The Kerala High Court has issued a stern wake-up call to the State’s district judiciary after uncovering an unusual legal sleight of hand—an accused in a 2009 robbery case, already defeated in one appeal, managed to secure an acquittal years later by slipping a second appeal into the very same sessions court through a different lawyer.
Justice PV Kunhikrishnan, appalled at the procedural blind spot, set aside the acquittal and slapped a ₹1 lakh cost on the accused, warning that such lapses could fracture the criminal justice system.
“This should be a lesson to everyone—courts, lawyers, litigants, police, and registries. We must work together to protect the system,” the Court stressed.
The facts read like a cautionary tale: three of four men convicted in a Kayamkulam robbery were denied relief in 2013 when the sessions court dismissed their appeals. Yet in 2015, one of them—Krishnan alias Masanan—waited over three years before quietly filing a fresh appeal, hiding the fact that his earlier attempt had failed. The second appeal, despite a 1,223-day delay, resulted in his acquittal.
The ruse came to light when the Alappuzha District and Sessions Judge flagged the anomaly to the High Court, triggering suo motu revision proceedings. An inquiry by the Registrar (Vigilance) revealed a lack of any automated system to catch repeat filings—clerks had to rely on manual register checks.
A digital case-detection system is now promised for January 2026. Until then, the High Court has ordered all district courts to manually verify records before numbering fresh appeals, with Principal District Judges personally ensuring compliance. Copies of the order are also headed to the Home Secretary and the State Police Chief.
In wiping out the 2016 acquittal, the Court invoked its inherent powers, noting that the second appeal had been obtained without the lawyer’s knowledge of the earlier case. The ₹1 lakh penalty is to be paid to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority within a month.
The judgment closes with a blunt message—duplicate appeals are not clever litigation tactics, but dangerous cracks in the system that, if ignored, could lead to justice speaking in two conflicting voices.
