Rigours of UAPA Melt Before Article 21: Jharkhand High Court Grants Bail After Six Years of Incarceration Accused Cannot Challenge in Arguments What He Never Challenged in Cross-Examination: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction Counterblast Plea, Civil Dispute Defence No Shield When Cognizable Offence Is Disclosed: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Ex-Driver Accused Of Outraging Modesty Lawyers Who Burned a Colleague's Furniture for Defending Toll Workers Have Tainted a Noble Profession: Supreme Court A Suspicious Dying Declaration Cannot Hang a Man: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction IQ of 65, Memory Loss, Frontal Lobe Damage: Supreme Court Holds Brain-Injured Manager Suffered 100% Functional Disability, Enhances Compensation to ₹97.73 Lakh Cannot Be Forced to Pay Gratuity to Retired Employees Who Refuse to Vacate Company Quarters: Supreme Court Victim Who Incited Riot Inside Court Cannot Blame Accused for Trial Delay: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Section 307 Case You Cannot Sell What You Don’t Own: ‘Vendor’s Half Share Means Buyer Gets Only Half’ : Andhra Pradesh High Court Nagaland's Oil Laws Face Constitutional Challenge: Gauhati High Court Sends Union-State Dispute to Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 3 CPC | Will's Validity Cannot Be Decided in Substitution Proceedings: Himachal Pradesh High Court 6-Year-Old Loses Arm To Live 11kV Wire Passing 'Almost Touching' Her Balcony: Punjab & Haryana High Court Awards Rs. 99.93 Lakh To Child Despite Nigam Blaming Father For 'Extending Balcony' Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Quash Rape & POCSO Conviction After Marriage Between Accused And Victim NGT Cannot Order Demolition of Temple On Ground of Encroachment of Park: Supreme Court Quashes Removal Order For Want of Jurisdiction Hostile Witnesses & Doubtful Recovery Can Collapse Prosecution: J&K High Court Sets High Threshold for Criminal Proof Compassion Cannot Override the Clock: Karnataka HC Denies Job to Guardian Aunt Despite 2021 Rule Change” Second Marriage During Pendency of Divorce Appeal Is Void: Kerala High Court Appearing in Exam Does Not Cure Attendance Deficiency: MP High Court Upholds 'Year Down' Against BBA Student With Sub-30% Attendance Patna High Court Directs Bihar To Submit Detailed Rehabilitation Plan For Recovered Mental Health Patients, Expand Half-Way Homes Across State Rajasthan High Court Upholds Refusal to Drop Bharat Band Stone-Pelting Case

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