RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.
Jisal Rasak – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The petitioner herein is the 2nd accused in C.P. No.9 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Ernakulam. He has been charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 120B, 143, 148, 341, 506(ii), 323, 326, 201 and 212 of the IPC.
2. In the course of investigation, the investigating officer chanced upon information that the congregation of some of the accused in and around the scene of crime immediately prior to the murder and also of the injured witness being carried away from the location had been captured in three security cams installed at nearby places. The footage was retrieved by following the procedure and the same was forwarded to the Cyber Forensic Lab for analysis and a report was obtained. The footage was produced before Court along with the final report by categorizing the same as a material object.
3. The petitioner approached the learned Magistrate and filed an application seeking to obtain copies of
(a) the CCTV footage relied on by the prosecution,
(b) the FSL report obtained from the Forensic Science Laboratory relating to the CCTV footage and
(c) the report submitted by the investigating agency seeking fu
Mohd. Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab vs. State of Maharashtra
Shafhi Mohammed v. State of H.P.
Sherin V.John v. State of Kerala
Sidhartha Vashisht v. State (NCT of Delhi)
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru
State VS S. J. Choudhary - 1996 2 Supreme 150: This case identifies "Haumant s case" as "no longer good law on the point" regarding the admissibility of typewriter expert opinion under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. This explicit statement indicates that Haumant (treated as bad law) has been overruled or abrogated, making it bad law by reference.
Muhammed Ramees VS State of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1004: Explicitly cited and quoted from "State of Kerala; [AIR 1996 SC 1393]" in paragraph 10, indicating it was followed or approved as precedent.
SYAM.P.SAMBU vs STATE OF KERALA - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 89507: Cites and quotes "[AIR 1996 SC 1393], State of Punjab v. ... State of Kerala" in paragraph 10 alongside Nipun Saxena, showing it was followed or relied upon.
MARI R. vs THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 92: References "State of Kerala [Jisal" in the context of holding CCTV footage as data under the IT Act, suggesting it was cited or built upon (incomplete snippet but indicative of positive or neutral reference).
: Describes the case's own holdings on victim identity protection in sexual offences (e.g., "emphasized the need to protect... establishing guidelines"). No explicit treatment by subsequent cases indicated; appears to be a standalone summary.
FR. JOSEPH KUZHINJALIL VS STATE OF KERALA - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 937: Outlines the court's holding on Section 228A IPC violations (e.g., "any publication revealing identifying details... violates"). No treatment indicators present.
V. K. SASIKALA VS STATE REP. BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE - 2012 7 Supreme 146: States a general principle on accused's right to documents under CrPC. No citations to or from other cases; treatment unclear.
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma VS State (NCT of Delhi) - 2010 3 Supreme 190: Lists multiple holdings (e.g., cryptic messages not FIR, delay in witnesses, appellate review). No treatment indicators.
State (N. C. T. Of Delhi) VS Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru - 2005 5 Supreme 414: Key points on Parliament attack as rarest of rare case and confessional statements under POTA. No treatment indicators.
Shafhi Mohammad VS State of Himachal Pradesh - 2018 4 Supreme 194: Holding on new techniques' evidentiary value. No treatment indicators.
Anvar P. V. VS P. K. Basheer - 2015 3 Supreme 453: Point on corrupt practice charge akin to criminal charge. No treatment indicators.
MOHAMMED AJMAL MOHAMMAD AMIR KASAB @ ABU MUJAHID VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - 2012 6 Supreme 1: Multiple points on freedom of expression, right to lawyer, self-incrimination (e.g., "not based on Miranda principles"). No treatment indicators.
TOMASO BRUNO VS STATE OF U. P. - 2015 1 Supreme 278: Holdings on burden of proof for alibi, non-production of evidence, discrepancies. No treatment indicators.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.