{"id":149093,"date":"2010-07-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-july-2010-2"},"modified":"2019-03-06T14:39:06","modified_gmt":"2019-03-06T09:09:06","slug":"manoj-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-july-2010-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-july-2010-2","title":{"rendered":"Manoj Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 7 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Manoj Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 7 July, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL.A.No. 1958 of 2006(C)\n\n\n1. MANOJ MATHEW, S\/O.MATHAI,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS\n\n Dated :07\/07\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                         K. M. JOSEPH &\n                M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.\n             - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n              Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006\n             - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n             Dated this the 7th day of July, 2010\n\n                            JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Joseph Francis, J.\n<\/p>\n
      Crl.A. 1958 of 2006 is filed by the first accused, Manoj<\/p>\n
Mathew, and Crl.A. No. 1965 of 2006 is filed by the second<\/p>\n
accused, Joby Mathew, in S.C. No. 160 of 2005 on the file of the<\/p>\n
Additional Sessions Court, Kottayam. That was a case charge<\/p>\n
sheeted by the Circle Inspector of Police, Ramapuram against<\/p>\n
accused 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 447,<\/p>\n
341 and 302 r\/w. 34 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
      2. The prosecution case is briefly as follows. Accused 1<\/p>\n
and 2 are brothers and they are the cousins of deceased Baby<\/p>\n
Cyriac. On 22.11.2003 at about 6.45 a.m., accused trespassed<\/p>\n
into the Kuzhimanthikandam rubber plantation in Vellilappally<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
Village, Edacherrry kara.   The first accused caught hold on the shirt<\/p>\n
of the deceased, Baby Cyriac, from behind and stabbed below the right<\/p>\n
side of the back chest with a rubber tapping knife. When the injured<\/p>\n
tried to run away, the second accused caught Baby Cyriac from<\/p>\n
behind at his neck and at that time the first accused stabbed him<\/p>\n
twice on the front chest and stabbed on the front of left shoulder with a<\/p>\n
rubber tapping knife.   As a result the injured sustained fatal injuries.<\/p>\n
Immediately he was removed to the Govt. Hospital, Pala. On the way<\/p>\n
to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries on 22.11.2003 at 7.45<\/p>\n
a.m.\n<\/p>\n
      3. PW1, Joseph, who is the brother of deceased Baby Cyriac,<\/p>\n
gave Ext.P1 F.I. Statement on the same day at 11.30 a.m. before the<\/p>\n
police, on the basis of which, a case was registered as Crime No.222<\/p>\n
of 2003 of Ramapuram Police Station under Sections 341, 447 and<\/p>\n
302 r\/w Section 34 of I.P.C. After the investigation charge sheet was<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
filed before the J.F.C.M., Pala, from where the case was committed to<\/p>\n
the Session Court, Kottayam. Subsequently the case was made over to<\/p>\n
the Addl. Session Court, Kottayam for trial and disposal.<\/p>\n
      4. In the Addl. Sessions Court, on the side of prosecution, PW1<\/p>\n
to PW17 were examined and Exts.P1 to P9 were marked and M.Os.1 to<\/p>\n
M.O.8 were identified.     On the    side of the defence, DW1 was<\/p>\n
examined.     The Additional Sessions Court, on considering the<\/p>\n
evidence, found that accused 1 and 2 committed offences punishable<\/p>\n
under Sections 447, 341 and 302 r\/w. 34 I.P.C. They were convicted<\/p>\n
and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 r\/w.<\/p>\n
34 of I.P.C. and S.I. for three months under Section 447 r\/w. 34 of<\/p>\n
I.P.C. and S.I. for one month under Section 341 r\/w. 34 I.P.C. Against<\/p>\n
that conviction and sentence the above appeals are filed.<\/p>\n
      5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned<\/p>\n
Public Prosecutor.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
      6. PW1, Joseph, and PW2, James, are the brothers of deceased<\/p>\n
Baby Cyriac. Their father Kurian and father of the accused, viz.<\/p>\n
Mathai are brothers.   Kurian and Mathai had another brother called<\/p>\n
Ousepachan, who was an unmarried person and owned some<\/p>\n
immovable properties and he died. There was some disputes between<\/p>\n
the children of Mathai and children of Kurian with regard to the<\/p>\n
partition of the properties belonging to deceased Ousepachan. The<\/p>\n
prosecution alleges that accused 1 and 2 committed murder of deceased<\/p>\n
Baby Cyriac due to enemity connected with the property dispute.<\/p>\n
      7. According to the prosecution case, PW1 is an eye witness to<\/p>\n
the occurrence.   His evidence shows that his father got 2 = acres of<\/p>\n
rubber plantation.   On 22.11.2003 at about 6.30 a.m. he went to<\/p>\n
Puthenkandam rubber plantation for tapping rubber. His elder brother<\/p>\n
and the deceased also went to their rubber plantation at about 6.30 a.m.<\/p>\n
for   tapping   rubber.     The    deceased   was     tapping   in   the<\/p>\n
Kuzhimanthikandam plantation, which is 50 metres away from the<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                  5<\/span><\/p>\n
Puthenkandam plantation. After tapping 20 trees, PW1 heard the cry<\/p>\n
of his brother.  ”\n<\/p>\n
Immediately he rushed to the spot from where he heard the cry and he<\/p>\n
saw the second accused caught hold on the neck of his brother and<\/p>\n
first accused stabbed thrice on his chest with a rubber tapping knife.<\/p>\n
As a result the deceased sustained serious injuries on the chest and<\/p>\n
shoulder and bleeding from the wound. The accused took the deceased<\/p>\n
towards their house to a distance of 50 meters. PW1 cried loudly and<\/p>\n
on hearing the cry, PW2 and PW3, his brother’s wife Kusumam and<\/p>\n
several other people gathered there.    When people gathered there<\/p>\n
accused ran away from there with the weapon. After this PW1 came<\/p>\n
near the deceased and asked what happened. At that time deceased<\/p>\n
told that :\n<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
Immediately PW1 rushed to Ezhacherry junction and brought an<\/p>\n
autorikshaw and removed his brother to Taluk Hospital, Pala. After<\/p>\n
examination doctor informed that the injured died. PW1 reported the<\/p>\n
matter to the Ramapuram police and gave Ext.P1 statement. PW1<\/p>\n
identified M.O.1, M.O.2, M.O.3, M.O.4 and M.O.5. M.O.1 is the<\/p>\n
rubber tapping knife used by his deceased brother. M.O.2 is the rubber<\/p>\n
tapping knife used by the first accused for stabbing the deceased.<\/p>\n
      8. The evidence of PW1 was supported by PW2, who is the elder<\/p>\n
brother of the deceased. His evidence shows that on 22.11.2003 at<\/p>\n
about 6.30 a.m. he was tapping rubber in his property near his family<\/p>\n
house. At about 6.45 a.m. he heard the cry of his brother. On hearing<\/p>\n
the cry he went to the place of the occurrence with his wife. When<\/p>\n
he reached there, the deceased was found sitting by the side of the<\/p>\n
road. When he reached near the deceased, he informed that the first<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
accused stabbed him with a rubber tapping knife. Immediately the<\/p>\n
injured was removed to the Government Hospital, Pala. When PW2<\/p>\n
reached near the deceased, the accused were proceeding towards their<\/p>\n
house. PW2 did not see the incident and he was treated as hostile by<\/p>\n
the prosecution . He identified M.O.6 and M.O.1<\/p>\n
      9. PW3, Santhi, is the wife of PW1.      PW3 deposed that the<\/p>\n
deceased is her husband’s brother and on 22.11.2003 at 6.45 a.m. she<\/p>\n
heard the cry of the deceased. Immediately she ran towards the place<\/p>\n
of occurrence with PW2 and PW4. When they reached at the place of<\/p>\n
occurrence, PW1 informed them that the accused stabbed the deceased.<\/p>\n
They found the deceased sitting by the side of the road. The accused<\/p>\n
were found running from the place of occurrence to their house. When<\/p>\n
she came near the deceased she found two bleeding injuries on the<\/p>\n
chest and one injury on the shoulder. The deceased was able to speak.<\/p>\n
The deceased told her that accused stabbed him with rubber tapping<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
knife. PW3 identified M.O.4, M.O.5 and M.O.6. She cleaned the<\/p>\n
injuries with a towel. After this the injured was removed to the<\/p>\n
hospital.\n<\/p>\n
      10. PW4, Sasi, is a neighbour of the accused.   The evidence of<\/p>\n
PW4 shows that while he was tapping rubber trees in the property of<\/p>\n
Suresh, Paravanparambu he heard a cry and immediately rushed to the<\/p>\n
place of occurrence. The deceased and the accused were standing in<\/p>\n
the property of the accused. The first accused was carrying a rubber<\/p>\n
tapping knife. At that time Pws.1 to 3 and CW4 came there. They<\/p>\n
were also standing 50 metres away from the accused. When Pws.1 to<\/p>\n
3 and CW4 came near the deceased, accused ran away.             PW4<\/p>\n
categorically stated that he was the first person who reached near the<\/p>\n
deceased and others came there after him. This witness was treated as<\/p>\n
hostile by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                   9<\/span><\/p>\n
      11. PW8 deposed that on the date of the incident, at about 6.45<\/p>\n
a.m. the first accused informed that the deceased sustained stab injury<\/p>\n
and requested him to remove the deceased to the         hospital.   He<\/p>\n
admitted that he heard the hue and cry before 6.45 a.m. from the place<\/p>\n
occurrence. When he reached there, the deceased was sitting by the<\/p>\n
side of the road leading to the house of accused. PW1 brought an<\/p>\n
autorikshaw and the deceased was removed to the hospital.<\/p>\n
      12.    PW12 is the doctor, who       conducted the postmortem<\/p>\n
examination on the deceased and issued Ext.P12 postmortem<\/p>\n
certificate. Ext.P12 reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            General – Body was that of a well nourished and well<\/p>\n
      built, fair complexioned, adult male of height 173 cm and<\/p>\n
      weight 84 Kg. Eyes closed. Pupils dilated and equal on<\/p>\n
      both sides. Conjunctivae and finger nails pale. All other<\/p>\n
      external body orifices normal. Dry bloodstains on both<\/p>\n
      hands.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                    10<\/span><\/p>\n
     Injuries (ante mortem)<\/p>\n
           1. ‘U’ shaped incised penetrating wound obliquely<\/p>\n
     placed on the right side of the back of chest. Its horizontal<\/p>\n
     limb was 3 cm long and certical limbs (directed upwards)<\/p>\n
     1.5 cm each. The inner lower end of its horizontal limb<\/p>\n
     was 16 cm outet to the midline and 19 cm below top of<\/p>\n
     shoulder. Right chest wall was penetrated through the 8th<\/p>\n
     inter costal space and cutting the 8th rib, the wound entered<\/p>\n
     the right chest cavity and terminated in the lower lobe of<\/p>\n
     right lung. The wound was directed forwards, downwards<\/p>\n
     and to the right for a total minimum depth of 7.5 cm. Right<\/p>\n
     chest cavity contained 780 ml. of blood with clots and right<\/p>\n
     lung was partially collapsed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           2. ‘U’ shaped incised penetrating wound obliquely<\/p>\n
     placed on the left side of the front of chest. Its horizontal<\/p>\n
     limb was 3 cm long vertical limbs directed obliquely<\/p>\n
     upwards measured 1.5 cm each. The lower inner end of its<\/p>\n
     horizontal limb was placed 7 cm below collar bone and 13<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                   11<\/span><\/p>\n
     cm outer to the midline. Left chest wall was penetrated<\/p>\n
     through 3rd intercostal space and partly cutting the upper<\/p>\n
     horder of 4th rib, entered the left chest cavity and<\/p>\n
     terminated there. Total minimum depth was 4.5 cm. Left<\/p>\n
     chest cavity contained 800 ml. of blood with clots.<\/p>\n
           3. ‘U’ shaped incised punctured wound obliquely<\/p>\n
     placed on the front of left shoulder. Its horizontal limb was<\/p>\n
     3 cm long and vertical lmbs, obliquely directly downwards<\/p>\n
     measured 1.5 cm each.         The upper right end of the<\/p>\n
     horizontal limbs was 5 cm above the front fold of armpit.<\/p>\n
     Cutting the muscles and other soft tissues, the would was<\/p>\n
     seen terminated in the outer aspect of the left chest wall.<\/p>\n
     The wound was directed downwards and to the right for a<\/p>\n
     total depth of 12 cm.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           4. Incised wound with multiple side cuts 8x3x1 cm<\/p>\n
     obliquely placed on the left side of the front of chest. Its<\/p>\n
     upper outer end was 16 cm below collar bone and 10 cm<\/p>\n
     outer to the midline.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                   12<\/span><\/p>\n
           5. Multiple linear abrasions over an area 4 x 2 cm<\/p>\n
      horizontally placed on the front of middle of abdomen 20<\/p>\n
      cm above public symphysis.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           6. Linear abrasion 9×0.3 cm obliquely placed on the<\/p>\n
     right side of the front of chest its upper inner end was 4 cm<\/p>\n
     outer to the midline and 10 cm below the collar bone.<\/p>\n
Opinion as to the cause death – was due to penetrating injuries<\/p>\n
sustained to the chest (injury Nos.1 and 2).\n<\/p>\n
      13. PW12 opined that injury Nos.1 and 2 are sufficient in the<\/p>\n
ordinary course of nature to cause death. Injury Nos. 1 to 4 could be<\/p>\n
caused by M.O.2 weapon. Injury Nos. 5 and 6 also could be caused by<\/p>\n
coming into contact with M.O.2 weapon. Injury Nos.1 to 3 can be<\/p>\n
caused by a forcible stab with M.O.2 weapon.            At the time of<\/p>\n
examination bloodstained cotton was collected and handed over to the<\/p>\n
police constable No.4878 in a sealed packet. The horizontal limb of<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                   13<\/span><\/p>\n
injury Nos.1 to 3 must correspond to the width of the weapon. The<\/p>\n
width of M.O.2 is 1 mm. less than 3 cm. Allowance of .5 c.m. can be<\/p>\n
given for the stretching of the muscle tissue. It is not correct to say<\/p>\n
that since the weapon is having vertical blades on both sides the length<\/p>\n
of the horizontal limb must correspond to the width of the weapon. If<\/p>\n
the remaining portion of the weapon is entered into the body, the<\/p>\n
wound will be having more length. PW12 categorically stated that<\/p>\n
injury Nos. 1 an 2 are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to<\/p>\n
cause death. Injury Nos.1 to 4 could be caused by M.O.2. weapon.<\/p>\n
      14. The defence set up by accused 1 and 2 is contained in the<\/p>\n
written statement filed by the first accused while he was questioned<\/p>\n
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The second accused adopted the defence<\/p>\n
case set up in the written statement of the first accused.<\/p>\n
       15. The first accused stated that he was tapping rubber trees in<\/p>\n
his Kuzhimanthikandam property and the second accused was tapping<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                   14<\/span><\/p>\n
at a short distance. The deceased trespassed into the property of the<\/p>\n
first accused with a tapping knife and threatened to murder the first<\/p>\n
accused and stabbed several times. He warded off the stabbing and<\/p>\n
escaped. The tip of the knife hit on his fingers and sustained injury.<\/p>\n
When the first accused       felt that the deceased will murder him,<\/p>\n
immediately he took a knife and waved against the deceased. There<\/p>\n
was scuffle between the deceased and the first accused. On hearing the<\/p>\n
cry, the second accused came there are separated them. At that time<\/p>\n
the second accused told that the deceased sustained stab injury and<\/p>\n
told him to remove the deceased to hospital. Both of them took Baby<\/p>\n
Cyriac towards their property and       the second accused brought a<\/p>\n
vehicle for removing the injured to the hospital and the relatives of the<\/p>\n
deceased did not allow it. There was no overtact from their part. The<\/p>\n
second accused stated that he is innocent and nothing more to say than<\/p>\n
what was stated by the first accused.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                   15<\/span><\/p>\n
      16. PW14 is Dr. Gracy George, who was working as Assistant<\/p>\n
Surgeon, Government Hospital, Ramapuram. She deposed that on<\/p>\n
24.11.2003 she examined the first accused, Manoj, and issued Ext.P14<\/p>\n
wound certificate. She noted a small injury on the left index finger<\/p>\n
inner aspect. .5x .5 cm. The linear crusted abrasion extended from the<\/p>\n
left ankle of mouth lateral about 1.5 cm. A small abrasion over the<\/p>\n
dorsum of left wrist. The alleged cause was :\n<\/p>\n
Opinion – may be as alleged. She stated that injury Nos. 1 to 3 can be<\/p>\n
caused by contact with any rough surface. The injury is having an age<\/p>\n
of two days. The linear abrasion is the result of contact with some<\/p>\n
sharp object. Since the injury is of two days’ age, it is very difficult to<\/p>\n
say that injury No. 3 is a linear abrasion or not. She opined that it is<\/p>\n
very difficult to say the injuries can be possible with the tip of<\/p>\n
M.O.1.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                   16<\/span><\/p>\n
The wounds are not sutured and the wounds are only skin deep<\/p>\n
injuries.\n<\/p>\n
      17. On the side of the accused CW8, Binoy was examined as<\/p>\n
DW1. He deposed that he is the neighbour of the deceased. On the<\/p>\n
day of incident at about 6.45 am., while he was brushing teeth he heard<\/p>\n
a cry from Kuzhimanthikandam property. When he rushed to the place<\/p>\n
of occurrence, PW2, PW3 and CW4 were proceeding in front of him.<\/p>\n
PW1 was coming from Puthenkandam and joined with them. At that<\/p>\n
time, accused 1 and 2 were holding the deceased and walking along the<\/p>\n
road towards the house of the accused. The deceased was unable to<\/p>\n
walk and he sat by the side of the road and in the meantime accused ran<\/p>\n
towards their house. PW3 at that time approached the deceased and<\/p>\n
PW2 hired a vehicle. The second accused came there with a vehicle<\/p>\n
and tried to remove the deceased to the hospital. But PW3 obstructed<\/p>\n
this.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                    17<\/span><\/p>\n
     18.    The learned counsel for the          first accused\/appellant<\/p>\n
submitted that the first accused is claiming the benefit under exception<\/p>\n
4 to Section     300 I.P.C.     The learned counsel for the second<\/p>\n
accused\/appellant submitted that the testimony of PW1, who is the<\/p>\n
only alleged eye witness, cannot be believed as PW1 was standing 50<\/p>\n
meters away from the place of occurrence and in cross examination<\/p>\n
PW1 admitted that total distance between the two properties was more<\/p>\n
than 109 meters.      The learned     Public Prosecutor supported the<\/p>\n
judgment of the lower court.\n<\/p>\n
     19.    To invoke exception 4 to Section 300 I.P.C. four<\/p>\n
requirements must be satisfied, viz. (1) it was a sudden fight upon a<\/p>\n
sudden quarrel (2) there was no pre-meditation, (3) the act was done in<\/p>\n
a heat of passion and (4) the assailant has not taken any undue<\/p>\n
advantage or acted in cruel manner.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                  18<\/span><\/p>\n
     20. In the decision reported in Sukhbir Singh v. State of<\/p>\n
Haryana<\/a> (2002 (3) SCC 327 ) it was held in paragraph 19 that:<\/p>\n
             The High Court has also found that the<\/p>\n
       occurrence had taken place upon a sudden quarrel<\/p>\n
       but as the appellant was found to have acted in a<\/p>\n
       cruel and unusual manner, he was not given the<\/p>\n
       benefit of such exception. For holding him to have<\/p>\n
       acted in a cruel and unusual manner, the High court<\/p>\n
       relied upon the number of injuries and their location<\/p>\n
       on the body of the deceased. In the absence of the<\/p>\n
       existence of common object, the appellant cannot be<\/p>\n
       held responsible for the other injuries caused to the<\/p>\n
       person of the deceased.     He is proved to have<\/p>\n
       inflicted two blows on the person of the deceased<\/p>\n
       which were sufficient in the ordinary course of<\/p>\n
       nature to cause his death.    The infliction of the<\/p>\n
       injuries and their nature proves the intention of the<\/p>\n
       appellant but causing of such two injuries cannot be<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                   19<\/span><\/p>\n
       termed to be either in a cruel or unusual manner. All<\/p>\n
       fatal injuries resulting in death cannot be termed as<\/p>\n
       cruel or unusual for the purposes of not availing the<\/p>\n
       benefit of exception 4 of section 300 IPC. After the<\/p>\n
       injuries were inflicted and the injured had fallen<\/p>\n
       down, the appellant is not shown to have inflicted<\/p>\n
       any other injury upon his person when he was in<\/p>\n
       helpless position. It is proved that in the heat of<\/p>\n
       passion upon a sudden quarrel followed a fight, the<\/p>\n
       accused who was armed with bhala caused injuries<\/p>\n
       at random and thus did not act in a cruel or unusual<\/p>\n
       manner.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     21. In the decision reported in Jumman v. State of Punjab<\/p>\n
(AIR 1957 S.C 469) it was held that:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              Where a mutual conflict develops and there is<\/p>\n
       no reliable and acceptable evidence as to how it<\/p>\n
       started and as to who was the aggressor. It will not<\/p>\n
       be correct to assume private defence for both sides.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                  20<\/span><\/p>\n
        Such a case will be case of sudden fight and conflict<\/p>\n
        and has to be dealt with under Section 300 I.P.C.,<\/p>\n
        Exception 4.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      22. In the decision in Amrithalinga Nadar v. State of Tamil<\/p>\n
Nadu     (AIR<\/a> 1976 SC 1133) the Apex Court held that when fatal<\/p>\n
injury is caused without premeditation in a sudden fight in a heat of<\/p>\n
passion upon a sudden quarrel, exception 4 to Section 300 I.P.C. will<\/p>\n
apply. In that case, in a sudden fight the deceased inflicted knife<\/p>\n
injuries on two persons and ran away with the knife. The accused<\/p>\n
enraged by this, chased the deceased and inflicted fatal injury on him.<\/p>\n
The entire incident was taken in a very short time. It was held that<\/p>\n
exception 4 to Section 300 I.P.C. is attracted and conviction under<\/p>\n
Section 302 I.P.C. was altered to one under Section 304 Part I of<\/p>\n
I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                    21<\/span><\/p>\n
       23. Under Criminal Law an accused person is not called upon<\/p>\n
to prove his defence affirmatively.     It is enough for the accused to<\/p>\n
show either by his own evidence or from statements of prosecution<\/p>\n
witnesses themselves that his defence is a probable one. There is no<\/p>\n
impediment in law in passing conviction on the testimony of a single<\/p>\n
witness, if the court comes to the conclusion that his evidence is<\/p>\n
honest and trustworthy.     In the present case, PW1 is the brother of<\/p>\n
the deceased, who gave Ext.P1 F.I. Statement before the police<\/p>\n
immediately after the occurrence and he is the only eye witness<\/p>\n
supporting the prosecution case. PW2, who is another brother of the<\/p>\n
deceased turned hostile to the prosecution case.<\/p>\n
      24. The main question to be considered is whether PW1 saw the<\/p>\n
entire occurrence from the beginning to the end. From the testimony<\/p>\n
of PW1 itself it is evident that he rushed to the scene of occurrence on<\/p>\n
hearing the cry of his deceased brother Baby Cyriac and at that time<\/p>\n
PW1 was engaged in rubber tapping work in his rubber plantation at a<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                  22<\/span><\/p>\n
distance of about 50 – 109 meters. Ext.P12 postmortem certificate<\/p>\n
shows that the deceased had sustained injury No.1, which is a ‘U’<\/p>\n
shaped penetrating wound on the right side back of the chest. PW1<\/p>\n
has no case that he saw the first accused causing injury No.1 on the<\/p>\n
right side of back of chest of the deceased. Therefore it is clear that<\/p>\n
PW1 has not seen the beginning of the scuffle.\n<\/p>\n
      25.   Ext.P14 wound certificate shows that the first accused<\/p>\n
sustained   injuries   on   22.11.2003     at   6.30   a.m.     at   his<\/p>\n
Kuzhimanthikandam property.        PW4 deposes that the property<\/p>\n
belonging to the accused and deceased are lying as one plot. DW1<\/p>\n
deposes that there is no boundary to separate the properties of both the<\/p>\n
parties. PW16, who prepared the scene mahazar, deposed that the<\/p>\n
scene mahazar was prepared as shown by PW1.\n<\/p>\n
      26.     DW1 deposed       that it   is not possible to see<\/p>\n
Kuzhimanthikandam property by standing in Puthankandam property<\/p>\n
in which PW1 was standing at the beginning of the occurrence. PW4<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                  23<\/span><\/p>\n
deposed that when he came to the scene of occurrence on hearing the<\/p>\n
cry, both the accused and the deceased were standing in the property<\/p>\n
of the accused. The evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution<\/p>\n
would not show how the occurrence started. The evidence on record<\/p>\n
shows that there was some property dispute between the accused and<\/p>\n
the deceased about 5 years ago. There is no evidence to show the<\/p>\n
immediate cause for the scuffle, which resulted in the death of the<\/p>\n
deceased.\n<\/p>\n
      27. PW8 deposed that immediately after the occurrence, the first<\/p>\n
accused informed him that the deceased sustained stab injury and<\/p>\n
requested him to take the deceased to the hospital. DW1 deposed that<\/p>\n
the second accused brought a vehicle to the scene of occurrence to<\/p>\n
take the injured to the hospital.\n<\/p>\n
      28. The prosecution produced MO1 as the rubber tapping knife,<\/p>\n
which was in the hands of the deceased at the time of occurrence.<\/p>\n
MO2 is another tapping knife, which was alleged to have been used by<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                    24<\/span><\/p>\n
the first accused to stab the deceased. PW17 deposed            that on<\/p>\n
investigation it was revealed that the second accused was carrying<\/p>\n
MO7 rubber tapping knife. The prosecution has no case that the<\/p>\n
second accused attacked the deceased with MO7 rubber tapping knife.<\/p>\n
The recovery of MO1 from the scene of occurrence would make it<\/p>\n
possible to infer that the deceased was carrying MO1 with him at the<\/p>\n
time of occurrence. On considering all these aspects of the matter, it<\/p>\n
is not possible to rule out the possibility of the defence case that it<\/p>\n
was the deceased who caused the provocation by stabbing the first<\/p>\n
accused with MO1.\n<\/p>\n
      29. MO1 is a dangerous weapon which may have been used by<\/p>\n
the deceased to attack the first accused and then the first accused in the<\/p>\n
heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel caused fatal injuries to the<\/p>\n
deceased    without premeditation.     It cannot be said that the first<\/p>\n
accused took undue advantage or acted in cruel manner manner<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                   25<\/span><\/p>\n
and therefore the case of the first accused comes within exception 4 of<\/p>\n
Section 300 I.P.C. and he has committed culpable homicide not<\/p>\n
amounting to murder. Therefore, we are of the view that the first<\/p>\n
accused has committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder<\/p>\n
punishable under Section 304 Part I of I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
      30. Since there is no clear and unambiguous evidence to show<\/p>\n
that the first accused trespassed into the property of deceased, the first<\/p>\n
accused cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 447 I.P.C.<\/p>\n
As there is no reliable      evidence to show that the first accused<\/p>\n
wrongfully restrained the deceased, the first accused cannot be<\/p>\n
convicted for the offence under Section 341 of I.P.C.       Considering<\/p>\n
the facts and circumstances of the case,       we are of the view that<\/p>\n
sentencing the first accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine<\/p>\n
years under Section 304 Part I of I.P.C. would meet the ends of justice.<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                    26<\/span><\/p>\n
      31. The allegation against the second accused is that he shared<\/p>\n
common intention with the first accused to commit murder of the<\/p>\n
deceased. It is true that direct evidence to prove the intention of any<\/p>\n
individual is very difficult. It has to be inferred from their action and<\/p>\n
conduct or other relevant circumstances of the case. To constitute<\/p>\n
common intention, it is necessary that the intention of each one of the<\/p>\n
miscreants be known to the rest of them and shared by them. In the<\/p>\n
normal circumstances, common intention would be held established<\/p>\n
where one of the accused had held the victim and the other accused<\/p>\n
stabbed the victim with a knife. In the present case the second accused<\/p>\n
has not used MO7 to attack the deceased eventhough the second<\/p>\n
accused was possessing that weapon at the time of the occurrence. If<\/p>\n
the second accused had the intention to kill the deceased, the second<\/p>\n
accused would have definitely used that weapon to stab the deceased.<\/p>\n
      32. There is no evidence to show that accused 1 and 2 went<\/p>\n
together to attack the deceased. It is probable that the second accused<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                    27<\/span><\/p>\n
tried to save the first accused when the deceased attacked the first<\/p>\n
accused with MO1 by catching hold of the deceased by his neck.<\/p>\n
There is no evidence to show that the second accused asked the first<\/p>\n
accused to stab the deceased. The subsequent conduct of the second<\/p>\n
accused also must be looked into. Immediately after the occurrence,<\/p>\n
the second accused took up a vehicle and tried to take the deceased to<\/p>\n
the hospital in order to save the life of the deceased.<\/p>\n
      33. Considering all these material aspects of the matter, we are<\/p>\n
of the view that the prosecution case that the second accused had<\/p>\n
common intention with the first accused to murder the deceased<\/p>\n
becomes doubtful.      There is no reliable evidence to show that the<\/p>\n
second accused criminally trespassed into the property of the deceased.<\/p>\n
Therefore the second accused is not guilty of the offece punishable<\/p>\n
under Section 447 of I.P.C. The evidence on record does not show that<\/p>\n
the second accused wrongfully restrained deceased and therefore the<\/p>\n
second accused cannot be convicted under Section 341 of I.P.C.<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                    28<\/span><\/p>\n
Therefore we are of the view that learned Additional Sessions Judge is<\/p>\n
not justified in convicting and sentencing the second accused under<\/p>\n
Sections 302, 341 and 447 r\/w. 34 of I.P.C. The second accused is<\/p>\n
entitled to get an acquittal as the prosecution failed to prove its case<\/p>\n
against the second accused beyond reasonable doubt.<\/p>\n
      34. Accordingly Crl.A.No. 1965 of 2006 is allowed and the<\/p>\n
conviction and sentence of the second accused, Joby Mathew, in<\/p>\n
S.C.No. 160 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court,<\/p>\n
Kottayam under Section 302, 447 and 341 r\/w. 34 I.P.C. are set aside<\/p>\n
and the second accused is found not guilty of the aforesaid offences<\/p>\n
and he is acquitted and set at liberty.\n<\/p>\n
      35. Crl.A.No.1958 of 2006 is allowed in part and the conviction<\/p>\n
and sentence of the first accused, Manoj Mathew, in S.C.No. 160 of<\/p>\n
2005 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Kottayam under<\/p>\n
Sections 302, 341 and 447 r\/w. 34 I.P.C. are set aside and he is<\/p>\n
acquitted of those offences. The first accused is found guilty under<\/p>\n
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                  29<\/span><\/p>\n
Section 304 Part I of I.P.C. and he is convicted and sentenced to<\/p>\n
undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine years under Section 304 Part<\/p>\n
I of I.P.C.   The first accused is entitled to get set off under Section<\/p>\n
428 Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
     35. The Registry shall forthwith communicate this judgment<\/p>\n
to the concerned jail authority to release the second accused, Joby<\/p>\n
Mathew, immediately, if his detention is not required in connection<\/p>\n
with any other case. The Court below shall take immediate steps to<\/p>\n
issue revised warrant of commitment as regards the first accused,<\/p>\n
Manoj Mathew.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                         (K. M. JOSEPH)
\n                                               Judge<\/p>\n
                                  (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
\n                                              Judge
\ntm<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Manoj Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 7 July, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL.A.No. 1958 of 2006(C) 1. MANOJ MATHEW, S\/O.MATHAI, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH The […]<\/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-149093","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nManoj Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 7 July, 2010 - 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\/manoj-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-july-2010-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Manoj Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 7 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-july-2010-2\" \/>\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=\"2010-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-06T09:09:06+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=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-july-2010-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-july-2010-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Manoj Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 7 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-06T09:09:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-july-2010-2\"},\"wordCount\":4753,\"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\\\/manoj-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-july-2010-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-july-2010-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-july-2010-2\",\"name\":\"Manoj Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 7 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-06T09:09:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-july-2010-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-july-2010-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-july-2010-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Manoj Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 7 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Manoj Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 7 July, 2010 - 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\/manoj-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-july-2010-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Manoj Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 7 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-july-2010-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-06T09:09:06+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":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-july-2010-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-july-2010-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Manoj Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 7 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-06T09:09:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-july-2010-2"},"wordCount":4753,"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\/manoj-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-july-2010-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-july-2010-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-july-2010-2","name":"Manoj Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 7 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-06T09:09:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-july-2010-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-july-2010-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-mathew-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-july-2010-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Manoj Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 7 July, 2010"}]},{"@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\/149093","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=149093"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149093\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=149093"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=149093"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=149093"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}