HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
JOLLYAMMA JOSEPH @ JOLLY
– Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet 925 2022
Murder - Prosecution - IPC Section List - The court examined the allegations under various sections of IPC, applying principles regarding the sufficiency of evidence at the discharge stage. It found sufficient prima facie evidence to proceed with the trial for the charge of murder, validating the lower court's dismissal of the discharge petition.
Fact of the Case:
The revision petitioner is alleged to have committed multiple murders over a decade, including the murder of her husband in 2011. Suspicion arose from investigations linking her to the deaths through cyanide poisoning.
Issues: Whether the revision petitioner is entitled to be discharged given the evidence and allegations against her.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that at the stage of considering discharge, a strong suspicion based on prima facie evidence is sufficient to deny the discharge application.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the criminal revision petition.
ORDER
In 2019, the State of Kerala was rocked by allegations of six murders having taken place over a period of a dozen years and more. Revision petitioner is alleged to be the culprit and the brain behind all those alleged murders. A suspicion that arose in the mind of an immediate relative regarding the conspicuous presence of the revision petitioner in all the deaths that happened in their family, led to the shocking revelation that all those deaths were in fact murders committed by the petitioner. Revision petitioner is thus facing an indictment for six alleged murders. One of the murders related to the death of her own husband in 2011.
2. Revision petitioner is alleged to have been directly involved in the murder of her mother-in-law in the year 2002, father-in-law in 2004, her husband in the year 2011, her mother-in-law's brother in the year 2014, and the young daughter and the first wife of her present husband in the year 2014 and 2016 respectively. The present case is in relation to the murder of revision petitioner's husband Sri. Roy Thomas, alleged to have been committed on
30.9.2011.
3. After investigation, a final report was filed alleging offences under sections 110, 120(b), 465, 467, 468, 471, 302 and section 201 r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ' IPC ') apart from section 2 r/w section 6(2) of the Poisons Act, 1919. According to the prosecution, utilizing the cyanide procured through the second and third accused, the first accused had, on 30.9.2011, mixed the poison in a dish served for dinner and with water. Her husband ate the food and drank the water kept on the table and died. Later the first accused destroyed the evidence by cleaning the vessel and the glass. The prosecution also alleges that the first accused along with the fourth accused had forged a Will of her father-in-law and used that forged Will for effecting mutation of the property and thus the accused committed the offences alleged.
4. After the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, on realising the commission of offences triable exclusively by a Court of Session, the first accused (hereinafter referred to as 'revision petitioner'), filed Crl.M.P. No.226 of 2022 seeking her discharge. According to the revision petitioner, she is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.
5. The revision petitioner also claimed that the entire prosecution story is cooked up, and in the absence of any incriminating material against her, she is entitled to be discharged. The revision petitioner further alleged that despite citing 249 witnesses, no incriminating material had been recovered against her nor do the statements of the witnesses implicate the revision petitioner in the crime. She further asserts that except for the statements of few interested witnesses, there is a total absence of evidence to prosecute or frame a charge against her and therefore she is liable to be discharged. It is also alleged that except for few statements made under the influence and threats of the investigating agency, no documentary evidence is available in the prosecution case to connect the revision petitioner with the offence and the allegation of an attempt to acquire property as a motive for the murder, is without any basis.
6. The revision petitioner also alleged that the inclusion of allegations relating to forgery is also without any basis and has pleaded that the findings in the post-mortem report are not consistent with the allegations of the prosecution, as no poisonous content was found and therefore, the inclusion of the offences under the Poisons Act is also without any basis. Revision petitioner further contends that the documents produced by the prosecution are all false and fabricated and that the motive alleged and the other incriminating circumstances and the statements of witnesses cannot create a strong suspicion against the revision petitioner. Apart from the above, it is also alleged that the alleged recove
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.