'Second FIR Not Barred Merely Because Motive In Both Offences Are The Same'; SC Upholds Life Sentence Of Saravana Bhavan Founder For Murder [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court yesterday upheld the life sentence awarded to P Rajagopal - the founder of famous South Indian restaurant chain Saravana Bhavan - and five of his aides for murder of Santhakumar in 2001.The bench of Justices N V Ramana, Mohan M Shantanagoudar and Indira Banerjee dismissed the batch of appeals filed by accused against the 2009 judgment of Madras High Court. The trial court had sentenced Rajagopal to ten years imprisonment under Section 304, Part I IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) in 2004, which was enhanced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC(murder) by Madras HC.The crime was committed with the motive of Rajagopal to take Jeevajothi, the wife of deceased Santhakumar, as his third wife."Either upon the advice of an astrologer or having become besotted with PW1(Jeevajothi), Accused No.1(Rajagopal) had evinced a keen desire to take PW1 as his third wife, though she was already married to Santhakumar (the deceased)", observed the Court in that regard.In order to fulfill this desire, Rajagopal tried to get close to Jeevajothi, who was the daughter of a staff employed in Saravana Bhavan, by offering her financial help and gifts. Gradually, he started interfering in her personal life,and persuaded her to break away from the relationship with Santhakumar. When she did not yield, Rajagopal resorted to more devious means.On October 1, 2001, Santhakumar and Jeevajothi were abducted by Rajagopal and his henchmen, and were let off after threats. Eighteen days later, they were again abducted. Jeevajothi was taken to a village, where she was forced to undergo rituals, which were performed with the intention of making her leave Santhakumar. Santhakumar, who was separately taken away, was supposed to have been killed by a hired goon Daniel. However, Daniel had a change of mind, and spared Santhakumar's life and told him to escape to Mumbai. Daniel told a false story to Rajagopal that Santhakumar had been killed. But Santhakumar, instead of escaping to Mumbai, came back to Jeevajothi. Enraged on knowing this, Rajagopal and his aides abducted them again on October 24, 2001, and Santhakumar and Jeevajothi were taken away to different locations in separate vehicles. Weeks later, a dead body was found at Tiger Chola in Kodaikanal, which was identified as that of Santhakumar's.In relation to the first incident of abduction, Jeevajothi had lodged a complaint before police, upon which an FIR was registered on October 12, 2001. After tracing the dead body of Santhakumar, another FIR for murder was registered on November 20, 2001.In the appeal before Supreme Court, one of the main points raised by the counsel for accused was that the second FIR was illegal, as there was already an FIR registered for a crime in the same transaction. It was argued that the second alleged offence was a continuation of the first alleged offence, and separate FIR could not have been registered. Therefore, the investigation and trial on the basis of illegal FIR are wholly vitiated, argued the appellants.But the SC rejected this argument on the finding that both offences were separate transactions."Evidently, the time and place of occurrence of the two incidents are different. Even the number of accused involved in the incidents is different. No continuity of action can be gathered from the sequence of events either", observed the bench.It further held that mere commonality of motive will not make the offences part of same transaction."It may be noted that the motive for commission of both the offences may be the same, inasmuch as they were committed to enable Accused No. 1 to marry PW1, but merely because of their common motive, the second offence cannot be said to be in continuation of the first incident, in light of there being distinct intentions behind the two offences".The first offence was committed with the intention of threatening and pressurizing Santhakumar. The intention behind the second offence was to permanently get rid of him, noted the bench."Therefore, it is evident that unity of purpose and design between the two offences is also absent. Thus, it is amply clear that the incident of murder is entirely separate and distinct from the earlier incident of abduction", observed the judgment authored by Justice Shantanagoudar. Reference was made to the decision in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181 in this regard.No further investigation for fresh offence committed during investigation The Court also rejected the argument that police should have carried out further investigation in relation to murder in the first FIR of abduction, instead of registering a separate FIR."In case a fresh offence is committed during the course of the earlier investigation, which is distinct from the offence being investigated, such fresh offence cannot be investigated as part of the pending case, and should...

'Second FIR Not Barred Merely Because Motive In Both Offences Are The Same'; SC Upholds Life Sentence Of Saravana Bhavan Founder For Murder [Read Judgment]

Manu Sebastian

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Manu Sebastian

'Second FIR Not Barred Merely Because Motive In Both Offences Are The Same'; SC Upholds Life Sentence Of Saravana Bhavan Founder For Murder [Read Judgment]

Manu Sebastian

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Manu Sebastian

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers