DATE OF CASE: 29-03-2019

APPELLANT: Pattu Rajan

RESPONDENT: State of Tamil Nadu

BENCH / JUDGES: Justice N. V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Indira Banerjee, JJ.


  1. Criminal Procedure code, 1973; section 313, 173 (8), and 154.
  2. IPC Section 302, 364, 304, 201
  3. Indian Evidence Act, section 27 and 46.


  1. That, the accused wanted to marry the complainant Jeevajothi who was already married to Santhakumar.
  2. That, Santhkumar was the employee of P. Rajagopal (accused no 1.) who is proprietor of a chain of hotels called Saravana Bhavan.
  3. That, on 01/10/2001 the accused abducted the victim and his wife.
  4. That, on 18/10/2001 the victim and the wife were abducted by the henchmen of the accused separated husband and wife and sent him to different place after abduction.
  5. That, on 26/10/2001 they killed Santhkumar the husband of Jeevajothi by ordering henchmen and kept his wife with accused 1.
  6. That, on 31/10/2001 the dead body of male (Santhakumar) was found near the tiger- chola forest area.
  7. That, the complainant Jeevajothi Contention by Appellant.


Is the conviction of the accused (appellant) by the High Court of T.N. Legally valid?


1. The appellants argued that the High court and trail was basically based on presumptions rather than the facts due to lack of evidence and continuity.  They questioned the judgment of the High court.

2. The identification of the body was not based upon DNA test but they were based on superimposition which was merely trustable.

3. The abduction took place on 01/10/2001 and murder on 26/10/2001 stated that both are two different incidents which took place in two different times meanwhile the arguments and case was based on the facts of abduction of the victim.

4.  There was a huge gap and lack of continuity between two of the incidents of abduction and murder which enables to derive the motive and continuity.


1. The Respondent was dependent on three things motive behind the offence, observed situation during offence and recuperation. 

2. No doubt that both the incidents abduction and murder are of two different incidents but after the investigation done they found out that the starting and occurrence of the principal of abduction and both the cases are related to each other and started and finished on 01/10/2001.

3. Moreover the design and unity of the purpose of the cases were also absent which plays a vital role in any case.


While referring to law the registration of a second FIR (which is not a counter case) Article 21 of the Constitution. Supreme Court reiterated the law laid in the case of Awadesh Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar, that two offence in which the fresh offence 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, also varies from cases to cases its subjective matter. Considering that fact that how much a evidence is valuable and valid from case to case varies so particular if the testimony is well and enough so they can consider it. So DNA test is an important part of evidence but if the other testimony identifies and evidence is valuable then considering it is no of a harm for the court.


In the case of Pattu Rajan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, it took 18 years for Jeevajothi, who got widow in her youth due to the murder of the husband.  As per Madras high court accused got held guilty for murder under Section 302 of IPC, which was appealed by Rajagopal. The Supreme Court also agreed with the judgement of high court and overruled the appeal of the Rajagopal by giving him life sentence for the offence but, he suffered from a cardiac arrest and passed away on July 18, 2019. It doesn’t matter which court it is but an offence will never be over ruled because law is to punish the crime not the criminal.  Not matter how long it look but Jeevajothi got her justice.  Supreme Court played a very vital role by considering the present evidence without any DNA case but it may varies from case to case. So the accused appeal was dismissed and it was truly based on proving guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

 [1]State of A.P. v. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao, (1964) 3 SCR 297

 [2] T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181

 [3] (2016) 3 SCC 8.


Alliance School of Law Alliance University, Bengaluru