Kerala High Court’s Ruling on Forensic Testimony in Cyanide Murders Case
The Kerala High Court has rejected an appeal by Jollyamma Joseph, the primary suspect in the Koodathayi cyanide murder cases, contesting a lower court’s decision to allow a forensic expert to testify. This expert had analyzed and prepared reports on a will allegedly forged in connection with the mass murder case. The case citation for this matter is Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly v State of Kerala.
In a judgment delivered on June 5, Justice CS Dias stated that the prosecution’s omission to list the expert initially was merely an oversight. The court determined that the request to include the expert’s testimony was not an attempt to unfairly bolster the prosecution’s case at a late stage, as the expert’s reports were already part of the court’s records.
Justice Dias noted that the disputed documents had been submitted for forensic analysis even before the chargesheet was filed, and the forensic reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) were already presented to the trial court. The Court concluded, “The prosecution had already initiated the process of obtaining expert opinion before filing the chargesheet, and the resulting FSL reports are part of the records. Consequently, the omission to cite the author of the reports (expert) as a witness can only be regarded as an inadvertent lapse and not as an attempt to fill an inherent lacunae in the prosecution case.”
The Court emphasized that criminal courts possess broad powers to summon witnesses when their testimony is essential for a just decision. It underscored that fairness in a trial extends to the accused, the prosecution, and society as a whole.
The Koodathayi Cyanide Murders
The Koodathayi cyanide murders involve the mysterious deaths of six individuals in the Kerala village of Koodathayi, all of whom were close relatives of the main suspect, Jollyamma Joseph. The Kodenchery Police Station in Kozhikode registered the criminal case. During the trial, the prosecution sought to introduce Remya KK, an Assistant Director (Documents) at the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory in Kannur, as an additional witness. The prosecution also aimed to present four forensic reports related to a disputed will and other documents.
More Read
This application was submitted after the examination of over 130 witnesses. Joseph opposed this move, arguing it was introduced too late in the trial process. She claimed the chargesheet lacked references to disputed documents or forensic examinations and argued that allowing the expert’s testimony would prejudice her defense.
High Court’s Justification
Upon reviewing the records, the High Court confirmed that the prosecution had indeed begun obtaining the expert’s opinion before filing the chargesheet. It also found that the forensic reports were already available to the trial court, and that the expert’s evidence concerning the documents was already on record.
Importantly, the Court highlighted that Joseph would still have the opportunity to cross-examine the expert and contest the findings in the reports. Therefore, no prejudice would result from allowing the expert’s testimony. Consequently, the High Court dismissed Joseph’s plea and permitted the forensic expert to testify.
More Read
Jollyamma Joseph was represented by advocates KP Prasanth, TA Ajmal Hussain, Arunraj S, Hijas TT, Sunitha KG, Anitha VA, Aswin TP, and Rahul C Chellappan. Senior public prosecutor CS Hrithwik represented the State.
