The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has declined to suspend the sentence of a man convicted in an attempt-to-rape case involving a Scheduled Caste woman, citing the seriousness of the allegations and available evidence. The Court also raised strong concerns about lapses in prosecution and directed action on a pending recommendation against the trial prosecutor.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Rajkumar, was convicted by a Special Court in Theni under Section 376 read with 511 of the IPC (attempt to commit rape) and provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He was sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment along with additional penalties.
According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on November 4, 2019, when the victim had gone out early in the morning. It was alleged that the accused assaulted her and attempted to commit rape. A complaint was filed promptly, and the victim underwent medical examination the same day.
The petitioner challenged the conviction and sought suspension of sentence pending appeal, arguing that the allegations were false and unsupported by injuries.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that the medical evidence did not support the claim of assault and suggested that the case stemmed from a personal dispute.
On the other hand, the State relied on medical records indicating multiple injuries, including abrasions, nail marks, and bleeding. However, it was acknowledged that the Accident Register documenting these injuries had not been formally marked during the trial.
Justice B. Pugalendhi examined the material and noted that the victim’s medical records did indicate injuries, even though procedural lapses occurred during trial.
“The discretion to suspend sentence must be exercised judiciously, considering the nature of the offence and the circumstances,” the Court observed, referring to established Supreme Court principles.
The Court emphasized the gravity of offences involving women from oppressed communities and held that such cases require careful scrutiny before granting relief.
It also expressed serious concern over how the prosecution handled the case. A key medical document was neither marked nor properly addressed during trial, and the doctor was not effectively questioned.
In strong remarks, the Court said the State has a duty to protect victims and ensure competent legal representation:
“The obligation of the State is not an empty formality… victims place their faith on the State to take up their cause.”
The judge further criticized the practice of appointing law officers without adequate merit, noting that such lapses can undermine justice delivery.
The Court recorded that the Director of Prosecution had already found fault with the concerned Special Public Prosecutor and recommended removal. However, the government had not acted on this recommendation.
Taking note of the delay, the Court impleaded the District Collector, Theni, and the Secretary to the Home Department, directing them to take a decision within four weeks.
Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the material available on record, the High Court refused to suspend the sentence. The petition was dismissed with directions to the authorities to act on the recommendation regarding the prosecutor.
Case Details
Case Title: Rajkumar vs State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Case Number: Crl.M.P (MD) No.12468 of 2025 in Crl.A (MD) No.405 of 2025
Judge: Justice B. Pugalendhi
Decision Date: 01 April 2026
Counsels:
- For Petitioner: Mr. S. Ramanathan
- For Respondents: Mr. A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad (Govt. Advocate), Mr. R. Karunanidhi
