SC sends Saravana Bhavan owner to life for murder

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the convictions of a trial court and a high court to send Saravana Bhavan owner P Rajagopal to jail for life for murder.

Justices NV Ramana, Mohan M Shantanagoudar and Indira Banerjee asked Rajagopal to surrender by July 7. He has been out on bail since 2009.

As per the prosecution, Rajagopal wanted to marry Jeevajyothi, the daughter of an employee, who was married to Santhakumar. Rajagopal had Santhakumar eliminated in October 2001, possibly under an astrologer’s advice, so that he could take Jeevajyothi as his third wife.


The owner of the ₹3,000 crore restaurant chain was found guilty on the basis of circumstantial evidence and the testimony of eyewitnesses, including Jeevajyothi. She vouched for the fact that he and his henchmen had forcibly abducted Santhakumar, who was later found dead.

Medical evidence suggested Santhakumar died due to asphyxia following throttling.

Rajagopal’s case was argued by senior advocate Sushil Kumar, while the state was represented by Balaji Srinivasan, additional advocate general of Tamil Nadu. The conviction was based mainly on motive, the last-seen circumstance and the recovery of the body at the instance of the accused.

An additional link in the chain of circumstances was the accused’s refusal to explain the last meeting with Santhakumar. Rajagopal’s lawyer Kumar argued that there was no DNA test to show that the body was that of Santhakumar.

But the top court rejected this argument, saying that though the accuracy of DNA tests was improving, making it more and more reliable, it has not reached a juncture where it may be said to be infallible.

“In our opinion, the overwhelming, consistent, cogent and reliable testimonies of witnesses, along with corroborative evidence, conclusively prove the prosecution case,” the top court said. “We do not find any embellishment or exaggeration in the evidence of these witnesses.”

“Moreover, the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses is homogeneous, consistent and reliable, and corroborates the testimony of prosecution witnesses 1 and 2, which leads us to conclude that the chain of circumstances is complete and points solely at the guilt of the accused.

“In our considered opinion, the prosecution has proved the complicity of all the appellants in murdering Santhakumar by strangulating him and thereafter throwing the dead body,” it said.

The court said that while it is necessary that proof beyond reasonable doubt should be adduced in all criminal cases, “it is not necessary that such proof should be perfect, and someone who is guilty cannot get away with impunity only because the truth may develop some infirmity when projected through human processes.”