Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Madra High Court today dismissed the petitions filed by former Special Director General of Police (DGP) Rajesh Das seeking exemption from surrendering and suspension of the three-year sentence imposed on him in a sexual harassment case, pending consideration of his criminal revision petition before the high court.

The bench of Justice M Dhandapani wondered as to how the ex-DGP could request for exemption from surrendering, given that both a trial court and the appellate court had already found him guilty in the matter.

Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Villupuram on June 16, 2023 convicted Singh for making sexual advances towards a woman Indian Police Service (IPS) officer under Section 354A (2), IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2020 and 341/ r/w 109, IPC. The judgment was confirmed by the Principal District & Sessions Court, Villupuram on February 12, 2024.

Assailing both decisions, Singh moved the high court by filing a revision petition. Meanwhile, pending the revision petition, Singh also filed two criminal miscellaneous petitions seeking interim reliefs.

Senior Counsel R. John Sathyan, representing Singh, argued that the prosecution's case was riddled with contradictions and lacked evidence. He contended that the trial court's conviction and sentencing of Singh were entirely unjust, as it failed to properly assess these discrepancies.

He asserted that except for the evidence of the victim, there was no evidence, either independent or corroborative, that could point to Singh's guilt. 

He contended that there was a good case for Singh to prove his innocence and if suspension of sentence was not granted, grave harm and prejudice would be caused to him.

The pleas was opposed by the Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents who argued that though there were some contradictions in the evidence tendered by the witnesses, however, these were not material enough so as to doubt the prosecution version.

The high court said that the case on hand involved a person who held the pinnacle of the post in the police force. 'The police force is a disciplined force in which the persons holding even the base posts are required to exhibit the highest amount of discipline', it emphasised. 

Court noted that when the general public indecently conducts themselves with the women folk, it is the police authorities, who come to the fore to take action, however, in the present case, Singh, being higher in the hierarchy of the police department had been alleged to have conducted himself indecently with his subordinate. 

The allegations against Singh are of such a serious nature that they can not be handled like other routine cases, court said.

Court rejected the argument put forth by Singh's counsel regarding the alleged inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence placed before the trial court and said that they would have a much higher value when the revision is taken up for consideration, but at the present stage, when the court was considering the suspension of sentence, they were not of such a nature "warranting an affirmative result at the hands of the court".

Further, regarding the contention that the case by the courts below rests on the evidence of the victim and lacks any corroboration, the high court held that in cases of this nature, the courts are bound to weigh the evidence of the victim to arrive at a finding as to whether the said evidence is believable or not.

"When the courts below have concurrently held the said evidence to be believable and trustworthy, sitting in revision, and considering the petition for suspension of sentence, it would not be justifiable for this Court to look into the whole of the evidence," it said. 

Therefore, court held that suspension of sentence could not be granted pending Singh's revision petition. Consequently, the petition exempting Singh to surrender before the trial court was also dismissed.

"However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to surrender before the Court below and file petition for regular bail and upon such petition being filed the trial court shall consider the same on the same day and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law," court clarified. 

Case Title: Rajesh Das v State