{"id":73919,"date":"2007-02-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-02-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-shaji-on-12-february-2007"},"modified":"2015-05-31T06:26:16","modified_gmt":"2015-05-31T00:56:16","slug":"state-of-kerala-vs-shaji-on-12-february-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-shaji-on-12-february-2007","title":{"rendered":"State Of Kerala vs Shaji on 12 February, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
State Of Kerala vs Shaji on 12 February, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL A No. 262 of 2007()\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. SHAJI\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR\n\n Dated :12\/02\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
           J.B. KOSHY and T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.\n<\/p>\n
                 ——————————-\n<\/p>\n
                  Crl. Appeal No. 262 of 2007 and<\/p>\n
                     Crl.M.Appln.No.64 of 2007<\/p>\n
                 ——————————-\n<\/p>\n
            Dated this the 12th day of February, 2007<\/p>\n
                                 Judgment<\/p>\n
Koshy,J.\n<\/p>\n
             Crl.M.Appln.No.64   of   2007   is   a   petition   for<\/p>\n
condoning   the   delay   of   347   days   in   filing   the   appeal.\n<\/p>\n
Even   that   petition   and   appeal   were     re-filed   after   45<\/p>\n
days   of   time   given   for   curing   the   defect   as   appeal   was<\/p>\n
filed with defects.  The petition to condone the delay of<\/p>\n
45   days   in   re-presenting   the   appeal   was   allowed.     When<\/p>\n
the   petition   for   condoning   the   delay   of   347   days   in<\/p>\n
filing the appeal was posted,  we had directed the Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor to find out the prima facie nature of the case<\/p>\n
so as to issue notice in the case.\n<\/p>\n
             2.     We   have   heard   the   Public   Prosecutor   on<\/p>\n
merits   also.   The   reasons   stated   for   condoning   the   delay<\/p>\n
is   that   there   is   heavy   work   in   the   office   of   the   Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor.   That is not at all a justifiable ground for<\/p>\n
condoning the long delay.   The above reason can be given<\/p>\n
in all cases making the time limit fixed by the Statute a<\/p>\n
mockery. We are of the opinion that no sufficient reasons<\/p>\n
were   given   for   condoning   the   delay.     Therefore,   delay<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.262\/2007 and<\/p>\n
Crl.M.Appln.No.64\/2007                2<\/span><\/p>\n
condonation   petition   and   consequently   the   appeal   is<\/p>\n
liable   to   be   dismissed.     However,   since   it   is   a   murder<\/p>\n
case   to   satisfy   whether   any   injustice   will   be   caused   by<\/p>\n
dismissing   the   appeal   on   the   ground   of   delay,   we   have<\/p>\n
gone through the merits of the matter also.\n<\/p>\n
             3.        It   is   settled   law   that   an   order   of<\/p>\n
acquittal  can  be  interfered  by  this  court  in  appeal  only<\/p>\n
if   the   findings   of   the   trial   court   are   perverse   or<\/p>\n
patently illegal. Law in this regard is summed up in M.S.\n<\/p>\n
Narayana   Menon   @   Mani   v.   State   of   Kerala   and<\/a>   another<\/p>\n
((2006)   6   SCC   39).   If   the   trial   court   took   a   possible<\/p>\n
view,   appellate   court   will   not   interfere   even   if   another<\/p>\n
view is also possible.   In this case, there is no ocular<\/p>\n
evidence.  For convicting the accused guilty on the basis<\/p>\n
of   circumstantial   evidence,   court   should   be   satisfied<\/p>\n
that   all   the   links   in   the   chain   are   complete   and   only<\/p>\n
hypothesis   possible   on   the   basis   of   the   evidence   adduced<\/p>\n
is   that   accused   and   accused   alone   is   guilty   of   the<\/p>\n
offence   (See:  C.K.   Raveendran   v.   State   of   Kerala<\/a>  –   JT<\/p>\n
1999   (9)   SC   408   and     Jaswant   Singh   v.   State   (Delhi<\/p>\n
Administration)  –   AIR   1979   SC   190).     It   is   said   that<\/p>\n
circumstantial   evidence   should   be   like   spiders   web<\/p>\n
leaving no exit for the accused to step away.   It should<\/p>\n
not   only   consistent   with   the   guilt   of   the   accused,   but,<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.262\/2007 and<\/p>\n
Crl.M.Appln.No.64\/2007                           3<\/span><\/p>\n
should      be         inconsistent         with           his         innocence          (See:\n<\/p>\n
Mangleshwari Prasad v. State of Bihar<\/a> – AIR 1954 SC 715).\n<\/p>\n
In a case of circumstantial evidence, the Court has to be<\/p>\n
on   its   guard   to   avoid   damages   of   being   swayed   by<\/p>\n
emotional   considerations   (See:  Balwinder   Singh   v.   State<\/p>\n
of   Punjab  –   AIR   1996   SC   607).     It   has   been   repeatedly<\/p>\n
held   by   the   Supreme   Court   that   the   distinction   between<\/p>\n
‘may   be   true’   and   ‘must   be   true’   is   long   and   divides<\/p>\n
vague   conjectures   from   sure   considerations   and   each   link<\/p>\n
must  be  covered  by  clear  and  unobjecting  evidence  by  the<\/p>\n
prosecution before the accused is condemned as a culprit.\n<\/p>\n
             4.         Prosecution              relied           on         only         three\n\n\n\ncircumstances   for   commission   of   the   crime.     According   to\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
the   prosecution,   deceased   Sarala,   belonging   to   a<\/p>\n
scheduled   caste   community,   fell   in   love   with   the   brother<\/p>\n
of   the   accused   who   belonged   to   Thiyya   community   (OBC).\n<\/p>\n
This   is   the   reason   stated   for   commission   of   the   crime,<\/p>\n
but,   there   is   no   evidence   to   prove   that   because   of   that<\/p>\n
the   accused   was   having   enmity   with   the   deceased   Sarala.\n<\/p>\n
Merely   because   the   accused   belonged   to   Thiyya   community<\/p>\n
and   Sarala   belonged   to   scheduled   caste,   motive   of   the<\/p>\n
crime  cannot  be  inferred  on  the  accused.   Some  financial<\/p>\n
transaction of the deceased was also suggestive of motive<\/p>\n
and even though four witnesses were examined to prove the<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.262\/2007 and<\/p>\n
Crl.M.Appln.No.64\/2007                          4<\/span><\/p>\n
same,   all   of   them   became   hostile   and   none   of   them<\/p>\n
supported   the   case   of   the   prosecution.     The   failure   to<\/p>\n
prove   motive   is   not   fatal   or   indispose   for   the<\/p>\n
prosecution          if         there         are         either         documentary         or<\/p>\n
circumstantial evidence conclusively proving the guilt of<\/p>\n
the  accused,  but,  when  the  proof  of  murder  case  recorded<\/p>\n
on   circumstantial   evidence,   motive   plays   an   important<\/p>\n
role.  Even if motive is proved, that alone will not make<\/p>\n
a   man   guilty   of   a   crime.     It   is   only   one   of   the   links.\n<\/p>\n
Second   circumstance   relied   on   by   the   prosecution   is   the<\/p>\n
extra-judicial   confession   made   by   the   accused   to   the<\/p>\n
police   officer   as   well   as   to   a   friend   of   the   accused,<\/p>\n
namely,   PW3.     The   alleged   crime   was   committed   in   the<\/p>\n
local   jurisdiction   of   Kuttippuram   police   station.\n<\/p>\n
According   to   the   prosecution,   the   accused   went   to   Tirur<\/p>\n
police   station   and   met   the   Sub   Inspector   of   Police   and<\/p>\n
PW1  made  the  confession  and  Ext.P1  FIR  was  registered  on<\/p>\n
that confession. But, the F.I. statement  was not marked.\n<\/p>\n
Even though the statement of the accused can be used for<\/p>\n
registering   the   FIR,   the   incriminating   circumstances<\/p>\n
alleged   to   have   stated   by   the   accused   to   the   police<\/p>\n
officer  is  not  admissible  in  evidence  in  view  of  section<\/p>\n
25   of   the   Evidence   Act.   When   the   accused   himself   gives<\/p>\n
the  first  information  report,  the  fact  of  his  giving  the<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.262\/2007 and<\/p>\n
Crl.M.Appln.No.64\/2007                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
information   is   admissible   against   him   under   section   8.\n<\/p>\n
But,   a   confessional   FIR   by   the   accused   to   the   police<\/p>\n
cannot be used against him in view of section 25 as held<\/p>\n
by   the   Apex   Court   in  Aghnoo   Nagesia   v.   State   of   Bihar<\/p>\n
(AIR<\/a>   1966   SC   119)   and  Khatri   Hemraj   Amulakh   v.   State   of<\/p>\n
Gujarat  (AIR<\/a>   1972   SC   922).     Here,   even   making   of   any<\/p>\n
confession   as   recorded   in   the   FIR   is   not   proved.   Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor cited the decision of a Division Bench of this<\/p>\n
court   in  Seethamaniyan   v.   State   of   Kerala<\/a>  (1996   (1)   KLT<\/p>\n
313) stating that if the police officer is not in charge<\/p>\n
of investigation, the prohibition under section 25 of the<\/p>\n
Evidence   Act   is   not     attracted.     In   that   case,   the<\/p>\n
accused,   after   committing   the   crime,   went   to   an   I.P.S.\n<\/p>\n
officer’s   house   who   was   only   in   charge   of   the<\/p>\n
administrative            functions         and         not         entrusted         with<\/p>\n
investigation   and   made   the   confession.     Therefore,   the<\/p>\n
statement was given to him not as a police officer,  but,<\/p>\n
as   a   neighbour   and   at   that   time,   the   concerned   IPS<\/p>\n
officer   had   no   power   of   investigation   as   he   was   working<\/p>\n
in the administrative post and, therefore, the court held<\/p>\n
that   he   was   not   a   police   officer   for   the   purpose   of<\/p>\n
section   25.     In   this   case,   admittedly,   PW1   is   a   police<\/p>\n
officer who has got power of investigation.  In fact, the<\/p>\n
statement   given   by   PW1   was   considered   and   FIR   was<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.262\/2007 and<\/p>\n
Crl.M.Appln.No.64\/2007                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
registered and, therefore, admission given to that police<\/p>\n
officer   is   not   admissible   against   accused.     The   Judicial<\/p>\n
Magistrate   also   was   not   called   to   record   the   confession.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore,   the   alleged   extra-judicial   confession   to   the<\/p>\n
police officer is not admissible in evidence.  PW3 stated<\/p>\n
that  somebody  telephoned  as  Shaji  and  stated  that  he  has<\/p>\n
committed the crime.   Even though it is submitted by PW3<\/p>\n
that   he   is   a   friend   of   the   accused,   it   cannot   be   stated<\/p>\n
that   he   understood   the   voice   of   Shaji   and   there   is   no<\/p>\n
evidence   to   prove   that   Shaji   himself   telephoned   even   if<\/p>\n
that   telephone   conversation   is   correct.     Extra-judicial<\/p>\n
confession   is   a   weak   piece   of   evidence   as   held   by   the<\/p>\n
Apex   Court   in  Jagta     v.   State   of   Haryana  (AIR<\/a>   1974   SC<\/p>\n
1545).     Telephone   conversation   which   is   not   proved   to<\/p>\n
have been made by the accused cannot   be stated to be an<\/p>\n
admission   so   as   to   connect   the   accused   with   the   crime.\n<\/p>\n
At the maximum, even if it is proved, it can be taken as<\/p>\n
a   corroborative   evidence   if   there   are   any   other<\/p>\n
substantive   evidence.     Extra-judicial   confessions   stated<\/p>\n
to be made by the accused to PW3 is not enough to connect<\/p>\n
the accused with the crime.\n<\/p>\n
             5.   Third   circumstance   relied   on   by   the<\/p>\n
prosecution is the res gestae statement said to have been<\/p>\n
given to PW10 by the deceased.  PW10 is the son of a<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.262\/2007 and<\/p>\n
Crl.M.Appln.No.64\/2007                7<\/span><\/p>\n
nearby   grocery   shop.     At   about   11.30   a.m.,     Sarala   came<\/p>\n
to   the   shop   for   purchasing   grocery   items   and   told   PW10<\/p>\n
that younger brother of Sajayan  came.  Even if that part<\/p>\n
is   admissible,   it   is   not   a   res   gestae   evidence.     ‘Res<\/p>\n
gestae’   doctrine   as   enshrined   in   section   6   of   the<\/p>\n
Evidence   Act   is   an   exemption   to   the   general   rule   that<\/p>\n
hearsay   evidence   is   not   admissible,   but,   it   is   necessary<\/p>\n
that   such   fact   or   statement   must   be   part   of   same<\/p>\n
transaction.  Statement allegedly made by the deceased to<\/p>\n
PW10 is not part of the offence or incident.  It was held<\/p>\n
in  Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala<\/a>  (1985 Crl. L.J. 1711) as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
                   “The   statement   or   declaration   would<\/p>\n
             be relevant and admissible as  res  gestae<\/p>\n
             under   section   6   Evidence   Act   read   with<\/p>\n
             Illustration   (a)   thereof   only   if   it   was<\/p>\n
             that   of   a   person   who   had   seen   the   actual<\/p>\n
             occurrence   and   uttered   it   spontaneously<\/p>\n
             and simultaneously with the incident or so<\/p>\n
             soon   thereafter   as   to   make   it   reasonably<\/p>\n
             certain   that   the   speaker   was   till   under<\/p>\n
             the stress of the excitement caused by his<\/p>\n
             having   seen   the   incident.              A   mere<\/p>\n
             narration about a prior event should not<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.262\/2007 and<\/p>\n
Crl.M.Appln.No.64\/2007                8<\/span><\/p>\n
             be   covered   by   the   provision.     Similarly,<\/p>\n
             statement   by   persons   other   than   the   one<\/p>\n
             who witnessed it would only be hearsay.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
PW10 stated that he has not seen the accused anywhere in<\/p>\n
the shop or nearby.  PW10 specifically stated that he has<\/p>\n
not   seen   the   accused   on   that   day.     Therefore,   a   mere<\/p>\n
statement  by  the  deceased  that  brother  of  her  lover  came<\/p>\n
(when   and   where   were   not   revealed)   cannot   connect   the<\/p>\n
accused   with   the   crime.     When     and   where   brother   of<\/p>\n
Sajayan came etc. was not revealed by her.  Therefore, it<\/p>\n
has no connection at all with the incident and cannot be<\/p>\n
treated   as   res   gestae   event   to   connect   the   accused   with<\/p>\n
the   crime.         Opinion   as   to   cause   of   death   mentioned   in<\/p>\n
Ext.P19   postmortem   certificate   is   that   deceased   died   due<\/p>\n
to   strangulation.     MO3   thorthu   was   found   near   the   dead<\/p>\n
body   in   that   room   and   probable   time   of   death   is   not<\/p>\n
mentioned in the postmortem certificate.  Nobody has also<\/p>\n
seen the accused with the deceased on that day. When the<\/p>\n
accused   made   the   alleged   confession   before   PW1   and   dress<\/p>\n
was taken into custody as MOs 1 and 2, but, no blood was<\/p>\n
detected   in   the   dress   of   the   accused.     According   to   the<\/p>\n
accused, PW1 forcefully obtained the signature in a blank<\/p>\n
paper   which   is   used   as   confession.     None   of   the   three<\/p>\n
circumstances   were   proved   in   this   case   and   it   is   not<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.262\/2007 and<\/p>\n
Crl.M.Appln.No.64\/2007              9<\/span><\/p>\n
proved   by   the   prosecution   that   there   is   conclusive<\/p>\n
evidence   that   accused   is   guilty     and   accused   alone   is<\/p>\n
guilty.  Therefore, acquittal of the accused by the trial<\/p>\n
court   cannot   be   said   to   be   wrong   in   any   aspect.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
             In   the   result,   the   delay   condonation   petition<\/p>\n
and the appeal are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                 J.B.KOSHY<\/p>\n
                                          JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                         T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR<\/p>\n
                                                   JUDGE<\/p>\n
vaa<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.262\/2007 and<\/p>\n
Crl.M.Appln.No.64\/2007    10<\/span><\/p>\n
                                      J.B. KOSHY AND<\/p>\n
                                T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.\n<\/p>\n
                                ————————–\n<\/p>\n
                                  Crl.Appeal No.262\/2007<\/p>\n
                                           and<\/p>\n
                                  Crl.M.Appln.No.64\/2007<\/p>\n
                                ————————–\n<\/p>\n
                                        Judgment<\/p>\n
                                Dated:12th February, 2007<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court State Of Kerala vs Shaji on 12 February, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL A No. 262 of 2007() 1. STATE OF KERALA … Petitioner Vs 1. SHAJI … Respondent For Petitioner :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY 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-73919","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Kerala vs Shaji on 12 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-shaji-on-12-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Kerala vs Shaji on 12 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-shaji-on-12-february-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=\"2007-02-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-31T00:56:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-shaji-on-12-february-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-shaji-on-12-february-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Kerala vs Shaji on 12 February, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-31T00:56:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-shaji-on-12-february-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1884,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-shaji-on-12-february-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-shaji-on-12-february-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-shaji-on-12-february-2007\",\"name\":\"State Of Kerala vs Shaji on 12 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-31T00:56:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-shaji-on-12-february-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-shaji-on-12-february-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-shaji-on-12-february-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Kerala vs Shaji on 12 February, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Kerala vs Shaji on 12 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-shaji-on-12-february-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Kerala vs Shaji on 12 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-shaji-on-12-february-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-02-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-31T00:56:16+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-shaji-on-12-february-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-shaji-on-12-february-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Kerala vs Shaji on 12 February, 2007","datePublished":"2007-02-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-31T00:56:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-shaji-on-12-february-2007"},"wordCount":1884,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-shaji-on-12-february-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-shaji-on-12-february-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-shaji-on-12-february-2007","name":"State Of Kerala vs Shaji on 12 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-02-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-31T00:56:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-shaji-on-12-february-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-shaji-on-12-february-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-shaji-on-12-february-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Kerala vs Shaji on 12 February, 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\/73919","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=73919"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73919\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=73919"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=73919"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=73919"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}