Supreme Court Restores Criminal Proceedings in Job Fraud and Murder Case

The case of Saranya vs. Bharathi & Anr. revolves around a shocking incident of job fraud that led to the tragic murder of a victim through poisoning. The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the High Court was correct in quashing criminal proceedings against one of the accused, Bharathi (A2). After reviewing the evidence and legal principles, the Supreme Court restored the charges, allowing the trial to proceed.

Case Background

The appellant, Saranya, was the wife of the deceased Karthick. Karthick, a former Assistant Professor, was unemployed and struggling financially. Bharathi, the second accused (A2), frequently visited Karthick’s Xerox shop and introduced him to Velayutham (A1). She claimed that Velayutham was an official at the Guindy Employment Exchange and could secure a government job in exchange for a bribe of Rs. 6 lakhs. Believing her assurances, Karthick and Saranya paid Rs. 5 lakhs to Velayutham.

On 23rd September 2019, Velayutham called Karthick and Saranya to meet him, promising to deliver the appointment order. At the meeting, Velayutham gave them ‘prasadam’ (sacred offering), which he claimed was from a temple. Saranya found the taste suspicious and spat it out, but Karthick consumed it and immediately collapsed. He was taken to Stanley Hospital, but he had already died on the spot. Later, medical reports confirmed that the substance contained poison.

The police registered an FIR under Sections 326, 307, 302, and 420 read with 34 IPC. The investigation revealed multiple calls between Velayutham and Bharathi before and after the incident. A chargesheet was filed against both accused, with Bharathi being charged under Sections 420 and 302 read with Section 109 IPC (abetment).

However, Bharathi moved the Madras High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the charges against her. The High Court ruled in her favor, citing a lack of direct evidence, and dismissed the charges. Saranya challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.

Arguments by the Appellant (Saranya)

Bharathi was instrumental in the conspiracy by introducing Velayutham to the deceased.
“There was a confessional statement by Bharathi, and a sum of Rs. 1.2 lakh was recovered from her residence.”
Call records showed frequent communication between Bharathi and Velayutham, including calls made near the crime scene.
The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by quashing the charges when there was prima facie evidence against Bharathi.

Arguments by the Respondent (Bharathi)

The only allegation against Bharathi was that she introduced Velayutham to the deceased.
“The recovery of Rs. 1.2 lakh does not conclusively establish that it was part of the fraudulent transaction.”
Call records alone do not prove that Bharathi was involved in the crime.
The High Court correctly ruled that there was no direct evidence linking Bharathi to the poisoning.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and examined two key legal issues:

1. Can a chargesheet be quashed if there is prima facie evidence?

The Court ruled that the High Court should not have assessed the sufficiency of evidence at this stage.
“At the stage of framing charges, courts must determine whether there is ground for presuming that the accused committed the offense, not whether the accused is likely to be convicted.”

2. Did Bharathi’s actions justify framing charges?

The Court found that Bharathi’s involvement extended beyond mere introduction.
“The call records, confessional statement, and cash recovery suggest active participation in the conspiracy.”
The prosecution’s case needed to be tested at trial rather than dismissed prematurely.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

“The judgment of the Madras High Court dated 25th August 2020 quashing the charges against Bharathi is set aside.”
“The case shall proceed before the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in accordance with the law.”

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that criminal proceedings should not be quashed when there is prima facie evidence. The ruling ensures that evidence is tested at trial rather than dismissed prematurely. This case highlights the dangers of fraudulent job scams and underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring fair trials in criminal cases.

Petitioner Name: Saranya.
Respondent Name: Bharathi & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice M.R. Shah.
Place Of Incident: Chennai, Tamil Nadu.
Judgment Date: 24-08-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: saranya-vs-bharathi-&-anr.-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-24-08-2021.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Extortion and Blackmail
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2021
See all petitions in 2021 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