[Koodathayi Murder] Kerala High Court Refuses To Interfere With Sessions Court Order Dismissing Discharge Petition Of Jolly Joseph

The Kerala High Court on Monday refused to interfere with the trial court proceedings against Jolly Joseph in connection with the murder of her first husband, Roy Thomas. Jolly had filed a revision petition challenging the order of the sessions court which had dismissed her discharge petition.

Jolly Joseph is the prime accused in the infamous Koodathayi murders and has been accused of murdering six of her family members over a span of 17 years primarily using cyanide. She has been charged with killing members of her family including her first husband Roy Thomas with the motive to take control of the family property .

A single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, while dismissing the revision petition filed by Jolly seeking her discharge in the trial proceedings of the murder of her first husband observed that there was enough material on record to take the prima facie view that Jolly was involved in the murder:

“On an appreciation of the contentions raised and the circumstances adduced by the prosecution, this Court is of the considered view that there are sufficient materials to create a strong suspicion of the involvement of the revision petitioner in the murder of her husband. The circumstances adduced by the prosecution, if proved during trial, can certainly lead to the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence of murder and the other offences alleged. The material and the documents on record and the statements made by various witnesses, if taken on face value, clearly disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the various offences alleged.”

Adv B A Aloor appearing for Jolly Joseph had argued that she had been arrayed as an accused without any incriminating material against her. He further argued that except for a few statements made by her due to threats of the investigating agency, there is no evidence on record to connect her to the murder of her husband. He also averred that the sessions court had dismissed the discharge petition without considering the specific contentions raised by the accused.

Public Prosecutor C K Suresh and Additional Director General of Prosecution Grashious Kuriakose contented that a detailed investigation had been conducted and cogent evidence had been adduced pointing to her guilt.

Even though Roy Thomas died in 2011, the case came to light only in 2019 on suspicion of a relative of the family that Jolly may be involved in the murder. The case of the prosecution is that the accused mixed poison in her husband’s dinner and water, after consuming which he immediately died. The prosecution alleges that Jolly destroyed the evidence by immediately cleaning the vessels containing poison. It is also alleged that she forged her father in law’s will with the motive to acquire the family property.

The final report submitted after investigation alleged offences under Sections 110 (Punishment of abetment if person abetted does act with a different intention from that of abettor), 120(b)(Punishment of criminal conspiracy), 465 (Punishment for forgery), 467 (Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.), 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), 471(Using as genuine a forged document), 302 (Punishment for murder) and Section 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender) read with Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 2 (Power of the State Government to regulate possession for sale and sale of any poison) read with Section 6(2) (Penalty for unlawful importation, etc.) of the Poisons Act, 1919.

The Sessions Court had dismissed the discharge petition filed by her on concluding that there was sufficient material on record to frame charges.

The court dismissed the contention that the victim actually died of a heart attack by noting that the post mortem report reveals that the cause of death was poisoning and that the material on record prima facie point towards the same. However, the court also noted that such contentions raised by the accused are only to be adjudicated during trial as they involve matters of proof.

The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(2001) 2 SCC 205] to hold that the extra judicial confession of the son and the present husband of the accused was “true” and “voluntary” and that sufficient material was already on record to deny the discharge of the accused:

“A perusal of the extra judicial confession creates a strong suspicion as to the involvement of the revision petitioner in the crime. Revision petitioner's own son and her present husband have deposed to the confession made by her regarding the murder of her husband and there is no material to doubt the sanctity of the said statements, at the stage of considering the petition for discharge.”

The court of the opinion that the material adduced by the prosecution was enough to create a strong suspicion of the involvement of the accused in the murder of her husband.

“it is glaring from the prosecution evidence that extra judicial confession made by the revision petitioner to her immediate family members, who have no reason to foist a false case against her, stares at her face to create a strong suspicion. Whether the said statements are trustworthy and whether it requires any corroboration or not are matters of evidence and the same can be tested only after trial. Apart from the above, the statement of the accused that led to the recovery of cyanide, and the illicit relationship between accused 1 and 2, through whom she is alleged to have procured the cyanide, are all sufficient to prima facie create a strong suspicion of conspiracy to commit the murder”

The court thus refused to the interfere with the order of the sessions court.

Case Title: Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly V State of Kerala 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 122

Click here to read/download order