{"id":101524,"date":"2009-01-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/basheer-palliyali-vichappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-january-2009"},"modified":"2018-01-31T01:00:35","modified_gmt":"2018-01-30T19:30:35","slug":"basheer-palliyali-vichappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/basheer-palliyali-vichappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"Basheer Palliyali @ Vichappu vs State Of Kerala on 12 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Basheer Palliyali @ Vichappu vs State Of Kerala on 12 January, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL.A.No. 398 of 2005()\n\n\n1. BASHEER PALLIYALI @ VICHAPPU,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :12\/01\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n           A.K.BASHEER & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ.\n             - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                         Crl.A.No.398 OF 2005-A\n             - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n             Dated this the 12th day of January, 2009\n\n                                  JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Thomas P.Joseph, J:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     Appellant stands convicted for offence punishable under<\/p>\n
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”)<\/p>\n
and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and payment<\/p>\n
of  fine of Rs.50,000\/=.            He       faced       trial     in the Additional<\/p>\n
Sessions Court (Fast Track-I), Manjeri on the charge that on<\/p>\n
the night between 16.1.2002 and 17.1.2002 (wrongly stated in<\/p>\n
the judgment under challenge as 17.1.2004) he forcibly<\/p>\n
administered pesticide mixed with some ayurvedic medicine<\/p>\n
to his third wife, Sulekha and caused her death.<\/p>\n
     2. Heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n
     3. Following points arise for consideration.<\/p>\n
     (i) Whether deceased died of poisoning ?\n<\/p>\n
     (ii) Whether appellant                 administered             poison   to the<\/p>\n
deceased as alleged by the prosecution?\n<\/p>\n
     4. Perused records.\n<\/p>\n
                               2<\/span>
\nCrl.A.No.398\/05<\/p>\n
     5. Point Nos.1 and 2 : It is not very much in dispute and<\/p>\n
proved by the prosecution that Sulekha (hereinafter referred<\/p>\n
as “the deceased”), wife of the appellant was found dead on<\/p>\n
the morning on 17.1.2002 in their house.      PW5    conducted<\/p>\n
autopsy on the body of deceased and issued Ext.P3. Evidence<\/p>\n
of PW5 is   that postmortem findings were consistent with<\/p>\n
death due to poison. Ext.P3 also states that a foetus was<\/p>\n
developing in the womb of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
     6. According to the prosecution, deceased was the third<\/p>\n
wife of appellant and was pregnant at       time of   incident.<\/p>\n
Motive alleged is that appellant wanted to abort pregnancy<\/p>\n
but deceased was not agreeable and hence appellant wanted<\/p>\n
to dispose of her.   Prosecution examined Pws 1, 4 and 13,<\/p>\n
parents and sister of  deceased to prove    motive. They have<\/p>\n
given evidence in that line. It is also their version that<\/p>\n
appellant wanted to marry another sister of the deceased<\/p>\n
which themselves and the deceased resisted. Deceased even<\/p>\n
claimed that she will not give consent for that so far as she<\/p>\n
was alive. PW3, daughter of appellant and        deceased was<\/p>\n
examined to prove that appellant administered poison to the<\/p>\n
                              3<\/span>
\n Crl.A.No.398\/05<\/p>\n
deceased on the night of 16.1.2002.   PW3 stated that on the<\/p>\n
night of   16.1.2002 deceased said     that   she   felt severe<\/p>\n
headache. She then saw the appellant forcibly administering<\/p>\n
some black crystals into the mouth of deceased and pouring<\/p>\n
some water also into the mouth. Following that, deceased told<\/p>\n
PW3 that appellant cheated her. Deceased requested that she<\/p>\n
be taken to the hospital. Appellant said that by next day<\/p>\n
morning everything will be all right. Next day morning, PW3<\/p>\n
saw    body of   the   deceased lying in the room.        First<\/p>\n
information regarding the incident was given by PW1, father<\/p>\n
of the deceased.    Case was registered for unnatural death<\/p>\n
under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short<\/p>\n
‘the Cr.P.C.’). PW6, Executive magistrate conducted inquest.<\/p>\n
Ext.P2 is the inquest report. PW1 expressed doubt regarding<\/p>\n
cause of death of the deceased. Section 302 of the Code was<\/p>\n
incorporated in the F.I.R. PW14, circle Inspector conducted<\/p>\n
investigation and submitted final report alleging commission<\/p>\n
of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Code.<\/p>\n
      7. PW14 in his evidence claimed that he arrested the<\/p>\n
appellant on 19.1.2002 and on information given by the<\/p>\n
                               4<\/span>
\nCrl.A.No.398\/05<\/p>\n
appellant,   recovered Mos 1 to 4       as per Ext.P7 from the<\/p>\n
house of appellant. PW10 is an attester to Ext.P7. Mo1 is a<\/p>\n
polythene packet     which allegedly   contained   some black<\/p>\n
crystals (according to the prosecution,  it was furedan). Mo2<\/p>\n
is a piece of paper and Mo3 is a cash bill dated 9.1.2002. It<\/p>\n
is the case of     prosecution that appellant had purchased<\/p>\n
furedan as per Mo.3 (cash bill) from the shop of PW9. PW9<\/p>\n
gave evidence that about 1-2 years (before his examination<\/p>\n
in the court below), appellant had purchased furedan from his<\/p>\n
shop. Ext.P7 is the mahazer for scene of occurrence prepared<\/p>\n
by Pw14, investigating officer. Ext.P8 is the sketch   for the<\/p>\n
place of     occurrence prepared by PW7        Village Officer.<\/p>\n
Evidence of Pws 7 and 14 and Exts.P7 is to the effect that<\/p>\n
appellant produced Mos 1 to 4 from among the heap of metals<\/p>\n
kept in the room in the house of appellant and the deceased.<\/p>\n
     8. It is contended by learned counsel for appellant that<\/p>\n
evidence produced by the prosecution is insufficient to show<\/p>\n
that   appellant had administered poison to the deceased.<\/p>\n
According to the learned    counsel,   evidence of prosecution<\/p>\n
witnesses is not believable.\n<\/p>\n
                                 5<\/span>
\nCrl.A.No.398\/05<\/p>\n
      9. From the records we noticed that though PW14 who<\/p>\n
investigated the case had produced Mos 1 to 4 in court as per<\/p>\n
Ext.P13 and requested as per Ext.P14 dated 4.9.2002 to send<\/p>\n
the    material objects for    chemical  examination, report of<\/p>\n
chemical examination was not available at the time of trial.<\/p>\n
Hence, we called for report        from the court of    learned<\/p>\n
Judicial Magistrate concerned     as to whether material objects<\/p>\n
referred to in Ext.P14 were sent for chemical examination.<\/p>\n
Learned Magistrate reported that         material objects were<\/p>\n
sent for chemical examination.      Thereon, we called for the<\/p>\n
report of     chemical examination.    Learned Magistrate   has<\/p>\n
forwarded the report of chemical examination dated 30.4.2004<\/p>\n
as per his letter dated 5.1.2009.       Particles found in Mo1<\/p>\n
(recovered    allegedly    on   the information  given by   the<\/p>\n
appellant from his house) has been identified as furedan.<\/p>\n
That report is certainly relevant for consideration.<\/p>\n
      10. Learned counsel for      appellant contends that the<\/p>\n
said report was not available in the records at the time of<\/p>\n
trial, its copy was not furnished to the appellant and hence, it<\/p>\n
is not justifiable to rely on that report or even to send back<\/p>\n
                               6<\/span>
\n Crl.A.No.398\/05<\/p>\n
the case giving opportunity to the prosecution to prove the<\/p>\n
said report. He contended that such an exercise        cannot be<\/p>\n
done in an appeal preferred by the appellant.<\/p>\n
     11. Section 386(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C permits        appellate<\/p>\n
court while considering an appeal from conviction to reverse<\/p>\n
the findings     and sentence and acquit      or discharge the<\/p>\n
accused or order him to be re-tried by a court of competent<\/p>\n
jurisdiction subordinate to the appellate court. Section 391 of<\/p>\n
the Cr.P.C permits appellate court to take further evidence<\/p>\n
or direct it to be taken by a court of session or magistrate as<\/p>\n
the case may be.    Reading Section 386(1)(b) and 391, it leaves<\/p>\n
us in no doubt that even when the appeal is preferred<\/p>\n
against conviction and sentence, it is well within the power of<\/p>\n
appellate court to set aside conviction and sentence and send<\/p>\n
back the case to the trial court to record further evidence.<\/p>\n
‘Retrial’ referred to in Section 386(1)(b)(i) of Cr.P.C does not<\/p>\n
necessarily mean a fresh trial from the beginning. Where<\/p>\n
some witnesses were not examined or documents not proved,<\/p>\n
retrial can be ordered for the purpose of examining         such<\/p>\n
witnesses    or proving   the documents.     (See Lakshmanan<\/p>\n
                               7<\/span>
\n Crl.A.No.398\/05<\/p>\n
Sundaran     v. State of Kerala<\/a> (1989 (1) KLT 261)          and<\/p>\n
Alarambil Rajan and others v. State (1994 (1) KLJ 176).<\/p>\n
     12. Learned counsel then contends that giving such an<\/p>\n
opportunity to the prosecution would amount to filling up<\/p>\n
lacuna in the prosecution case. We are unable to accept that<\/p>\n
contention  as well. A Division Bench of this Court and the<\/p>\n
apex court considered the question, what is ‘lacuna’, in Suja P.<\/p>\n
Chacko v. State of Kerala<\/a> (1994 (1) KLJ 54) and Rajendra<\/p>\n
Prasad v. Narcotic Cell<\/a> (1999 (2) KLT 779) and held that<\/p>\n
‘lacuna’ means the inherent weakness or latent wedge in the<\/p>\n
prosecution case. If a material that was available in the case<\/p>\n
was not put in evidence, that is not an inherent weakness or<\/p>\n
latent wedge in the    prosecution    case. PW14, investigating<\/p>\n
officer wanted the material objects to be tested in the chemical<\/p>\n
examiner’s laboratory obviously     to ascertain whether    the<\/p>\n
polythene packet (Mo1), among other things, contained trace of<\/p>\n
Furedan and made a request to the learned magistrate as<\/p>\n
per Ext.P14 to send the    material objects referred therein for<\/p>\n
chemical examination. When such a request was made, it<\/p>\n
was    the   responsibility  of   the jurisdictional magistrate<\/p>\n
                               8<\/span>
\nCrl.A.No.398\/05<\/p>\n
consider that request. If the request was accepted and the<\/p>\n
material objects   were     sent  to the laboratory,    learned<\/p>\n
magistrate ought to have ensured that report is obtained and<\/p>\n
forwarded to the sessions court. We have gone through the<\/p>\n
report of the chemical examination forwarded by the learned<\/p>\n
magistrate and find that material objects were sent to the<\/p>\n
laboratory as per   letter dated 4.9.2002. It is true that when<\/p>\n
the case came up for trial before learned Additional Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge, that report was not available before that court. But<\/p>\n
then,  noticing from Ext.P14 that a request had been made by<\/p>\n
the investigating officer as aforesaid to send the material<\/p>\n
objects for chemical examination, learned Additional Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge ought to have ascertained whether      report of chemical<\/p>\n
examination was available and if not, summon the same from<\/p>\n
the office concerned. It is not as if the report of chemical<\/p>\n
examination was not available. It is only that it was not<\/p>\n
summoned at the appropriate time either by the law officer<\/p>\n
who conducted the prosecution or by the courts concerned.<\/p>\n
In the circumstances, we do not think that giving prosecution<\/p>\n
an opportunity to prove     the  said report would amount to<\/p>\n
                               9<\/span>
\nCrl.A.No.398\/05<\/p>\n
filling up any lacuna.\n<\/p>\n
      13. We also find that though PW9       was examined to<\/p>\n
prove that appellant had allegedly purchased furedan       from<\/p>\n
his shop and PW9 supported the prosecution, no attempt was<\/p>\n
made to prove Mo.3 and for that matter, if necessary       Mo1<\/p>\n
also through PW9. We are not inclined to think that because<\/p>\n
relevant evidence which was available was not adduced,<\/p>\n
appellant should get an acquittal on that ground. That will<\/p>\n
only be a travesty of justice which cannot be permitted to<\/p>\n
happen. In these circumstance, we are inclined to send back<\/p>\n
the case to the learned Additional Sessions Judge,       so that<\/p>\n
report can be proved in evidence, necessarily after giving a<\/p>\n
copy of the same to the appellant. It will be open       to the<\/p>\n
prosecution to recall Pws 9 and 14 for     purpose of proving<\/p>\n
Mos 1 to 4, report of chemical examination and the connected<\/p>\n
records, we have adverted above. In the circumstances, we do<\/p>\n
not    express any opinion    regarding  the    sufficiency  or<\/p>\n
acceptability of the evidence let in by the prosecution or on<\/p>\n
the merit of contentions raised by the appellant. We hasten to<\/p>\n
add that learned Additional Sessions Judge after recording<\/p>\n
                                10<\/span>
\nCrl.A.No.398\/05<\/p>\n
additional evidence as stated above will further question the<\/p>\n
appellant if found necessary, under section 313 of the Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
Appellant will be given opportunity to adduce evidence as<\/p>\n
provided under Section 233 of the Cr.P.C. Learned Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge shall dispose of the case as provided under law. Since<\/p>\n
conviction and sentence on the appellant are being set aside,<\/p>\n
we direct that appellant will be released , if not required to<\/p>\n
be   detained otherwise       on his   executing        bond for<\/p>\n
Rs.25,000\/= with two solvent sureties      for the like sum each<\/p>\n
to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge.<\/p>\n
      Resultantly this appeal is allowed in the following lines:<\/p>\n
     i. Conviction and sentence on the appellant are set<\/p>\n
aside.\n<\/p>\n
     ii. Case is remanded to the court of      learned Additional<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge (Fast Track-I), Manjeri      to   record   further<\/p>\n
evidence in the light of observations made above and          for<\/p>\n
disposal as provided under law.\n<\/p>\n
     iii.   Superintendent of the jail concerned is directed to<\/p>\n
cause production of appellant in the court of learned Additional<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge, (Fast Track-I), Manjeri on or before 31.1.2009.<\/p>\n
                              11<\/span>
\nCrl.A.No.398\/05<\/p>\n
On such production, it will be open to the appellant to execute<\/p>\n
bail bond as stated above. In case of his release on bail as<\/p>\n
aforesaid, learned Sessions Judge shall direct him to appear<\/p>\n
before that court on a specified day   for further trial of the<\/p>\n
case.\n<\/p>\n
     iv. Learned Sessions Judge is directed to dispose of the<\/p>\n
case within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of<\/p>\n
this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
     The Registry shall send back the entire records together<\/p>\n
with the report of chemical examination forwarded to this<\/p>\n
court by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate as per<\/p>\n
letter dated 5.1.2009 to the court of Additional Sessions Judge<\/p>\n
(Fast Track-1), Manjeri.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                 (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
                              (THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
cl<\/p>\n
                   12<\/span>
\nCrl.A.No.398\/05<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Basheer Palliyali @ Vichappu vs State Of Kerala on 12 January, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL.A.No. 398 of 2005() 1. BASHEER PALLIYALI @ VICHAPPU, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY … Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY For Petitioner :SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ For Respondent […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-101524","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBasheer Palliyali @ Vichappu vs State Of Kerala on 12 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/basheer-palliyali-vichappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Basheer Palliyali @ Vichappu vs State Of Kerala on 12 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/basheer-palliyali-vichappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-30T19:30:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/basheer-palliyali-vichappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/basheer-palliyali-vichappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Basheer Palliyali @ Vichappu vs State Of Kerala on 12 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-30T19:30:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/basheer-palliyali-vichappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1989,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/basheer-palliyali-vichappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/basheer-palliyali-vichappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/basheer-palliyali-vichappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-january-2009\",\"name\":\"Basheer Palliyali @ Vichappu vs State Of Kerala on 12 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-30T19:30:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/basheer-palliyali-vichappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/basheer-palliyali-vichappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/basheer-palliyali-vichappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Basheer Palliyali @ Vichappu vs State Of Kerala on 12 January, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Basheer Palliyali @ Vichappu vs State Of Kerala on 12 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/basheer-palliyali-vichappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Basheer Palliyali @ Vichappu vs State Of Kerala on 12 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/basheer-palliyali-vichappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-30T19:30:35+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/basheer-palliyali-vichappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/basheer-palliyali-vichappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Basheer Palliyali @ Vichappu vs State Of Kerala on 12 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-30T19:30:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/basheer-palliyali-vichappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-january-2009"},"wordCount":1989,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/basheer-palliyali-vichappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/basheer-palliyali-vichappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/basheer-palliyali-vichappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-january-2009","name":"Basheer Palliyali @ Vichappu vs State Of Kerala on 12 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-30T19:30:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/basheer-palliyali-vichappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/basheer-palliyali-vichappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/basheer-palliyali-vichappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-12-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Basheer Palliyali @ Vichappu vs State Of Kerala on 12 January, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101524","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=101524"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101524\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=101524"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=101524"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=101524"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}