{"id":166624,"date":"2008-11-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-joseph-pappachan-on-4-november-2008"},"modified":"2014-10-04T02:14:25","modified_gmt":"2014-10-03T20:44:25","slug":"state-of-kerala-vs-joseph-pappachan-on-4-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-joseph-pappachan-on-4-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"State Of Kerala vs Joseph @ Pappachan on 4 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
State Of Kerala vs Joseph @ Pappachan on 4 November, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL.A.No. 361 of 2005()\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. JOSEPH @ PAPPACHAN,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.C.M.TOMY\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR\nThe Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI\n\n Dated :04\/11\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                       K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &\n\n                           M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.\n\n                    -----------------------------------------\n\n                     CRL.APPEAL NO. 361\/2005-A\n\n                    -----------------------------------------\n\n                        Dated 4th November, 2008.\n\n                                JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Balakrishnan Nair, J.\n<\/p>\n
      The State has come up in appeal, feeling aggrieved by the<\/p>\n
acquittal of the respondent\/accused in S.C.No.115\/99 by the Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge, Thodupuzha.\n<\/p>\n
      2.    The accused was charge sheeted by the Circle Inspector of<\/p>\n
Police, Kattappana for the offences punishable under sections 302 and<\/p>\n
324 of the IPC. Roy, the brother of PW1 and the son of PW10, was the<\/p>\n
person killed in the incident. There was previous enmity between the<\/p>\n
accused and PW10.        The accused was running a tea shop and a<\/p>\n
butcher’s shop. PW10 owed some amount to him. The accused on<\/p>\n
28.3.1997 demanded the amount due to him from PW10, openly in<\/p>\n
front of others. He has abused him also. This led to PW10 filing a<\/p>\n
complaint before the police against the accused, on the next day<\/p>\n
CRA 361\/05                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
morning. On the evening of 29.3.1997, the accused picked up a quarrel<\/p>\n
with Roy and Reji, the children of PW10. There was exchange of<\/p>\n
words and immediately, the accused took a knife and stabbed on the<\/p>\n
left chest of Roy. It was followed by two more stabs. PW1 tried to<\/p>\n
prevent the accused. Thereupon, he inflicted two stab injuries on the<\/p>\n
right and left arms of PW1. Seeing the attack, PW10 rushed to the<\/p>\n
scene. He was stabbed on his leg. There was some altercation and<\/p>\n
struggle for a few minutes, as the three tried to catch hold of the<\/p>\n
accused and overpower him, but he made good his escape. Mr.Roy,<\/p>\n
who suffered injury on his chest, fainted and he was immediately taken<\/p>\n
to the near-by hospital. From there, he was taken to a hospital at<\/p>\n
Kattappana, where he was pronounced dead. P.Ws. 1 and 10 were<\/p>\n
admitted there. Based on the information lodged by PW1, a crime was<\/p>\n
registered against the accused for the offences under sections 302 and<\/p>\n
324 of the IPC. PW12, the Sub Inspector of Police recorded Ext. P1<\/p>\n
F.I. statement and prepared Ext. P1(a) body note of PWs 1 and 10 and<\/p>\n
registered a crime as per Exhibit P1(b) FIR.         Next day, PW12<\/p>\n
conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and prepared Ext. P12<\/p>\n
CRA 361\/05                         3<\/span><\/p>\n
inquest report. The investigation was taken over by PW15, the Circle<\/p>\n
Inspector of Police.    He prepared the scene mahazar, seized the<\/p>\n
relevant material objects, questioned the witnesses, completed the<\/p>\n
investigation and laid the charge before the Judicial First Class<\/p>\n
Magistrate’s Court, Nedumkandam. He had earlier sent the body for<\/p>\n
post-mortem and obtained the post-mortem report.         The relevant<\/p>\n
material objects were sent for chemical analysis and reports from the<\/p>\n
Forensic Science Laboratory were also obtained by him. On filing the<\/p>\n
final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court,<\/p>\n
Nedumkandam, the case was committed for trial to the Sessions Court.<\/p>\n
The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against him under<\/p>\n
Sections 302 and 324 of the IPC.\n<\/p>\n
     3.     From the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 15 were<\/p>\n
examined and Exts. P1 to P23 were marked. Material objects 1 to 9<\/p>\n
were also produced and marked. From the side of the defence Exts.D1<\/p>\n
to D10 were marked during the cross-examination of the prosecution<\/p>\n
witnesses. Exts. D1 to D9 were the contradictions in the statement of<\/p>\n
the witnesses before court, with reference to their earlier statements<\/p>\n
CRA 361\/05                          4<\/span><\/p>\n
recorded under Section       161 of the Cr.P.C.      Ext. D10 was the<\/p>\n
complaint stated to be filed by PW10 before the State Home Minister.<\/p>\n
The accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The<\/p>\n
accused denied the circumstances appeared against him in the<\/p>\n
prosecution evidence and which were put to him. The trial court after<\/p>\n
hearing both sides, found the accused not guilty and acquitted him. It<\/p>\n
was held that the infliction of injury by the accused was in exercise of<\/p>\n
his right of private defence. Aggrieved by the said order of acquittal,<\/p>\n
the State has preferred this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that all the assailants<\/p>\n
were unarmed. But, the accused stabbed Roy thrice and also stabbed<\/p>\n
P.Ws.1 and 10, who came to rescue Roy. Therefore, the accused has<\/p>\n
clearly exceeded his right of private defence. So, he is not entitled to<\/p>\n
get the protection of Section 97 of the I.P.C. If that be so, the accused<\/p>\n
is liable to be convicted under Section 302 or at any rate, under Section<\/p>\n
304 of the I.P.C.          In answer, the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondent\/accused submitted that in the incident the accused sustained<\/p>\n
injury behind his head and on his genitals. PW1 and his brother Roy<\/p>\n
CRA 361\/05                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
were trained in karate, as evident from the deposition of PW5. The<\/p>\n
said witness has also stated that PW10 is a hefty fellow. When<\/p>\n
attacked by three persons, including the attack on his genitals, if the<\/p>\n
accused stabs Roy, the same cannot be described as an action<\/p>\n
exceeding the right of private defence. At any rate, the view taken by<\/p>\n
the learned Sessions Judge, who had occasion to see the witnesses and<\/p>\n
hear them, cannot be said to be perverse. Unless this Court finds that<\/p>\n
the finding of the trial court is perverse, this Court is not justified in<\/p>\n
interfering with an acquittal. So, the respondent\/accused prayed for<\/p>\n
dismissal of the appeal.   Before referring to the rival contentions, we<\/p>\n
will briefly refer to the evidence on record regarding the incident, in<\/p>\n
which Roy was killed.\n<\/p>\n
      5. PW1 has stated as follows: Ext.P1 is the F.I. Statement given<\/p>\n
by him before the Vandanmedu Police Station. The incident happened<\/p>\n
at 6.30 p.m at Kochara Palam Junction on 29.3.1997. The witness was<\/p>\n
standing along with his brother Roy at the said junction. The accused<\/p>\n
came by their side and asked whether complaint will be made before<\/p>\n
the police, if    he demands payment of the money due to him.<\/p>\n
CRA 361\/05                         6<\/span><\/p>\n
Thereupon Roy answered that if found necessary, complaint will be<\/p>\n
filed. Immediately, the accused took a knife from his waist and stabbed<\/p>\n
on the chest of Roy. Stab injuries were also inflicted on the neck and<\/p>\n
left hand of his brother.     When the witness tried to prevent the<\/p>\n
accused from stabbing, he stabbed the witness on his right and left<\/p>\n
arms. Thereupon, he and his brother cried aloud. Then PW10, their<\/p>\n
father came to their side. The accused stabbed him on his leg. There<\/p>\n
was some altercation and fight between the accused and three of them.<\/p>\n
They tried to snatch the knife from the accused by force. But, the<\/p>\n
accused escaped and ran away with the knife. All the three went to the<\/p>\n
near-by Kochara Church Hospital and dressed their wounds and as<\/p>\n
instructed by the doctor, they went to St.John’s Hospital at Kattappana.<\/p>\n
On the way to that hospital, Roy breathed his last.        The accused<\/p>\n
demanded money and abused PW10. So, at 8 a.m on 29.3.1997,<\/p>\n
PW10 filed a complaint before the police. Infuriated by that, the<\/p>\n
accused attacked them. At the relevant time, there was electric light.<\/p>\n
He identified M.O.1 knife. The accused was running a tea shop and a<\/p>\n
butcher’s shop. He was also selling illicit arrack. The amount due to<\/p>\n
CRA 361\/05                          7<\/span><\/p>\n
the accused was only Rs.1000\/-. In the cross-examination, the witness<\/p>\n
admitted that there is a case against them for hitting the accused<\/p>\n
behind his head using a stone, crushing his genitals and also kicking<\/p>\n
and beating him. But, the witness stated that they have not attacked<\/p>\n
the accused and he does not know whether the accused was injured in<\/p>\n
that incident. He has also stated that his father had filed a complaint<\/p>\n
before Home Minister regarding the investigation of the crime by the<\/p>\n
police. Ext.D1, which is a contradiction in the statement of the witness<\/p>\n
with reference to his statement before the police, was marked through<\/p>\n
that witness.\n<\/p>\n
      6. P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 turned hostile and they did not support the<\/p>\n
prosecution. PW5, who is a relative of George (PW10) identified MO1<\/p>\n
knife. He has stated that it was purchased by him and given to the<\/p>\n
accused about one month prior to the date of incident. It was he who<\/p>\n
took the injured to the hospital. In the cross-examination, PW5 stated<\/p>\n
that PW1 and Roy knew karate. They were learning karate for the last<\/p>\n
two years.   He has also stated that PW10 is a hefty fellow and he used<\/p>\n
to take liquor.\n<\/p>\n
CRA 361\/05                           8<\/span><\/p>\n
      7. PW6 also turned hostile to the prosecution. PW7, the doctor<\/p>\n
who was in-charge of the Health Centre, Vandanmedu conducted<\/p>\n
autopsy on the body of Roy and issued Ext.P9 post-mortem certificate.<\/p>\n
The following ante-mortem injuries were noted in Ext.P9:<\/p>\n
            “(1) Incised wound 6 cms above the left nipple 3 x 1
\n      > cm., obliquely placed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (2) Incised wound 2 = cm below the supra clavicular
\n      notch to the right side 1 x 0.5 cm<\/p>\n
            (3) Incised wound on the back of left upper arm 8 x 2
\n      cm muscles exposed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            4) Incised wound on the inner aspect of left upper
\n      arm 4 x 1 > cm, 12 cm away from the elbow joint.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The witness has stated that those injuries could be caused using MO1<\/p>\n
knife. Ext.P10 wound certificate of the accused was proved through<\/p>\n
the said witness. PW8 is a witness to Ext.P13 scene mahazar. But, he<\/p>\n
has turned hostile to the prosecution. PW9 is the witness to Ext.P12<\/p>\n
inquest report.\n<\/p>\n
      8. PW10 stated as follows: The deceased Roy was his son. In<\/p>\n
the incident in which Roy was killed, he and Reji (PW1) sustained<\/p>\n
injuries. The incident took place between 6.30 p.m and 7 p.m.    The<\/p>\n
CRA 361\/05                         9<\/span><\/p>\n
incident happened about four years back.      The scene of occurrence<\/p>\n
was in front of the tea shop of Kochayan alias Sunny (PW6). On the<\/p>\n
previous day of the incident the accused abused him a lot, using filthy<\/p>\n
language. About that incident, on the next day he filed a complaint<\/p>\n
before the Vandanmedu Police Station. He talked about the same to<\/p>\n
one Mr.Thomachan. While so, his children Reji and Roy came in front<\/p>\n
of the shop of Kochayan. They talked to the accused. Suddenly, the<\/p>\n
accused took his knife and stabbed Roy. The witness rushed to the<\/p>\n
scene and caught hold of Pappachan (accused). He inflicted 2 or 3 stab<\/p>\n
injuries. Immediately Reji also caught hold of Pappachan (accused).<\/p>\n
Both of them sustained stab injuries. Reji caught hold of the knife. The<\/p>\n
witness and Roy caught hold of the accused. All the four fell by the<\/p>\n
side of the road. The altercation\/fight continued. Soon, it was seen<\/p>\n
that Roy was fainting.     So, the witness released the accused and<\/p>\n
supported Roy. Immediately, Pappachan (accused) released himself<\/p>\n
from the hold of Reji and made his escape, running with the knife. All<\/p>\n
the three went in a jeep to Kochara Church Hospital. The doctor<\/p>\n
examined and stated that     Roy’s condition   is serious. So, it was<\/p>\n
CRA 361\/05                          10<\/span><\/p>\n
suggested to take him to Kattappana Hospital. Somebody came with<\/p>\n
another jeep. In that all the three along with 2 or 3 others went to<\/p>\n
Kattappana St.John’s Hospital. Roy asked for water. On reaching the<\/p>\n
hospital, the doctors pronounced that Roy was dead. The witness and<\/p>\n
Reji were admitted in the hospital. The witness owned about Rs.1000\/-<\/p>\n
to the accused.     Demanding that amount, the accused abused the<\/p>\n
witness on Friday. On the date of incident, darkness has set in. But,<\/p>\n
there was electric light in the shop of Kochayan. There was street light<\/p>\n
also. He identified MO1 knife. In the cross-examination, he admitted<\/p>\n
that there was a case, alleging that the accused was hit with a stone,<\/p>\n
that his genitals were crushed and that he was kicked and beaten. The<\/p>\n
witness and his children Reji and Roy were the accused in that case.<\/p>\n
He admitted that he is a hefty fellow. He will take liquor occasionally.<\/p>\n
He denied the suggestion that his children were trained in karate.<\/p>\n
Ext.D5, a contradiction in the statement of the witness before the police<\/p>\n
with reference to his statement before the court, was marked. A rough<\/p>\n
translation of Ext.D5 reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
            “Roy asked the accused why he is quarrelling with his
\n      father PW10. The accused asked Roy whether his father<\/p>\n
CRA 361\/05                          11<\/span><\/p>\n
      will complain before the police, if the money due to him is
\n      demanded. Roy replied, if it becomes necessary, complaint
\n      will be filed. Saying that, Roy pushed the accused.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The witness denied the suggestion of the defence that he and his<\/p>\n
children were the aggressors. He also denied his statement before the<\/p>\n
police that Reji caught hold of the genitals of the accused. The said<\/p>\n
contradiction was marked as Ext.D8. PW10 stated that he has not sent<\/p>\n
Ext.D10 complaint to the Home Minister of the State. In Ext.D10 the<\/p>\n
incident is described in an entirely different fashion, when compared to<\/p>\n
the version of the prosecution in this case. As per Ext.D10, which was<\/p>\n
marked by the defence, some others were also involved in the killing of<\/p>\n
Roy. The accused was only acting as a stooge of them.<\/p>\n
      9. PW11 turned hostile to the prosecution. He was the witness<\/p>\n
to Ext.P14 seizure mahazar, as per which MO1 knife was recovered<\/p>\n
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. PW12 was the S.I of Police,<\/p>\n
Vandanmedu at the relevant time. He recorded Ext.P1 F.I. Statement,<\/p>\n
prepared Ext.P1(a) body note of P.Ws.1 and 10 and registered Ext.P1<\/p>\n
(b) F.I.R. He also prepared Ext.P12 inquest report. PW13 is the Police<\/p>\n
Constable, who arrested the accused on 7.4.1997, while he was<\/p>\n
CRA 361\/05                        12<\/span><\/p>\n
discharged from the Nedumkandam Taluk Hospital. PW14           is the<\/p>\n
doctor working in St.John’s Hospital, Kattappana. He was examined<\/p>\n
to prove the signatures of Dr.Padmakumar, who was working in that<\/p>\n
hospital and who issued Ext.P15 wound certificate of PW1 and Ext.P16<\/p>\n
wound certificate of PW10.      The said witness has stated that the<\/p>\n
injuries in Exts.P15 and P16 are minor and superficial. PW15 was the<\/p>\n
investigating officer, who completed the investigation and laid the<\/p>\n
charge before the Magistrate’s Court. Through him, the contradictions<\/p>\n
from both sides were marked.        Further, Ext.P23 FI Statement and<\/p>\n
Ext.P22 FIR in the counter case (Crime No.34\/1997 of Vandanmedu<\/p>\n
Police Station) were also marked through PW15.\n<\/p>\n
      10. Going by the evidence on record, we feel that certain facts,<\/p>\n
which we will refer now, are not seriously disputed by both sides.<\/p>\n
There was some quarrel between the accused and PW10 on 28.3.1997.<\/p>\n
PW10 aggrieved by that, filed a complaint before the Vandanmedu<\/p>\n
Police Station against the accused in the morning of 29.3.1997. There<\/p>\n
was some heated exchange of words between the accused and the two<\/p>\n
children of PW10 on the evening of 29.3.1997. Thereafter, a fight<\/p>\n
CRA 361\/05                          13<\/span><\/p>\n
started in which both sides were injured. Roy, the son of PW10 was<\/p>\n
fatally injured and breathed his last. If the accused was the aggressor,<\/p>\n
he is liable to be convicted under Section 304 of the I.P.C. But, we<\/p>\n
notice that even according to the prosecution, it was Roy, who started<\/p>\n
the fight by pushing the accused.        According to the prosecution,<\/p>\n
immediately the accused took his knife and inflicted the fatal injury on<\/p>\n
Roy. But, we notice from the materials on record that in the very<\/p>\n
same incident the accused sustained injuries on the back of his head<\/p>\n
and also on his genitals. Even according to the prosecution in the<\/p>\n
counter case,    those injuries were inflicted by PW10 and his two<\/p>\n
children. If the accused inflicted the stab injury after his genitals were<\/p>\n
caught hold of and crushed by PW1 or Roy, he will be fully justified<\/p>\n
in exercising his right of private defence, to stab Roy to rescue himself.<\/p>\n
In the counter case, the case of the accused, in which he is PW1, is that<\/p>\n
Roy caught hold of his genitals, crushed and pulled it. Owing to pain,<\/p>\n
he cried aloud. Going by the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 10 and the<\/p>\n
version of the accused, it cannot be decided whether the accused<\/p>\n
stabbed Roy first or whether he stabbed after Roy caught hold of his<\/p>\n
CRA 361\/05                           14<\/span><\/p>\n
genitals. Whether it was Roy or Reji, who caught hold of his genitals,<\/p>\n
is also a disputed point in the counter case. We feel that having regard<\/p>\n
to the nature of the evidence on record, it cannot be safely concluded<\/p>\n
that immediately on pushing, the accused stabbed Roy. The possibility<\/p>\n
that the accused stabbed Roy to get out of the hold on his genitals,<\/p>\n
cannot be ruled out. So, we feel that the accused is entitled to get the<\/p>\n
benefit of doubt in this case. The view taken by the trial court that the<\/p>\n
accused exercised his right of private defence to get out of the attack of<\/p>\n
three healthy persons, two of whom are trained in karate, is a plausible<\/p>\n
view. This Court, if it disagrees with the findings of the trial court,<\/p>\n
should give reasons for the same and thereafter enter its own findings,<\/p>\n
evaluating the evidence. But, for that, this Court must be satisfied that<\/p>\n
the view taken by the trial court is perverse and without reference to the<\/p>\n
evidence on record. We are not inclined to hold like that. We feel that<\/p>\n
based on the evidence on record the trial court has taken a plausible<\/p>\n
view. This Court is not justified in interfering with the same, in<\/p>\n
exercise of its power to entertain an appeal against acquittal.<\/p>\n
CRA 361\/05                         15<\/span><\/p>\n
     In the result, we affirm the judgment of the learned Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge and dismiss the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                              K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
                              M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
Nm\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court State Of Kerala vs Joseph @ Pappachan on 4 November, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL.A.No. 361 of 2005() 1. STATE OF KERALA, … Petitioner Vs 1. JOSEPH @ PAPPACHAN, … Respondent For Petitioner :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR For Respondent :SRI.C.M.TOMY The Hon’ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR The Hon’ble MRS. […]<\/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-166624","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Kerala vs Joseph @ Pappachan on 4 November, 2008 - 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\/state-of-kerala-vs-joseph-pappachan-on-4-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Kerala vs Joseph @ Pappachan on 4 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-joseph-pappachan-on-4-november-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-10-03T20:44:25+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-joseph-pappachan-on-4-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-joseph-pappachan-on-4-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Kerala vs Joseph @ Pappachan on 4 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-03T20:44:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-joseph-pappachan-on-4-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2909,\"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\/state-of-kerala-vs-joseph-pappachan-on-4-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-joseph-pappachan-on-4-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-joseph-pappachan-on-4-november-2008\",\"name\":\"State Of Kerala vs Joseph @ Pappachan on 4 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-03T20:44:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-joseph-pappachan-on-4-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-joseph-pappachan-on-4-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-joseph-pappachan-on-4-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Kerala vs Joseph @ Pappachan on 4 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"State Of Kerala vs Joseph @ Pappachan on 4 November, 2008 - 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\/state-of-kerala-vs-joseph-pappachan-on-4-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Kerala vs Joseph @ Pappachan on 4 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-joseph-pappachan-on-4-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-10-03T20:44:25+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-joseph-pappachan-on-4-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-joseph-pappachan-on-4-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Kerala vs Joseph @ Pappachan on 4 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-03T20:44:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-joseph-pappachan-on-4-november-2008"},"wordCount":2909,"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\/state-of-kerala-vs-joseph-pappachan-on-4-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-joseph-pappachan-on-4-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-joseph-pappachan-on-4-november-2008","name":"State Of Kerala vs Joseph @ Pappachan on 4 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-03T20:44:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-joseph-pappachan-on-4-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-joseph-pappachan-on-4-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-joseph-pappachan-on-4-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Kerala vs Joseph @ Pappachan on 4 November, 2008"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/166624","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=166624"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166624\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=166624"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=166624"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=166624"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}