Back
Rejects Bail in Brutal SC/ST Case, Ignites Fury Over 'Political' Prosecutors
In a scathing verdict from the , Justice B. Pugalendhi denied sentence suspension to Rajkumar, convicted for attempting to rape a Scheduled Caste woman. The ruling not only upholds the trial court's sentence amid a pending appeal but unleashes a blistering critique of Tamil Nadu's prosecution system, accusing it of favoring political loyalty over merit.
Dawn Assault: The Incident That Sparked Outrage
On , at around , the victim—a woman from the oppressed Scheduled Caste community—stepped out near G. Vilakku in Theni district to attend a natural call. Allegedly, Rajkumar punched her, shoved her to the ground, and attempted rape. She lodged a complaint immediately, and medical examination at revealed harrowing injuries: an abrasion on her lower lip, nail marks on her neck, vaginal bleeding, and a contusion on her hard palate, as noted in the hospital's Accident Register.
Tried in Special S.C. No. 183 of 2020 before the , Rajkumar was convicted on , under (attempt to rape, five years' rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 5,000 fine) and (six months' rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 2,000 fine). He appealed in Crl.A(MD) No. 405 of 2025 and sought bail via Crl.M.P.(MD) No. 12468 of 2025—his second such bid after an earlier dismissal.
False Accusations or Hidden Feud? Defense Fires Back
Rajkumar's counsel, , argued the rape attempt claim was fabricated due to a personal dispute between the victim's son and the accused. He stressed no injuries were proven in trial, as the Accident Register wasn't formally marked as evidence, casting doubt on the prosecution's case.
The state, represented by Government Advocate , countered with the Accident Register's details of four injuries, underscoring the offence's gravity against a vulnerable woman from a marginalized community. Reports integrated from court proceedings highlight how this document, though overlooked in trial, became pivotal in the High Court's review.
Trial Blunder Exposed: A Document Buried in Negligence
Justice Pugalendhi dissected the prosecution's fatal flaws. The doctor (PW12) recorded injuries in the Accident Register on the incident day, yet the Special Public Prosecutor failed to mark it or question the witness properly—despite its availability in the case diary. This lapse nearly undermined the victim's case.
Citing Angana vs. State of Rajasthan (2009), the court affirmed that bail suspension demands judicious consideration of offence nature and evidence. Here, the allegations' seriousness against an SC woman precluded relief. Worse, an earlier bail plea dismissal prompted scrutiny, revealing the prosecutor's negligence. The recommended his removal on , yet the government dawdles.
"State's Solemn Duty Betrayed": Court's Indictment of Political Patronage
The judgment transcends the case, launching a broader assault on Tamil Nadu's appointment of public prosecutors. Justice Pugalendhi lamented:
"It is deeply disturbing to note that the State appears to be appointing Government Pleaders / Public Prosecutors / Law Officers not on merit, but on the basis of their proximity and allegiance to the ruling dispensation."
Echoing the First Bench's directive in V. Vasanthakumar v. The Chief Secretary (2018) for merit-based selections, the court decried "menial political activities" like election poster pasting as qualifications. Victims, invoking rights, deserve competent defenders—not political hacks.
"The victims cannot punish the offenders and they place all their faith on the State which assumes a solemn duty to take up the cause of the victim."
impleading and , the court mandated a decision on the prosecutor's removal within four weeks.
No Mercy, Swift Action: Verdict and Ripples Ahead
The application stands dismissed. Rajkumar remains incarcerated pending appeal. Yet, this ruling reverberates: it compels accountability in prosecutions, especially SC/ST atrocities, potentially spurring reforms in advocate appointments. Victims of caste-based violence may find stronger state advocacy, while negligent officers face ouster—signaling the judiciary's intolerance for systemic sabotage of justice.
Key Observations:
-
"The petitioner punched the victim and pushed her to the floor and attempted to commit rape on her."
-
"Doctor/P.W.12... has recorded that the victim has suffered the following injuries... Abrasion 1 x 1 c.m over lowerlip, Nail marks over ant aspect of neck, Bleeding Per Veginam, Contusion 0.5 x 0.5 c.m over hard palate."
-
"Considering the serious nature of allegations as against a woman from the oppressed community... this Court is not inclined to entertain this application for suspension of sentence."
-
"By keeping the file pending, the Government is in fact enabling this unfit person to continue in the post and continue to cause injustice to other victims as well."
