Koodathayi Murders: Kerala High Court refuses to interfere with trial court order framing charges against Jolly Joseph

The Kerala High Court on Monday refused to interfere with the trial court's decision to frame charges against Jollyamma Joseph, also known as Jolly, who is the prime accused in the Koodathayi cyanide murders [Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly v State of Kerala & Anr.]..Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas dismissed the plea filed by Jolly challenging the order of the trial court that dismissed her plea to adjourn framing of charges against her..The Koodathayi cyanide murders refer to the mysterious deaths of 6 persons in Kerala's Koodathayi. All the victims were close relatives of Jolly.Three of the persons alleged to have been murdered by Jolly through cyanide poisoning were her then husband Roy Thomas and his parents. The present plea relates to the murder of Roy Thomas alone. Jolly and Roy Thomas had married in the year 1997 and they were residing together with Roy's parents at Koodathai.Jolly was supposedly in a extra-marital relationship with another man whom she convinced to get cyanide for her. She is alleged to have mixed the cyanide in the food that Roy was eating with the intention to kill him.On September 30, 2011, Jolly’s husband felt sick after eating, was hospitalised and subsequently, passed away.At the time, Jolly informed the relatives that Roy had died because of a heart attack. The FIR (first information report) was forwarded to the Sessions Court and further investigation was closed supposedly because there was no suspicion of murder.However, some other family members were suspicious and the investigation was reopened. The investigating agency was sent to watch the daily activities of Jolly and after collecting some evidence, the investigating agency decided to exhume the graveyards of the deceased including Roy. Jolly was arrested by the investigating agency on October 5, 2019, along with two other accused persons. .Jolly was charged with offences punishable under Sections 110 (abetment if person abetted does act with different intention from that of abettor), 120(B) (criminal conspiracy), 465 (forgery), 467 (Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.), 468 (Forgery for cheating purpose), 471(Using as genuine a fraud document), 475 (Counterfeiting device or mark used for authenticating documents), 302 (murder), 201(Causing disappearance of evidence) with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and provisions of the Poison Act, 1919..Before the trial court, Jolly submitted two pleas.First, she moved to get herself discharged from the case. The trial court dismissed the plea and Jolly then moved the High Court with a revision petition challenging the same.During the pendency of the said petition before the High Court, Jolly moved the trial court again with a petition under section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in order to adjourn the framing of the charge till the disposal of the criminal revision petition.However, the trial court dismissed this petition as well leading to the present revision petition before the High Court..Jolly was represented by advocate BA Aloor.