Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 375

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Indira Banerjee, JJ.
P. Rajagopal & Ors. – Appellant
Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 820-821 of 2009 with Criminal Appeal No. 896 of 2009 and Criminal Appeal Nos. 554-555 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (Criminal) Nos. 9261-9262 of 2015)
Decided on : 29-03-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the State :Mr. Sushil Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Aishwarya Bhati, Advocate, GP. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, Advocate, Mr. Jaideep Singh, Advocate, Mr. Aditya Kumar, Advocate, Mr. S. Rathnakaran, Advocate, Ms. Chitrangada Rastravara, Advocate, Mr. T. Gopal, Advocate, Mr. Adarsh Kr. Tiwari, Advocate, Ms. Tanuja Patra, Advocate, Ms. Vaidruti Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Damodar Solanki, Advocate, Ms. Biswabara Dash, Advocate, Mr. S.S. Rawat, Advocate and Mr. Aishwarya Bhati, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AAG, Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Advocate and Mr. S. Partha Sarathi, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Court can condone the delay in lodging FIR if complainant appears to be reliable and without any motive for implicating the accused falsely.

Headnote:(a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 154 – Delay in lodging FIR – Prosecution case liable to be rejected – However, court can condone the delay if complainant appears to be reliable and without any motive for implicating the accused falsely. (Para 8)
       (1973) 3 SCC 114; (2017) 6 SCC 1 – Relied upon
       (b) Criminal trial – Conviction – If after considering all evidence I n proper perspective – Cannot be interfered with. (Para 13)
       Facts of the case:
       14 accused were tried in the following manner: Accused No. 1 for the offences punishable under Section 109 read with Section 366, Section 109 read with Section 323 and Section 323 of the IPC; Accused Nos. 2 to 13 for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 366 and 323 of the IPC; and Accused No. 14 for the offences punishable under Sections 109 read with Section 506 of the IPC.
       The Trial Court convicted Accused Nos. 1 to 9 and acquitted Accused Nos. 10 to 14. Accused No. 1 was convicted for the offences under Section 109 read with Section 364, Section 109 read with Section 366, Section 352, and Section 109 read with Section 352 of the IPC. Accused Nos. 2 to 9 were convicted under Sections 364, 366 and 352 of the IPC.
       The High Court affirmed the finding of guilt by the Trial Court but modified the conviction of Accused No.1 from Section 109 read with Section 364 to Section 109 read with Section 365, and the conviction of Accused Nos. 2 to 9 from Section 366 to Section 365. The High Court maintained the conviction of Accused No. 1 under Section 109 read with Section 352 and that of Accused Nos. 2 to 9 under Section 352, and acquitted them for the other offences. Accused No. 1 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and Accused Nos. 2 to 9 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.
       Finding of the court:
       It is not a fit case for setting aside the judgments of the Courts below.
       Result: Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

Leave granted in SLP (Crl.) Nos. 9261-9262 of 2015.

2. The judgment dated 19.03.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal Nos. 668-669 of 2004 is in question in these appeals. The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 365 and 352 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter "the IPC").

3. The brief facts leading to these appeals are as under:

Accused No. 1, the proprietor of a chain of hotels (Saravana Bhavan) allegedly had the illegal intention of taking PW1 Jeevajothi, (aged about 21 years at the time of commission of the offence) as his third wife, even though his second wife was still alive and Jeevajothi was married. The family of PW1 had been acquainted with Accused No. 1 since 1994, and he had even given a managerial job to the father of PW1 in one of his hotels. PW2 is the mother of PW1. Their family hailed from Thethakudi village near Vedaranyam, and had come to Chennai and settled there after selling all their properties at Thethakudi and clearing all debts. They had come to Chennai with about Rs.4.5 Lakhs, which they deposited with Accused No. 1, who gave them an interest of Rs. 6,000-7,000/- per month on the same. PW1 (Jeevajothi), a Hindu, fell in love and married Prince Santhakumar, who was a Christian, much to the disapprobation of the family of PW1. Even after the marriage of PW1 with Santhakumar, Accused No. 1 displayed a munificent attitude towards PW1 and her parents, liberally presenting expensive birthday gifts to PW1, paying her hospital bills, etc. He also helped them monetarily and logistically in setting up their travel agency in Chennai. He even used to interfere in the personal affairs of PW1 and used to tell her false stories about her husband Santhakumar, and advised her to abstain from sexual relations with Santhakumar. However, PW1 did not pay any heed to Accused No. 1 and continued to live happily with her husband. Moreover, she did not have any love or affection towards Accused No. 1. On 28.09.2001, Accused No. 1 came to the house of PW1 and Santhakumar along with PW1's parents and started shouting at PW1 for not listening to him. Accused No. 1 gave an ultimatum of two days to Santhakumar to sever all his relationships with PW1. However, the relationship between PW1 and her husband remained unaffected. Even so, being agitated by the attitude of Accused No. 1, PW1 and her husband decided to move to a place unknown to Accused No. 1.

4. However, they did not get an opportunity to do so. On 01.10.2001, the other accused, i.e., Accused Nos. 2 to 11, who were the aides of Accused No. 1, surrounded the house of PW1.A few of the accused broke open the lock of their house and thereafter, by grabbing the arm of PW1, who was present outside the house along with her husband, dragged her into an Ambassador car, marked M.O. 2, bearing Registration No. TN 22 5202. The accused also forced her husband to enter the same car and got her family members into the car as well, saying that they had instructions from Accused No. 1 to bring all of them before him. Having brought another Ambassador car, M.O. 1, bearing Registration No. TN 09 T 3224, and a two-wheeler, they followed the car in which PW1 and her family members were sitting, who were taken to the house of Accused No. 14 Chandrasekaran, situated at Ashok Nagar, which was used as a godown for the hotel of Accused No. 1. Accused No. 1, who was present there, assaulted Santhakumar and caused Accused Nos. 2 to 9 to assault him too. PW1 pleaded for mercy at the feet of Accused No. 1, which Santhakumar tried to stop by lifting her from the ground. Angered by the act of Santhakumar trying to touch PW1, Accused No. 1 further assaulted Santhakumar, and ordered his henchmen to confine him in another room and to beat him up. In the meantime, PW1 was pressurized by Accused Nos. 1 and 14 to abandon Santhakumar and to marry Accused No. 1.Later that day, both PW

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 375

IMPORTANT POINTCourt can condone the delay in lodging FIR if complainant appears to be reliable and without any motive for implicating the accused falsely.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Court can condone the delay in lodging FIR if complainant appears to be reliable and without any motive for implicating the accused falsely.