{"id":212287,"date":"2006-10-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-10-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankamma-johnson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-october-2006"},"modified":"2015-04-09T15:24:56","modified_gmt":"2015-04-09T09:54:56","slug":"thankamma-johnson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-october-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankamma-johnson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-october-2006","title":{"rendered":"Thankamma Johnson vs State Of Kerala on 18 October, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Thankamma Johnson vs State Of Kerala on 18 October, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl Rev Pet No. 3440 of 2006()\n\n\n1. THANKAMMA JOHNSON,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THOMAS, S\/O.LUKOSE, VARIKKOLIL VEEDU,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT\n\n Dated :18\/10\/2006\n\n O R D E R\n                                 R. BASANT, J.\n                         - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                        Crl.R.P.No.  3440  of   2006\n                         -  - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                Dated this the 18th  day of   October, 2006\n\n\n                                     O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
       This   revision   petition   is   filed   by   the   defacto   complainant<\/p>\n
against a judgment of acquittal in a prosecution under Sections 447<\/p>\n
and 427 I.P.C.    Investigation commenced on the basis of Ext.P1 F.I.<\/p>\n
statement   lodged   by   PW4,   the   defacto   complainant,   on   28.7.2000.<\/p>\n
The  investigation  culminated  by    the  final  report  submitted  by  the<\/p>\n
police.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       2.     The     accused   pleaded     not   guilty.     Thereupon   the<\/p>\n
prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 5 and proved Exts.P1 to P3.   The<\/p>\n
accused denied  the prosecution case.    He examined himself as DW1<\/p>\n
and the Manager of his Bank as DW2.  Exts.D1 to D4 were marked.<\/p>\n
       3.     PW4   claimed   that   she   is   the   landlady   in   respect   of   a<\/p>\n
premises leased to the accused.  According to her, the portion leased<\/p>\n
did not include a shed with a sloping roof at the rear of the building<\/p>\n
leased.     It   is   her   contention   that   the   accused,     on   21.7.2000,<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.  3440  of   2006                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
criminally trespassed into the said sloping shed, which was allegedly in the<\/p>\n
possession of  PW4.  He allegedly indulged in acts of  mischief to demolish<\/p>\n
and   reconstruct   the   said   shed.     By   such   action   of   his,   the   accused   had<\/p>\n
committed the offence punishable under Sections 447 and 427 I.P.C., it was<\/p>\n
alleged.       PW4   is   the   landlady.     PW2   is   a   neighbour   of   PW4,   who<\/p>\n
accompanied PW4 to the premises on 21.7.2000.  PW1 was examined as a<\/p>\n
person who had allegedly witnessed the occurrence.   He turned hostile to<\/p>\n
the prosecution.  PW5 is an attester to Ext.P3 scene mahazar.  PW3, Head<\/p>\n
Constable,   had   registered   Ext.P2   F.I.R.   on   the   basis   of   Ext.P1   F.I.<\/p>\n
statement.  Ext.P3  scene mahazar was also proved through him.<\/p>\n
       4.   The accused took up a contention that the portion leased to him<\/p>\n
included   the   shed   with   sloping   roof   at   the   rear   of   the   building.     He<\/p>\n
particularly   relied   on   Ext.D1,   copy   of   an   agreement,   under   which     the<\/p>\n
parties   had   agreed   to   enter   into   a   lease   arrangement     of   the     building<\/p>\n
including the shed with sloping roof at the rear.  Ext.D2 was proved and it<\/p>\n
is   under   Ext.D2   that   the   actual   entrustment   was   done   in   pursuance     of<\/p>\n
Ext.D1   agreement.     The   accused   contended   that   the   shed   which   was<\/p>\n
allegedly   demolished   was   always   in   his   possession   and   there   was   no<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.  3440  of   2006                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
question of his trespassing into the said shed.  He further contended that the<\/p>\n
landlady had not undertaken prompt repairs.   The sloping shed at the rear<\/p>\n
was   hence   in   a   precarious   condition.     The   rent   deed   permitted   him   to<\/p>\n
undertake     repairs     if  the   landlady   does   not   do  prompt   repairs,  with  the<\/p>\n
consent   of   the   landlady.     He   contended   that   the   landlady   had   given   her<\/p>\n
consent.  His purpose was only to properly repair the building and the same<\/p>\n
could not be held  to amount to any mischief.  He asserted that the landlady<\/p>\n
had consented to such repairs by him.   But, according to him, later there<\/p>\n
was   a   quarrel\/dispute   about   the   expenses   incurred   for   undertaking   such<\/p>\n
repairs and the landlady had foisted this false complaint against the accused<\/p>\n
because of such disagreement.   At any rate, there was no question of any<\/p>\n
criminal trespass or mischief, contended the accused, who was a practicing<\/p>\n
Lawyer of that locality.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       5.     The   learned   Magistrate,  on   an   anxious   consideration   of   all   the<\/p>\n
relevant inputs, took note of the fact that Ext.D1 eloquently conveys that<\/p>\n
the building, which was agreed to be leased, included the sloping roof shed<\/p>\n
at the rear.  The court further took note of the fact that going by the building<\/p>\n
number  in   Ext.D2  also   the   shed   at   the   rear     must   be   held   to   have   been<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.  3440  of   2006                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
entrusted to the accused.  The court further took note of the fact that there is<\/p>\n
nothing to indicate  the actual possession of PW4 of the sloping roof shed.<\/p>\n
In   these   circumstances,   the   court   found   that   the   substratum   of   the<\/p>\n
prosecution   case   is   lost   and   the   accused   is   entitled   for   an   acquittal.<\/p>\n
Accordingly the court below proceeded to pass the impugned judgment of<\/p>\n
acquittal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       6.    The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate went perverse in coming to the  conclusion that the shed at the<\/p>\n
rear  was in the  possession  of  the    accused.       According  to him,  though<\/p>\n
Exts.D1   and   D2   are   not   disputed,   Ext.D2   must   show   that   there   was   no<\/p>\n
specific  inclusion   of  the  shed  at the   rear of  the  building  entrusted  under<\/p>\n
Ext.D2.  I find no merit whatsoever in this contention.  Ext.D2 shows that<\/p>\n
the building having a particular number is leased to the accused.  The shed<\/p>\n
at the  rear  admittedly  had  no  separate  number.      Ext.D2  was admittedly<\/p>\n
preceded    by  Ext.D1 and Ext.D1 specifically  speaks of the  agreement  to<\/p>\n
entrust the shed at the rear also.  I do further note that there is no specific or<\/p>\n
tangible evidence to show that PW4 was keeping possession of this shed at<\/p>\n
the rear of the building leased to the accused.    In these circumstances, I am<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.  3440  of   2006                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
satisfied  that  the  finding  that  the  said  shed  was in  the  possession  of the<\/p>\n
accused does not warrant interference at this 2nd tier of criminal litigation<\/p>\n
invoking the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction.<\/p>\n
       7.  I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of<\/p>\n
the jurisdiction  of this court sitting as a court of revision considering the<\/p>\n
challenge against a judgment of acquittal founded on findings of fact.<\/p>\n
       8.   The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even if   the<\/p>\n
charge under section 447 were to be held to be unsustainable on account of<\/p>\n
the   dispute   regarding   possession,   the   conduct   of   the   accused   even   as   a<\/p>\n
tenant demolishing  portion of the premises of the landlady must be held to<\/p>\n
be amount    to an offence  punishable  under Section  427  I.P.C.     On this<\/p>\n
aspect I note that primarily the attempt of the accused was only to repair the<\/p>\n
building and renovate the same and not to cause any loss to the building as<\/p>\n
such.     Further,   I   take   note   of   the   reasons   followed   by   the   learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate.   The alleged incident of destruction took place on 21.7.2000.<\/p>\n
Even though the  landlady had allegedly reached the scene of occurrence on<\/p>\n
that day itself, there significantly was no written complaint till 28.7.2000.  I<\/p>\n
find   merit   in   the   conclusion   of   the   court   below   that     from   21.7.2000   to<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.  3440  of   2006                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
28.7.2000 no complaint was at all filed and that is a circumstance in tandem<\/p>\n
with the case of the accused that there was consent in accordance with the<\/p>\n
terms   of   Ext.D2   to     carry   out   the   repairs   and   on   account   of   subsequent<\/p>\n
unpleasant incidents a complaint was sought to be filed on 28.7.2000.   That<\/p>\n
approach made by the court below does also  appear to me to be reasonable<\/p>\n
and not at<\/p>\n
any   rate   sufficient   to   persuade   this   court   to   invoke   the   revisional<\/p>\n
jurisdiction against the impugned judgment of acquittal.<\/p>\n
       9.     In   any   view   of   the   matter,     I   am   satisfied   that   the   impugned<\/p>\n
judgment of acquittal does not warrant  any interference.   I may hasten to<\/p>\n
observe that I have not intended to express any final opinion on the dispute<\/p>\n
between   the   parties   about   the   possession   of   the   shed   in   question   or<\/p>\n
alteration done to the said building.  I only take note of the fact that the case<\/p>\n
of the prosecution has not been established beyond doubt as required in a<\/p>\n
prosecution for a criminal offence.   The findings by the trial court or this<\/p>\n
court in this revision petition will not in any way affect or fetter the rights<\/p>\n
of the petitioner to raise and substantiate appropriate contentions before the<\/p>\n
civil court.\n<\/p>\n
\nCrl.R.P.No.  3440  of   2006          7<\/span><\/p>\n
      10.  With the above observations, this revision petition is dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                                 (R. BASANT)
\n                                                      Judge<\/p>\n
tm<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Thankamma Johnson vs State Of Kerala on 18 October, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl Rev Pet No. 3440 of 2006() 1. THANKAMMA JOHNSON, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY … Respondent 2. THOMAS, S\/O.LUKOSE, VARIKKOLIL VEEDU, For Petitioner :SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR For Respondent : No […]<\/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-212287","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThankamma Johnson vs State Of Kerala on 18 October, 2006 - 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\/thankamma-johnson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-october-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Thankamma Johnson vs State Of Kerala on 18 October, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankamma-johnson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-october-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-10-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-09T09:54:56+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thankamma-johnson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-october-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thankamma-johnson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-october-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Thankamma Johnson vs State Of Kerala on 18 October, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-10-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-09T09:54:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thankamma-johnson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-october-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1290,\"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\\\/thankamma-johnson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-october-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thankamma-johnson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-october-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thankamma-johnson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-october-2006\",\"name\":\"Thankamma Johnson vs State Of Kerala on 18 October, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-10-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-09T09:54:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thankamma-johnson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-october-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thankamma-johnson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-october-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thankamma-johnson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-october-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Thankamma Johnson vs State Of Kerala on 18 October, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Thankamma Johnson vs State Of Kerala on 18 October, 2006 - 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\/thankamma-johnson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-october-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Thankamma Johnson vs State Of Kerala on 18 October, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankamma-johnson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-october-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-10-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-09T09:54:56+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankamma-johnson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-october-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankamma-johnson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-october-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Thankamma Johnson vs State Of Kerala on 18 October, 2006","datePublished":"2006-10-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-09T09:54:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankamma-johnson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-october-2006"},"wordCount":1290,"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\/thankamma-johnson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-october-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankamma-johnson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-october-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankamma-johnson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-october-2006","name":"Thankamma Johnson vs State Of Kerala on 18 October, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-10-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-09T09:54:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankamma-johnson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-october-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankamma-johnson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-october-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankamma-johnson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-october-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Thankamma Johnson vs State Of Kerala on 18 October, 2006"}]},{"@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\/212287","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=212287"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212287\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=212287"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=212287"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=212287"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}