"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering 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

Similar News