect to the sentence imposed against A1, A2, A3, and A12.<\/p>\n
       In the result, this appeal is partly allowed, acquitting accused<\/p>\n
Nos.A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10 and A11 of all the charges levelled<\/p>\n
against them. In the light of the acquittal recorded by this court in<\/p>\n
favour of the above accused, the remaining accused are only 4 in<\/p>\n
Nos. and hence Section 149 is not applicable against A1, A2, A3 and<\/p>\n
A12 but at the same time Section 34 IPC is attracted against them<\/p>\n
as they have shared the common intention. Accordingly A1, A2, A3<\/p>\n
and A12 their conviction under Section 324,307 r\/w Section 34 of<\/p>\n
I.P.C instead of Section 149, are confirmed and accordingly each of<\/p>\n
them are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year<\/p>\n
under Section 324 of IPC and each of them are further sentenced to<\/p>\n
undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of<\/p>\n
Rs.20,000\/- and in default of payment of fine amount to undergo<\/p>\n
rigorous      imprisonment for one year each, for the offence under<\/p>\n
Section 307 I.P.C. If the fine amount is realised the entire amount<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1437 of 2003         14<\/span><\/p>\n
shall be paid as compensation to PW1 under Section 357(1) of<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. As accused numbers A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A10 and A11 are<\/p>\n
acquitted of all the charges levelled against them, the bail bond if any<\/p>\n
executed by them shall stand cancelled and they are set at liberty.<\/p>\n
In the case of accused No.1,2,3, and 12 the bail bond stands<\/p>\n
cancelled and they are directed to appear before the trial court on<\/p>\n
30.4.2010 for receiving the sentence. If any failure on the part of<\/p>\n
appellant in appearing before the court below as directed above the<\/p>\n
court below is free to take coercive steps to procure the presence of<\/p>\n
accused and to execute the sentence.\n<\/p>\n
       Criminal Appeal is allowed partly.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                              V.K.MOHANAN,JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
mns<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Kunhiraman vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL.A.No. 1437 of 2003() 1. KUNHIRAMAN, S\/O. KANARA KURUP, … Petitioner 2. SREEDHARAN, S\/O. KRISHNA KURUP, 3. CHINNAN, S\/O. KANARA KURUP, 4. PREMAN @ PREMARAJAN, S\/O. KANARA KURUP 5. RAJEEVAN, S\/O. POKKAN, AGED 28 YEARS, […]<\/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-66446","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKunhiraman vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 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\/kunhiraman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kunhiraman vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunhiraman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-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=\"2010-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-20T06:39:07+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunhiraman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunhiraman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kunhiraman vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-20T06:39:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunhiraman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3157,\"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\\\/kunhiraman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunhiraman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunhiraman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Kunhiraman vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-20T06:39:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunhiraman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunhiraman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunhiraman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kunhiraman vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 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":"Kunhiraman vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 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\/kunhiraman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kunhiraman vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunhiraman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-20T06:39:07+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunhiraman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunhiraman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kunhiraman vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-20T06:39:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunhiraman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010"},"wordCount":3157,"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\/kunhiraman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunhiraman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunhiraman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010","name":"Kunhiraman vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-20T06:39:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunhiraman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunhiraman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunhiraman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kunhiraman vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 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\/66446","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=66446"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66446\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66446"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66446"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66446"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}