MS MATHEW v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON** **TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.4658 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 190/2020 DATED 18-02-2020 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE CRIME NO.980/2019 OF Thamarassery Police Station , Kozhikode** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **MS MATHEW AGED 44 YEARS MANJADIYIL HOUSE, KAKKAVAYAL, KAKKAD, 673573** **BY ADV. SRI.SHARAN SHAHIER** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY SR PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.11.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4660/2020, THE COURT ON 15.12.2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **BA Nos.4658/2020 & 4660/2020** **-2-** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON** **TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942** **Bail Appl..No.4660 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 189/2020 DATED 18-02-2020 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE** **CRIME NO.335/2019 OF Kodenchery Police Station , Kozhikode** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **MS MATHEW AGED 44 YEARS MANJADIYIL HOUSE, KAKKAVAYAL, KAKKAD, 673573** ## **BY ADV. SRI.SHARAN SHAHIER** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.11.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4658/2020, THE COURT ON 15.12.2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **BA Nos.4658/2020 & 4660/2020** **-3-** ## **ASHOK MENON, J. -----------------------------------BA Nos. 4658 and 4660 of 2020** ------------------------------------- **Dated this the 15[th] day of December, 2020** ## **COMMON ORDER** Applications for regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. 2. The applicant is the 2nd accused in five crimes of similar nature. The abovementioned bail applications pertain to Crime No.980/2019 of Tamarassery Police Station and Crime No. 335/2019 of Kodenchery Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 110, 120B, 465, 468, 471, and 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and under Section 2 read with Section 6(2) of Poisons Act 1919. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the first accused allegedly hatched a conspiracy with A2 the applicant herein and A3 to murder Sili Ponnamattom, the late wife of Shaju, the husband of A1, and their infant daughter named Alphine Shaju. The daughter was the first to be killed. The first accused had successfully eliminated her mother-in-law Annamma followed by the murders of her farther-in-law Tom Thomas, her husband Roy Thomas and his uncle Manjadiyil Mathew with the help of A2 and A3, who had provided Cyanide to her. She was enamoured with her present husband Shaju, who was related to her former husband. But he was a married man **BA Nos.4658/2020 & 4660/2020** **-4-** with a kid and she could not have got him as her husband without first removing those hurdles. A1 had very cunningly got intimate with his wife late Sili. Thereafter, their child Alphine was eliminated in a similar manner by administering cyanide, on 03/05/2014. Under the guise of helping Sili, she accompanied her for an appointment with a dentist Alexander Kora and laced her capsules with cyanide, resulting in her death on 11/01/2016. Playing the role of a sympathiser, she succeeded in getting intimate to Shaju, a bereaved father who had lost daughter and a widower who had lost his wife. They got married. All the victims except Annamma were administered cyanide. Cyanide was allgedly obtained from the jewellery shop of A3 by the applicant, who was a salesman and was acquainted with him. 4. The prosecution version of the serial murders committed by the accused is thus : The first accused had been residing with her late husband Roy Thomas and his parents for about 14 years. All these years, she had made them believe that she was employed as a Professor in NIT, Kozhikode. Her mother in law late Annamma Thomas was a shrewd lady. Fearing that she may discover the truth about the first accused's unemployment, she found her to be a stumbling block in her taking control of the affairs of the matrimonial home. She was the first to be administered “dog kill” poison in her soup on **BA Nos.4658/2020 & 4660/2020** **-5-** 22/02/2002. She had her dinner and soup laced with poison and passed away. No one had any reason to suspect the death and her body was interred as a natural demise. After Annamma's death, her second victim was Tom Thomas, her father-in-law. Having got all his property bequeathed in the name of her late husband Roy Thomas, by concocting a Will she wanted the bequest to come into force, and hence, ended his life by administering cyanide on 26/08/2008. Then, she devised a plan to get rid of her own husband Roy Thomas. He had become a drunkard, as stated earlier. His intimacy to the applicant made things easy. On the death of Roy, the properties bequeathed to him would devolve upon her. On 30/09/2011, he was found lying unconscious on the floor of his toilet. The untimely death of Roy was the turning point. His siblings were not ready to believe the story of his untimely unnatural death. With the help and assistance of their uncle Mathew, they got the body of Roy subjected to autopsy. That is the first time death by cyanide poisoning was unravelled. A1 was still successful in contriving a story of a depressed alcoholic man ending his life in desperation. The investigation of the FIR registered as No. 189/2011 at Kodencheri Police Station under S.174 Cr.P.C; was closed as a case of suicide. Under the belief that, the maternal uncle of Roy, Machadiyil Mathew got nosy and was attempting to reopen the investigation pertaining to the suspicious death of **BA Nos.4658/2020 & 4660/2020** **-6-** his nephew, he needed to be silenced. The death of his nephew and his parents made him inquisitive enough to be instrumental to initiate an investigation by the Police. Fearing that he would be a stumbling block in her pursuit for happiness and financial security, he too was administered cyanide and murdered him on 24/02/2014. Thereafter, it was the turn of the infant Alphine and her mother, and they were murdered as stated earlier. Rojo Thomas, the brother of deceased Roy was not convinced about the version that his brother would commit suicide. He triggered a further investigation into all the deaths that had occurred by filing a petition before the District Police Chief on 20/06/2019. Persistent follow-up by the unrelenting siblings of Roy Thomas induced the Police to shed their indolence and to reopen and proceed with the investigation in Crime No.189/2011 of Kodenchery Police Station seriously. All the dead bodies were exhumed and subjected to autopsy. Her involvement in all other crimes came to the fore and she was arrested on 05/10/2019 and her confession statement was recorded which indicated her complicity in all the abovementioned crimes. FIR Nos. 332, 333, 334 and 335 of 2019 were registered at Kodenchery Police Station for the murders of Annamma, Tom Thomas, Manjadiyil Mathew and Alfine and Crime No.980/2019 was registered at Thamarassery Police Station for the death of Sili Shaju. **BA Nos.4658/2020 & 4660/2020** **-7-** 5. A1 to A3 were formally arrested in this case on 05.10.2019 by the Tamarassery police and then by the Kodenchery police on 07.11.2019. They were remanded. A1 and the applicant continue in judicial custody, while A3 was granted bail by this court vide Orders dated 06-01-2020 and 09-01-2020 at Annexure 1 in these applications. The bail applications filed by applicant were dismisssed by this Court and by the Sessions Court. The final report has been laid within the statutory period. 6. The applicant would contend that he is a salesman in a jewellery shop in Kozhikode, and is the sole breadwinner of his family. A3 has been granted bail. The autopsy of the infant did not indicate the presence of cyanide in the bodies. The chemical examiner's report is at Annexure-3 produced by the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant being similarly placed as A3, he too may therefore be granted bail. 7. Heard Shri Sharan Shahier, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Suman Chakravarthy, the senior Public Prosecutor. Records perused. 8. The prosecution case is that A1 had obtained cyanide from A2, who in turn got it from A3 and A1 administered the poison to murder Sili Ponnamattom, the late wife of Shaju, the husband of A1, and their infant daughter named Alphine Shaju. She wanted to eliminate each of her victims for the reasons stated above in pursuit of happiness in her new found marital **BA Nos.4658/2020 & 4660/2020** **-8-** life with her present husband Shaju. ## 9. In _**Prahlad Singh Bhati v.NCT Delhi, [(2001) 4 SCC 280],**_ the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined thus:- “(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations. (b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter of grant of bail. (c)While it is not expected to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.” 10. In _**Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., [(2004) 7 SCC 525]**_ , the Apex Court has laid down certain factors, namely, the nature of the accusation, the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the character of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant, and _prima facie_ satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge to be kept in mind while considering an application for bail. 11. Applying the above principles to the case in hand, I find that the **BA Nos.4658/2020 & 4660/2020** **-9-** applicant is involved in five cases in which he had ably assisted A1 to murder her victims, including her former husband. 12. This court cannot undermine the role of the applicant in this crime. Without his able assitance and help, A1 would not have succeeded in securing the deadly poison she used to eliminate her victims. The absence of cyanide in the body of the infant and its consequence in the trial is a matter of evidence to be determined by the trial court. Without the help of A2 and A3, A1 could never have achieved her objective. It cannot be countenanced that the applicant had supplied cyanide without knowing about the purpose it was going to be used by A1. The prosecution version that the applicant was too enamoured with A1 to fall into the conspiracy is a version worth believing, at least for the time being. The conspiracy hatched by the accused had snuffed out six lives, some of which in its prime. ## 13. In _**Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Pappu Yadav [2005 (2) SCC 42: 2005 KHC 604]**_ the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus: “18. It is trite law that personal liberty cannot be taken away except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Personal liberty is a constitutional guarantee. However, Art.21 which guarantees the above right also contemplates deprivation of personal liberty by procedure established by law. Under the criminal laws of this country, a person accused of offences which are non-bailable is liable to be detained in custody during the pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such detention cannot be questioned as being violative of Art.21 **BA Nos.4658/2020 & 4660/2020** **-10-** since the same is authorised by law.” In this context, it would also be profitable to reproduce a passage from _**Neeru Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [2014 (16) SCC 508]**_ , wherein the Court setting aside an order granting bail observed thus: "The issue that is presented before us is whether this Court can annul the order passed by the High Court and curtail the liberty of the 2nd respondent. We are not oblivious of the fact that the liberty is a priceless treasure for a human being. It is founded on the bedrock of constitutional right and accentuated further on human rights principle. It is basically a natural right. In fact, some regard it as the grammar of life. No one would like to lose his liberty or barter it for all the wealth of the world. People from centuries have fought for liberty, for absence of liberty causes sense of emptiness. The sanctity of liberty is the fulcrum of any civilized society. It is a cardinal value on which the civilisation rests. It cannot be allowed to be paralysed and immobilized. Deprivation of liberty of a person has enormous impact on his mind as well as body. A democratic body polity which is wedded to rule of law, anxiously guards liberty. But, a pregnant and significant one, the liberty of an individual is not absolute. The society by its collective wisdom through process of law can withdraw the liberty that it has sanctioned to an individual when an individual becomes a danger to the collective and to the societal order. Accent on individual liberty cannot be pyramided to that extent which would bring chaos and anarchy to a society. A society expects responsibility and accountability from the member, and it desires that the citizens should obey the law, respecting it as a cherished social norm. No individual can make an attempt to create a concavity in the stem of social stream. It is impermissible. Therefore, when an individual behaves in a disharmonious manner ushering in disorderly things which the society disapproves, the legal consequences are bound to follow. **BA Nos.4658/2020 & 4660/2020** **-11-** At that stage, the Court has a duty. It cannot abandon its sacrosanct obligation and pass an order at its own whim or caprice. It has to be guided by the established parameters of law." The bail applications, are therefore, dismissed. I am sure that the Learned Sessions Judge would earnestly endeavour to dispose the cases expeditiously. **Sd/-** **ASHOK MENON JUDGE** jg