Date – 29/03/2019
Appellant– Pattu Rajan
Respondent- State of Tamil Nadu
Bench – Justice N.V Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Indira Banerjee, JJ.
Facts:
- The appellant Mr. Pattu Rajan was convicted by the Madras High Court for the abduction and murder of Santhkumar, husband of the complainant.
- The accused was keen to marry Jeevajothi even though she was married.
- On 1st October 2001 Pattu Rajan abducted Santhkumar and his wife and was addressed in another case which the current bench did not delve into.
- On 18th October 2001 the victim and Jeevajothi were abducted by the henchmen of the accused (Pattu Rajan) and she was taken to Tiruchirappalli by the accused while 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 ordered his henchmen to murder Santhkumar.
- On 31st October 2001 the dead body of a male was found near the tiger-chola forest area.
- Jeevajothi then lodged the first FIR on 20th November 2001.
Issue raised
1.Is the conviction of the accused (appellant) by the High Court of Tamil Nadu legally valid or not?
2. Weather Pattu Rajan actually murdered santhakumar or not?
Contentions by Appellant
The counsel for appellants contended that:
- The High Court and the subordinate court have slightly proceeded on suppositions and conjectures, and the motive for the commission of the offense has not been proved.
- The proceedings should stand corrupt since the first statement of the primary case is just an extension of the complaint filed on 01st October 2001.
- The body had been recognized in the absence of a DNA test and only based on an improper superimposition test.
- The last visible circumstantial evidence by the complainant was never put on the accused while testing them.
- The abduction on 01/10/2001 and murder on 26/10/2001 were different cases together and with a quick showcase of the unfolding of the incidents one can easily understand that the current complaint is not only a statement of the one dealing with abduction.
- No continuity of action can be compiled from the sequence of events.
CONTENTION BY RESPONDENT
- The Respondent was reliant on three things which were the motive behind the offense, the observed situation during the offense, and the regain.
- No doubt that both the incidents abduction and murder are two different incidents but after a deep investigation, they discovered that the starting and occurrence of the principal of abduction and both the cases are related to each other and started and completed on 01st October 2001.
- Moreover, the design and unity of the motive of the cases were also not present which plays an important role in any case.
Rationale
While referring to law the registration of a second FIR (which is not a counter case) is Article 21 of the Constitution. Supreme Court reiterated the law laid in the case of Awadhesh Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar, that two offenses in which the fresh offense can’t be investigated differently, under sub-section 8 of Section 173 of the CRPC, the investigation of the case in which it was the contusion of other case or 2nd case which was filed after that. Also, DNA evidence, like all other opinion evidence, varies from case to case it’s a subjective matter. Because how much a shred of evidence is valuable and valid from case to case varies especially if the testimony is well enough so they can consider it. So, a DNA test is an important part of evidence but if the other testimony identifies and the evidence is valuable then it is not harmful for the court.
Inference
In the case of Pattu Rajan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, it took 18 years for Jeevajothi, who became a widow at a young age due to the murder of her husband. As per the Madras High Court accused was held guilty of murder under Section 302 of IPC, which was appealed by Rajagopal. The Supreme Court also agreed with the judgment of the high court and overruled the appeal of Rajagopal by giving him a life sentence for the offense but, he suffered from a heart attack and passed away on July 18, 2019. It does not matter which court it is but an offense will never be overruled because the law is to punish the crime, not the criminal. No matter how long it took Jeevajothi got her justice. Supreme Court played a very vital role by considering the present evidence without any DNA case but it may vary from case to case. So the accused appeal was dismissed and it was truly based on proving guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; section 313, 173 (8), and 154.
- IPC Section 302, 364, 304, 201
- Indian Evidence Act, sections 27 and 46.
Ratio Decidendi:
- The conclusion reached by the courts was based on proper examination of facts and testimonies provided by the witnesses on both sides.
- The belongings of the deceased recovered from accused no 6 after his confession were identified positively by PW1 and her family as belonging to the deceased.
- The doctrine of last seen shifts the burden of proof onto the accused, placing on him the onus to explain how the incident occurred and what happened to the victim who was last seen with him, and thus the appellant had the burden to prove innocence.
Judgement:
- The Supreme Court held that even though both the cases had the same motive of getting PW1 to marry the accused but were different altogether and were to be treated differently.
- The court rejected the appellant’s claim that the High Court and trial court had proceeded merely on assumptions and said that proper evaluation of records had been done by both of them.
- The court held that the evidence on record fully proved the case of the prosecution.
Citation: Pattu Rajan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2019) 4 SCC 771
Equivalent Citations: (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 354, 2019 SCC ONLINE SC 444
Name: Rishabh Jain
College Name: Chander Prabhu Jain college of higher studies and school of law