NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 820­821 OF 2009  

P. Rajagopal & Ors. Etc. .....Appellants

Versus

The State of Tamil Nadu .....Respondent WITH

Criminal Appeal No. 896 of 2009 AND

Criminal Appeal Nos. 554­555 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 9261­9262 of 2015)

J U D G M E N T

MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.

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

2. The judgment dated 19.03.2009 passed by the High Court

of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal Nos. 668­669 of 2004

is in question in these appeals.  The appellants herein have been

convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under

1

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.6,000­7,000/­ 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

2

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.

3

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 two­wheeler, 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.

4

Later that day, both  PW1  and  her  husband along  with their

family were released at the orders of Accused No. 1, who gave one

week’s time to Santhakumar to leave PW1 and reside elsewhere.

Although the unlawful detention of PW1 and her husband thus

came to an end, they remained under the constant surveillance of

Accused No. 1 and his men.  However, on the pretext of attending

a felicitation function arranged for Accused No. 1, PW1

accompanied by her husband went to the office of the City Police

Commissioner, Chennai and lodged a complaint (first

information) Ext. P­1, on 12.10.2001 and the matter was referred

to the  Deputy  Commissioner of Police on 13.10.2001  with a

direction to conduct a proper enquiry and take necessary action

in accordance with law.   Ultimately, the said complaint went to

the jurisdictional Police Station on 09.11.2001, on which day the

first information was registered.   However, it reached the

jurisdictional Magistrate only on 15.11.2001.

5. Charges were framed against the 14 accused in the

following manner: against 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; against

5

Accused Nos. 2 to 13 for the offences punishable under Sections

364, 366 and 323 of the IPC; and against Accused No. 14 for the

offences punishable under Sections 109 read with Section 506 of

the IPC.   

On evaluation  of the  material  on record, 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.

6. On appeal by the convicted accused, 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

6

years and Accused Nos. 2 to 9 were sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for two years.   Hence, these appeals by

the convicted accused.

7. Shri Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel for the

appellants submitted that the drivers of the two vehicles involved

in the incident of abduction (i.e. M.O. Nos. 1 and 2) were

acquitted by the Trial Court, as was Accused No. 14

Chandrasekaran, in whose house PW1 and her husband

Santhakumar were kept confined after abduction, and hence the

High Court was not  justified in affirming the conviction of the

other accused. In fact, he asserted that these acquittals would

cause the entire case of abduction to collapse. He further argued

that there was an enormous delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. by

PW1, inasmuch as the alleged incident had taken place on

01.10.2001 and the complaint came to be lodged only on

12.10.2001, and that the F.I.R. was only registered on

09.11.2001, which delay was not explained by the prosecution

either.   He also argued that the incident of abduction had not

occurred and that the  averments  made  in  the  complaint  were

false  and  concocted.  Further,  he  stated that the  explanation

7

regarding the delay in filing the FIR that PW1’s house was being

watched by Accused Nos. 2 to 9 may not be accepted in view of

the  fact  that she or her husband could have called the police

using a phone, which was admittedly in their possession.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the State argued in

support of the judgments of the Courts below.

8. Normally, the Court may reject the case of the prosecution

in case of inordinate delay in lodging the first information report

because of the possibility of concoction of evidence by the

prosecution.  However, if the delay is satisfactorily explained, the

Court will decide the  matter on  merits without giving  much

importance to such delay.  The Court is duty bound to determine

whether the explanation afforded is plausible enough given the

facts and circumstances of the case.  The delay may be condoned

if the complainant appears to be reliable and without any motive

for implicating the accused falsely.  [See Apren Joseph v. State

of Kerala, (1973) 3 SCC 114; Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi),

(2017) 6 SCC 1].

In the matter on hand, the entire family of PW1 was at the

mercy of Accused No. 1, who  was very rich and influential.

8

Accused No.1 acted as a benefactor to the family and had helped

them  financially  and  otherwise  on  multiple occasions.  Under

such circumstances, PW1 might have been reluctant to lodge a

complaint immediately after the occurrence of the said incident,

especially when Accused No. 1 had employed his henchmen to

keep the house and movements of  PW1 and her  family under

surveillance.  Moreover,  no  material  has  been  brought to  our

notice by the defence to prove that the delay in filing the F.I.R.

was with the intention of false implication.  Thus, the explanation

given by PW1 for the delay remains untainted.

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.

9. In order to  prove its case, the  prosecution  mainly relied

upon the evidence of PW1 and PW2.   By the time the evidence

could  be recorded for the  matter  on  hand,  Santhakumar, the

husband of PW1, was murdered.  Therefore, the prosecution did

not have the opportunity to adduce his evidence and

consequently we do not have the benefit of the same.   However,

9

ample material has been brought on record to prove that the first

accused used to unduly favour PW1 and her family, and showed

unwanted personal  attention  to  PW1.  Accused No.  1 tried to

taint Santhakumar’s image in the eyes of PW1, and also used to

threaten Santhakumar with dire consequences if he did not keep

away from PW1.  The evidence of PW5, who is the brother of the

second wife  of  Accused No.  1, reveals that  Accused No.1  had

taken one Kruthiga (sister of PW5) as his second wife using the

same measures and tactics that he was using against PW1.  The

courts have mainly relied on the evidence of PW1 and PW2 to

conclude that Accused Nos. 2 to 9 had abducted Santhakumar

and PW1 upon the instructions of Accused No. 1.   Though the

Trial Court and the High Court have taken pains to assess the

material on record meticulously, in order to satisfy our

conscience, we have re­evaluated the evidence of these two

important witnesses in entirety.

10. To prove the crime, as mentioned supra, the most important

testimony would be that of PW1, as she was also abducted along

with Santhakumar and was confined in the house of Accused No.

14 by the accused.   At the risk of repetition, we would like to

10

reiterate a few important circumstances as deposed by PW1.

PW1 has deposed in detail about how Accused No. 1 hoped to

marry her and unduly favoured her and her family.  For instance,

she deposed that when she was admitted in a hospital due to

some illness, Accused No. 1 forcibly made her shift to another

hospital under the pretext of better treatment, and even gave her

a mobile phone to contact him in case she needed anything.

It is amply clear from the deposition of PW1 that Accused

No. 1 even tried to convince PW1 that her husband Santhakumar

was infected with HIV and had other health issues, in a bid to

discourage her from having sexual relations with her husband.

He also came to the house of PW1 and proposed to her to live

with him as his third wife, and used to coerce Santhakumar to

desert PW1 and reside elsewhere, so that he could marry PW1.

On 28.09.2001, Accused No. 1 gave an ultimatum of two days to

Santhakumar to  give  his  reply,  and when such reply  was not

made,  Accused  No.  1 instigated the other accused to abduct

Santhakumar. PW1 specifically deposed that Accused No. 3 had

forced her into a white Ambassador car bearing No. 5202 (being

M.O. 2) by grabbing her hand, along with Shanthakumar. PW1’s

11

parents and younger brother were also made to get into the car.

Thereafter, PW1 and her husband were taken to a hotel godown

owned by Accused No. 14, where Accused No. 1 was also present.

She further deposed in detail about how Santhakumar was

confined and assaulted by Accused No. 1 and the other accused,

and also about the threats by Accused No. 1 that he would kill

Santhakumar in case he did not leave PW1.  She also explained

the delay in lodging the complaint by stating that since she and

her husband were being continuously watched by Accused No.1’s

henchmen, they could not lodge the complaint on time and

ultimately, under the pretext of attending a felicitation function,

they  managed  to  go  to the  office  of the  City  Commissioner  of

Police,  Chennai,  and  lodged the said complaint.  Though PW1

was cross­examined at length by the defence, the same did not

yield any positive result in favour of the defence in respect of the

incident of abduction in question.   

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.

Her evidence remains unimpeached on material particulars.  PW1

12

has given the details of the incident in question and we do not

find any major contradiction in her evidence so as to disbelieve

her testimony.

11. The deposition of PW2, the  mother of PW1, is also in

consonance with the evidence of PW1.   She deposed as to how

Accused No. 1 had the intention to marry PW1 and how he was

suspiciously benevolent to her and her family.  She has deposed

meticulously and in detail about the favours shown by Accused

No.  1.  She has also deposed that  PW1 was upset  about such

behaviour, and about the interference of Accused No. 1 in her

personal matters.   Subsequently, she also came to know about

the evil designs of Accused No. 1, inasmuch as Accused No. 1

went on to threaten PW1 with the murder of her husband.  She

deposed about how on the date of the offence, PW1, her husband

and the parents of PW1 (i.e. PW2 herself and her husband) were

called to the house of PW1 and how, thereafter, her daughter and

son­in­law were forced to get into a car, in which she along with

her husband and son also sat, on being asked to do so by

Accused No. 6. She also stated that they were taken away to the

house of  Accused No. 14,  where Accused No. 1 and the other

13

accused assaulted Santhakumar.  In the cross­examination, PW2

admitted that she had taken financial help from Accused No. 1

and told her daughter that Accused No. 1 was doing favours for

the family just for her sake. Although PW2 was cross­examined

at length, her evidence also could not be discredited in respect of

material particulars by the defence.  Minor variations in the

evidence of PW1 and PW2, if any, are not directly connected to

the crime of abduction itself, and are hence inconsequential.  

12. On the whole, we find the evidence of PW1 and PW2

consistent, cogent and reliable, and do not find any artificiality in

the evidence, as rightly concluded by both the Courts below.  In

our considered opinion, the Trial Court and the High Court were

justified in relying on the evidence of PW1 and PW2.  Though the

prosecution has let in the evidence of certain other witnesses, the

same  may not be of much relevance to decide this appeal.

However, it has to be noted that the other witnesses arrayed by

the prosecution appear to have contributed their share in

upholding and corroborating the stand of the prosecution in their

respective areas. Moreover, the Trial Court and the High Court

have evaluated the entire evidence on record, including that of

14

PW1 and PW2, while coming to their conclusion. We do not find

any illegality in the reasons assigned by the Trial Court and the

High Court, inasmuch as the reasons are based on a just

appreciation of the evidence on record.

13. 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 by forcibly taking PW1 and Santhakumar to

the house of Accused No. 14. The offence of abduction

commenced from the time they were forced to board the car, and

continued till the time they were released from captivity later that

day.  

The Trial Court and the High Court may have acquitted the

drivers and Accused No. 14 by giving them the benefit of doubt,

but this cannot be made the sole basis to doubt the case of the

prosecution in all other respects. We find that the entire evidence

has been considered in its proper perspective to rightly conclude

that the appellants had in fact abducted PW1 and Santhakumar.

In light of the aforementioned discussion and perusal of the

material on record, we do not deem it a fit case for setting aside

15

the judgments of the Courts below.  The conviction and sentence

as granted is hereby confirmed, and the appeals are thus

dismissed.

..........................................J. (N.V. Ramana)

............................................J. (Mohan M. Shantanagoudar)

………………………………………..J. (Indira Banerjee)

New Delhi; March 29, 2019.

16