Court- Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
Bench- Justice Indira Banerjee, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Justice N.V. Ramana
Decided on: 29th march, 2019
Parties
Appellant- Pattu Rajan
Respondent- State of Tamil Nadu
FACTS
- Accused was the owner of a chain of hotels (Saravana Bhavan) he was convicted by the Madras High Court for the abduction and murder of Santhkumar, husband of the complainant.
- The accused become infatuated to Jeevajothi (PW1) and wanted to marry her as his third wife even though she was married. For the same he used to spend a lot on her in the way of gifts.
- On 1st October 2001 Pattu Rajan abducted Santhkumar and his wife and was addressed in another case which the current bench did not propose to discuss.
- On 18th October 2001 the victim and Jeevajothi were abducted by the henchmen of the accused (Pattu Rajan) and while she was taken to Tiruchirappalli by the accused the henchmen retained her husband.
- On 24th October 2001 Santhakumar and his wife were taken to DCP’s office to take back the complaint regarding earlier abduction that month and made them sign a few blank papers.
- On 26th October 2001 the victim and complainant were taken to accused 1, and the accused handed over Santhkumar to his henchmen and ordered him to kill him.
- On 31st October 2001 the dead body of a male was found near the tiger-chola forest area.
- Then on 20th November 2001 the first FIR was lodged by Jeevajothi.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the conviction pronounced by the High Court is valid or not?
CONTENTION
BY APPELLANT
- Their primary contention was that the High Court and trial court decisions were based on assumptions rather than solid evidence.
- They argued that the motive for the crime could not be properly established, and that there were inconsistencies in the recovery of the body, based on deposition methods rather than DNA testing
- The appellants also questioned the validity of the second First Information Report (FIR), contending that it should not have been lodged as it was a continuation of the offense before October 2001. It was held that rendered the second FIR invalid, converting it only under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure It must be said.
- The facts and arguments were completely inclined towards the abduction incident while not concerning the murder incident.
- It was contended that evidence concerning the circumstances of the “last discovery” had not been properly presented to the accused in their defence.
BY RESPONDENT
- The council argued in favor of the judgment of the court.
- The statement of PW1 completely corroborated with the evidences submitted thereof and she denied the filing of any false complaint against the accused.
- The respondent contended that the motive behind the abduction and murder was to enable the main accused (P. Rajagopal) to marry the victim’s wife, Jeevajothi.
- The respondents pointed out that the circumstantial evidence, including the last-seen testimony provided by Jeevajothi, was sufficient to establish the connection between the accused and the crime.
- They contended that the bodies were identified using reliable forensic methods recognized by the courts.
- They argued that the time, place and motive behind the murder were different from the earlier arrests, making the second FIR legally valid citing precedents like State of A.P. v. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao,19631, to justify separate FIRs.
- The respondents relied on medical evidence, to demonstrate that the cause of death was asphyxia due to throttling.
RATIONALE
The rationale in this case lies on the application of critical interpretation of legal principles and evaluation of evidences related to the abduction and murder of Santhakumar the victim in this case. There were multiple attempts by the accused to challenge his conviction on various grounds including challenging the validity of various evidences but while concluding the same after reviewing all the facts and contentions the Supreme Court of India upheld his conviction.
The court determined that, although the crimes of kidnapping and murders, although intentionally connected, were distinct events separated by time and place. The first offense was committed on October 1, 2001 when Santhakumar and his wife were kidnapped and about a month later the murder was committed on October 26, 2001. Though the appellant was motivated to commit both the offenses because of the desire to get married, the court held that the motives behind the two crimes differ significantly. The kidnapping was aimed at threatening the couple, while the murder sought to get rid of Santhakumar for good. This distinction justified treating kidnapping and murder as separate offences, and allowed a second First Information Report (FIR) to be registered in connection with the murder.
A significant part of the debate revolved around testimony on the credibility of the court. The appellant contended that the identification of Santhakumar’s body was flawed because it was based on establishment tests rather than DNA evidence. However, the Court ruled that these establishments corroborated with the circumstantial evidences as provided by JeevaJothi and therefore was sufficient to decide on the same.
The appellant also challenged the use of circumstantial evidence, in particular the final evidence, which he contended was not properly offered under section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, and thus did not give him an opportunity to defend himself but the court dismissed the same considering that he was giving ample opportunity for the same and so the doctrine of Last seen was applied making the accused liable to explain the circumstances under which he was last seen with the deceased.
DEFECTS OF LAW
In this case there were various defects of law and legal procedure highlighted by the appellant at various times though the court ultimately did not find them sufficient to alter the conviction yet it took more than 10 years for the wife of the deceased to reach to a conclusion through this decision.
Some of these are:
- It was contended by the appellant that the filing of the second FIR was not proper as it was continuation of the abduction case for which a FIR was already filed. This essentially highlighted the defect in the procedural law and the same should be considered as a statement under section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, this was completely denied by the court and therefore the second FIR was considered valid.
- The defense argued that the identification of Santhakumar’s body was flawed because it was based on a confirmatory test rather than a more reliable DNA test. The appellants argued that this approach was insufficient, casting doubt on the identity of the deceased. This was pointed out as an error in the handling of forensic evidence. However, the court provided that the establishments corroborated with the circumstantial evidences as provided by PW1.
- Other defect raised by the appellant was against the ‘last seen’ circumstances, to which the accused challenged but the burden of proof was levied on the accused by the apex court to explain the circumstances under which he was last seen with the deceased.
- The decision of the High Court was also challenged by the accused doubting and questioning on it and contending that it is provided based on assumptions and conjecture rather than facts and direct evidences.
- It was also pointed out that relying completely on the circumstantial evidences is not accurate and hence must be reviewed.
- It was also highlighted by the appellants that the prosecution improperly connected the kidnapping case from October 2001 to the subsequent murders. It was argued that it was unreasonable in law to treat these two cases as one continuous case. This has been criticized as an error of law because it blurs the distinction between specific crimes. However, the court found that although the motives for both cases were the same, the nature and intent of each offense differed, warranting separation of the two cases.
- While these legal and procedural defects were raised by the defense, the Supreme Court found them insufficient to undermine the validity of the conviction. The Court ruled that the procedural steps taken by the lower courts adhered to legal standards, and the use of circumstantial evidence, though challenged, was lawful under the circumstances.
CONCLUSION
The 2019 Pattu Rajan case raised significant legal and factual issues concerning abduction, murder, and evidentiary procedures. The case revolved around the abduction and murder of Santhakumar, whose wife, Jeevajothi, was the complainant. PattuRajan, the accused, had an interest in marrying Jeevajothi, despite her being married to Santhakumar. Key events in the case included the abduction of both Santhakumar and Jeevajothi, coercion to withdraw their complaint, and the eventual murder of Santhakumar in October 2001.
Even after so many review applications by the accused the court provided its decision after critical evaluation and analysis of facts and evidences. The decision was given after more than 10 years yet in the end justice prevailed.
SUBMITTED BY
VIDMITA SONI
TRINITY INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES, DWARKA (GGSIPU)