Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

Prosecution’s Failure to Specify Sexual Gestures Renders Case Groundless: Kerala High Court”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Kerala High Court stresses importance of detailed charges under Section 119(1)(a) of Kerala Police Act in ruling against prosecution.

In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court quashed the proceedings against Arun S, accused of making sexual gestures in public that degraded the dignity of women. The court, presided over by Justice A. Badharudeen, highlighted the lack of specific allegations and evidence in the FIR and Final Report, underscoring the importance of detailed charges in such cases.

The case against Arun S arose from an incident on November 16, 2023, near the KSRTC Bus Depot in Attingal, where he was accused of making sexual gestures in public, allegedly violating Section 119(1)(a) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. Following the FIR (Annexure A1) and the Final Report (Annexure A2), the case was taken up by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Attingal, under Crime No. 2539/2023.

Justice A. Badharudeen, after a detailed hearing, found the prosecution’s case lacking in specific details regarding the alleged sexual gestures. “Neither the FIR nor the Final Report discloses the overt acts that would constitute an offense under Section 119(1)(a) of the KP Act,” the court noted. This deficiency was crucial as the law requires explicit mention of the gestures or acts to substantiate the charge.

The court referred to the case of Arun v. State of Kerala [2019 (3) KHC 132], where similar charges were quashed due to a lack of specified allegations. This precedent reinforced the principle that mere assumptions or unspecified accusations do not meet the legal threshold for prosecution under Section 119(1)(a).

The prosecution, represented by the Public Prosecutor, failed to present concrete evidence or details of the alleged gestures. Justice Badharudeen remarked, “The prosecution materials do not suggest what actually the sexual gestures or acts performed by the accused were, making the entire prosecution meritless and baseless.”

The court reiterated that Section 119(1)(a) of the Kerala Police Act criminalizes specific acts or gestures performed in public that degrade the dignity of women. The absence of discernible acts from the prosecution’s documents rendered the case untenable. Justice Badharudeen stated, “If the sexual gestures or acts performed by the accused could not be discerned from the FIR, Final Report, or other materials, mere assumptions by the officers would not suffice to constitute an offense under Section 119(1)(a).”

Justice Badharudeen emphasized, “Performing of any sexual gestures or acts in public places degrading the dignity of women is the essential ingredient to constitute an offense punishable under Section 119(1)(a) of the KP Act. The prosecution’s failure to specify these acts renders the case groundless.”

The Kerala High Court’s decision to quash the proceedings against Arun S underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the principles of specificity and evidence-based prosecution in criminal cases. The ruling highlights the necessity for law enforcement and prosecutors to present clear and specific allegations, especially in sensitive cases involving sexual misconduct. This judgment is expected to influence future prosecutions under Section 119(1)(a), ensuring that charges are substantiated with detailed and discernible evidence.

 

Date of Decision: July 02, 2024

Arun S v. State of Kerala

Latest Legal News