Landmark Judgment on Abduction and Assault: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction
The case of P. Rajagopal & Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu revolves around a shocking incident of abduction and assault, which culminated in a legal battle over the conviction of the accused. The case highlights the misuse of power, coercion, and illegal confinement for personal motives.
In its judgment dated March 29, 2019, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused, who were found guilty of forcibly abducting a woman and her husband with the intent of coercing her into marriage. The case serves as an important precedent in criminal law, reinforcing that influence and wealth cannot protect individuals from the law.
Case Background
The appellant, P. Rajagopal, was a wealthy hotelier and the proprietor of the Saravana Bhavan chain of hotels. The case stemmed from his obsession with Jeevajothi (PW1), the daughter of one of his employees. Despite being married, Rajagopal intended to make her his third wife.
Jeevajothi’s family had migrated to Chennai and was financially dependent on Rajagopal, who had provided employment to her father. The family deposited their savings with him, and he paid them monthly interest. Over time, Rajagopal’s interest in Jeevajothi turned into an obsession.
Despite her clear disinterest, he continued his advances and even attempted to spread rumors about her husband, Prince Santhakumar, suggesting he had serious health issues. His interference in her personal life escalated to threats and coercion.
On October 1, 2001, Rajagopal’s associates, acting on his instructions, forcibly abducted Jeevajothi and her husband. They were taken to a house belonging to one of the accused, where Santhakumar was beaten and threatened. Jeevajothi was pressured to leave her husband and marry Rajagopal.
They were eventually released, but under continuous surveillance by Rajagopal’s men. Seizing an opportunity, they managed to escape and lodge a complaint with the police on October 12, 2001.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The defense, led by Senior Advocate Sushil Kumar, contended that:
- The prosecution’s case was weak due to the delay in filing the FIR, which was lodged 11 days after the alleged abduction.
- There was no conclusive evidence linking Rajagopal and his associates to the abduction.
- The acquittal of the drivers and one of the accused weakened the prosecution’s case.
- Jeevajothi and her husband could have easily sought police help earlier, given that they possessed a phone.
Respondent’s Arguments
The prosecution, representing the State of Tamil Nadu, countered that:
- The delay in lodging the complaint was justified because the victims were under constant surveillance.
- The evidence from Jeevajothi and her mother (PW2) was consistent and credible.
- Rajagopal had a clear history of coercing women into marriage, as evidenced by a similar case involving his second wife.
- Multiple witnesses corroborated the sequence of events leading to the abduction.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Rajagopal and his associates, stating:
“Looking at the totality of the facts and circumstances, the Trial Court and the High Court were justified in condoning the delay and in concluding that the said delay was not vital to the case of the prosecution.”
The Court dismissed the argument that the delay in filing the FIR weakened the prosecution’s case. It noted:
“In the matter on hand, the entire family of PW1 was at the mercy of Accused No. 1, who was very rich and influential. Under such circumstances, PW1 might have been reluctant to lodge a complaint immediately after the occurrence of the said incident.”
The Court also rejected the argument that the acquittal of the drivers and one of the accused affected the prosecution’s case:
“The mere acquittal of the drivers and Accused No. 14 would not erode the ample evidence against Accused Nos. 1 to 9, who actively participated in the crime of abduction.”
Referring to Rajagopal’s repeated attempts to manipulate and threaten Jeevajothi, the Court found the evidence of the prosecution credible:
“It is amply clear from the deposition of PW1 that Accused No. 1 even tried to convince PW1 that her husband was infected with HIV, in a bid to discourage her from having sexual relations with him. He also came to the house of PW1 and proposed to her to live with him as his third wife.”
The Supreme Court confirmed the sentences imposed by the lower courts, concluding that:
“In light of the aforementioned discussion and perusal of the material on record, we do not deem it a fit case for setting aside the judgments of the Courts below. The conviction and sentence as granted is hereby confirmed, and the appeals are thus dismissed.”
Conclusion
This judgment underscores the importance of protecting individuals from coercion and abduction. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforced that the law does not permit individuals, regardless of wealth and influence, to use threats and violence for personal desires.
By upholding the conviction, the Court sent a strong message that crimes of this nature would not be tolerated, and victims have the right to seek justice without fear.
Petitioner Name: P. Rajagopal & Ors..
Respondent Name: The State of Tamil Nadu.
Judgment By: Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Justice Indira Banerjee.
Place Of Incident: Chennai, Tamil Nadu.
Judgment Date: 29-03-2019.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: P. Rajagopal & Ors. vs The State of Tamil N Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 29-03-2019.pdf
Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment
See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Rape Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by N.V. Ramana
See all petitions in Judgment by Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
See all petitions in Judgment by Indira Banerjee
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments
See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
