Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Abduction Case: P. Rajagopal vs. State of Tamil Nadu (29 March 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 29 March 2019
Citation: Criminal Appeal Nos. 820-821 of 2009
Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J., and Indira Banerjee, J.

Can a conviction for abduction be upheld when some of the accused are acquitted? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving the abduction of a young woman and her husband. The core issue revolved around the reliability of witness testimony and the implications of acquitting some, but not all, of the accused. This judgment clarifies the court’s stance on the matter and reinforces the importance of credible evidence in criminal trials. The bench was composed of Justices N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, and Indira Banerjee, with the judgment authored by Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.

Case Background

The case involves P. Rajagopal, the proprietor of a chain of hotels, who allegedly had the intention of marrying Jeevajothi (PW1), despite her being married and him already having two wives. The family of PW1 had been acquainted with Accused No. 1 since 1994, and he had even given a managerial job to PW1’s father. PW1 married Prince Santhakumar, which was not approved by her family. Despite this, Accused No. 1 continued to display a munificent attitude towards PW1 and her parents. On 28.09.2001, Accused No. 1 gave an ultimatum to Santhakumar to sever all ties with PW1. On 01.10.2001, Accused Nos. 2 to 11, aides of Accused No. 1, forcibly took PW1 and her family members into a car and confined them in a godown owned by Accused No. 14.

Accused No. 1 pressured PW1 to abandon Santhakumar and marry him. Later that day, PW1 and her husband were released. On 12.10.2001, PW1 lodged a complaint with the City Police Commissioner, Chennai. The first information was registered on 09.11.2001. Charges were framed against the 14 accused for various offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Trial Court convicted Accused Nos. 1 to 9, and acquitted Accused Nos. 10 to 14. The High Court affirmed the conviction but modified the charges.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Accused Nos. 1 to 9 and acquitted Accused Nos. 10 to 14. Accused No. 1 was convicted for 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. On appeal, the High Court affirmed the finding of guilt 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 of the IPC. 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 of the IPC.

Legal Framework

The relevant legal provisions in this case are Sections 365, 352, 109, 364 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

• Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person.
• Section 352 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with punishment for assault or use of criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation.
• Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with the punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment.
• Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with kidnapping or abducting in order to murder.
• Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.

Arguments

The appellants argued that the acquittal of the drivers of the vehicles involved in the abduction and of Accused No. 14, in whose house PW1 and her husband were confined, should cause the entire case of abduction to collapse. They also contended that there was an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, which was not adequately explained by the prosecution. Further, they argued that the incident of abduction had not occurred and that the averments made in the complaint were false and concocted.

The State argued in support of the judgments of the Courts below, stating that the delay was adequately explained and that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 was reliable and consistent.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issues addressed were:

1. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR was adequately explained by the prosecution.
2. Whether the acquittal of some accused (drivers and Accused No. 14) would cause the entire case of abduction to collapse.
3. Whether the evidence of PW1 and PW2 was reliable and sufficient to uphold the conviction of the appellants.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellants. The Court found that the delay in lodging the FIR was adequately explained, as PW1’s family was under the influence of Accused No. 1. The Court also held that the acquittal of some accused did not erode the evidence against the other accused who actively participated in the crime. The Court relied heavily on the consistent and reliable testimony of PW1 and PW2.

The Court also considered how the authorities were viewed:

• Apren Joseph v. State of Kerala, (1973) 3 SCC 114: The Court used this case to support the principle that delay in lodging an FIR can be condoned if the delay is satisfactorily explained.
• Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 6 SCC 1: The Court cited this case to further support the principle that delay in lodging an FIR can be condoned if the delay is satisfactorily explained.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the consistent and reliable testimony of the victim (PW1) and her mother (PW2), along with the circumstances surrounding the incident. The Court also considered the fact that PW1’s family was under the influence of Accused No. 1, which explained the delay in lodging the FIR.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual evidence and legal principles. The factual aspects, such as the consistent testimony of PW1 and PW2, and the circumstances surrounding the abduction, played a significant role in the Court’s decision. The legal principles, such as the condonation of delay in lodging an FIR, were also considered.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered the arguments presented by the appellants, but ultimately rejected them based on the evidence and the circumstances of the case. The Court emphasized the importance of witness testimony and the need to consider all the facts and circumstances of the case when deciding on a criminal matter.

The Court’s decision was unanimous, with all three judges concurring in the judgment. There were no dissenting opinions.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“In our considered opinion, 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.”

“On going through the evidence of PW1 in its entirety, we concur with the opinion rendered by the courts below that her evidence appears to be natural, consistent, probable and reliable.”

“We are also of the opinion that 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…”

Key Takeaways

• Delay in lodging an FIR can be condoned if there is a satisfactory explanation.
• The acquittal of some accused does not necessarily invalidate the case against other accused if there is sufficient evidence against them.
• Consistent and reliable witness testimony is crucial in criminal cases.
• The court will consider the totality of the facts and circumstances of a case.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the delay in lodging an FIR can be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory and that the acquittal of some accused does not necessarily invalidate the case against other accused if there is sufficient evidence against them. This case reinforces the importance of witness testimony and the need to consider the totality of facts and circumstances in a criminal case. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellants in the abduction case, emphasizing the importance of reliable witness testimony and the need to consider the totality of facts and circumstances. The Court found that the delay in lodging the FIR was adequately explained, and the acquittal of some accused did not undermine the evidence against the other accused who actively participated in the crime. This judgment reinforces the principles of criminal law and the importance of credible evidence in upholding justice.