MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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