Decided : March 29,2019
Bench : Justice N.V Raman
Justice M.M. Shantanagoudar
Justice Indira Banarjee
Facts:
Appellant Pattu Rajan, who is recognized as the founder of the renowned Saravana Bhawan hotels in Tamil Nadu, was embroiled in a controversial and heinous case that captured public attention. Allegedly, Rajan developed an inappropriate attraction toward Jeevajyoti, the wife of his former employee, Santhakumar. This attraction persisted despite the fact that Jeevajyoti was married, which raises serious ethical questions regarding Rajan’s behavior and motives.
On October 1, 2001, in a shocking turn of events, Rajan orchestrated the abduction of both Jeevajyoti and her husband Santhakumar. This brazen act was not an isolated incident; it was later revealed that Rajan’s associates had kidnapped the couple again on October 18, escalating the situation into a more dangerous and alarming scenario. During this second abduction, Santhakumar was taken to a different location, while Jeevajyoti was transported to Tiruchirappalli. The couple was reportedly coerced into signing blank sheets of paper at the Deputy Commissioner of Police’s office on October 24, under duress, to withdraw any previous complaints they had filed against Rajan. This manipulation illustrates the lengths Rajan was willing to go to in order to silence any dissent and maintain his control over the situation.
The situation took a darker turn when, on October 26, just two days after the abduction, Rajan allegedly issued the order to murder Santhakumar, showcasing a chilling disregard for human life. The gravity of this decision would soon come to light when a male body was discovered near the Tiger-Chola forest on October 31. The discovery of the body further fueled the investigation and led to rising suspicions about Rajan’s involvement in the crime.
On November 20, 2001, Jeevajyoti bravely reported the murder to the authorities, leading to a formal complaint against Rajan. The case unfolded in the judicial system, where the Madras High Court ultimately found Rajan guilty based on compelling forensic and circumstantial evidence. Following this verdict, Rajan pursued an appeal, but the Supreme Court upheld the original decision, ensuring that justice was served in this tragic and disturbing case. The legal proceedings not only highlighted the severity of Rajan’s actions but also underscored the resilience of the victims in seeking justice against such egregious offenses.
Issues Raised:
- Was it lawful for the Madras High Court to find the person guilty of kidnapping and murder?
- Had the second FIR allowed or denied because it was a duplicate of the first?
- Could the murder be considered a separate crime rather than just a continuation of the kidnapping?
- In the absence of DNA analysis, was body identification using a “superimposition test” adequate?
- Was the “last seen” evidence taken into account adequately?
Contentions:
A. Appellant
The case presented before the court is surrounded by numerous assumptions that underpin the claimed convictions. It is crucial to note that the motive for the alleged crime has not been conclusively proven, which raises serious questions about the validity of the charges. The initial First Information Report (FIR) regarding abduction and the subsequent FIR concerning murder both originated from the same event. This duality raises significant legal concerns, as it renders them unacceptable duplicates under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). According to this section, a single event should not be represented by multiple FIRs, as this could lead to confusion and infringe upon the rights of the accused.
Furthermore, the identification of the deceased individual was not substantiated through DNA analysis, which is a critical factor in ensuring the integrity of the identification process. The lack of scientific corroboration casts doubt on the reliability of the identification and further complicates the prosecution’s case. Additionally, there was a claimed oversight in presenting the “last seen” details as required under Section 313 of the CrPC. This oversight represents a significant infringement on the appellant’s right to defend themselves adequately. The failure to properly address this critical aspect of the evidence undermines the overall fairness of the trial and raises pertinent questions about the due process of law. Therefore, the appellant contends that the existing evidence is insufficient to uphold the convictions.
B. Respondent:
The primary motive highlighted in this case revolves around Rajan’s persistent desire to marry PW 1, a wish that was consistently demonstrated through various gifts and actions aimed at winning her affection. This motive is critical to understanding the dynamics of the relationships involved and the eventual tragic events that unfolded. It is essential to note that there is a significant legal distinction between the acts of kidnapping and killing, as these two offenses occur at different times, locations, and have distinct objectives. Understanding this differentiation is crucial in establishing the timeline and intent behind Rajan’s actions.
Furthermore, the legal framework governing such matters has been reinforced by landmark Supreme Court cases, such as T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) and Awadesh Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar (2016). These cases clarify that separate First Information Reports (FIRs) can be filed for different offenses, allowing for a more nuanced approach to justice that recognizes the complexity of individual circumstances and motivations in criminal actions.
Moreover, the prosecution’s argument is bolstered by the strong foundation of circumstantial evidence presented in this case. This evidence is meticulously supported by testimonies regarding the last known sighting of the victim, as well as the subsequent discovery of the body, which is intricately linked to a confession made by Rajan. Together, these elements create a compelling narrative that underscores the gravity of the situation and the necessity for a thorough examination of all facets involved.
Rationale
A. Dissimilar offenses warrant different FIRs
The Court upheld the second FIR for murder to the extent assented to by the CrPC §154. The underlying motive was similar, but the abduction (October 1) and murder (October 26), were not the same acts and the different actors, places and elements indicated that there were different transactions
The existing case law (State of A.P. v. Cheemalapati; Rameshchandra Parikh; Nirmal Singh Kahlon) supported that where there were factual or transactional distinctions, an additional FIR was warranted.
B. Circumstantial Evidence and Last-Seen Theory
The Court upheld circumstantial evidence: Jeevajothi’s testimony put Rajan with the victim just before time of disappearance, and no credible explanation of the recovery of the body was sufficient to leave the inference of guilt. Where the accused fails to provide any credible denial/rebuttal under the last-seen doctrine that quicken the burden to the accused – Rajan provided no explanation in terms of the evidence adduced.
C. Forensic Identification
While the appellant had critiqued the lack of DNA testing, the Court found that the superimposition test along with testimonial and circumstantial evidence was sufficient. DNA evidence is admissible but not a requirement; and in and of itself, an absence of DNA evidence does not diminish the prosecution’s case, if sufficient other evidence exists.
D. Procedural Safeguards
With respect to §313 CrPC, the Court noted that Rajan was examined and given the chance to respond during the trial; as such, the “last seen” evidence was properly presented and heard.
Defects and critiques of law:
A. Danger of Multiple FIRs
Even though the Supreme Court approved of separate FIRs, it is still tenuous: overlapping facts open the floodgates to duplicative and repetitive FIRs which conceivably undermine due process. The lower courts need to make sure that FIRs, as much as possible, reflect a separate transaction.
B. Over-reliance on Circumstantial Evidence
Convictions that are founded in inference need to be scrutinized closely. Their existence is lawful at this point in time, but the larger body of jurisprudence has cautioned against operating on this inference too much without very strong corroboration—especially in instances where a confession or last-seen evidence are disputed.
C. Dangers of Non-DNA Evidence
Biological evidence is a much stronger proposition than mere photographic matching. The Court’s finding that non-DNA identification evidence could suffice in the future presents problems and challenges in new matters especially in light of new genetic and forensic standards.
D. Degree of Coercion & Withdrawal of FIR
In this case, it was suggested that DCP’s forced withdrawal of the abduction FIR—by way of signed but blank documents—give rise to reasonable inquiry regarding the extent of mistake and/or misconception that could amount to a coerced statement. Investigative and prosecutorial actions should warrant scrutiny regarding the asylum as undue influence here.
Inference & Interpretation
The Pattu Rajan case reinforces that part and separate transactions—even where they are part of a common story—can amount to separate FIRs for CrPC §154 purposes, provided there are substantial differences in time, place, actors, and intent.
Circumstantial evidence, with the use of last-seen evidence and confession can support a conviction where coherent linkage can be established.
The integrity of forensics still exists, but it is preferable to rely on science-based methods like DNA where available.
Citation
Pattu Rajan & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (Criminal Appeal Nos. 680-81/2009), (2019) 2 SCC 354, 4 SCC 771 (India).
Conclusion
This decision in Pattu Rajan provides a solid legal endorsement of procedural certainty and evidentiary standards in criminal cases. While there are aspects where reform could be achieved, such as improving protections against involuntary statements and clarifying forensic admissibility, this case reaches a reasonable balance: appropriately protecting rights of the accused while ensuring the effective prosecution of serious crimes. Future inquiries should strive to further delineate between associated offences and ensure forcefully scientific methods, where possible.
ALWINA AZAM
LLOYD LAW COLLEGE