Today(on 23rd April),Madras High Court rejects suspension of former Tamil Nadu special DGP Rajesh Das’s three-year prison term in a sexual harassment case, citing increasing offenses against women. Justice M. Dhandapani dismisses petitions and denies exemption from surrendering to trial court.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Chennai: The Madras High Court today(on 23rd April), rejected former Tamil Nadu Special DGP Rajesh Das’s appeal for the suspension of his three-year prison sentence related to a sexual harassment conviction.
Justice M. Dhandapani dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petitions and also refused to exempt Das from surrendering before the trial court. Das, who was convicted and sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment by a Villupuram local court, was found guilty of sexually harassing a woman IPS officer in 2021.
The case began when Das filed a criminal revision petition challenging the order of the Principal District and Sessions Court in Villupuram. The court had confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Villupuram.
Justice Dhandapani emphasized the importance of being cautious and deliberate when considering the suspension of sentence for accused individuals involved in outraging the modesty of women or engaging in indecent behavior with them.
ALSO READ: ABUSE OF OFFICE BY POLICE||Supreme Court Cancels The Bail Of The Police Officer
The judge stated-
“Occupying the highest position in the police force, namely the post of Director General of Police (Law & Order).”
The judge further emphasized that the police force, regardless of rank, must exhibit a high level of discipline and integrity, serving as role models for the citizens of the country. The judge stated that the revision petitioner, in this case, was accused of indecently behaving with a subordinate female employee, which is a serious matter considering the petitioner’s high position in the hierarchy of the police department.
The judge highlighted the irony that the police, who are responsible for taking action against the general public when they behave indecently towards women, were now dealing with a case involving one of their own. The judge added that the revision petitioner had allegedly intimidated the woman into not filing a complaint against him.
The defense argued that the revision petition was unlikely to be taken up for an early hearing, and therefore, the alleged inconsistencies, contradictions, and infirmities in the evidence should lead to the suspension of the sentence.
However, the judge noted that these inconsistencies should only affect the substratum of the case when it is taken up for revision, and at the current stage of considering the suspension of sentence, they did not warrant affirmative action.
The defense’s main argument centered on the lack of corroboration for the victim’s evidence, claiming that it should be weighed carefully by the courts. However, the judge pointed out that the lower courts had already found the victim’s evidence to be believable and trustworthy.
The judge added-
“When lower courts have collectively deemed the evidence credible and reliable, reviewing a sentence suspension petition, it would be unjustified for this court to reexamine all the evidence…”
To grant suspension of sentence, the court must find the evidence presented to be unbelievably weak, making a prima facie case for the accused. In this case, the judge concluded that the evidence provided by the victim, along with other materials, did not significantly affect the substratum of the case. Considering the stature of the revision petitioner, who held the post of DGP and came from a disciplined force, the judge stated that it was not in the interest of justice to grant suspension of sentence.
ALSO READ: Lady IPS, Heartless Police, All Police Suspended
The judge expressed concern that the revision petitioner’s actions had degraded the morale of the police force. While the contradictions pointed out by the defense were not sufficient to warrant the suspension of sentence at this stage, they would be weighed during the revision hearing.
Consequently, the court decided not to grant the suspension of sentence as requested by Das. The petition exempting Das from surrendering before the trial court was also dismissed. However, the court granted Das the liberty to surrender before a lower court and file for regular bail. The trial court was instructed to consider the bail petition on the same day and make appropriate decisions in accordance with the law.
