{"id":239562,"date":"2009-01-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-thomas-on-27-january-2009"},"modified":"2015-09-11T13:58:03","modified_gmt":"2015-09-11T08:28:03","slug":"state-of-kerala-vs-thomas-on-27-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-thomas-on-27-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"State Of Kerala vs Thomas on 27 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
State Of Kerala vs Thomas on 27 January, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL.A.No. 153 of 2005()\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THOMAS, S\/O. PADMADAN ANTHONY,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. DAVIS, S\/O. PADAMADAN ANTHONY,\n\n3. OUSEPHKUTTY, S\/O. KOCHAPUTTI,\n\n4. FRANCIS, S\/O. KOCHAPUTTY, PARIYARAM\n\n5. DAVIS, S\/O. KOCHAPUTTY, PARIYARAM\n\n6. SHAJI, S\/O. GEORGE, MADANI HOUSE,\n\n7. PAULSON, S\/O. AMMANAM LONAPPAN,\n\n8. VARGHESE, S\/O. ANTHONY,\n\n9. WILSON, S\/O. VARKEY THOMAS,\n\n10. SHAJU, S\/O. DEVASSY, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE,\n\n                For Petitioner  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.G.JANARDHANA KURUP (SR.)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :27\/01\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n          A.K.BASHEER & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ.\n            - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                          Crl.A.No.153 OF 2005\n            - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n            Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009\n\n                                 JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Basheer, J:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     State is the appellant in this appeal against acquittal.<\/p>\n
By the impugned judgment, learned Third Additional Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court No.1, Trichur held that the<\/p>\n
prosecution had not been able to prove the charge levelled<\/p>\n
against the respondents\/accused in the case. Accordingly, they<\/p>\n
were found not guilty and acquitted of the charge under<\/p>\n
Sections 143,147,148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the<\/p>\n
Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
     2. The prosecution case in brief was that on January 11,<\/p>\n
1997 at about 11.15 p.m the accused, ten in number, had<\/p>\n
formed themselves into an unlawful assembly in prosecution of<\/p>\n
their common object to cause death of one Padamadan<\/p>\n
Varghese by inflicting injuries on him with weapons like<\/p>\n
chopper, knife, sword etc. According to the prosecution, the<\/p>\n
motive behind       the crime was                the animosity between the<\/p>\n
deceased and accused No.1 in connection with a dispute over a<\/p>\n
water    channel       that          was being used for                    agricultural<\/p>\n
operations.   The       police        had            charge         sheeted        the<\/p>\n
respondents\/accused after completing the investigation for the<\/p>\n
offences referred to above.\n<\/p>\n
                               2<\/span>
\nCrl.A.No.153\/05<\/p>\n
     3.   The prosecution examined Pws 1 to 5 and marked<\/p>\n
Exts.P1 to P28 and Mos1 to 15. Exts.D1 and D2 contradictions<\/p>\n
were marked on the side of the defence.\n<\/p>\n
      4. Learned sessions judge, after a careful evaluation of<\/p>\n
the oral and documentary evidence available on record, took<\/p>\n
the view that it was not safe to rely on the solitary testimony<\/p>\n
of Pw8,    brother of the deceased, who alone supported the<\/p>\n
prosecution case to    some   extent.   Further,    the learned<\/p>\n
sessions judge noticed that    the version given by Pw8 before<\/p>\n
the court was inconsistent and contradictory to the version<\/p>\n
given before the police.\n<\/p>\n
     5. Learned Public Prosecutor, while assailing the above<\/p>\n
judgment of acquittal, contends that the learned sessions<\/p>\n
judge was not justified in disbelieving Pw8 whose presence at<\/p>\n
the scene of occurrence was never in dispute. He was walking<\/p>\n
along with the procession, at a short distance behind the<\/p>\n
deceased.    The   assailants  and   the  deceased were    also<\/p>\n
participating in   the procession   as  stated in  Ext.P5 First<\/p>\n
Information Statement given by Pw6. The learned sessions<\/p>\n
judge, according to the Public Prosecutor, discarded the<\/p>\n
evidence of Pw8 without any valid or justifiable reason.<\/p>\n
     6. It is also pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor<\/p>\n
that barring   a   few   contradictions here  and   there,  the<\/p>\n
evidence of Pw8, if read along with other pieces of evidence,<\/p>\n
will undoubtedly show that the accused had, in furtherance of<\/p>\n
their   common object, inflicted     the  fatal injuries on the<\/p>\n
                               3<\/span>
\nCrl.A.No.153\/05<\/p>\n
deceased.\n<\/p>\n
     7. We have carefully perused         the entire materials<\/p>\n
available on record. In our view it may not be necessary to deal<\/p>\n
with the deposition of all the witnesses or the documents<\/p>\n
marked in this case.   As mentioned earlier, the only witness,<\/p>\n
who supported     the prosecution case was Pw8, the younger<\/p>\n
brother of the deceased. The prosecution had examined Pws7<\/p>\n
and 10 also as eye witnesses to the incident.    But these two<\/p>\n
witnesses did not support the prosecution case and they were<\/p>\n
declared hostile. But, Pw8 made an attempt to support the<\/p>\n
prosecution case. In his evidence, he deposed that he had<\/p>\n
gone to participate in the Ambu festival, that was being held<\/p>\n
in the nearby church, after taking his food at about 9 p.m.<\/p>\n
Pws 6, 7, 10 and      three other   named persons      had also<\/p>\n
accompanied him. These persons who were friends of the<\/p>\n
deceased had    come    to  his residence   as invited   by the<\/p>\n
deceased.\n<\/p>\n
      8. The deceased had also started off from the residence<\/p>\n
in order to join the Ambu procession.    The deceased and his<\/p>\n
friends were moving along with Nadaswaram contingent in the<\/p>\n
procession while Pw8 was a little behind moving along with<\/p>\n
Band contingent . At about 11 p.m, while the procession was<\/p>\n
moving on, accused No.2 came near the deceased and asked<\/p>\n
him not to perform twist dance. The other accused were<\/p>\n
also  along   with  accused No.2.    After  identifying  all the<\/p>\n
accused in the court, Pw8 stated that in response to the<\/p>\n
                               4<\/span>
\nCrl.A.No.153\/05<\/p>\n
demand made by Accused No.2 not to perform twist dance, the<\/p>\n
deceased asked him what was wrong with          twist dance. At<\/p>\n
that time accused No.2 pushed at the neck of the deceased.<\/p>\n
A push and pull ensued between Accused No.2           and   the<\/p>\n
deceased. Somebody pulled away the deceased. At that time,<\/p>\n
Accused No.1 took out a sword from behind and cut at the<\/p>\n
neck of the deceased. Accused No.8 inflicted a cut injury with<\/p>\n
a chopper on the thigh of the deceased who tried to avert the<\/p>\n
the assault with his hand. There was a scuffle between the<\/p>\n
deceased and the accused to get hold of the weapon. The<\/p>\n
deceased managed to get the chopper in his hand and he<\/p>\n
slashed it at the accused. In that process, accused Nos.2 and 8<\/p>\n
sustained some injuries. While accused No.2 sustained injury<\/p>\n
on the hand, accused No.8 suffered an injury on his thigh.<\/p>\n
Accused No.8 snatched away the chopper from the hand of<\/p>\n
the deceased and inflicted an injury on his back. The deceased<\/p>\n
ran from the scene towards the gate of the residential<\/p>\n
building of Kunjuvareed Master. The accused followed him<\/p>\n
with the weapons and sticks. The deceased ran further ahead<\/p>\n
from   the gate of   Kunjuvareed Master      and reached    the<\/p>\n
residential compound of Ittira. The accused followed him,<\/p>\n
stabbed and beat him. The deceased went inside the gate and<\/p>\n
fell down.   Accused Nos.1 and 8 inflicted injuries on the<\/p>\n
deceased with a sword and chopper.        Accused Nos.4 and 5<\/p>\n
beat   the deceased    with sticks.  Accused No.9     beat  the<\/p>\n
deceased on his head with a torch. Accused No.10 stabbed on<\/p>\n
                                5<\/span>
\nCrl.A.No.153\/05<\/p>\n
the left side of the chest of the deceased with a knife. All<\/p>\n
others stood around the deceased and kicked. Pw8 stated that<\/p>\n
seeing all this, he ran away to his house to report the matter.<\/p>\n
He saw the incident in the tube light. He further stated that<\/p>\n
Accused Nos.1 and 2 were closely related to him and the<\/p>\n
deceased.\n<\/p>\n
       9. In cross examination, Pw8 admitted that he had not<\/p>\n
told the police about the assault with chopper and sword.<\/p>\n
Further he stated that the weapons        involved in the crime<\/p>\n
were two sticks, one sword and one chopper. He further<\/p>\n
conceded that out of the ten accused, only four            were<\/p>\n
carrying   weapons;    but the others did not.      He   further<\/p>\n
admitted that the alleged motive namely the dispute with<\/p>\n
regard to the irrigation channel had occurred about 18 years<\/p>\n
ago and that there was no further incident or altercation<\/p>\n
between the two families in respect of the said dispute.<\/p>\n
       10. We    do not   propose    to   refer   to the various<\/p>\n
inconsistent and contradictory statements with regard to the<\/p>\n
manner in which the alleged incident took place.         Further<\/p>\n
those inconsistent and contradictory versions which came out<\/p>\n
in evidence will not only create confusion in the mind of the<\/p>\n
court as rightly noticed by the learned sessions judge, but they<\/p>\n
will also cut at the root of the prosecution case itself.<\/p>\n
       11. It may be true that Pw8 had        spoken about the<\/p>\n
first part of the incident. But in this context, it has to be<\/p>\n
noticed that according to the prosecution, the first part of the<\/p>\n
                               6<\/span>
\nCrl.A.No.153\/05<\/p>\n
incident took place while the procession was proceeding. The<\/p>\n
specific case of the prosecution was that accused No.2 had<\/p>\n
asked    the deceased to    stop his  twist dance.  Thereupon<\/p>\n
accused No.2 is alleged to have pushed at the neck of the<\/p>\n
deceased.     At that time accused No.1 is alleged to have cut<\/p>\n
at the neck of the deceased with a sword and accused No.2<\/p>\n
had    inflicted  a  wound on    the   thigh of  the deceased.<\/p>\n
Further, the deceased had caused two injuries on accused<\/p>\n
Nos.2 and 8 after snatching away the chopper from the<\/p>\n
hands of accused No.8. It was the further         case of the<\/p>\n
prosecution that accused No.8 had thereafter inflicted a stab<\/p>\n
on the back of the deceased.    At that time accused No.8 also<\/p>\n
is alleged to have inflicted another cut injury at the back of<\/p>\n
the deceased with the chopper.        Thus the deceased had<\/p>\n
suffered    three injuries while he   was  participating in the<\/p>\n
procession at the hands of A1 and A8. Similarly accused Nos.2<\/p>\n
and 8 also had suffered some injuries which were allegedly<\/p>\n
inflicted by the deceased himself after snatching away the<\/p>\n
chopper from accused No.8.\n<\/p>\n
       12. Going by the site plan no incident took place on the<\/p>\n
road while the procession was going on.           This material<\/p>\n
deviation in the prosecution case in our view is    enough to<\/p>\n
cast shadow of doubt on the entire prosecution version.<\/p>\n
       13. In this context, we may also refer to the    charge<\/p>\n
sheet in Crime No.21\/1997 which was registered against the<\/p>\n
deceased for allegedly causing injuries on accused Nos.2 and<\/p>\n
                                 7<\/span>
\nCrl.A.No.153\/05<\/p>\n
8. Ext.P3 is stated to be the wound certificate issued by Pw4,<\/p>\n
Dr. Antony after examining accused No.2. Ext.P4 is the wound<\/p>\n
certificate issued by Pw5, Dr. Ravindran in respect of the injury<\/p>\n
suffered by accused No.8. In Ext.P4 the doctor had recorded<\/p>\n
that the injured (A8) had informed him that Padamadan<\/p>\n
Varghese (deceased) had caused the injury by assaulting him<\/p>\n
with a sword stick. We have referred to these two certificates<\/p>\n
only to highlight the fact that the deceased had also allegedly<\/p>\n
caused injuries on the two accused. But, a perusal of the<\/p>\n
records in Crime No.21\/1997 indicates that the deceased had<\/p>\n
allegedly inflicted the injury on the defacto complainant in that<\/p>\n
case with a chopper.\n<\/p>\n
      14. As mentioned by us earlier,       perusal of   the oral<\/p>\n
testimony of Pw8 does not inspire any confidence in us. The<\/p>\n
trial court    in our view, had rightly refused to place any<\/p>\n
reliance on the evidence of this witness. The trial court which<\/p>\n
had    the advantage of     watching the    demeanur     of   this<\/p>\n
particular witness apart from others, was            justified in<\/p>\n
disbelieving the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
      15. We may also notice that Pw8 had not chosen to go<\/p>\n
to the police and report the matter, though according to him<\/p>\n
he had seen the entire incident.         He did not go to the<\/p>\n
hospital either. Further he gave his statement before the<\/p>\n
police only 3 days after the alleged incident. This conduct of<\/p>\n
Pw8 also cast a shadow over the credibility of his version.<\/p>\n
      16. It is trite that the scope for interference in appeal<\/p>\n
                                8<\/span>
\nCrl.A.No.153\/05<\/p>\n
against acquittal is very narrow and limited. Even if two<\/p>\n
views are possible, it may not always be permissible          to<\/p>\n
substitute the view of the trial court with the other possible<\/p>\n
or alternate view.       In State of Maharashtra v. Sijay M.<\/p>\n
Poyarekar [2008 (4) KLT       SN.28 (SC)] it has been held   by<\/p>\n
their Lordships that the appellate court      should not disturb<\/p>\n
the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court merely for<\/p>\n
the reason that another view is possible. It is also trite that<\/p>\n
acquittal by the trial court should not be interfered with<\/p>\n
unless it is totally perverse and wholly unsustainable.<\/p>\n
      17. Having carefully perused the impugned judgment and<\/p>\n
the   materials    available on record, we   do not   find  any<\/p>\n
apparent perversity or illegality in the finding entered by the<\/p>\n
learned sessions judge.    We are satisfied that the learned<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge was justified in giving  the benefit of doubt to<\/p>\n
the accused.     Therefore   we do not     find  any  reason to<\/p>\n
interfere with the judgment of acquittal.<\/p>\n
     The appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                   (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
                                (THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
cl<\/p>\n
                   9<\/span>
\nCrl.A.No.153\/05<\/p>\n
                     A.K.BASHEER &
\n                     THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ.\n<\/p>\n
                     Crl.A.No.153 OF 2005<\/p>\n
                     JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                      27th January, 2009<\/p>\n
                   10<\/span>
\nCrl.A.No.153\/05<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court State Of Kerala vs Thomas on 27 January, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL.A.No. 153 of 2005() 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE … Petitioner Vs 1. THOMAS, S\/O. PADMADAN ANTHONY, … Respondent 2. DAVIS, S\/O. PADAMADAN ANTHONY, 3. OUSEPHKUTTY, S\/O. KOCHAPUTTI, 4. FRANCIS, S\/O. KOCHAPUTTY, PARIYARAM […]<\/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-239562","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Kerala vs Thomas on 27 January, 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\/state-of-kerala-vs-thomas-on-27-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Kerala vs Thomas on 27 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-thomas-on-27-january-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=\"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-11T08:28:03+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-thomas-on-27-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-thomas-on-27-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Kerala vs Thomas on 27 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-11T08:28:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-thomas-on-27-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1917,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-thomas-on-27-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-thomas-on-27-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-thomas-on-27-january-2009\",\"name\":\"State Of Kerala vs Thomas on 27 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-11T08:28:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-thomas-on-27-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-thomas-on-27-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-thomas-on-27-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Kerala vs Thomas on 27 January, 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":"State Of Kerala vs Thomas on 27 January, 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\/state-of-kerala-vs-thomas-on-27-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Kerala vs Thomas on 27 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-thomas-on-27-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-11T08:28:03+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-thomas-on-27-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-thomas-on-27-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Kerala vs Thomas on 27 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-11T08:28:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-thomas-on-27-january-2009"},"wordCount":1917,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-thomas-on-27-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-thomas-on-27-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-thomas-on-27-january-2009","name":"State Of Kerala vs Thomas on 27 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-11T08:28:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-thomas-on-27-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-thomas-on-27-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-thomas-on-27-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Kerala vs Thomas on 27 January, 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\/239562","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=239562"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/239562\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=239562"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=239562"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=239562"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}