Motor Insurance Policy Covers Cross-Border Travel If Specifically Authorized By Valid Permit Under MVA: Supreme Court Petrol Pumps Act As 'Commission Agents' For Mahanagar Gas, Liable To Pay Service Tax Under Business Auxiliary Service: Supreme Court Supreme Court Refuses To Dilute 'Bangalore Water Supply' Ratio, Affirms Worker Protection Remains The Core Of Industrial Disputes Act Order XXII Rule 9(3) CPC | Application Under Section 5 Limitation Act Must Be Filed Separately To Condonate Delay In Setting Aside Abatement: Supreme Court Principle Of Parity | Supreme Court Extends Benefit Of Fixed-Term Sentence To Co-Accused Based On Remission Period Right To Catch Fish Amounts To 'Profit à Prendre' And Is Compulsorily Registrable As A Lease Under Section 17(1)(d) Registration Act: Supreme Court Supreme Court Mandates Adoption Of Guidelines To Inculcate Sensitivity And Compassion In Judicial Processes For Sexual Offences 'Last Seen' Circumstance Is Weak Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused PSEB | Pre-Regularization Service Must Be Counted As Qualifying Service For Pensionary Benefits: Supreme Court Writ Of Quo Warranto Cannot Be Used For Redress Of Personal Grievances By Unsuccessful Candidates In Selection Process: Supreme Court 'Case Of No Investigation': Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused Citing 'Shoddy' Police Work And Lack Of Forensic Evidence 'Status Quo Cannot Be Vacated Without Appropriate Security': Supreme Court Directs Additional ₹200 Crores Deposit In RAKIA-Matrix Case SARFAESI Act | 'Bank' As Assignee Can Invoke Recovery Measures Even If Debt Was Originally Created By Non-Notified Financial Institution: Supreme Court 'CBI Failed Miserably': Supreme Court Tears Into 'Fabricated' Case, Acquits Bank Manager In 35-Year-Old Corruption Trial Mere Delay In Tax Deposit Cannot Be Equated With Non-Payment: Supreme Court Quashes Penalty On Saudi Arabian Airlines Revisional Power Under Section 56 Karnataka Land Revenue Act Cannot Be Invoked Beyond Three-Year Limitation Period: Supreme Court Prosecution Can’t Use Known Locations To Create 'Discovery' Fiction: Supreme Court Rejects Site Plan As Evidence Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage And Long-Term Separation Constitute Valid Grounds For Divorce Under Section 13(1)(ib) HMA: Supreme Court 'Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Is A Guideline And Not A Fetish': Supreme Court Acquits Man In 2007 Murder Case Over Fragile Circumstantial Evidence Plea Of Juvenility Is A Jurisdictional Fact; High Court Must Recall Final Judgments Under Section 482 CrPC To Remedy Miscarriage Of Justice: Supreme Court SEBI | Professional Clearing Members Have No Statutory Obligation To Verify Credit/Debit Positions Of Individual Clients Of Trading Members: Supreme Court

Watching Obscene Content in Private Not an Offence Under Section 292 IPC: Kerala High Court

04 September 2024 11:33 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has clarified that watching obscene content in private does not constitute an offence under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The judgment was delivered by The Honourable Mr. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan on September 5, 2023.

The case in question involved a petitioner accused of watching obscene videos on his mobile phone in a public place. However, the court noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the accused had distributed or publicly exhibited the content. Section 292 of the IPC requires evidence of sale, distribution, or public exhibition to establish an offence.

The judgment drew upon previous legal precedents, including the cases of Ramesh Krishnan v. State of Kerala and Abdul Rasheed v. State of Kerala. These cases emphasized the importance of considering the circumstances surrounding the possession of obscene material and the presence of a mercenary interest in its possession for it to be considered obscene.

In the final verdict, the court acquitted the accused and quashed all further proceedings in the case, highlighting that no offence under Section 292 IPC had been established.

Justice Kunhi krishnan also took the opportunity to address parents, urging them to exercise caution regarding their minor children's exposure to pornography. He emphasized the easy accessibility of such content on mobile phones and encouraged parents to supervise and guide their children's internet use to safeguard their well-being and moral values.

This landmark ruling underscores the distinction between private consumption of explicit material and actions that involve distribution or public exhibition, providing clarity on the interpretation of Section 292 IPC.

Date of Decision: September 5, 2023

ANEESH vs STATE OF KERALA

Latest Legal News