NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the conviction and lifestyles sentence awarded to P Rajagopal, owner of in style south Indian restaurant chain Saravana Bhavan, for murdering one among his workers 18 years ago to take the widow as his third spouse.
A bench of Justices N V Ramana, Mohan M Shantanagoudar and Indira Banerjee took word of the circumstantial and forensic evidence, together with DNA studies, to conclude that Rajagopal, with the help of four others, had meticulously deliberate and executed the abduction and homicide of Shathakumar in 2001 to enable him to fulfil his want of marrying Shantakumar's spouse.
"Having regard to whole subject material on record and totality of details and instances, we discover that the evidence totally proves the prosecution case and that the trial court docket as well as the high court docket evaluated the material on record in its correct potential whilst coming to their conclusion.
Thus, the judgment of the trial court docket as changed through the HC don't need to be interfered with," the bench said and brushed aside the enchantment against the Madras HC's choice to award lifestyles sentence to Rajagopal and his buddies in crime.
‘Rajagopal interfered in her non-public matters’
The SC gave details of Rajagopal’s obsession with taking the married woman as his third spouse. “Either upon the advice of an astrologer or having grow to be besotted with the woman, he had evinced a keen want to take her as his third spouse, despite the fact that she was once already married to Santhakumar (the deceased).”
“In order to fulfil his want, Rajagopal used to financially help the woman, her family members and her husband. He usedtotalktoher over phonefrequently and gave her expensive gifts reminiscent of jewellery and sarees or even paid her medical expenses. He ceaselessly interfered in her non-public matters,” thecourtsaidbefore detailing the manner wherein Rajagopal were given Santhakumar murdered. Justice Shantanagoudar said despite the fact that the prosecution case hinged basically on circumstantial evidence and the idea of the deceased closing observed with the accused, it was once neatly established that “if the alleged instances are conclusively proved before the court docket through main cogent and reliableevidence, the court docket don't need to look any further before maintaining the guilt of the accused.”
A bench of Justices N V Ramana, Mohan M Shantanagoudar and Indira Banerjee took word of the circumstantial and forensic evidence, together with DNA studies, to conclude that Rajagopal, with the help of four others, had meticulously deliberate and executed the abduction and homicide of Shathakumar in 2001 to enable him to fulfil his want of marrying Shantakumar's spouse.
"Having regard to whole subject material on record and totality of details and instances, we discover that the evidence totally proves the prosecution case and that the trial court docket as well as the high court docket evaluated the material on record in its correct potential whilst coming to their conclusion.
Thus, the judgment of the trial court docket as changed through the HC don't need to be interfered with," the bench said and brushed aside the enchantment against the Madras HC's choice to award lifestyles sentence to Rajagopal and his buddies in crime.
‘Rajagopal interfered in her non-public matters’
The SC gave details of Rajagopal’s obsession with taking the married woman as his third spouse. “Either upon the advice of an astrologer or having grow to be besotted with the woman, he had evinced a keen want to take her as his third spouse, despite the fact that she was once already married to Santhakumar (the deceased).”
“In order to fulfil his want, Rajagopal used to financially help the woman, her family members and her husband. He usedtotalktoher over phonefrequently and gave her expensive gifts reminiscent of jewellery and sarees or even paid her medical expenses. He ceaselessly interfered in her non-public matters,” thecourtsaidbefore detailing the manner wherein Rajagopal were given Santhakumar murdered. Justice Shantanagoudar said despite the fact that the prosecution case hinged basically on circumstantial evidence and the idea of the deceased closing observed with the accused, it was once neatly established that “if the alleged instances are conclusively proved before the court docket through main cogent and reliableevidence, the court docket don't need to look any further before maintaining the guilt of the accused.”
SC upholds life term to Saravana Bhavan’s owner
![SC upholds life term to Saravana Bhavan’s owner]()
Reviewed by Kailash
on
March 30, 2019
Rating:
