The petitioner, Saithu Kunju A. M., approached the Kerala High Court seeking refund of stamp duty and registration charges paid in connection with a sale of land in Mulavoor Village. The sequence started with the purchase of non-judicial stamp paper (Rs. 1,80,160) on 12/11/2021 (Ext. P1) for execution of an unregistered deed (Ext. P2) and payment of Rs. 45,140 as registration fee for the intended sale deed. The purchaser later undertook a substituted instrument (Ext. P3) dated 07/04/2022 and registered the sale deed subsequently (Ext. P4/P3 order). Financial stringency prevented completion of the original sale, and the petitioner sought refund of stamp duty already paid on the unregistered instrument, arguing that Proviso (b) to Section 48 of the Kerala Stamp Act allows refunds within six months after the date of execution of the substituted instrument when unavoidable circumstances necessitate substitution. The Department contested, contending that the six-month window had lapsed. The court relied on established precedents (Raman Kutty N.P. v. District Collector, Thrissur; Wilson Chakkappan v. Tahsildar, Aluva) to interpret Proviso (b) and held that the period runs from the substituted instrument’s date. Since Ext. P5 (07/09/2022 or 09/07/2022 as per records) was within six months of the substituted instrument, the petitioner is entitled to refund. Ext. P6 was set aside and a refund of Rs. 1,80,160 was ordered within two months from the judgment date, with the writ petition allowed.
Anil Kumar @ Rameshan, the appellant, was convicted under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act by the Fast Track Court-III, Pathanamthitta on 13.10.2009, for possession of 4 litres of arrack at Parayantayyam junction on 07.10.2002, and sentenced to 1.5 years’ rigorous imprisonment plus a fine of Rs. 1 Lakh. This criminal appeal before the Kerala High Court challenges the conviction on the core issue of chain of custody and the admissibility of the chemical analysis. The prosecution relied on seizure mahazar Ext.P2, sample Ext.P2, and Ext.P7 (Certificate of Chemical Analysis) showing the sample reaching the Chemical Examiner’s Laboratory on 28.11.2002 via Excise Guard. The court notes multiple deficiencies: Ext.P2 does not describe the seal nor provide evidence about the seal’s nature or a specimen for verification; the period from 20.11.2002 to 28.11.2002 regarding custody of the contraband was unexplained; the link between the seized contraband and the sample tested in the laboratory is not established. Relying on Bhaskaran, Rajamma, Viswanadhan, Vijay Pandey, State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram, and Sasidharan, the High Court concludes that the certificate of analysis has no evidentiary value without a tamper-proof chain of custody and a proven link to the seized sample. Consequently, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt, and the conviction is set aside with acquittal; the appeal is allowed.
This Regular Second Appeal is before the Kerala High Court, challenging the decision in OS 310/2004 (Munsiff Kayamkulam) and its appellate confirmation in AS 7/2012, both involving a 10-cent plaint schedule property that formed part of Ext.A1 partition. The plaintiff (respondent) Raman Pillai’s son, V.G. Aravindakshan, asserts recovery of possession and damages for use and occupation against Mohan Kumar’s successors (the appellants/defendants who are the legal heirs of Mohan Kumar). The core dispute centers on Ext.A2, the agreement dated 03.07.1975 under which 10 cents of the property were leased for 30 years to Mohan Kumar to expand Mohan’s Technical Institute, with a total ground rent and a right for the landlord to dismantle structures if not needed. The trial court treated Ext.A2 as a lease; the first appellate court upheld this. The High Court, through Judge M.R. Anitha, examines whether Ext.A2 is a lease or a licence and whether Section 60(b) of the Easements Act or provisions of the Hindu Succession Act or Kerala Land Reforms Act affect the outcome. The judgment cites multiple precedents on lease vs licence, irrevocability of licences, and the interpretation of life interests under partition deeds, ultimately upholding the trial and appellate conclusions that Ext.A2 constitutes a lease and dismissing the second appeal with costs.
This appeal, arising from CC No.4/2015 in the Special Judge (SPE/CBI Cases)-III, Ernakulam, challenges a 2016 conviction of Bharat Raj Meena under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) PC Act for demanding and accepting illegal gratification to enable transfers in 2005. The prosecution’s case rested on the testimony of PW7, an accomplice turned approver, and corroboration from the bribe-givers PW10 and PW11, with tainted money recovered in a trap laid by the CBI. The appellant contends that there is no legal evidence of the alleged demand and acceptance by him, that PW7’s testimony cannot be relied on without independent corroboration, and that the sanction for prosecution was not properly proved, so the sanctioning authority did not apply its mind. The State argues the sanction was valid under Article 77(2) of the Constitution and that the evidence, though largely through PW7, is corroborated by PW10 and PW11. The High Court scrutinizes the sanction order Ext.P7 and finds the mind of the sanctioning authority properly applied, but on merits finds that there is no independent corroboration linking the appellant to the demand and acceptance of bribes; the prosecution’s case fails beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction and sentence are set aside and the appellant is acquitted; the appeal is allowed.
WA Nos.423, 425 and 460 of 2023 These writ appeals arise from the common judgment of the learned Single Judge directing the North Malabar Gramin Bank to regularise the service of petitioners who were appointed as messengers/office attendants under interim orders and to grant them consequential benefits. The Bank contends the petitioners were not eligible for appointment or regularisation, noting age and educational prerequisites (18-26 years and SSLC), and asserts that Group-C posts are to be filled by direct recruitment, with employment through Employment Exchanges only being one reference point. The petitioners contend that Rule 10 of the 2010 Rules permits a broader process of selection via Employment Exchanges or other agencies, and that their provisional appointments, made through interim orders and sustained for over a decade, must be treated within the same selection process as those sponsored by Employment Exchanges. The court recognises that Rule 10 does not mandate exclusive reliance on Employment Exchanges, and that the petitioners were part of a selection process, interviewed and provisionally appointed, with vacancies kept for them. While upholding that regularisation from an earlier date lacked pleadings, the court directs that the petitioners be appointed in terms of the direct recruitment made pursuant to the selection they participated in, i.e., the 2010 Rules Office Attendant posts, with benefits equal to others appointed in the same selection. The writ appeals are disposed accordingly.
DBP No.94 of 2023 is a suo motu petition concerning the reintroduction of an online booking facility for free darshan at the Guruvayur Sreekrishna Temple. The petitioner, Sri P.N. Radhakrishnan, a party-in-person, filed a corrected petition seeking to restore an online system that would enable pilgrims to obtain free darshan. Respondents include the State government (Revenue/Devaswom Department), Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee represented by its Administrator, and the Deputy Director Local Fund Audit. The petition was heard on 13.11.2023, with the petitioner present and the state and Devaswom sides represented by counsel. The Managing Committee’s earlier refusal of the petition (Decision No. 61 dated 26.06.2023) was produced as Ext. R2(a). The court examined the Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978 and related provisions, emphasizing the fiduciary role of the Devaswom Managing Committee as trustee of temple properties and the worshippers’ rights, as well as general principles of administrative action and reasoned decision-making. The court noted that Ext.R2(a) was issued without notice and that the grounds for denial were unclear. Relying on precedents about the necessity of reasons and fairness, the court set aside Ext.R2(a) and directed the 2nd respondent to reconsider the petitioner’s request with due notice and opportunity to be heard, within two months of receiving a certified copy.
CRP Nos.503/2018 & 806/2019 Two Civil Revision Petitions (CRP Nos. 503/2018 and 806/2019) were heard by the Kerala High Court, challenging an order in O.P. (Electricity) No.81 of 2011 by the Additional District Judge, North Paravur. The claimant, Tessy Mathai, alleged that the 400 kV transmission lines drawn across her Pattimattom land caused extensive loss: trees were felled, the land value diminished, and the property’s utility was reduced, despite only a meagre compensation having been paid. She sought enhanced compensation for the trees cut and for diminution of land value. The court below assessed tree losses by estimating average annual yields and market values of coconuts and areca palms, after deducting immature falls and expenses, and fixed a compensation amount. For land diminution, it relied on Ext.A2 sale deed and Exts.C1/C1(b) commission reports, fixing land value at Rs.1,20,000 per cent and granting 50% of the land value as compensation for the affected area of about 3.97 ares (9.81 cents). The court directed that 8% interest be applied. The court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in KSEB v. Livisha for the factors determining land diminution and held that government guidelines on land value fixation were not binding. The High Court ultimately upheld the lower court’s method, dismissed both petitions, and directed payment of the enhanced compensation within three months, with deposited amounts to be released on application.
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by Vijesh Kurup, the accused in CC No. 67/2017, Irinjalakuda, seeking quashing of proceedings in Crime No. 251/2016 (Irinjalakuda police) and related proceedings for offences under Section 420 IPC. The prosecution alleges that the accused induced the de facto complainant to part with money by promising overseas employment. The petitioner and the de facto complainant have settled their disputes amicably, supported by Annexure A3 affidavit, and both sides are reportedly disinterested in continuing the prosecution. The High Court directed investigation to verify the settlement’s genuineness and to assess any criminal antecedents that might impede quashing. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on settlement, but acknowledged absence of other serious crimes by the petitioner. The court surveys the legal landscape—State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan and a lineage of decisions including Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and Parbatbhai Aahir—to delineate the scope of 482 CrPC in quashing non‑compoundable offences arising from private disputes where the civil character predominates and the disputes have been resolved. It also notes limits: not to quash heinous or public‑interest offences (e.g., under the Prevention of Corruption Act or crimes like 307 IPC). After weighing gravity, antecedents, and the settlement, the court concludes that quashing would advance justice and peace; the petition is allowed and final proceedings are quashed.
CRL.APPEAL NO.253 OF 2013 This is a Kerala High Court criminal appeal by Nizar, appellant and first accused in SC No.965 of 2006 (Adhoc-III, Kollam), challenging a conviction for offences under Sections 341, 332, 506 Part II and 308 read with Section 34 IPC, with the trial court having convicted the appellant only under Section 332 IPC and sentencing six months’ rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution case is that PW4, an Excise Inspector, along with PW1 and PW2 (Excise Guards), went to the house of the accused to effect arrest; the accused resisted, assaulted PW2 with a steel hanger, and the others allegedly obstructed and threatened the party, allowing the accused to escape. The defence argued extensive eyewitness presence, the possibility of misidentification, contradictions in wound certificates Exts.P1–P2, discrepancies in timing and weapon descriptions, lack of independent witnesses, and that the witnesses were not shown to be on duty at the time. The trial court found PW1, PW2 and PW4 credible, relying on medical evidence and the circumstances of registration of the crime. The High Court examined challenges to the evidence, noted minor inconsistencies but held the witnesses credible and that the injuries were caused with a weapon, consistent with the oral testimony. It also relied on jurisprudence preserving police testimony as credible without independent corroboration in suitable cases. The court allowed the appeal in part: conviction affirmed, but the sentence reduced to three months’ rigorous imprisonment with set-off under CrPC 428.
MACA Nos.3577 & 3541/2020 These two Motor Accident Claims Appeals arise from awards under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyatinkara, in respect of the death of two minor children, Roshna Selastin (8) and Reshma Selastin (11), in a road accident on 10.12.2007 involving a KSRTC bus. The grandparents, Thankayyan Nadar and Rose Mary, plaintiffs in OP(MV) Nos.215/2008 and 247/2008, challenged the Tribunal’s awards, which did not compensate to their claimed level and, crucially, held the bus uninsured and held KSRTC liable only to that limited extent. The High Court of Kerala and the parties heard MACA Nos.3577/2020 and 3541/2020 together. The appellants urged the court to adopt the Supreme Court’s Kurvan Ansari decision (2022) which permitted a higher “Loss of Dependency” award (Rs.3,75,000) despite II Schedule limitations, and to grant Loss of Consortium and Funeral Expenses. After detailed consideration, the court held that Kurvan Ansari (supra) applies to these cases (deaths of similarly aged children in 2007/2004–era), and partly allowed the appeals. It enhanced Loss of Dependency to Rs.3,75,000 each, granted Rs.40,000 for Loss of Consortium, and Rs.15,000 for Funeral Expenses. Other heads remained as Tribunal awarded. Interest at 9% was ordered, with 1355 days’ delay deducted. The appellants were permitted to recover the enhanced amounts from KSRTC, with proportionate costs.
Regunathan v. State of Kerala, a criminal appeal (Crl.A No.1773 of 2009) before the Kerala High Court, challenges a conviction under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act by the Fast Track Court (Adhoc) No. II, Pathanamthitta, in SC No.140/2008. On 12.11.2007, at around 1:20 pm, two litres of arrack were found in the accused’s possession at Melemannilpadi, Koodal. After investigation, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, with the trial court ultimately convicting accused No.1 and acquitting accused No.2. The appellant contends that the prosecution failed to prove that the contraband substance seized at the scene reached the Chemical Examiner’s Laboratory in tamperproof condition and, more specifically, challenges the lack of seal description in Ext.P1, absence of testimony from officials who handled the sample en route to the lab, and the forwarding note’s missing official’s name (Ext.P9). The certificate Ext.P10 (Chemical Analysis) is argued to be of no value due to an unresolved chain of custody. Relying on Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala and Sasidharan v. State of Kerala, the judgment emphasizes strict compliance with sampling/sealing formalities and the necessity of examining personnel involved in transit. Ultimately, the court held that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody, quashed the conviction, and acquitted accused No.1, releasing him and directing any deposited amount to be disbursed as per law. The appeal is allowed as above.
This Kerala High Court criminal appeal challenges a CBI case in which Bharat Raj Meena, then Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force Palakkad, was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding and accepting illegal gratification in 2005 to secure transfers. The prosecution relied on oral evidence of PW7 (an intermediary), PW10 and PW11, and on documentary material including tainted money recovered during a trap and transfer files. The trial court held that the appellant demanded and accepted bribes of 5,000 and 3,000 rupees from PW10 and PW11, and that a related demand from PW9 was proved, while also applying the presumption under Section 20 PC Act regarding illicit gain from public service. The defense argued that there is no legally reliable evidence of the demands or acceptance, that PW7, PW10 and PW11 were not credible, and that the sanction for prosecution was not validly proved; they also contended that the transfer file and related materials were not properly considered. The High Court ultimately upheld the conviction under Section 7 but held that the evidence did not establish habitual gratification required for Section 13(1)(a), and thus set aside the Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) conviction, acquitting on that count. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the statutory sentences for Section 7 confirmed and the other conviction reversed."
CRL.APPEAL NO. 2302 OF 2007 Criminal Appeal No. 2302 of 2007 arises from a conviction under Section 489C read with Section 34 IPC against two accused, C.I. Moidu and Hassanar, by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Kasaragod, on 19 November 2007. The prosecution alleged possession of MO1 series counterfeit notes seized at the time of arrest on 20 September 1996, with Ext.P7 from the Currency Note Press, Dewas, confirming them as counterfeit. PW1, a Sub-Inspector, testified that he located the appellants and recovered the notes; PWs 2 and 3 signed Ext.P1 but testified they did not witness the seizure. The trial court convicted the appellants, relying on PW1’s testimony and Ext.P7. On appeal, the appellants argued the case rests on one eyewitness, lacking independent corroboration, and that the evidence fails to establish the essential ingredients of Section 489C, particularly the required intent to use counterfeit notes as genuine. The Public Prosecutor contended PW1’s credibility made the evidence trustworthy and that the seizure occurred during duty, with Ext.P7 corroboration. The Kerala High Court accepted the proposition that uncorroborated testimony of an official witness can sustain a conviction if credible (citing Tahir; Karamjit Singh; Baldev Singh), but concluded the prosecution failed to prove the requisite intent beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, the judgment dated 09.11.2007 set aside, and the appellants acquitted.
This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.MC No. 7994 of 2023) decided on 18 October 2023 by Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan under Section 482 CrPC. The petitioners—five accused in Kalamassery Police Station Crime No. 1111/2022—seek quashing of proceedings for offences under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 308, and 149. The prosecution case alleges that the accused formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the victim. The petitioners, through their counsel, submit that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and do not wish to pursue the prosecution, supported by an affidavit from the victim endorsing quashing. The respondent Public Prosecutor initially expresses reservations but concedes that the matter is settled. The court has examined the submissions and the record, including the victim’s affidavit. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019 (5) SCC 688), and the related Gian Singh and Narinder Singh line of authorities, the judge outlines a framework: quashing under 482 CrPC is permissible for non‑compoundable offences that are private in nature and resolved by settlement, subject to limitations (not for heinous or serious offences; not for offences under special statutes or involving public servants; and not categorically for offences like s.307 IPC or the Arms Act). The court stresses consideration of antecedents and conduct. After applying these principles, the court finds the dispute private, accepts the settlement, and allows the Criminal Misc. Case, quashing the prosecution.
Vimala Haridasan contested ward 12 of Koduvalliy Municipality in the 2015 local elections as an independent candidate supported by the IUML, within the UDF coalition. Another nomination by Smt. Razeena from INC was filed in the same ward. After the withdrawal period, the coalition decided to freeze Razeena and field Vimala as the official IUML/UDF candidate. Vimala won with 390 votes out of 773; Razeena received 56. Ext.P6, the original petition, was filed by the 2nd respondent alleging that Vimala’s declaration – claiming she was an independent candidate with UDF support – amounted to defection under the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999. The Commission examined Ext.P8 (the coalition’s candidate list) and concluded that Razeena was the official candidate and that Vimala’s declaration attracted defection under Section 3(1)(c). Vimala contended that IUML is a constituent of the UDF and that the declaration simply reflects the coalition arrangement, not defection, relying on a judicial pronouncement in Sivadasan K. v. Kerala State Election Commission. The High Court distinguished Sivadasan on facts, noting the need to consider the statutory scheme and evidence before the Commission. Ultimately, the petition was disposed of with a limited relief: Vimala was held entitled to financial benefits as a councillor so long as she remained in office, while preserving the interim voting limitations.
Crl.Appeal No.2759 of 2008 Jose S/O Lonappan, the appellant, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.II-Adhoc), Thrissur, under Sections 498A and 306 IPC for cruelty and abetment to suicide. He challenges the judgment under Section 374(2) CrPC. The prosecution alleged sustained mental and physical harassment of the wife, Smt. Jaya, beginning after their marriage on 31.12.2000, culminating in an incident on 09.02.2006 when she sustained severe burns and died on 13.02.2006. The evidence consisted of testimony from close relatives (PWs 1, 3, 4) and the deceased’s own statements (Exts. P8, P13), supported by the medical autopsy (Ext. P9) and hospital records. The trial court found the prosecution proved cruelty under 498A and abetment to suicide under 306 beyond reasonable doubt. On appeal, the High Court, while upholding cruelty, held that the evidence did not establish the mens rea or active instigation required for 306, relying on Supreme Court jurisprudence on instigation (Wazir Chand; S.S. Chheena; Rajesh; Ramesh Kumar; Satbir Singh). Consequently, the High Court set aside the 306 conviction, confirmed the 498A conviction, and modified the sentence to two years’ rigorous imprisonment with a set-off under Section 428 CrPC. The appellant was directed to surrender within one month. The appeal was allowed in part.
WPC 16372/23; WPC 17085/23; WPC 17727/23; WPC 17807/23; WPC 18324/23; WPC 20070/23 This group of connected writ petitions challenges the Labour Court’s decision on a preliminary issue: whether a charge memo issued by a disciplinary sub-committee is within the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings under Rule 198 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies (KCS) Rules. The Labour Court, interpreting Kodanchery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Joshy Varghese (2020) (4) KLT 129, held that the charge memo issued by the disciplinary sub-committee was not issued by the competent authority, and accordingly set aside the memo and directed fresh charges by the proper authority. The petitions’ counsel countered by highlighting the Full Bench decision in Mattannur Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. The Co-operative Arbitration Court and another (ILR 2023 (3) Kerala 863), which overruled the Kodanchery ratio and clarified that the disciplinary sub-committee, under Rule 198(2A) and (2B) (with 198(3) as the penalty authority), has jurisdiction to issue memos of charges. The court also notes that the President’s locus is not categorically decided, and that Kochurani Jose’s position is overruled. It emphasizes that the doctrine of prospective overruling lies with the Apex Court, not High Courts, and that past final adjudications remain binding. Accordingly, the Labour Court awards are set aside and remitted for fresh consideration in light of Mattannoor, with directions to dispose on merits.
RCREV. NO. 145 OF 2016, RCREV. NO. 152 OF 2016, RCREV. NO. 187 OF 2016, & 19 OF 2017 The Kerala High Court, in a set of Rent Control Revisions (RCR Nos 145/2016, 152/2016, 187/2016, and 19/2017) arising from eviction petitions under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, delivered on 17 January 2023, examined whether the landlords' plea of bona fide need for eviction was made in good faith. The court reappraises the findings of the Rent Control Court (RCC) and the Rent Control Appellate Authority (RCAA) under Section 20 of the Act. The petitions challenged a common judgment dated 23 December 2015. Taking guidance from Supreme Court precedents such as Hindustan Petroleum Corp. v. Dilbahar Singh and Shakuntala Bai v. Narayan Das, the Division Bench held that revisional interference is permissible where the findings are perverse, contrary to material evidence, or otherwise not according to law. The bench concluded that the need alleged by landlords for the orthopedic surgeon (3rd petitioner) was bona fide, and the RCC/RCAA erred in finding otherwise. It stressed that the landlord's subjective satisfaction matters and that the Act is meant to balance interests. The court allowed eviction under Section 11(3) in all petitions and under Section 11(4)(iii) in RCP 69/1994, while dismissing the tenant's RCR 19/2017. Tenants were directed to vacate within one month; interlocutory applications were closed.
OP(KAT) Nos.56 & 71 of 2017 These original petitions challenge whether employees absorbed into the Kerala Local Self Government Engineering Subordinate Service through integration in 2003 can claim promotions in their pre-integrated Municipal Common Service for purposes of seniority in the integrated service. Petitioners, a group of Second Grade Overseers recruited between 1991 and 2003 under the Municipal Common Service, challenged a tribunal order notionally promoting some of them in the Municipal Common Service with effect from 31.12.2007, arguing that such promotions in the former service should be recognized for seniority in the integrated service. The Government formed the Local Self Government Department in 2003 and framed Special Rules in 2007 for the new service, providing for integration of personnel and determining seniority on the basis of appointment date and seniority in the former service; direct recruits were to be ranked by Public Service Commission advice. Seniority lists were prepared on 31.12.2009 and amended on 17.03.2011, placing petitioners lower in seniority. Some employees in the Municipal Common Service sought promotion to Second Grade Overseer on the basis of their seniority in the parent department, and the Tribunal directed a notional promotion from 31.12.2007. The court held that integration is a policy to be implemented fairly, following principles of equitable treatment in integration, and that inter se seniority in the integrated list governs promotions; rights to promotions in the former service post-integration are foreclosed if not raised at the time of integration. The petitions were dismissed for lack of a legal entitlement to promotion in the former service post-integration.
Stephen, the sole accused in SC No.1359 of 2013, was convicted and sentenced under sections 5(n) read with 6, and 9(n) read with 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), along with Section 506 Part 2 IPC, for offenses alleged against his nine-year-old daughter. The Special Court for Atrocities and Sexual Violence against Women and Children, Thiruvananthapuram, held that on 09.08.2013 the accused penetrated the victim’s mouth with his penis, threatened to kill her if she disclosed the act, and thus committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault and related offenses. The prosecution primarily relied on PW2, the victim, whose testimony, supported by PW1 (the mother) and corroborative documentary evidence (Exts. P1–P12), led to a conviction after the accused chose not to adduce evidence in his defence. The appellate challenge focused on whether PW2’s testimony could constitute a sterling witness and whether the sentence was disproportionate; reliance on Narayanan v. State of Kerala (2021 KHC 564) was pressed in the alternative. The High Court reaffirmed the sterling-witness principle as established in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), found PW2’s account credible and consistent with the record, and upheld the conviction and sentence. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, with the court concluding there is no merit in interfering with the lower court’s findings and punishment.
