Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

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