Rajkumar vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Case type
- CRL MP(MD)
- Decided on
- 01-04-2026
<div> Crl.M.P.(MD) No.12468 of 2025<br /> BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT<br /> DATED : .2026<br /> CORAM:<br /> THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE <b> B.PUGALENDHI</b><br /> Crl.MP(MD)No.12468 of 2025<br /> in<br /> Crl.A(MD)No.405 of 2025<br /> Rajkumar : Petitioner<br /> Vs.<br /> 1.The State of Tamil Nadu,<br /> Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police,<br /> Andipatti Sub Division,<br /> G.Vilakku Police Station,<br /> Theni District.<br /> Cr.No.240/2019<br /> 2.Revathi<br /> 3.The District Collector, <br /> Theni. <br /> 4.The Secretary to the Government, <br /> Home Department, Chennai. : Respondents <br /> [R.3, R.4 <i>suo-motu</i> impleaded vide order dated .2026]<br /> <b>PRAYER: </b><br /> Petition filed under Section 430 BNSS to suspend the sentence <br /> of imprisonment imposed by the Special Court for trial of cases under <br /> 1/13<br /> https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2026 11:57:29 am )<br /><br /> Crl.M.P.(MD) No.12468 of 2025<br /> SC/ST (POA) Act, Theni, in Spl.SC.no.183 of 2020, dated 27.02.2025 and <br /> enlarge the petitioner on bail.<br /> For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramanathan<br /> For Respondents: Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad,<br /> Government Advocate (Crl. Side)<br /> for R.1, R.3, R.4<br /> Mr.R.Karunanidhi for R.2<br /> <b></b>*<br /> <b>ORDER</b><br /> The petitioner is an accused and he was tried in Spl.SC.No.183 of <br /> 2020, for the offences under Section 376 IPC r/w 3(2)(v), 3(1)(w)(i) of <br /> SC/ST (PoA) Act, by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial <br /> of cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Theni. In conclusion of the trial, he was <br /> found guilty for the offences under Section 376 r/w 511 IPC and Section <br /> 3(1)(w)(i) of SC/ST (PoA) Act and was convicted and sentenced as <br /> under:-<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>Sl.No</th><th>Sections</th><th>Punishment</th><th>Fine<br>amount</th><th>Default</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.</td><td>376 r/w<br>511 IPC</td><td>Five years<br>Rigorous<br>imprisonment</td><td>Rs.5,000/-</td><td>One year<br>Rigorous<br>imprisonment</td></tr><tr><td>2.</td><td>3(1)(w)(i) of<br>SC/ST Act</td><td>Six months<br>Rigorous<br>imprisonment</td><td>Rs.2,000/-</td><td>One month<br>Rigorous<br>imprisonment</td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> 2/13<br /> https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2026 11:57:29 am )<br /><br /> Crl.M.P.(MD) No.12468 of 2025<br /> 2.As against the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial <br /> Court in Spl.S.C.No.183 of 2020, dated 27.02.2025, the petitioner has filed <br /> a Criminal Appeal in Crl.A(MD) No.405 of 2025 and the same was <br /> admitted by this Court on 01.04.2025. The petitioner has also moved this <br /> application to suspend the sentence imposed on him by the trial Court.<br /> 3.The case of the prosecution is that when the victim, who belongs <br /> to Scheduled Caste community, has went to attend her natural call in the <br /> morning of 04.11.2019 at about 6.20 am, the petitioner punched the <br /> victim and pushed her to the floor and attempted to commit rape on her. <br /> A complaint was lodged immediately regarding the occurrence and the <br /> victim girl was also subjected to medical examination on the same day at <br /> about 9.00 a.m.<br /> 4.In the application filed to suspend the sentence, the learned <br /> Counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken a specific stand that the <br /> allegation of attempt to rape is false and that the victim girl has not <br /> suffered any injury and therefore, according to him, the allegations are <br /> not probable. He has also taken a ground that there is a personal dispute <br /> 3/13<br /> https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2026 11:57:29 am )<br /><br /> Crl.M.P.(MD) No.12468 of 2025<br /> between PW1’s son and the petitioner and hence, the case has been <br /> foisted against the petitioner.<br /> 5.In response, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) <br /> appearing for the respondent police submits that the victim girl suffered <br /> four injuries and it is reflected in the Accident Register dated 04.11.2019. <br /> A copy of the Accident Register has also been placed before this Court <br /> and it appears that the Doctor/P.W.12, who examined the victim girl, <br /> has recorded that the victim has suffered the following injuries in the <br /> accident register:<br /> <i>“1.Abrasion 1 x 1 c.m over lowerlip</i><br /> <i> 2.Nail marks over ant aspect of neck</i><br /> <i> 3.Bleeding Per Veginam</i><br /> <i> 4.Contusion 0.5 x 0.5 c.m over hard palate”</i><br /> However, the Accident Register has not been marked before the trial <br /> Court and therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken a <br /> plea that the victim girl did not suffer with any injury. <br /> 6.This Court considered the rival submissions made and also <br /> perused the materials placed on record.<br /> 4/13<br /> https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2026 11:57:29 am )<br /><br /> Crl.M.P.(MD) No.12468 of 2025<br /> 7.The petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Section <br /> 376 r/w 511 IPC and Section 3(1)(w)(i) of SC/ST (PoA) Act. The victim <br /> belongs to the Scheduled Caste community and it is alleged that she <br /> went to attend her natural call in the morning hours on 04.11.2019 at <br /> about 06.30 am. The petitioner is said to have attempted to commit rape <br /> on the victim girl after punching her and pushing her to the floor. The <br /> complaint regarding the same was lodged immediately and she was <br /> taken to the Government Hospital on the same day at about 09.00 am. <br /> The Doctor [PW12], who attended the victim, has recorded the injuries <br /> [Abrasion, Nail marks, Bleeding, Contusion] in the Accident Register <br /> dated 04.11.2019 and the same is placed before this court. However, the <br /> Accident Register was not marked before the trial Court and in fact, no <br /> questions were put forth regarding the same during the examination of <br /> the Doctor/ PW12, by the prosecution.<br /> 8.In <b><i>Angana vs. State of Rajasthan [(2009) 3 SCC 767]</i></b> , the Hon'ble <br /> Supreme Court has held that the discretion to suspend the sentence is to <br /> be exercised judiciously depending on the facts and circumstances of <br /> 5/13<br /> https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2026 11:57:29 am )<br /><br /> Crl.M.P.(MD) No.12468 of 2025<br /> each case, the basis of nature of the offence and manner in which <br /> occurrence had taken place. Considering the serious nature of <br /> allegations as against a woman from the oppressed community and also <br /> the materials available against the petitioner, <b>this Court is not inclined </b><br /> <b>to entertain this application for suspension of sentence</b> .<br /> 9.This petitioner has previously filed an application seeking <br /> suspension of his sentence in Crl.MP(MD)No.4281 of 2025 and the same <br /> was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 23.04.2025. Considering <br /> the manner in which the prosecution has conducted the case before the <br /> trial court, this Court, while dismissing the earlier application, has also <br /> directed the Director of Prosecution to take appropriate action as against <br /> the concerned Special Public Prosecutor, who conducted the trial in <br /> Spl.S.C.No.183 of 2020. Pursuant to the earlier order of this Court, the <br /> Director of Prosecution has filed a report before this Court admitting the <br /> manner in which the prosecution was conducted by the concerned <br /> Public Prosecutor, who represented the case in Spl.S.C.No.183 of 2020 <br /> and stated that the concerned Prosecutor has not even raised any <br /> questions based on the Accident Register issued by the Doctor/P.W.12. <br /> 6/13<br /> https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2026 11:57:29 am )<br /><br /> Crl.M.P.(MD) No.12468 of 2025<br /> Therefore, he has made a recommendation to the Government that the <br /> said Special Public Prosecutor, who conducted trial in Spl.S.C.No.183 of <br /> 2020 in a negligent manner, may be removed from his service on <br /> 07.07.2025 and according to the Director, the Government is yet to pass <br /> orders in this regard.<br /> 10.In primitive societies, the responsibility of protecting oneself <br /> against crime and punishing the offenders rested with the individuals. <br /> As society evolved into an organised political State governed by law, the <br /> power to investigate, prosecute and punish offences was taken away <br /> from private citizens and vested in the State. This transformation <br /> embodied the principle that crime is not only an offence against an <br /> individual but also an offence against the peace and order of society. The <br /> victims cannot punish the offenders and they place all their faith on the <br /> State which assumes a solemn duty to take up the cause of the victim. <br /> When an individual reports the commission of an offence, he is <br /> exercising his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution to <br /> seek protection from the State. The obligation of the State is not an <br /> empty formality and our forefathers have framed the constitution <br /> 7/13<br /> https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2026 11:57:29 am )<br /><br /> Crl.M.P.(MD) No.12468 of 2025<br /> hoping that the state would take up the cause of the victims. Hence, the <br /> State has a duty to defend the victim by appointing efficient Government <br /> Pleaders / Law Officers. <br /> 11.It is deeply disturbing to note that the State appears to be <br /> appointing Government Pleaders / Public Prosecutors / Law Officers <br /> not on merit, but on the basis of their proximity and allegiance to the <br /> ruling dispensation. Such appointments, at times, extend even to <br /> individuals whose only apparent qualification is their involvement in <br /> menial political activities, such as affixing posters during elections. This <br /> practice strikes at the very root of professional standards expected of <br /> Law Officers. A significant number of such appointees lack the requisite <br /> competence and legal acumen to effectively conduct cases. More <br /> troubling aspect is that even after their appointment as Law Officers, <br /> there is a lack of effort in developing the necessary skills to effectively <br /> defend cases. The inevitable consequence is that litigants are left to <br /> suffer, and the administration of justice itself stands compromised. <br /> 8/13<br /> https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2026 11:57:29 am )<br /><br /> Crl.M.P.(MD) No.12468 of 2025<br /> 12.Considering the manner in which cases are defended by <br /> political appointments, the First Bench of this Court in V.Vasanthakumar v. <br /> The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu [W.P.No.12951 of 2017, dated <br /> 28.04.2018] has issued directions to the State Government to formulate or <br /> frame definite guidelines for the manner and criteria for the selection of <br /> Advocates to the post of Government Law Officers. It also directed that <br /> appointment of Law Officers should not be made for pursuing a political <br /> purpose or for giving some undue advantage to any section but on the <br /> basis of merit and basic qualifications.<br /> 13.However, the Secretaries to Government, who are involved in <br /> the selection process of the Law Officers, are sailing along with the <br /> Government by not identifying the right persons. This case is one such <br /> glaring example as to how the victims are defended by political <br /> appointees in a case of rape and that too, on a woman from the <br /> oppressed community. <br /> 9/13<br /> https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2026 11:57:29 am )<br /><br /> Crl.M.P.(MD) No.12468 of 2025<br /> 14.Admittedly, in this case, the Accident Register, a crucial <br /> document, was not marked before the trial Court and the Doctor was not <br /> examined properly regarding the same by the prosecution. It is reported <br /> that the document was not available in the records and therefore, it was <br /> not marked. But the fact remains that a copy of the wound certificate is <br /> very much available in the CD file and was placed before this Court <br /> during Crl.MP(MD)No.4281 of 2025. Even thereafter the Prosecutor <br /> concerned did not take any steps to mark the Accident Register as an <br /> additional document by filing an application under Section 311 CrPC. <br /> Therefore, it appears that the Law Officer either deliberately evaded <br /> marking the document or was not equipped with the basic knowledge of <br /> conducting a criminal trial before the Sessions Court.<br /> 15.On the direction of this Court, an enquiry was contemplated <br /> and the Director of Prosecution found that there was a lapse on the part <br /> of the Law Officer concerned. The Director, in fact, recommended for <br /> removal of the Law Officer concerned on 07.07.2025. However, the <br /> Government is yet to take a decision on the same. By keeping the file <br /> 10/13<br /> https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2026 11:57:29 am )<br /><br /> Crl.M.P.(MD) No.12468 of 2025<br /> pending, the Government is in fact enabling this unfit person to continue <br /> in the post and continue to cause injustice to other victims as well. <br /> 16.A Law Officer at the district level is being appointed on a tenure <br /> basis by the District Collector. When the appointing authority is the <br /> District Collector, it is not known as to why the matter has been referred <br /> to the Government. Presumably, the same has been done either to help <br /> the Law Officer concerned or to keep the matter under cold storage.<br /> 17.Be that as it may, considering the manner in which the <br /> Government has slept on the recommendation of the Director of <br /> Prosecutor, without taking a call on the removal of the Law Officer <br /> concerned, this Court <i>suo moto</i> impleads the District Collector, Theni and <br /> the Secretary to the Government, Home Department, Chennai, as parties <br /> to this petition. <br /> 18.Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) is to take notice on <br /> behalf of the newly impleaded respondents. The newly impleaded <br /> respondents are expected to take a decision on the proposal sent by the <br /> 11/13<br /> https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2026 11:57:29 am )<br /><br /> Crl.M.P.(MD) No.12468 of 2025<br /> Director of Prosecution within a period of four weeks from date without <br /> fail.<br /> With the above directions, this application is dismissed.<br /> <b> .2026</b><br /> Internet : Yes<br /> gk<br /> To<br /> 1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,<br /> Andipatti Sub Division,<br /> G.Vilakku Police Station,<br /> Theni District.<br /> 2.The District Collector, <br /> Theni. <br /> 3.The Secretary to the Government, <br /> Home Department, Chennai.<br /> 4.The Judge,<br /> Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, <br /> Theni.<br /> 12/13<br /> https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2026 11:57:29 am )<br /><br /> Crl.M.P.(MD) No.12468 of 2025<br /> <b>B.PUGALENDHI, J.</b><br /> gk<br /> <b>Crl.MP(MD)No.12468 of 2025</b><br /> <b>in</b><br /> <b>Crl.A(MD)No.405 of 2025</b><br /> <b>.2026</b><br /> 13/13<br /> https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2026 11:57:29 am )</div>