{"id":183712,"date":"2009-12-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-e-thomas-441745-vs-susamma-koshy-on-23-december-2009"},"modified":"2018-04-13T04:14:58","modified_gmt":"2018-04-12T22:44:58","slug":"t-e-thomas-441745-vs-susamma-koshy-on-23-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-e-thomas-441745-vs-susamma-koshy-on-23-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"T.E.Thomas 44\/1745 vs Susamma Koshy on 23 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
T.E.Thomas 44\/1745 vs Susamma Koshy on 23 December, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 119 of 2005(D)\n\n\n1. T.E.THOMAS 44\/1745,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. GEORGEKUTTY T.E., THARUVATHU HOUSE,\n3. THARAKAN (CHERIYAN)\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. SUSAMMA KOSHY, W\/O. LATE JOHN,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.K.SASIKUMAR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN\n\n Dated :23\/12\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                       P.S.GOPINATHAN, J.\n         ---------------------------------------------------------\n           Crl.R.P.Nos.119 of 2005 & 2374 of 2009\n         ----------------------------------------------------------\n         Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2009\n\n                                 ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
      The revision petitioners are accused in C.C.No.237 of 1997<\/p>\n
and C.C.No.236 of 1997 respectively on the file of the Judicial<\/p>\n
Magistrate of the First Class-II, Chengannur. Both prosecution<\/p>\n
arose out of the same transaction.               Hence, these revision<\/p>\n
petitions are disposed by a common order. In C.C.No.236 of<\/p>\n
1997, there are two accused. The prosecution was initiated on<\/p>\n
the basis of a final report filed by the Sub Inspector of Police,<\/p>\n
Mavelikkara in Crime No.11 of 1994 alleging offences under<\/p>\n
Sections 451 and 427 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The law was<\/p>\n
put in notion on the basis of a First Information Statement<\/p>\n
lodged by one John S\/o.Yohannan who is now no more. Ext.P2 is<\/p>\n
the First Information Statement recorded by PW.5, the Sub<\/p>\n
Inspector of Police, Mavelikkara. Ext.P1 is the First Information<\/p>\n
Report. In the First Information Statement there were three<\/p>\n
persons mentioned as accused. After investigation, the charge<\/p>\n
sheet was laid before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,<\/p>\n
Mavelikkara against two persons after omitting the second<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.119 of 2005
\n                               2<\/span><\/p>\n
accused in the First Information Report. The learned Magistrate<\/p>\n
took cognizance and proceeded as C.C.494\/94. While so, it was<\/p>\n
noticed to the defacto complainant that the second accused in<\/p>\n
the First Information Report was omitted. The defacto<\/p>\n
complainant, thereupon filed a complaint before the learned<\/p>\n
magistrate against 3 accused persons as arrayed in the First<\/p>\n
Information Report alleging the same offence. It was taken to<\/p>\n
file as C.C.No.353 of 1995. Later, both cases were made over to<\/p>\n
the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Chengannur where<\/p>\n
the cases were re-numbered as C.C.No.236 and 237 of 1997<\/p>\n
respectively. The learned magistrate proceeded with the trial<\/p>\n
simultaneously and by judgment dated 15\/11\/2000, in both<\/p>\n
cases, the learned magistrate arrived a conclusion of guilty.<\/p>\n
Consequently, the accused were convicted in both cases.      In<\/p>\n
C.C.No.237 of 1997, the accused were sentenced to rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.3,000\/- under<\/p>\n
Section 451 I.P.C. and to rigorous imprisonment for three<\/p>\n
months under Section 427 I.P.C. In the light of the sentence<\/p>\n
awarded in C.C.No.237 of 1997, no separate sentence was<\/p>\n
awarded in C.C.No.236 of 1997.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.119 of 2005
\n                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
      2.   Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence in<\/p>\n
C.C.No.237 of 1997, Criminal Appeal No.306 of 2000 was filed.<\/p>\n
Aggrieved by the conviction in C.C.No.236 of 1997, Criminal<\/p>\n
Appeal No.494 of 2008 was filed.\n<\/p>\n
      3.   By judgment dated 14\/12\/2004 Criminal Appeal<\/p>\n
No.306 of 2000 was dismissed.        The other appeal was filed<\/p>\n
thereafter. In filing that appeal, there was a delay of 2865 days<\/p>\n
which was sought to be condoned in Criminal M.P.No.1171 of<\/p>\n
2008. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, before whom the<\/p>\n
appeal was filed, dismissed the petition to condone the delay.<\/p>\n
Consequently, Criminal Appeal No.494 of 2008 was dismissed as<\/p>\n
barred by limitation.\n<\/p>\n
      4.   As against the conviction and sentence in C.C.No.237<\/p>\n
of 1997 as confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.306 of 2000,<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.119 of 2005 is filed. As against the order dismissing<\/p>\n
Criminal Appeal No.494 of 2008 as barred by limitation, Criminal<\/p>\n
R.P.No.234 of 2009 was filed. Both revision petitions were heard<\/p>\n
jointly.\n<\/p>\n
      5.   Pws.1 to 3 examined in C.C.No.236 of 1997 are the<\/p>\n
witnesses to prove the occurrence. PW.4 is an attestor to Ext.P3<\/p>\n
scene mahazar. PW.5 is the Investigating Officer. In C.C.No.237<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.119 of 2005
\n                               4<\/span><\/p>\n
of 1997 the wife of the defacto complainant was examined as<\/p>\n
PW.1. The occurrence witnesses, who were examined as Pws.1<\/p>\n
to 3 in C.C.No.236 of 1997, were examined as Pws.2 to 4. PW.5<\/p>\n
is the Investigating Officer. Pws.1 and 3 in C.C.No.236 of 1997,<\/p>\n
who were examined as Pws.2 and 4 in the other case had given<\/p>\n
evidence to the effect that they had witnessed the 3 accused in<\/p>\n
C.C.No.237 of 1997 committing mischief on a car bearing<\/p>\n
registration No.KL-4-1991 kept parked in the porch of the house<\/p>\n
of the defacto complainant. PW.1 in C.C.No.237\/97, the wife of<\/p>\n
the defacto complainant had deposed that she who was working<\/p>\n
as a professor at Christian College, Chengannur had been<\/p>\n
residing along with her husband and the son who was then<\/p>\n
studying in 10th standard. On 8\/3\/1994 herself, her husband and<\/p>\n
the son had gone out after locking the key of the gate at about 9<\/p>\n
a.m. and at the time when they left home, the car was parked at<\/p>\n
the porch and that when she came back at 4.15 p.m. she found<\/p>\n
the vehicle including the engine were damaged and that the<\/p>\n
mischief was committed by all the three accused because of the<\/p>\n
long standing dispute between them. However she had not<\/p>\n
witnessed the mischief alleged. PW.2 in C.C.No.236 of 1997 who<\/p>\n
was examined as PW.3 in the other case had denied of<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.119 of 2005
\n                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
witnessing the mischief.\n<\/p>\n
     6.    PWs.1 and 3 in C.C.No.236 of 1997 who were<\/p>\n
examined as PWs.2 and 4 in the other case had deposed that at<\/p>\n
about 11.30a.m. he had seen the three accused in C.C.No.237 of<\/p>\n
1997 committing mischief on a Maruti car kept parked in the car<\/p>\n
porch of the house of the defacto complainant by beating with<\/p>\n
iron rod. Ext.P3 Mahazar in C.C.No.236 of 1997, copy of which<\/p>\n
was marked as Ext.P1 in the other case, would show that<\/p>\n
damages were sustained to the car as alleged by the prosecution.<\/p>\n
The mahazar would convincingly establish the mischief to the<\/p>\n
car. In fact, the damage is not disputed. Only the involvement of<\/p>\n
the revision petitioners are disputed.     Regarding that the<\/p>\n
prosecution case is supported by the testimony of PW.2 and<\/p>\n
PW.4 examined in C.C.No.237 of 1997. According to the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the revision petitioner, PW.2 is a chance and stock<\/p>\n
witness and for that reason no credibility can be given to his<\/p>\n
evidence. As against the PW.4, the allegation is that he is not<\/p>\n
aware as to what is the bonnet of the car and that he is not<\/p>\n
aware of the number of the car. In the light of the submission<\/p>\n
made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner I had<\/p>\n
carefully gone through the judgments of the courts below. I was<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.119 of 2005
\n                                6<\/span><\/p>\n
taken through the evidence of Pws.2 and 4 by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the revision petitioner.      In fact the revision<\/p>\n
petitioners could not succeeded to bring out any material to<\/p>\n
impeach the veracity of those witnesses. I fail to find any reason<\/p>\n
to reject the evidence of Pws.2 and 4. It was also argued by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the revision petitioner that according to<\/p>\n
Pws.2 and 4 the mischief was committed with the help of iron<\/p>\n
rod and that the tearing of the body of the car would show that<\/p>\n
some sharp edged weapon might have been used. With due<\/p>\n
regard to the damages noted, I fail to accept the arguments<\/p>\n
advanced by the learned counsel. There is no material to come<\/p>\n
to a conclusion that the damages noted in the vehicle could not<\/p>\n
be caused with an iron rod.\n<\/p>\n
      7.   The learned counsel had also argued that in<\/p>\n
C.C.No.236 of 1997 while Pws.1 and 3 therein were examined<\/p>\n
there is no mention that the second accused in C.C.No.237 of<\/p>\n
1997 was present. Whereas in the other case it was deposed so.<\/p>\n
On going through the evidence of Pws.1 and 3 there is nothing<\/p>\n
on record to show that those witnesses had denied the presence<\/p>\n
of  second    revision   petitioner Crl.R.P.No.119      of   2005.<\/p>\n
In C.C.No.236 of 1997 only 2 accused were tried and their<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.119 of 2005
\n                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
presence alone was spoken by the witnesses. It was not even put<\/p>\n
to the witnesses during cross-examination that second revision<\/p>\n
petitioner Crl.R.P.no.119 of 2005 was not present at the time of<\/p>\n
commission of crime. His presence is very well spoken in<\/p>\n
C.C.No.237 of 1997 where all the three accused were<\/p>\n
prosecuted. I find that the evidence of Pws.1 and 3 in<\/p>\n
C.C.No.236 of 1997 (Pws.2 and 4 in the other case) instill<\/p>\n
confidence. There is no reason to disbelieve them. I find that the<\/p>\n
courts below had correctly arrived at a conclusion that all the<\/p>\n
revision petitioners in Crl.R.P.No.119 of 2005 had committed<\/p>\n
mischief. In the other case also mischief is established.<\/p>\n
      8.   The scene mahazar would show that the car porch<\/p>\n
was attached to the house of the defacto complainant and it<\/p>\n
being a place where the car was parked, the entry to the car<\/p>\n
porch would amount to house trespass as defined in Section<\/p>\n
442 I.P.C. So, offence under Section 451 I.P.C. is also<\/p>\n
established. I find that the conviction under challenge is not<\/p>\n
liable to be interfered in exercise of the revisional powers.<\/p>\n
Taking into account that the revision petitioners in R.P.119\/05<\/p>\n
are aged 73, 60, 74 years respectively and that they are related<\/p>\n
and neighbours to the defacto complainant, the first accused is<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.119 of 2005
\n                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
an engineer and that the second accused is a pensioner, I find<\/p>\n
that the revision petitioners are entitled to a little leniency in<\/p>\n
sentence, especially taking into account that when the victim and<\/p>\n
the assailants are related the substantive sentence may not yield<\/p>\n
any result other than thickening the enemity.       I find that a<\/p>\n
sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court with an order to<\/p>\n
pay Rs.20,000\/- each as compensation to the defacto complainant<\/p>\n
would meet the ends of justice.\n<\/p>\n
     9.    In the result, Crl.R.P.No.119 of 2005 is allowed in<\/p>\n
part. While confirming the conviction, the sentence is reduced<\/p>\n
to imprisonment till rising of the court and each of them to pay<\/p>\n
Rs.20,000\/- to PW.1 as compensation under Section 357(3) of the<\/p>\n
Code of Criminal Procedure.         In default of payment of<\/p>\n
compensation, the revision petitioners shall undergo simple<\/p>\n
imprisonment for four months. Criminal R.P.No.2374 of 2007 is<\/p>\n
dismissed as devoid of merits.       The revision petitioners in<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.119 of 2005 shall pay the compensation on or before<\/p>\n
6\/2\/2010, on which date they shall surrender before the trial<\/p>\n
court for execution of the sentence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                 P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE
\nskj<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court T.E.Thomas 44\/1745 vs Susamma Koshy on 23 December, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 119 of 2005(D) 1. T.E.THOMAS 44\/1745, … Petitioner 2. GEORGEKUTTY T.E., THARUVATHU HOUSE, 3. THARAKAN (CHERIYAN) Vs 1. SUSAMMA KOSHY, W\/O. LATE JOHN, … Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY For Petitioner :SRI.B.RAMAN […]<\/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-183712","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nT.E.Thomas 44\/1745 vs Susamma Koshy on 23 December, 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\/t-e-thomas-441745-vs-susamma-koshy-on-23-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.E.Thomas 44\/1745 vs Susamma Koshy on 23 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-e-thomas-441745-vs-susamma-koshy-on-23-december-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=\"2009-12-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-12T22:44:58+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-e-thomas-441745-vs-susamma-koshy-on-23-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-e-thomas-441745-vs-susamma-koshy-on-23-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.E.Thomas 44\\\/1745 vs Susamma Koshy on 23 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-12T22:44:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-e-thomas-441745-vs-susamma-koshy-on-23-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1696,\"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\\\/t-e-thomas-441745-vs-susamma-koshy-on-23-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-e-thomas-441745-vs-susamma-koshy-on-23-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-e-thomas-441745-vs-susamma-koshy-on-23-december-2009\",\"name\":\"T.E.Thomas 44\\\/1745 vs Susamma Koshy on 23 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-12T22:44:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-e-thomas-441745-vs-susamma-koshy-on-23-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-e-thomas-441745-vs-susamma-koshy-on-23-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-e-thomas-441745-vs-susamma-koshy-on-23-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.E.Thomas 44\\\/1745 vs Susamma Koshy on 23 December, 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":"T.E.Thomas 44\/1745 vs Susamma Koshy on 23 December, 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\/t-e-thomas-441745-vs-susamma-koshy-on-23-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.E.Thomas 44\/1745 vs Susamma Koshy on 23 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-e-thomas-441745-vs-susamma-koshy-on-23-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-12T22:44:58+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-e-thomas-441745-vs-susamma-koshy-on-23-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-e-thomas-441745-vs-susamma-koshy-on-23-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.E.Thomas 44\/1745 vs Susamma Koshy on 23 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-12T22:44:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-e-thomas-441745-vs-susamma-koshy-on-23-december-2009"},"wordCount":1696,"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\/t-e-thomas-441745-vs-susamma-koshy-on-23-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-e-thomas-441745-vs-susamma-koshy-on-23-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-e-thomas-441745-vs-susamma-koshy-on-23-december-2009","name":"T.E.Thomas 44\/1745 vs Susamma Koshy on 23 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-12T22:44:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-e-thomas-441745-vs-susamma-koshy-on-23-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-e-thomas-441745-vs-susamma-koshy-on-23-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-e-thomas-441745-vs-susamma-koshy-on-23-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.E.Thomas 44\/1745 vs Susamma Koshy on 23 December, 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\/183712","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=183712"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/183712\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=183712"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=183712"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=183712"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}