Convict Files Two Appeals, One Results In Confirmation, Other In Acquittal; Kerala High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Costs

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed that it is the duty of all stakeholders to work together and ensure that the criminal justice delivery system is protected.

The judge remarked, “To avoid multiplicity of appeals, revision and other proceedings arising from the same matter, it is not only the duty of the court alone, but it is the bound duty of the lawyers, litigants and the registry of the court concerned as well...”

In the present case, a crime was registered by the Kayamkulam Police against four persons. On trial, three of them were convicted under Sections 392 and 457 IPC. Subsequently, in 2012, the 2^nd respondent and another preferred a criminal appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, which confirmed the conviction. Three years later, the 2^nd respondent filed another appeal through another lawyer and he was acquitted in 2016.

Almost ten years after the second judgment of acquittal, the Sessions Judge noted the anomaly in the proceedings and sent a letter to the High Court. Thus, the present suo motu criminal revision proceedings were initiated with the convict arrayed as the 2^nd respondent.

During the course of the proceedings, the High Court impleaded the Registrar (Computerisation)-cum-Director (IT) as additional third respondent and directed it to file a statement to see if a mechanism can be adopted to avoid such mistakes in the future.

As per the Registrar's statement, there is presently a comprehensive exercise to standardise and unify the case types across all District Courts and that the system will identify and group cases, irrespective of the court or the mode of filing (online or offline). It was also submitted that the same would be implemented from 01.01.2026.

Noting the submission, the Court observed:

“The Registrar (District Judiciary) can be directed to send this judgment to all the Principal District Judges in the State, to ensure that such issues do not happen till 01.01.2026, the date on which the unification of case types across all courts is set to be implemented. Strict directions should be given by the Principal District Judge to his office to number all cases only after manually verifying that there are no earlier proceedings on the same issue. The registry will forward a copy of this judgment to the Home Secretary, Government of Kerala and the State Police Chief. It is also the duty of the police to inform the prosecutor concerned about the earlier proceedings so that the prosecutor can submit the same to the court. The Home Secretary, Government of Kerala and the State Police Chief will do the needful to avoid such instances in future.”

After considering the case in detail, the Court thought it appropriate to set aside the order of acquittal and to impose a cost of Rupees 1 lakh on the 2^nd respondent. Thus, it disposed of the petition.

Case No: Crl.RC No. 02 of 2025

Case Title: Suo Motu Proceedings Initiated by the High Court v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 491

Counsel for the respondents: Sr. PP, Seetha S.

Click To Read/Download Judgment