{"id":202105,"date":"2010-01-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanu-paulose-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-28-january-2010"},"modified":"2018-02-06T13:41:42","modified_gmt":"2018-02-06T08:11:42","slug":"kanu-paulose-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-28-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanu-paulose-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-28-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Kanu Paulose vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 28 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Kanu Paulose vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 28 January, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL.A.No. 682 of 2006()\n\n\n1. KANU PAULOSE, AGED 21 YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.RAJIT\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT\nThe Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI\n\n Dated :28\/01\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.\n\n                      *************************\n\n                   Crl..Appeal No.682 of 2006\n\n                   ******************************\n\n              Dated this the 28th day of January 2010\n\n\n                            JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
BASANT, J.\n<\/p>\n
      Have   the    incriminating   circumstances   been    proved<\/p>\n
sufficiently and satisfactorily by the prosecution?       Can the<\/p>\n
circumstances proved lead a prudent mind to the safe conclusion<\/p>\n
that the guilt of the accused has been established? Is the request<\/p>\n
of the accused for a further opportunity to adduce evidence<\/p>\n
justified? These questions arise for consideration in this appeal.<\/p>\n
      2.   3 accused originally faced indictment for offences<\/p>\n
under Sections 302, 318 and 201 I.P.C. The appellant before us<\/p>\n
is the 1st accused. Both others have already been found not<\/p>\n
guilty and acquitted by the trial court under Section 232 Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
      3.   The prosecution alleged that the appellant\/accused, a<\/p>\n
young girl\/woman at about 4.15 a.m on 16.03.2004 caused the<\/p>\n
death of her new born live child by gagging the mouth with a<\/p>\n
cloth and applying force with stone on the neck\/head.<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.682\/06              -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
      4.     F.I.R Ext.P1(a) was registered on the basis of Ext.P1<\/p>\n
F.I statement lodged by PW1, a sweeper engaged in a<\/p>\n
government hospital. She had allegedly seen the dead body of<\/p>\n
the child in M.O1 bucket with M.O2 stone placed on the child in<\/p>\n
the bucket in the waste dumping area of the hospital.<\/p>\n
Investigation commenced and PW20, after completion of the<\/p>\n
investigation, filed the final report against the accused.<\/p>\n
      5.     The appellant\/accused denied the offences alleged<\/p>\n
against her and the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 20 and<\/p>\n
proved Exts.P1 to P21. M.Os 1 to 7 were also marked.<\/p>\n
      6.     The accused denied all offences alleged against her.<\/p>\n
Hers was a case of total denial. She did not examine any defence<\/p>\n
witness. Ext.D1, a property list submitted by the Investigating<\/p>\n
Officer to Court was proved by her on her side.\n<\/p>\n
      7.     The court below came to the conclusion that though<\/p>\n
some witnesses had turned hostile and the prosecution did not<\/p>\n
succeed in placing evidence before court of all the circumstances<\/p>\n
that they had originally intended to rely on, the evidence that has<\/p>\n
been adduced is sufficient to come to a safe conclusion of guilt<\/p>\n
against the appellant\/accused. Accordingly the impugned verdict<\/p>\n
of guilty, conviction and sentence was passed.         The learned<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.682\/06               -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
Sessions Judge, however felt that in the facts and circumstances<\/p>\n
of the case, the case deserves to be referred to the Government<\/p>\n
under Rule 131 of the Kerala Criminal Rules of Practice.<\/p>\n
Accordingly the judgment was forwarded to the Government and<\/p>\n
the learned Public Prosecutor reports to us that the Government<\/p>\n
as per order dated 26.05.2007 has commuted the sentence to a<\/p>\n
total of simple imprisonment for 5 years.\n<\/p>\n
      8.     We shall initially try to look at the evidence adduced.<\/p>\n
PW1, as stated earlier, had seen the dead body of the child and<\/p>\n
had reported that fact to her superiors and later to the police.<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 is the F.I statement and Ext.P1(a) is the F.I.R.       M.O1<\/p>\n
bucket and M.O2 stone were proved through her. PW2 is an<\/p>\n
attestor to Ext.P2 inquest report which was also prepared on<\/p>\n
18.03.2004 by PW19.           PW3 doctor conducted postmortem<\/p>\n
examination and issued Ext.P3 postmortem certificate on<\/p>\n
19.03.04. After arrest of the accused, she was referred to PW4<\/p>\n
for examination and PW4 issued Ext.P4 wound certificate on<\/p>\n
27.03.04 to confirm that the accused had given birth to a child<\/p>\n
within a period of 2 weeks.              PW5 conducted scientific<\/p>\n
examination of the bucket, stone etc. He issued Ext.P5 report<\/p>\n
dated 25.03.2004. PW6 Village Officer prepared Ext.P6 scene<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.682\/06            -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
plan. PW7, a hostel mate of the appellant, was examined by the<\/p>\n
prosecution to prove what had allegedly occurred on 16.03.2004.<\/p>\n
She turned hostile to the prosecution completely. Exts.P7 and P7<\/p>\n
(a) case diary contradictions were marked by the prosecution in<\/p>\n
an attempt to discredit her testimony. PW8 is an attestor to<\/p>\n
Ext.P8 scene mahazar. PW9 is a police constable. He is an<\/p>\n
attestor to Ext.P9 seizure mahazar for seizure of M.O1 bucket.<\/p>\n
PW10 is the father of the appellant. He turned hostile to the<\/p>\n
prosecution completely. Ext.P10 case diary contradictions was<\/p>\n
marked by the prosecution in an attempt to discredit him. PWs<\/p>\n
11 and 12 are neighbours of PW10.             According to the<\/p>\n
prosecution, they were witnesses to the seizure of M.Os 3 and 4<\/p>\n
on the basis of information revealed by the accused to the<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer in the confession statement given by the<\/p>\n
accused after her arrest. Both of them turned hostile to the<\/p>\n
prosecution. PW11 went to the extent of denying his signature in<\/p>\n
Ext.P11, whereas PW12 admitted his signature in Ext.P11. Both<\/p>\n
of them did not subscribe to the contents of Ext.P11. PW13 is an<\/p>\n
attestor to Ext.P12, which is a mahazar describing the toilet,<\/p>\n
which is said to be the scene, where the murder of the child<\/p>\n
allegedly took place. PW14 is an attestor to Ext.P13 for seizure<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.682\/06            -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
of the attendance register and the student movement register of<\/p>\n
the institution, where the appellant was allegedly a student.<\/p>\n
Exts.P14 and P15 are those documents seized. PW15 is a teacher<\/p>\n
of the institution where the appellant was a student. She turned<\/p>\n
hostile to the prosecution completely and did not even state on<\/p>\n
oath that the accused was a student of the institution.      She<\/p>\n
however proved Exts.P14 and P15, which were produced by her<\/p>\n
before the police. PW16 is a bus conductor. He was examined to<\/p>\n
prove the movements of the appellant\/accused. He turned hostile<\/p>\n
to the prosecution. Ext.P16 is a case diary contradiction of his,<\/p>\n
marked by the prosecution. PW17 similarly is an auto rickshaw<\/p>\n
driver, who had allegedly taken PW10, the father of the appellant<\/p>\n
to the institution, where the appellant was a student. PW18 is<\/p>\n
the secretary of the Local Grama Panchayat. He proved Ext.P17<\/p>\n
to show that a nursing college was run in a building under the<\/p>\n
name of the 2nd and 3rd accused in a specified premise. PW19 is<\/p>\n
the Sub Inspector of Police who recorded Ext.P1 F.I statement<\/p>\n
and registered Ext.P1(a) F.I.R.      Ext.P2 inquest report was<\/p>\n
prepared by him. PW20 is the Investigating Officer, who took<\/p>\n
over the investigation from PW19.           He completed the<\/p>\n
investigation and filed the final report. He proved Exts.P18 to<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.682\/06              -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
P21. Ext.P18 is a report submitted by him to court. Ext.P19 is<\/p>\n
the incriminating information in Ext.P11, which is sought to be<\/p>\n
introduced in evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.<\/p>\n
Ext.P20 is a document under which the clothes of the appellant<\/p>\n
were seized by the police. Ext.P21 is the report of the Forensic<\/p>\n
Science Laboratory.\n<\/p>\n
      9.     As stated earlier, in the course of cross examination of<\/p>\n
the prosecution witnesses and later when examined under<\/p>\n
Section 313 Cr.P.C the accused took up a defence of total denial.<\/p>\n
No specific explanation whatsoever was offered by her.           She<\/p>\n
proved Ext.D1 which, as stated earlier, is a property list<\/p>\n
submitted by the prosecution. She relied on the same to bring to<\/p>\n
the notice of the court the difference in the description of M.O3<\/p>\n
in Ext.D1 as against that in Ext.P2.\n<\/p>\n
      10. We have heard Sri.Rajit, the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant and Sri.Mohammed Anzar,              the learned Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that<\/p>\n
the prosecution has not succeeded in proving the circumstances<\/p>\n
relied on by it satisfactorily and beyond doubt.          It is then<\/p>\n
contended that the circumstances proved do not, at any rate,<\/p>\n
point unerringly to the guilt of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.682\/06              -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
      11. Though the prosecution had intended to rely on other<\/p>\n
circumstances also, after evidence, the prosecution was left to<\/p>\n
rely on the following circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
      i)    That the dead body of a child was found near the<\/p>\n
            place of residence (hostel of the accused) with<\/p>\n
            M.O3 piece of cloth placed on the body;\n<\/p>\n
      ii)   That the accused had given birth to a child about a<\/p>\n
            fortnight prior to 27.03.2004, the date on which<\/p>\n
            PW4 examined her and issued Ext.P4 wound<\/p>\n
            certificate;\n<\/p>\n
      iii) That the dead body found was of a live born child;<\/p>\n
      iv) That the said child had met with a homicidal<\/p>\n
            death;\n<\/p>\n
      v)    That the dead child was the child born to the\n\n            accused;\n\n<\/pre>\n
      vi) No explanation whatsoever is offered by the<\/p>\n
            accused.\n<\/p>\n
      12. We shall now consider the contention of the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellant that these circumstances have not been<\/p>\n
established.       Regarding circumstance No.(i), there cannot<\/p>\n
virtually be any dispute. The oral evidence of PW1 read along<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.682\/06             -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
with the evidence of PW19 and Ext.P2 clearly shows that the<\/p>\n
dead body of a new born child was found near the place of<\/p>\n
residence (hostel), where the accused was residing. It is also<\/p>\n
established beyond the semblance of doubt that the child was<\/p>\n
wrapped in M.O3 when the dead body was found. Ext.P1 F.I<\/p>\n
statement had reached the court immediately without any delay.<\/p>\n
Similarly Ext.P2 inquest report had also reached the court<\/p>\n
immediately after it was prepared. These documents support the<\/p>\n
oral evidence of PW1 and PW19 and together they establish the<\/p>\n
first circumstance beyond any semblance of doubt, according to<\/p>\n
us.\n<\/p>\n
      13. We now come to the second circumstance.             The<\/p>\n
evidence of PW4 and Ext.P4 are of crucial relevance now. These<\/p>\n
pieces of evidence show that the accused had given birth to a<\/p>\n
child about a fortnight prior to 27\/3\/2004. We find absolutely no<\/p>\n
reason to doubt the evidence of PW4 and her evidence is clearly<\/p>\n
sufficient to establish the fact that the appellant had given birth<\/p>\n
to a child about 14 days prior to 27\/3\/2004.        Of course, the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the appellant has laboriously contended that<\/p>\n
it would be idle to assume that no other person perceived such<\/p>\n
advanced pregnancy till the date of delivery. The learned counsel<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.682\/06            -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
argues that it is extremely artificial and improbable to assume<\/p>\n
that the appellant was able to conceal her pregnancy from the<\/p>\n
other students and her parents and relatives and her<\/p>\n
teachers\/hostel warden etc. From this, the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the appellant contends that the theory that she was pregnant and<\/p>\n
had given birth to a child after a full term of pregnancy cannot be<\/p>\n
accepted.\n<\/p>\n
      14. We are primarily concerned with the oral evidence of<\/p>\n
PW4 and not a semblance of doubt is entertained by us on the<\/p>\n
question whether the oral evidence of PW4 supported by Ext.P4<\/p>\n
can be accepted. The learned counsel for the appellant argues<\/p>\n
that all the symptoms could have been present even if a medical<\/p>\n
termination of pregnancy had taken place or an abortion had<\/p>\n
taken place.    The appellant has no such case at all.         The<\/p>\n
prosecution has not been able to secure the evidence of her<\/p>\n
classmates, parents, teachers etc.         Whatever evidence the<\/p>\n
prosecution had secured we have seen that the relevant<\/p>\n
witnesses had turned hostile to the prosecution with impunity. In<\/p>\n
these circumstances that the prosecution was not able to place<\/p>\n
before court any evidence of perception of her pregnancy by her<\/p>\n
classmates, teachers, warden, parents etc. is found to be of no<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.682\/06            -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
significance at all. The same does not, at any rate, dislodge the<\/p>\n
evidence tendered by PW4 supported by Ext.P4. The clinical<\/p>\n
perceptions made by PW4 expert clearly and ambiguously<\/p>\n
support her conclusion that the appellant had given birth to a<\/p>\n
child about 14 days prior to her examination on 27\/03\/2004. The<\/p>\n
second circumstance also, according to us, is established<\/p>\n
satisfactorily.\n<\/p>\n
      15. The 3rd circumstance relied on by the prosecution is<\/p>\n
that the dead body of the child seen by PW1 was that of a live<\/p>\n
born child. On this aspect, we have the oral evidence of PW3 and<\/p>\n
Ext.P3 postmortem certificate issued by him. He has tendered<\/p>\n
competent evidence.     He has explained how he came to the<\/p>\n
conclusion that the body was of a live born child. The sum total<\/p>\n
of the evidence of PW3 is that there was unassailable evidence to<\/p>\n
show that the child had breathed after it was born. This was<\/p>\n
confirmed in the hydro static test. The learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant, relying on books of medical jurisprudence, attempts to<\/p>\n
advance an argument that the mere fact that the lungs of a child<\/p>\n
had floated in water after its death cannot, ipso facto, be held to<\/p>\n
be a safe and sure test to come to a conclusion that the child was<\/p>\n
born alive. The learned counsel for the appellant relying on texts<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.682\/06              -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
argues that when putrefaction takes place, the presence of gases<\/p>\n
could lead to flotation of lungs and that by itself cannot be<\/p>\n
reckoned as the litmus test to decide whether the child was born<\/p>\n
alive or dead. We have gone through the evidence of PW3 and<\/p>\n
the contents of Ext.P3.       This aspect was not put to PW4 in<\/p>\n
meticulous details. The learned counsel for the appellant relying<\/p>\n
on Modi’s medical jurisprudence and Toxicology 21st edition page<\/p>\n
413 advances an argument that the presence of putrefactive<\/p>\n
gases may lead to flotation of the lung and this might lead to a<\/p>\n
mistaken conclusion that it was a live birth.         The relevant<\/p>\n
observations in the book clearly show that in the case of<\/p>\n
putrefaction, if there is attempt to expel such putrefying gases<\/p>\n
from the lung, flotation will not take place if the lungs had not<\/p>\n
expanded on account of breathing.       Whereas, any amount of<\/p>\n
attempt to expel without disintegration of the lung tissue may not<\/p>\n
lead to sinking if it is a live birth. We note that the opinion of<\/p>\n
PW3 that it was a case of live birth has not been challenged<\/p>\n
effectively and the available materials clearly point to the<\/p>\n
acceptability of the conclusion of PW3 that it was a live birth. In<\/p>\n
these circumstances, we hold that the 3rd circumstance also has<\/p>\n
been established satisfactorily and the conclusion of the court<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.682\/06            -12-<\/span><\/p>\n
below on that aspect does not warrant interference.<\/p>\n
      16. We now come to the 4th circumstance that the child<\/p>\n
had met with a homicidal death. The child had injuries on its<\/p>\n
person. There was effusion of blood. That the child died of the<\/p>\n
injury suffered described in Ext.P3 is thus established<\/p>\n
satisfactorily. The learned counsel for the appellant advances an<\/p>\n
argument that it could be a case of accidental death and not<\/p>\n
homicidal death. The learned counsel for the appellant relies on<\/p>\n
text books of Obstetrics & Gynaecology to contend that where<\/p>\n
precipitate labour takes place, there could be possible expulsion<\/p>\n
of the baby from the womb and under the pressure of that<\/p>\n
expulsion when the body of the child comes into contact<\/p>\n
accidentally with any hard surface, an injury like the one<\/p>\n
described in Ext.P3 is possible.    The learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant, with great penchant for details, relies upon the<\/p>\n
description of the scene of the crime – toilet in Ext.P12 and<\/p>\n
contends that in a situation like that where the pregnant mother<\/p>\n
may not even have found space to lie down and precipitate labour<\/p>\n
takes place it is possible that the child thrust out of the womb<\/p>\n
may suffer such accidental injuries by contact with any hard<\/p>\n
surface. The learned counsel for the appellant relies on texts to<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.682\/06             -13-<\/span><\/p>\n
suggest that normally the head of the child comes out first and<\/p>\n
the doctor cannot be reckoned as an expert on possible positions<\/p>\n
to jump to a conclusion that the injury described in Ext.P3 is not<\/p>\n
an accidental injury.\n<\/p>\n
      17. We have gone into this contention in detail.        The<\/p>\n
nature of the injury described in Ext.P3 is of crucial importance.<\/p>\n
We have the clear evidence of PW3 that it is unlikely that such an<\/p>\n
injury could have been suffered except intentionally by the child.<\/p>\n
What happened inside the toilet is known only to the accused.<\/p>\n
We cannot assume – in circumstances like this, that the accused<\/p>\n
has no burden to explain any circumstance in a criminal trial.<\/p>\n
Section 106 of the Evidence Act stares at the accused and obliges<\/p>\n
her to offer a satisfactory explanation. We find not a semblance<\/p>\n
of a circumstance which can suggest that it could have been an<\/p>\n
accidental death. The conduct of the accused before and after<\/p>\n
labour must suggest convincingly that it could not have been a<\/p>\n
case of accidental death.       She deliberately concealed such<\/p>\n
pregnancy      from  all  concerned    till labour   took   place.<\/p>\n
Subsequently also, she did not reveal to anyone of her pregnancy,<\/p>\n
birth or alleged accidental injury suffered during labour. We<\/p>\n
must hold that, with reasonable certainty, the 4th ground has also<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.682\/06             -14-<\/span><\/p>\n
been established satisfactorily – that it is a case of homicidal<\/p>\n
death.\n<\/p>\n
      18. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken pains<\/p>\n
to contend that the 5th circumstance cannot at all be held to have<\/p>\n
been proved. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that<\/p>\n
even assuming that the prosecution version that the appellant<\/p>\n
had given birth to a child can be accepted and even assuming<\/p>\n
that the child, whose body was seen by PW1, was born alive and<\/p>\n
had met with homicidal death, that cannot expose the appellant<\/p>\n
to any responsibility for culpable conduct unless it is established<\/p>\n
satisfactorily that the body was of the child which was given birth<\/p>\n
to by the appellant.      The learned counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
contends that there is significant gap in evidence to link the<\/p>\n
alleged delivery by the appellant with the child that was found<\/p>\n
dead. The learned counsel for the appellant argues that on this<\/p>\n
crucial aspect, there is breaking of the nexus and at any rate, it is<\/p>\n
not possible to come to a safe conclusion that the child which was<\/p>\n
found dead\/murdered was the child to which the appellant had<\/p>\n
given birth.\n<\/p>\n
      19. We agree that the question deserves to be considered<\/p>\n
meticulously and carefully.     We agree with the learned counsel<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.682\/06             -15-<\/span><\/p>\n
for the appellant that if this crucial linkage is not established, all<\/p>\n
the other circumstances referred to earlier shall lose all their<\/p>\n
significance. The court below found that the child which was<\/p>\n
found dead was the child born to the appellant. Is this finding<\/p>\n
correct? Can this finding be supported? These are the next<\/p>\n
questions to be considered.\n<\/p>\n
      20. The learned counsel for the appellant first of all<\/p>\n
contends that going by the version of the prosecution, the<\/p>\n
incident had taken place on 16.3.2004.            According to the<\/p>\n
prosecution, the child was born on 16.3.2004 and was done away<\/p>\n
with on that date. The learned counsel relies on Exhibit P3 to<\/p>\n
contend that the body that was found by PW1 was described in<\/p>\n
Exhibit P3 to be the body of a three days’ old child. This is<\/p>\n
inconsistent with the case of the prosecution and the appellant is<\/p>\n
entitled to the benefit of that crucial incongruity, urges the<\/p>\n
learned counsel.\n<\/p>\n
      21. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand<\/p>\n
contends that such a plea had never been taken at the stage of<\/p>\n
trial.    The learned counsel for the appellant is ingeniously<\/p>\n
attempting to make use of an innocuous circumstance that the<\/p>\n
Doctor described the body examined by him to be “aged about<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.682\/06            -16-<\/span><\/p>\n
three days”. An authentic opinion was not given about the age of<\/p>\n
the child by PW3 either on oath or in Exhibit P3. Postmortem<\/p>\n
examination was conducted on 19.3.2004 and the totality of<\/p>\n
circumstances must lead this Court to come to the conclusion<\/p>\n
that the age of three days mentioned in the descriptive portion of<\/p>\n
the postmortem certificate refers only to the gap of time between<\/p>\n
the date of actual death and date of postmortem examination.<\/p>\n
We note that no substantive evidence has been adduced by either<\/p>\n
side on this crucial aspect. The Doctor had not tendered expert<\/p>\n
opinion on the question of the age of the child or about the gap of<\/p>\n
time between the death and postmortem examination. In these<\/p>\n
circumstances, we find merit in the contention of the learned<\/p>\n
Public Prosecutor that the said statement in Exhibit P3 regarding<\/p>\n
which no substantive evidence has been tendered and which was<\/p>\n
not the point of contention at any stage before the appeal is<\/p>\n
argued cannot be reckoned as sufficient to generate a reasonable<\/p>\n
doubt on the question of nexus between the child which was<\/p>\n
given birth to by the appellant and the child whose body was<\/p>\n
examined by PW3.\n<\/p>\n
      22. The learned Prosecutor further points out that         a<\/p>\n
reading of the evidence of PW4 clearly shows that when she<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.682\/06             -17-<\/span><\/p>\n
referred to the possibility of the child having been born two<\/p>\n
weeks prior to 27.3.2004, that was only an approximate<\/p>\n
statement and not a statement that the child was born on 14×24<\/p>\n
hours prior to her examination of the appellant.      The learned<\/p>\n
Public Prosecutor is absolutely justified in pointing out that the<\/p>\n
opinion of PW4 is only that the birth could have taken place<\/p>\n
approximately two weeks earlier.     This cannot lead us to the<\/p>\n
conclusion that the child must have been born on 13.3.2004 and<\/p>\n
hence is not the child that was allegedly murdered on 16.3.2004<\/p>\n
immediately after its birth.\n<\/p>\n
      23. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is<\/p>\n
not as though the prosecution could not adduce authentic and<\/p>\n
foolproof and clinching evidence to link the child with the<\/p>\n
appellant.     Science and technology has advanced to such an<\/p>\n
extent that conduct of DNA test could have authentically resolved<\/p>\n
the question once and for all. In fact, the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant points out that, both PWs 3 and 4 Doctors were<\/p>\n
apprised of and were aware of the need to conduct DNA test.<\/p>\n
They had taken the necessary samples to get the DNA test<\/p>\n
conducted.     But still the DNA test was not conducted.       The<\/p>\n
learned counsel argues that thereby the possibility of adducing<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.682\/06            -18-<\/span><\/p>\n
foolproof, clinching and indisputable evidence was squandered by<\/p>\n
the prosecution and the appellant is entitled to the benefit of<\/p>\n
doubt on this aspect at any rate, urges the learned counsel.<\/p>\n
      24. A criminal trial cannot merely be reduced to a search<\/p>\n
for perfection in the case of the prosecution and in the conduct of<\/p>\n
the Investigators. This circumstance certainly is relevant. This<\/p>\n
Court will bear in mind this circumstance while appreciating the<\/p>\n
totality of evidence. But the mere fact that better and more<\/p>\n
foolproof evidence has not been adduced cannot lead any court to<\/p>\n
commit the indiscretion of squandering the acceptable evidence<\/p>\n
that is already available. We shall look into the evidence very<\/p>\n
carefully and if we are not otherwise convinced about the linkage<\/p>\n
between the child born to the appellant and the child found dead,<\/p>\n
we shall certainly concede to the appellant the benefit arising<\/p>\n
therefrom. But, we shall not certainly commit the indiscretion of<\/p>\n
finding fault with the prosecution and Investigators for not<\/p>\n
adducing      better and    more    foolproof  evidence    without<\/p>\n
exhaustively considering the materials that is adduced and is<\/p>\n
available.\n<\/p>\n
      25. The prosecution relied on two circumstances. The first<\/p>\n
circumstance was that in MO1 bucket in which the body of the<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.682\/06             -19-<\/span><\/p>\n
child was found, there were strands of hair – one long and one<\/p>\n
short. The same was perceived by the Investigator. They were<\/p>\n
taken into custody. After arrest of the accused, her hair sample<\/p>\n
was taken and the same was sent to the Expert. Exhibit P21 is<\/p>\n
the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. In Exhibit P21, it<\/p>\n
is stated that the long hair found in MO1 bucket was similar to<\/p>\n
the hair obtained from the scalp of the accused. The learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellant rightly points out that the opinion<\/p>\n
tendered is not final, authentic or clinching. In that the opinion<\/p>\n
is only that the hairs are similar. There is significant absence of<\/p>\n
an assertion that they are identical also. The learned counsel<\/p>\n
relies on texts and precedents to contend that mere similarity of<\/p>\n
hair though it may help to exclude, cannot be made use of to<\/p>\n
include or to specifically identify the culprit. The science of hair<\/p>\n
analysis has advanced to a level that it is possible now to assert<\/p>\n
whether a strand of hair is identical and not merely similar. It<\/p>\n
having not been stated in Exhibit P21 that the strand of hair<\/p>\n
found in MO1 bucket is identical with that of the appellant,<\/p>\n
crucial significance could not be attached to that fact, contends<\/p>\n
the learned counsel. We take note of that submission. We accept<\/p>\n
that the nature of the opinion tendered in Exhibit P21 may not be<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.682\/06             -20-<\/span><\/p>\n
sufficient to clinch the issue and help the Court to specifically<\/p>\n
identify the appellant as the one to whom the strand of hair in<\/p>\n
MO1 bucket belonged, though it is easy to accept the conclusion<\/p>\n
that the said strand of hair was similar to that of the appellant.<\/p>\n
      26. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that it is not<\/p>\n
necessary to attach any significance to the above circumstance as<\/p>\n
we have convincing evidence otherwise available to link the<\/p>\n
appellant\/accused with the dead body of the child that was found<\/p>\n
in MO1 bucket by PW1. The learned Public Prosecutor relies on<\/p>\n
the presence of MO3 in MO1 bucket and which was seized under<\/p>\n
Exhibit P2 by the Investigator. We have already stated while<\/p>\n
discussing circumstance No.1 above that it is safe to come to the<\/p>\n
conclusion that the child was wrapped in MO3 when it was found<\/p>\n
by PW1 in MO1 bucket. The learned counsel argues that the<\/p>\n
court seal shows that MO3 had reached the Court under Exhibit<\/p>\n
D1 on 26.3.2004. The gap of time between 18.3.2004, the date of<\/p>\n
Exhibit P2 and 26.3.2004, cannot in these circumstances be held<\/p>\n
to be so crucial or important as to generate any serious doubts on<\/p>\n
the recovery of MO3 under Exhibit P2. It is perhaps of crucial<\/p>\n
relevance to note that Exhibit P2 with detailed description of<\/p>\n
MO3 in it had reached the learned Magistrate on 20.3.2004.<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.682\/06            -21-<\/span><\/p>\n
That circumstance clearly shows that no significance whatsoever<\/p>\n
can be attached to the alleged delay in MO3 reaching the court<\/p>\n
on 26.3.2004. It will not be inapposite in this context to note that<\/p>\n
when the FIR was registered, it was registered under Section 174<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. and the records were sent to the Sub Divisional<\/p>\n
Magistrate. It was after the caption was altered that the records<\/p>\n
and documents were sent to the learned Magistrate along with<\/p>\n
Exhibit P18 report. We are in these circumstances unable to<\/p>\n
attach any significance to the alleged delay in MO3 reaching the<\/p>\n
learned Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
      27. The learned counsel for the appellant further contends<\/p>\n
that the description of MO3 in Exhibit D1 is totally different from<\/p>\n
the description of the cloth seized under Exhibit P2 from the dead<\/p>\n
body of the child. The learned counsel hence argues that what<\/p>\n
was seized under Exhibit P2 was not the piece of cloth that was<\/p>\n
sent to the Magistrate and what was later examined by the<\/p>\n
Expert. The learned counsel hence contends that this incongruity<\/p>\n
between the description of MO3 in Exhibit P2 vis-a-vis Exhibit D1<\/p>\n
must deliver to the appellant the advantage. The benefit of doubt<\/p>\n
must be conceded, it is further submitted.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.682\/06              -22-<\/span><\/p>\n
      28. The contention appears to be impressive at the first<\/p>\n
blush, but cannot obviously stand careful and anxious scrutiny.<\/p>\n
We have gone through Exhibit D1 very clearly. Exhibit D1 clearly<\/p>\n
shows that item No.2 is described as “piece of cloth with red<\/p>\n
dots” (                      ). But in column No.3 of<\/p>\n
Exhibit D1, the same is described in detail to be the article<\/p>\n
recovered under the inquest report (Exhibit P2)          which was<\/p>\n
available in the bucket where the dead body of the child was<\/p>\n
found. If the person who performed the administrative act of<\/p>\n
forwarding the seized property to the learned Magistrate did not<\/p>\n
take care (or the pains) to describe the seized article in the same<\/p>\n
words as that in Exhibit P2, but chose to describe it in a gist in<\/p>\n
the list of property sent to court with the rider in the very same<\/p>\n
document that it was found along with the child in MO1 bucket<\/p>\n
and was seized under Exhibit P2, we are of the opinion that it<\/p>\n
would be puerile for any prudent mind to attach any crucial or<\/p>\n
vital significance to that inadequacy in description.<\/p>\n
      29. The prosecution attempts to link the child born to the<\/p>\n
appellant with the dead body of the child found in MO1 bucket<\/p>\n
by the theory that MOs 4 and 5 were discovered on the basis of<\/p>\n
information furnished by the appellant in her confession<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.682\/06              -23-<\/span><\/p>\n
statement. According to the prosecution MOs 4 and 5 and MO3<\/p>\n
are portions of the same saree and that MOs 4 and 5 were<\/p>\n
pointed out to the Investigator -PW20, by the appellant and they<\/p>\n
were seized as per Exhibit P11 seizure mahazar prepared by<\/p>\n
PW20 in the presence of PWs 11 and 12.            If this Court is<\/p>\n
convinced that MOs 3, 4 and 5 came from the same origin and<\/p>\n
that MO3 was found on the dead body while MOs 4 and 5 were<\/p>\n
available with the accused, that would be a crucial link<\/p>\n
establishing the nexus between the child to which the appellant<\/p>\n
had given birth and the child which was found dead.<\/p>\n
      30. The      question   is  whether    the  prosecution   has<\/p>\n
succeeded in establishing that MOs 4 and 5 were recovered on<\/p>\n
the basis of the information furnished by the accused in her<\/p>\n
confession statement to PW20.         The confession statement is<\/p>\n
marked as Exhibit P19.\n<\/p>\n
      31. We have primarily the oral evidence of PW20 about<\/p>\n
Exhibit P19 information furnished to him by the appellant. We<\/p>\n
have no reason whatsoever to doubt the evidence of PW20.<\/p>\n
PW20 is of course the police official. The mere fact that he is a<\/p>\n
police official is certainly not a reason to approach his testimony<\/p>\n
with any amount of doubt, distrust or suspicion.         Care and<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.682\/06             -24-<\/span><\/p>\n
caution – yes, but unjustified doubt and suspicion cannot be<\/p>\n
employed while appreciating the oral evidence of a police official.<\/p>\n
There is not an iota of material for this Court to entertain even a<\/p>\n
remote suspicion or reservation against PW20 who conducted the<\/p>\n
investigation. It cannot be lost sight of that the police is also part<\/p>\n
of the criminal justice delivery system. They have a role to play<\/p>\n
in the administration of criminal justice. One part of the system<\/p>\n
cannot feed itself on a regular diet of distrust against the other,<\/p>\n
except to the peril of the efficacy of the system. This is not to say<\/p>\n
that this Court is not aware of the havoc which police officers at<\/p>\n
times have played in the investigation of the crime. But, that<\/p>\n
does not justify a general attitude of distrust. Facts of each case<\/p>\n
will have to be looked into very carefully and appropriate<\/p>\n
conclusions have to be reached by the Court adopting the<\/p>\n
yardstick of a prudent person as enjoined by Section 3 of the<\/p>\n
Evidence Act. Adopting that yardstick, suffice it to say that we<\/p>\n
find no reason to approach the oral evidence of PW20 with any<\/p>\n
amount of doubt, distrust or suspicion.\n<\/p>\n
      32. The version of PW20 is eminently supported and<\/p>\n
corroborated by the contents of the contemporaneous Ext.P11<\/p>\n
seizure mahazar. PWs.11 and 12, (local persons who reside near<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.682\/06             -25-<\/span><\/p>\n
the house of PW10, the father of the appellant) are the attestors<\/p>\n
to Ext.P11. One of them, PW11 went to the extent of denying<\/p>\n
his signature of Ext.P11. But PW12 did not go that far and<\/p>\n
admitted his signature in Ext.P11 . In this context, we take note<\/p>\n
of the contents.   Ext.P11 is eminently sufficient to support the<\/p>\n
oral evidence of PW20. Hostility of alleged independent witness<\/p>\n
is not something new to the Indian Courts. Almost every day<\/p>\n
courts have      hostile witnesses visiting them.      Hostility of<\/p>\n
witnesses by itself cannot generate doubt, distrust or suspicion<\/p>\n
against the public officials in relation to their conduct and acts<\/p>\n
performed by them in the discharge of their official duties. In the<\/p>\n
total absence of any reason whatsoever to doubt or suspect on<\/p>\n
the evidence of PW20, we are of the opinion that his evidence<\/p>\n
about Ext.P19 information furnished to him by the appellant in<\/p>\n
her confession statement and the consequent seizure of MOs. 4<\/p>\n
and 5 from the house of the accused as pointed out by her can<\/p>\n
safely be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
      33. We come to the next question as to whether MOs.3,4<\/p>\n
and 5 have come from a common source. On this aspect, Ext.P21<\/p>\n
clinches the issue. Ext.P21 shows clearly that MOs.3,4 and 5 are<\/p>\n
of the same colour and texture. The number of yarn\/sq.inch is<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.682\/06            -26-<\/span><\/p>\n
also the same. This opinion of the Forensic Science Laboratory is<\/p>\n
not challenged at all. We are in these circumstances satisfied that<\/p>\n
Ext.P21 read along with other evidence available in this case is<\/p>\n
absolutely sufficient to come to the conclusion that MOs.3,4 and<\/p>\n
5 belong to a common source.\n<\/p>\n
      34. The presence of MOs.4 and 5 in the house of the<\/p>\n
accused and the seizure of the same in pursuance of Ext.P19 and<\/p>\n
the presence of MO.3 on the dead body sufficiently, satisfactorily<\/p>\n
and convincingly and beyond the trace of any doubt establishes<\/p>\n
the linkage between the child born to the appellant\/accused and<\/p>\n
the dead body found in MO.1 by PW1.\n<\/p>\n
      35. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken pains to<\/p>\n
draw our attention to certain incongruity in the description of<\/p>\n
MOs.3,4 and 5 in different documents by officials. He also draw<\/p>\n
our attention to the different descriptions in the documents<\/p>\n
issued by the expert in Ext.P21. We have applied our mind<\/p>\n
carefully to this contention. 150 x 37 cms. are the dimensions of<\/p>\n
MO3 in Ext.P2 whereas 154 x 35 is the description of the<\/p>\n
dimensions of MO3 in Ext.P21 by the expert. Similarly, so far as<\/p>\n
MO.4 is concerned 162 x 117 is the description in Ext.P11<\/p>\n
whereas 155 x 116 cms. is the description in Ext.P21. So far as<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.682\/06            -27-<\/span><\/p>\n
MO.5 is concerned, 154 x 55 cms. is the description in Ext.P11<\/p>\n
whereas 155 x 55 cms. is the description in Ext.P21. We are<\/p>\n
unable to attach any crucial significance to this innocuous<\/p>\n
inaccuracy in the description of dimensions. One cannot ignore<\/p>\n
the fact that the cloth found is of synthetic yarn. We cannot also<\/p>\n
afford to omit to note of the fact that the significance while a<\/p>\n
police officer is describing the dimensions in the police<\/p>\n
documents, it is an expert with precision and accuracy, who<\/p>\n
describes the document in Ext.P21. That incongruity does not in<\/p>\n
any way weigh with us to tilt the scales in favour of the accused.<\/p>\n
      36. Undaunted, the counsel argues that even the description<\/p>\n
of Mos.3,4 and 5 – colour of the cloth, the nature of the print and<\/p>\n
the colour of the print in Mos.3,4 and 5 vary in the various<\/p>\n
documents. We have authentic statement in Ext.P21 that all the<\/p>\n
three are identical.    In these circumstances that innocuous<\/p>\n
inadequacies in the description of Mos.3,4 and 5 in the relevant<\/p>\n
documents does not weigh       with us at all and do not persuade<\/p>\n
us to concede any undeserved advantage to the appellant\/<\/p>\n
accused. In these circumstances though dissatisfied that a DNA<\/p>\n
test has not been conducted and though dissatisfied that it had<\/p>\n
not been made clear in the substantive evidence of PW3 as to<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.682\/06            -28-<\/span><\/p>\n
whether the three days referred to in Ext.P3 is the gap of time<\/p>\n
between birth and death or death and postmortem examination,<\/p>\n
we are satisfied that the similarity of the hair as reported in<\/p>\n
Exhibit P21 indicates the probability of the prosecution version<\/p>\n
and recovery of Mos.4 and 5 identical to MO.3 on the basis of<\/p>\n
the confession statement of the accused clinches the issue so far<\/p>\n
as the 5th circumstance is concerned.\n<\/p>\n
      37. Lastly, the prosecution relied on the absence of any<\/p>\n
explanation on the part of the accused.      As we have earlier<\/p>\n
referred, right to silence of an accused in a criminal trial<\/p>\n
cannot be understood in derogation of the provisions of Section<\/p>\n
106 of the Evidence Act. Where other circumstances are proved,<\/p>\n
the burden does shift to an accused to explain the circumstances<\/p>\n
and volunteer information which is        exclusively within the<\/p>\n
province of her perception. It is not as though in a criminal trial,<\/p>\n
the accused has no burden whatsoever at any point of time.<\/p>\n
When totality of circumstances point to the guilt of the accused,<\/p>\n
the absence of explanation or even a false explanation offered<\/p>\n
can be reckoned as a crucial link in the chain of circumstances to<\/p>\n
complete the chain. In these circumstances, we look at the total<\/p>\n
absence of explanation of the accused to explain what has<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.682\/06            -29-<\/span><\/p>\n
happened to the child born to her as stated by PW4. The<\/p>\n
principle that the entire burden is on the prosecution and the<\/p>\n
accused has no burden in a criminal trial cannot be understood<\/p>\n
unrealistically. The total absence of any explanation on the part<\/p>\n
of the accused is certainly a relevant circumstance to complete<\/p>\n
the chain of circumstances relied on by the prosecution. In this<\/p>\n
context, we note that the sixth circumstance that the accused<\/p>\n
has offered no explanation whatsoever itself is another<\/p>\n
circumstance against the accused.\n<\/p>\n
      38. We are satisfied that the sixth circumstance referred<\/p>\n
above has been established. Do these circumstances point to the<\/p>\n
guilt of the accused unerringly? This is the last question to be<\/p>\n
considered. We have riveted our pointed attention to all the<\/p>\n
circumstances referred above.      These    circumstances    are<\/p>\n
convincingly established. We are satisfied that on the basis of<\/p>\n
these circumstances with reasonable      certainty  and beyond<\/p>\n
doubt, it can safely be concluded that the dead child was the<\/p>\n
child of the accused and that the child suffered death at the<\/p>\n
hands of the appellant\/accused. No other possible explanation<\/p>\n
appeals to us in the light of the totality of the circumstances<\/p>\n
proved. We are, in these circumstances, of the opinion that the<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.682\/06            -30-<\/span><\/p>\n
court below was absolutely justified in coming to the conclusion<\/p>\n
that the guilt of the accused has been established satisfactorily.<\/p>\n
      39. The learned counsel for the appellant towards the end of<\/p>\n
the hearing has filed Crl.M.A.No.1009\/2010 with the request that<\/p>\n
further evidence may be adduced at the appellate stage in the<\/p>\n
interests of justice.   Counsel prays that PW3, Doctor may be<\/p>\n
recalled by this Court for further cross examination. This, it is<\/p>\n
specifically urged, is to bring out the possibility\/probability of<\/p>\n
accidental death having resulted in contra distinction to<\/p>\n
homicidal death. Such a plea has not been advanced at all in the<\/p>\n
course of the trial by the accused, though we find that PW3 had<\/p>\n
been cross examined on this aspect. Though suggestions were<\/p>\n
thrown at PW20 to that effect, we are not persuaded to agree<\/p>\n
that the jurisdiction under Section 391 Cr.P.C. deems to be<\/p>\n
invoked in the facts and circumstances of this case.<\/p>\n
      40. No challenge is raised against the question of sentence<\/p>\n
and in the light of the order passed by the Government dated<\/p>\n
26-5-2007 to which we have already referred to, no further<\/p>\n
directions are necessary.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.682\/06           -31-<\/span><\/p>\n
      41. In the result:\n<\/p>\n
             a) Crl.M.A.No.1009\/2010 is dismissed.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             b) This appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             c) The impugned verdict of guilty, conviction<\/p>\n
                and sentences are upheld.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                     R. BASANT, JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                      M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE<\/p>\n
dsn<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Kanu Paulose vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 28 January, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL.A.No. 682 of 2006() 1. KANU PAULOSE, AGED 21 YEARS, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.RAJIT For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon’ble […]<\/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-202105","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKanu Paulose vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 28 January, 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\/kanu-paulose-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-28-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kanu Paulose vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanu-paulose-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-28-january-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-06T08:11:42+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=\"33 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanu-paulose-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-28-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanu-paulose-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-28-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kanu Paulose vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 28 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-06T08:11:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanu-paulose-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-28-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":6598,\"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\\\/kanu-paulose-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-28-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanu-paulose-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-28-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanu-paulose-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-28-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Kanu Paulose vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-06T08:11:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanu-paulose-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanu-paulose-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-28-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanu-paulose-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kanu Paulose vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 28 January, 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":"Kanu Paulose vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 28 January, 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\/kanu-paulose-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-28-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kanu Paulose vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanu-paulose-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-28-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-06T08:11:42+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":"33 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanu-paulose-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-28-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanu-paulose-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-28-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kanu Paulose vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 28 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-06T08:11:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanu-paulose-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-28-january-2010"},"wordCount":6598,"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\/kanu-paulose-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-28-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanu-paulose-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-28-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanu-paulose-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-28-january-2010","name":"Kanu Paulose vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-06T08:11:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanu-paulose-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanu-paulose-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-28-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanu-paulose-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kanu Paulose vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 28 January, 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\/202105","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=202105"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202105\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=202105"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=202105"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=202105"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}