{"id":137488,"date":"2005-04-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-04-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalanantha-and-ors-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2005"},"modified":"2019-01-07T21:21:21","modified_gmt":"2019-01-07T15:51:21","slug":"kamalanantha-and-ors-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalanantha-and-ors-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2005","title":{"rendered":"Kamalanantha And Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 April, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Kamalanantha And Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 April, 2005<\/div>\n
Author: Sema<\/div>\n
Bench: B.N. Agrawal, H.K. Sema<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  611-612 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nKamalanantha and Ors.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Tamil Nadu\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/04\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nB.N. Agrawal & H.K. Sema\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
SEMA, J.\n<\/p>\n
These appeals by special leave are preferred by accused nos. 1, 2, 4, 6 and
\n7 against their conviction concurrently recorded by two Courts. A-3 served
\nout the sentence and A-5 died during the pendency of the appeal before the
\nHigh Court and his appeal stands abated. They were convicted and sentenced
\nto imprisonment as under :-\n<\/p>\n
Charge\tConvicted \tAccused\tSentence of Imprisonment\/
\nNos.\tunder \t\tFine imposed.<\/p>\n
\n\tSection\n\n(1)           (2) \t  (3) \t  (4)\n\n1.\t120 (B)\tA-1 to A-7\tNo Separate sentence.\n\tI.P.C.\n<\/pre>\n
2.\t376(2)(c) \tA-1 \tImprisonment for Life and to
\n\tI.P.C. (12 \t\tpay a fine of Rs. 5,10,000 on
\n\tCounts)\t\teach count. In default,
\n\tRigorous Imprisonment for a \t\t\t\tfurther
\n\tperiod of Two years \t\t\t\tand Six months.<\/p>\n
\n\t(Total Fine \t\t\t\trs. 61,20,000. Imprisonment\n\tfor life on each count is to \t\t\t\trun\n\tconcurrently.\n<\/pre>\n
3. \t376 r\/w \tA-2, A-4, \tImprisonment for Life on
\n\t109 I.P.C.\tA-6 & A-7 \teach accused. Rigorous
\n\t\tA-3\tImprisonment for Two years,
\n\t\t7 months and 2 days (period \t\t\t\tof
\n\t\tsentence already
\n\t\tundergone) and to pay a fine \t\t\t\tof
\n\t\tRs. 10,000. In default,
\n\t\tRigorous Imprisonment for a
\n\t\tfurther period of 3 months.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t354 I.P.C. \tA-1 \tNo separate Sentence.\n<\/p>\n
\t(one Count)\n<\/p>\n
5.\t312 I.P.C. \tA-3 \tRigorous Imprisonment for
\n(Four Counts)\t\tTwo Years, 7 Months and 2
\nDays (period of sentence \t\t\t\t\talready
\nundergone) and to \t\t\t\t\tpay a Fine of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
5,000 on \t\t\t\t\teach count. In default,\nRigorous Imprisonment for a \t\t\t\tfurther period of\n45 Days. \t\t\t\t\t(Total Fine Rs. 20,000)\n<\/pre>\n
6.\t302 I.P.C.\tA-1\tImprisonment of life and to
\npay a Fine of Rs. 10,000. In \t\t\t\tdefault, Rigorous
\nImprisonment for a further \t\t\t\t\tperiod of 3
\nmonths.\n<\/p>\n
\t302 r\/w \tA-2 \tImprisonment for Life and to \t\t34
\n\tI.P.C.\t \tpay a Fine of Rs. 10,000. In
\n\tdefault, Rigorous
\n\tImprisonment for a further
\n\tperiod of 3 Months.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t304 I.P.C.\tA-4 A-6 \tImprisonment of Ten years
\nand A-7 \tand to pay a fine of Rs.<\/p>\n
\n10,000 In default, rigorous\nimprisonment for a further \t\t\t\t\tperiod of 3\nMonths on each \t\t\t\taccused.\n<\/pre>\n
8.\t343 I.P.C.\tA-1, A-2, \tNo separate sentence.
\n\t\tA-6 to A-7\n<\/p>\n
9.\t201 r\/w\tA-6 & A-7\tFor each accused, Rigorous \t\t304
\nI.P.C. \t\tImprisonment for One year \t\t\t\tand
\nto pay a fine of Rs. 2,500 \t\t\t\tIn default,
\nRigorous \t\t\t\t\t\tImprisonment for a
\nfurther \t\t\t\t\tperiod of one month. (R.I.<\/p>\n
\nFor one year is to run\nconcurrently with the \t\t\t\t\t\tsentence\nunder Charge 7).\n10.\t201 r\/w\tA-2\tRigorous imprisonment for\n\t114 I.P.C. \t\tone year and to pay a fine of\n\tRs. 2,500 In default, \t\t\t\t\trigorous\n\timprisonment for a \t\t\t\tfurther period of\n\tone month. \t\t\t\t(R.I. for one year is to\n\trun \t\t\t\t\tconcurrently with the\n\tsentence under Charge 6).\n<\/pre>\n
11.\t506 (Part II)\tA-1, A-2, \tNo separate sentence.
\n\tI.P.C. (2 \tA-4, A-6
\n\tCounts)\tand A-7\n<\/p>\n
12.\t420 I.P.C\tA-1\tAcquitted.\n<\/p>\n
1st Accused: The sentence imposed on A-1 on charge Nos. 2 and 6 are to run
\nconsecutively. Total fine on A-1 is Rs. 61,30,000 (Rs. 61,20,000 + Rs.
\n10,000). Sentences imposed on A-1 in default of payment of fine on each
\ncount are to run separately and consecutively apart from the above sentence
\nof imprisonments. In default of payment of fine, Total further sentence to
\nundergo; 32-1\/2 years + 3 months.\n<\/p>\n
2nd Accused: The sentences imposed on A-2 on Charge Nos. 3 and 6 are to run
\nconsecutively. Total fine on A-2 Rs. 12,500 (Rs. 10,000 + Rs. 2,500). The
\nSentences imposed on A-2 in default of payment of fine is to run
\nconsecutively apart from the above sentenced of imprisonments.\n<\/p>\n
4th Accused: The sentence of imprisonment of Charge Nos. 3 and are to run
\nconcurrently. Fine amount on A-4: Rs. 10,000 The sentence of imprisonment
\nimposed in default of payment of fine is to run separately.\n<\/p>\n
Accused 6 and 7: The sentence of imprisonment imposed on each of these
\nAccused on Charge Nos. 3 and 7 are to run concurrently. Total Fine Rs.
\n12,500 each (Rs. 12,500 X 2 = Rs. 25,000). The sentence of imprisonment
\nimposed in default of payment of fine is to run separately and
\nconsecutively.\n<\/p>\n
Total fine on A-1 to A-7                               Rs. 62,07,500<\/p>\n
Out of the payment of fine of Rs. 51,30,000 collected from A-1 under Sec.
\n357(1) a (3) Cr.P.C., a compensation of Rs. 5,00.000 is to be paid to each
\nof the victim girls, P.W.3 Sureskumari; P.W.4 Nallammal; P.W.5 Princy,
\nP.W.6 Mary; P.W.7 Selvakumari @ Manjula; P.W.8 Sugunakumari @ Sudha; P.W.9
\nPushparani; P.W.10 Saikumari @ Jaya P.W.12 Udayakumari;P.W.13 Vanitha;
\nP.W.14 Aruljothi and P.W.15 Malligadevi (rs. 5,00,000 X 12 = Rs. 60,00,000.\n<\/p>\n
ACCUSED RELATED:\n<\/p>\n
Accused No. 2 is the Secretary of A-1, A-6 is the younger brother of A-1
\nand A-7 is the adopted son of A-1.\n<\/p>\n
The facts of this case, as revealed by the prosecution, shocked the
\njudicial conscience. It illustrate a classic example as to how the
\ninsatiable lust for sex of A-1 Swami Premananda leads to the raping of `13
\nAshram girls and murder of one Ravi. The Ashram which is supposed to be God
\nabode turned out to be devil’s workshop. A-1 to whom the inmates of the
\nAshram regarded as God having the divine power turned out to be a monster.
\nIt is a classic  case  of  betrayal  of  fatherly and  divinely  trust of
\nthe inmates of the Ashram girls who were mostly orphans and destitutes,
\nbrought from Srilanka except PW-4 Nallammal and PW-6 Mary.\n<\/p>\n
The facts of the case also illustrate a classic example as to how a game-
\nkeeper has become a poacher or a treasury guard has become a robber. From
\nthe facts as disclosed by the prosecution, some of the victim girls were
\nbrought up by A-1 since when they were aged about 2, 3 and 6 years. They
\nwere reared to be butchered later when they attained the age.\n<\/p>\n
The prosecution case was set in motion pursuant to the news item appeared
\nin “The Indian Express” dated 15.11.1994 under the caption, “Tale of the
\ntwo who were able to get away” (Ex.D.29) followed by a complaint, Ex.P-25
\ndated 16.11.1994 given by R. Sureshkumari @ Baby (PW-3) to the Inspector of
\nPolice, Viralimalai has laid the foundation for the case of rape of 13
\ngirls and one murder in an ashram near Tiruchirappalli. In that brief
\ncomplaint, Sureshkumari has stated that she joined the Premananda Swami
\nAshram, Mathalai, Sri Lanka when she was six years of age. She was taken to
\nIndia by the Swami along with 12 other girls in the year 1984 when the
\nashram was formed at Tiruchy. She had alleged that she was subjected to
\nsexual harassment by the Swami four times even before she attained puberty
\nat the age of 13 and that she was raped within a month on her attaining
\npuberty by the Swami by threat and by beating her with stick. Unable to
\nwithstand this torture, she left the ashram at the age of 14 and came to
\nMadras, but she was caught by the police and sent back to the ashram.
\nInspite of her complaint to her mother, she did not come forward to help
\nher and she had to suffer the torture in the ashram as she had no other
\nplace to go. She came to know from some inmates of the ashram that
\nPremananda had not only raped her, but also many other girls in the ashram,
\nand she recorded their conversation in a cassette. In these circumstances,
\nshe approached one of her relatives, Anand Mohan who helped her and Latha,
\nanother inmate, to come out of the ashram to Chennai, with the assistance
\nof a Women Organisation. In the ashram, Premananda would not allow them to
\ntalk freely to others and they were compelled to undergo this ordeal. Divya
\nDevi knew all this and was abetting the misdeeds of the Swami. Ultimately,
\nunable to bear the torture, she left the ashram on 1.11.1994, but could not
\ngather the courage to give a police complaint. However, with the assistance
\nand encouragement given by the All Indian Women Democratic Association and
\nin order to see that other girls also were not subjected to the same fate,
\nshe had come forward to expose the misdeeds of the Swami and the suffering
\nundergone by her even at the cost of her dignity and modesty. She had
\nstated that many girls had to undergo abortion because of the rapes
\ncommitted on them by the Swami. She had alleged that one Balan had acted as
\na pimp for the Swami. She had requested for an appropriate action against
\nthe Swami, Divya Devi and Balan. The subsequent news report on these
\nallegations was followed by the registration of a crime investigation,
\nenquiry, seizure of incriminating documents, materials, evidence and filing
\nof charge sheet.\n<\/p>\n
The prosecutrix raped by A-1 systematically abetted by A-2, A-4, A-6 and
\nA-7 are P.W.3 Sureshkumari, P.W.4 Nallammal, P.W.5 Princy, P.W.6 Mary,
\nP.W.7 Selvakumari @ Manjula, P.W.8 Sugunakumari @ Sudha, P.W.9 Purshparani,
\nP.W.10 Sasikumari @ Jaya, P.W.11 Shantha, P.W.12 Udayakumari, P.W.13
\nVanitha, P.W.14 Aruljothi, P.W.15 Mallikadevi and P.W.55 Krishnaveni.\n<\/p>\n
Most of the rapes committed on the victims as disclosed by the prosecution
\nstory are inside the Kudil of A-1. The modus operandi of A-1 abetted by
\nother accused are that although there were 200-300 boys in the Ashram, A-1
\nused the girls to put on the night watch around his Kudil, Arulvakku Room,
\nDharmasala and other places. The victims tolerated the beastly assault of
\nA-1 as they were orphans and totally dependent on A-1 Ashram for their food
\nand shelter and they had no alternative place to go if they made complaint
\nto the police or to the outside world. The evidence disclosed that A-2,
\nA-4, A-6 and A-7 were abetting the commission of rape by A-1 by threatening
\nthe victims not to reveal the rape committed on them by A-1.\n<\/p>\n
BACKGROUND FACTS :\n<\/p>\n
The facts of this case are cumbersome. To avoid prolixity we may refer to
\nfew facts to appreciate the controversy in proper perspective. A-1 called
\nSwami Premananda was running an orphanage in the name of Boopalakrishna
\nAshram, Mathalia at Srilanka. Due to the ethnic violence in the region A-1
\ncame over to India in the year 1984. 12 young Tamil girls and a few women,
\nwho were in the Ashram in Sri Lanka, were also brought to Tiruchy by boat.
\nInitially, A-1 set up an Ashram in a rented building at Tiruchy and later
\nestablished a big institution at Fathima Nagar in the year 1989 in a
\nsprawling space spread over nearly 150 acres. The Ashram consists of
\nresidence, kudil, eating place, school, etc. The boys and girls mostly
\norphans, were staying in the Ashram. There are separate hostels for the
\nstay, education and training for boys, girls and women. Besides, the Ashram
\nhas 5 acres of flower plants, 5 acres of tamarind plantation, mango trees
\nplantation, 300 coconut trees, 90 acres of cashew plantation, 1 acre of
\njackfruit plantation, 10 acres of teak wood, 1 acre of lime trees and 2
\nacres of guava trees. The Ashram has its branches at U.K., Switzerland,
\nBelgium and many other countries.\n<\/p>\n
BACKGROUND OF THE VICTIM GIRLS :\n<\/p>\n
As already noticed except P.W.4 Nallammal and P.W.6 Mary, all other victims
\nare Srilankan. Most of them were orphans and were left in the Ashram when
\nthey were small children. All of them were dependent on the first accused
\nfor food, shelter and other basic needs. All the victim girls were under
\nthe complete mercy and control of A-1 and the other accused. They were
\nwarned and threatened not to disclose to anybody about the misdeeds of A-1.
\nIf they were turned out from the Ashram they had no place to stay and
\ntherefore they had tolerated the cruel assault of rape on them for so long.
\nThey were like mouse before the cat. Who will bell the cat?\n<\/p>\n
A comparative chart as to particulars of the victim girls of rape as
\nrecited by the High Court is being reproduced, which speaks for itself.\n<\/p>\n
Name, Age and\tRelatives in \tInstances of \tInstances of\tStatement<\/p>\n
Rank\tthe Ashram\trape \tabortion\tmade u\/s
\n\t\tcommitted \t\t161(3) and
\n\t\tand the period\t\t164 Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
Sureshkumari \tSister PW7-\t1) 1985 before \tNil \tEx.P25 refers
\n20\/1994 \tSelvakumari \tattaining \t\tto the
\nP.W.3 Sri\t@ Manjula,  \tpuberty, at \t\tinstances of
\nLankan\tPW 8 – \tresidential \t\trape
\n\tSugunakumari\thouse at\t\tcommitted on
\n\t@ Sudha, \tCrapatti, \t\ther by A1
\n\tPW10 \tTiruchy.\n<\/p>\n
\tSasikumari \t2) July 1987
\n\t@Jaya and \t in A1’s room<\/p>\n
\tdaughter of \t3) July 1987
\n\tDW32 – \tin A1’s room
\n\tDeivanai \t4) November
\n\t\t1991 in A1’s
\n \t\tbedroom at 1
\n  \t\tp.m.\n<\/p>\n
Nallammal \t\t1) May 94 at \tAbortion \tEx.P27
\n21\/1994 \t\t11.30 am in \tconducted \t(Accident
\nP.W.4 Native \t\tthe Arulvakku\tby Dr.  \tRegister):
\nof \t\tRoom\tMuthulakshmi \tContact with
\nPallathupatty, \t\t2) May 94 at \tsome time in \tknown
\nKeeranur, \t\t12.30 p.m. in \tOct. 94. \tperson,
\nTamil Nadu.\t\tA1’s room \tPW2-Nesan \twillingly;\n<\/p>\n
\t\t3) May 94 at\twas asked  \tmilk
\n\t\t2.30 pm at \tto bear \tsecretion
\n\t\tDharmasala. \tresponsibility \tcomplete\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t4) May 94 at \tfor the \tabortion.
\n\t\tDharmasala \tconception \tEx.D1 (u\/s
\n\t\t\t\t(u\/s 164):\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\tAdmits
\n\t\t\t\tsexual
\n\t\t\t\tintercourse
\n\t\t\t\twith A1 and
\n\t\t\t\tmoney given
\n\t\t\t\tby A1 for
\n\t\t\t\tabortion.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Princy, \tSister of\t1) 1986 at\tMissed her    \tEx.P.36
\n20\/1994, \tPW2-Nesan\tlodge in \tperiods 2-3 \t(Accident
\nPW.5 Sri \tand PW18\tCourtallam at \ttimes; taking \tRegister):
\nLankan\tDinesan \t1 p.m. \tthe \tCoitus with\n<\/p>\n
\t\t2) July 90, \tabortifacients\tworking,
\n\t\tdays after\tgiven by A-3\tperson
\n\t\tGuru Purnima\t\twillingly
\n\t\tpooja at 11\t\tHymen not
\n\t\tpm in A1’s\t\tintact
\n  \t\troom. \t\tEx.D2 (u\/s\n<\/p>\n
\t\t3) 1992, a \t\t164): Refer
\n\t\tmonth after \t\tto A1’s
\n\t\t\t\tname
\n\t\tthe 3rd
\n\t\tincident at 5\t\tand four
\n  \t\tam.\t\tinstances of\n<\/p>\n
\t\t4) 1993 in \t\trape
\n\t\tlodge at \t\tcommencng
\n\t\tThanjavur.  \t\tfrom 1992.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t5) on
\n\t\t17.4.1994.\n<\/p>\n
Mary, \t\t1) 1993 in the\tMissed her \tEx.P35
\n16\/1994 \t\tPomegranate\tperiod once\t(Accident
\nPW.6 Native \t\tGarden, 4\tand \tRegister):\t\tof
\nVenniayaru \t\tdays \tabortifacients \tShows
\nEstate, \t\tthereafter at\tgiven by A3 \tHymen Not
\nMadurai.\t\tthe\tand Divya\tintact; as per
\n\t\tDharmasala\tDevi \tphysical
\n\t\texamination,
\n\t\t\t\tage 16
\n\t\t\t\tyears:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\tAs per
\n\t\t\t\tEx.P46, Age
\n\t\t\t\tCertificate,
\n\t\t\t\tcompleted
\n\t\t\t\t16 years
\n\t\t\t\ton 2.11.94.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\tEx.D3 (u\/s\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t164) Refers
\n\t\t\t\tto sexual
\n\t\t\t\tintercourse
\n\t\t\t\tby force by
\n\t\t\t\tA1 at the
\n\t\t\t\tage of 13
\n\t\t\t\tin the
\n\t\t\t\troom near
\n\t\t\t\tDharmasala
\n\t\t\t\tat 1.30 pm.
\n\t\t\t\tImmediately
\n\t\t\t\tafter
\n\t\t\t\tChristmas.\n<\/p>\n
Sivakumari \tElder sister of\t1) May 94 in\tNil\tHymen not
\n@Manjula,\tPW3 & sister \tA1’s room.\t\tintact.\n<\/p>\n
22\/1994, \tof PW3 8 &\t2) October 94\t\tEx.D4 (u\/s
\nP.W.7, \t10 related to\t at 4 pm in\t\t164):\n<\/p>\n
Sri Lankan. \tA1 as their   \tA1’s room. \t\tRefers to
\n\tfather’s \t3) Refers to\t\tsexual
\n\tbrother. \tforced \t\tintercourse
\n\t\tperverted oral \t\twith A1
\n\t\tsex by A1.  \t\twillingly
\n\t\t\t\tonce.\n<\/p>\n
Sugunakumari \t\t1) in 1993, 2-3 \tNil\tEx.P37
\n@Sudha, \t\tmonths after \t\t(Accident
\n16\/1994, \t\tshe attained\t\tRegister):\n<\/p>\n
PW 8, \t\tpuberty A1\t\tNot a virgin
\nSri Lankan\t\thad sexual\t\taccustomed
\n\t\tintercourse in\t\tto sexual
\n\t\this room.\t\tintercourse.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t2) September\t\tAs per\t\t\t\t94\n\t\tin the\t\tEx.P48,\n\t\tArulvakku \t\tAge\n\t\tRoom. \t\tCertificate,\n\t\t3) September \t\tcompletd 18\n\t\t94 in the \t\tyears as\n\t\tArulvakku\t\ton 22.11.94.\n\t\tRoom. \t\tEx.D5\n          \t\t\t\t(u\/s.164):\n\t\t\t\tRefers to\n \t\t\t\tsexual\n\t\t\t\tintercourse\n\t\t\t\tby A1\n\t\t\t\tforcibly.\n<\/pre>\n
Pushparani \tSister of \t1) 1992 at\t\tNil Ex.P.33
\n16\/1994, \tPW 17 \t1.30 am in the\t\tAccident
\nP.W.9, \t\tPooja room.\t\tRegister):\n<\/p>\n
Sri Lankan\t\t2) 1994 at\t\tHad affair
\n\t\t11.30 am in\t\twith a
\n\t\tthe \t\tworking
\n\t\tDharmasala \t\tperson for 1
\n\t\troom.\t\tyear; as per\n<\/p>\n
\t\t3) in 1994, 2 \t\ther own
\n\t\tdays prior to\t\tstatement
\n\t\tDeepavali in \t\tand physical
\n\t\tA1’s room.         \t\texamination,
\n\t\t\t\taged 16. As
\n\t\t\t\tper Ex.P49,
\n\t\t\t\tnot
\n\t\t\t\tcompleted
\n\t\t\t\t16 years.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\tStatement
\n\t\t\t\t(u\/s) 164):\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\tRefers
\n\t\t\t\tforcible
\n\t\t\t\tsexual
\n\t\t\t\tintercourse
\n\t\t\t\tby A1 when
\n\t\t\t\tshe
\n\t\t\t\twas 14 years
\n\t\t\t\told.\n<\/p>\n
Sasikumari @ \tTwin sister \t1) In 1993, 15\tNil\tEx.P37
\nJaya, 16\/1994 \tof PW8 & \tdays after she\t\t(Accident
\nPW.10 \tYounger \tattained\t\tRegister):\n<\/p>\n
\tsister of  \tpuberty in \t\tHymen not
\n\tPWs.\tA1’s room. \t\tintact. As
\n\t3 & 7. \t\t\tper her own
\n\t\t\t\tstatement &
\n\t\t\t\tphysical
\n\t\t\t\texamination,
\n\t\t\t\tshe is 16
\n\t\t\t\tyears old.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\tAs per
\n\t\t\t\tEx.P50, age
\n\t\t\t\tcertificate
\n\t\t\t\tshe has not
\n\t\t\t\tcompleted
\n\t\t\t\t16 years as
\n\t\t\t\ton 22.11.94.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\tEx.D6
\n\t\t\t\t(u\/s 164):\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\tRefers
\n\t\t\t\tsexual
\n\t\t\t\tintercourse
\n\t\t\t\twith a
\n\t\t\t\tknown
\n\t\t\t\tperson.\n<\/p>\n
Shantha, \tSister of \t1) November\tNil\tEx.P39
\n34\/1994 \tPW13\t91 first sexual \t\t(Accident
\nP.W.11 \tVanitha\tintercourse by \t\tRegister):
\nSri Lankan\t\tA1 who made\t\tSexual
\n\t\ther to agree\t\tcontact with
\n\t\t@ 4 pm – \t\tknown male
\n\t\tArulvakku \t\tperson.\n<\/p>\n
\t\troom. \t\tHymen not\n<\/p>\n
\t\t2) Nov.92 in \t\tintact.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tVisitors’ \t\tEx.D7
\n\t\tRoom against \t\t(u\/s.164):\n<\/p>\n
\t\ther wish. \t\tRefers to\n<\/p>\n
\t\t3) November \t\tsexual
\n\t\t93 in Divya \t\tintercourse
\n\t\tDevi’s room \t\twith A1 on
\n\t\tagainst her \t\tconsent in
\n\t\twish. \t\t1991; \twithout
\n\t\t\t\tconsent in
\n\t\t\t\t1992; \twithout
\n\t\t\t\tconsent in
\n\t\t\t\t1993.\n<\/p>\n
Udayakumari \tSister of \tMay 1993-\tNil\tEx. P.40
\n21\/1994, \tPW 15 –\tforcible \t\t(Accident
\nP.W.12, \tMalligadevi\tintercourse by\t\tRegister):
\nSri Lankan \t& DW29\tA1 in the\t\tHymen – not
\n\tKanthan \tgarden;\t\tintact;\n<\/p>\n
\t\taccustomed to \t\tRefers to
\n\t\ttorture meted \t\tthe sexual
\n\t\tout to her by \t\tintercourse.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tconfining her \t\tNo
\n\t\tin the dog’s \t\tStatement
\n\t\tKennel. \t\tu\/s. 164
\n\t\t\t\tCr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\trecorded.\n<\/p>\n
Vanitha, \tYounger \t1) June 91 \t1st one at\tEx. P57
\n21\/1994, \tsister of \twhile sleeping\tDr.Gomathi’s\t(Accident
\nPW.13, \tPW11 –\tin A1’s kudil.\tHospital @\tRegister):
\nSri Lankan \tShantha\t2) July 92\tThanjavur.\tContact with
\n\t\tSaturday at 3 \t\ta known\t\t\t\tpm
\n\t\tin A1’s \t2nd one at\tperson for
\n\t\tbedroom. \tAthi Hospital\tmore than\n<\/p>\n
\t\t3) October 94 \tSpeaks of 2\tfour years.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tat 11 am in \tforcible \tLast
\n\t\tA1’s room. \tsexual \tabortion
\n\t\t\t\t2 years back
\n\t\t\tintercourse \tat Tanjore.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\teven as \tMTP done
\n\t\t\tinformed A1 \ttwice.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tthat doctor
\n\t\t\thad told her \tStatement
\n\t\t\tthat her uterus u\/s 164
\n\t\t\twas very \tCr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tweak
\n   \t\t\t\tRefers sexual
\n\t\t\t\tcontact with
\n\t\t\t\ttwice and
\n\t\t\t\tabortion
\n\t\t\t\ttwice.\n<\/p>\n
Aruljothi \t\t1) 1991 in \t1) \tEx.D9
\n21\/1994, \t\tA1’s room at\tAbortifacients\t(Accident
\nPW.14, \t\t1 pm. \tgiven by\tRegister):\n<\/p>\n
Sri Lankan\t\t2) One month\tDivya Devi &
\n \t\tthereafter, A1 \tA3 in 1991.\tContact with
\n\t\thad forcible
\n\t\tsexual \t2) Second\ta known
\n\t\tintercourse in \tabortion at \tperson for 5
\n\t\tA1’s room\tA3’s instance\tyears.\n<\/p>\n
\t\teven while \tby taking
\n\t\tshe was \ttablets.\tEx.D10
\n\t\tbleeding after\t\t(u\/s 164):\n<\/p>\n
\t\ttaking
\n \t\tabortifacients. \t\t1) Refers to\n<\/p>\n
\t\t3) On \t\t3 sexual
\n\t\t14.11.94 in \t\tintercourse
\n\t\tA1’s room. \t\tby A1, 2
\n\t\t\t\tmonths after
\n\t\t\t\tattaining
\n\t\t\t\tpuberty.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t2) Second
\n\t\t\t\tsexual
\n\t\t\t\tintercourse
\n\t\t\t\tin A1′ room.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\tMissed her
\n\t\t\t\tperiod and
\n\t\t\t\ttook
\n\t\t\t\tabortifacient
\n\t\t\t\tNext day,<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\tafter
\n\t\t\t\tpublication
\n\t\t\t\tof news,
\n\t\t\t\trefers to
\n\t\t\t\tthe forcible
\n\t\t\t\tsexual
\n\t\t\t\tintercourse
\n\t\t\t\tby A1 and
\n\t\t\t\trefers to the
\n\t\t\t\tconception
\n\t\t\t\tand her
\n\t\t\t\trequest for
\n\t\t\t\ttermination
\n\t\t\t\tof
\n\t\t\t\tpregnancy.\n<\/p>\n
Malligadevi, \tSister of \t1) April 92 at\tNil\tExP32
\n20\/1994, \tPW12 – \t2 pm. in A1’s\t\t(Accident
\nP.W.15, \tUdayakumari\troom\t\tRegister):\n<\/p>\n
Sri Lankan \t& D29\t2) On 18.11.94\t\tHymen – not
\n\tKanthan\t\t\tintact.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\tEx.P133 (u\/s\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t164):\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\tRefers to the
\n\t\t\t\tforcible
\n\t\t\t\tsexual
\n\t\t\t\tintercourse
\n\t\t\t\tby A1 after
\n\t\t\t\tshe attained
\n\t\t\t\tpuberty by
\n\t\t\t\tpersuading
\n\t\t\t\ther that she
\n\t\t\t\twould be
\n\t\t\t\tcured of
\n\t\t\t\tasthma in
\n\t\t\t\tA1’s room.\n<\/p>\n
Krishnaveni.\t\t1) January 94 \tNil\tNot included
\n23\/1994, \t\tat 3 pm in\t\tin the \t\tPW.55 Sri
\nthe room of \t\tcharge.\n<\/p>\n
Lankan\t\tPW.55\n<\/p>\n
\t\t2) August 94
\n\t\tat 12 noon in
\n\t\tA1’s room.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t3) September
\n\t\t94 at night
\n\t\twatch in A1’s
\n\t\troom.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tOn her refusal
\n\t\tthe first time
\n\t\tshe was tied
\n\t\tto calf made
\n\t\tto run along
\n\t\twith it $
\n\t\ttortured for
\n\t\ther adamancy.\n<\/p>\n
Latha, \t\tNot raped by
\n30\/1994 \t\tA1, but speaks
\nP.W.16\t\tabout the rape
\n\t\tof Sureshkumari,
\n\t\tPW3 by A1
\n\t\t1987 and
\n\t\tVanitha, PW
\n\t\t13 in June,
\n\t\t1991<\/span>
\nFrom the statements of the victim girls made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as
\nsummarized above, it is seen that :\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tP.Ws, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14 and 15 have named A-1 and his
\nforcible rape on them :\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tP.Ws. 7 and 11 (once) have stated to have consented for sexual
\nintercourse with A-1; and<\/p>\n
(c)\tP.W.10 has admitted forcible rape by a known person :\n<\/p>\n
ACTIVITIES OF ASHRAM :\n<\/p>\n
Religious discourses were performed by A-1 in the Ashram. He used to give
\nholy water at the time of “abhishekam” which is believed to have a healing
\npower and the “viboothi” and manjal were also used as substances for
\nhealing disease. A-1 used to produce “lingams” and viboothi during the
\nnights of Mahasivarathri.\n<\/p>\n
With this background let us now examine the evidence of each of the
\nprosecutrix before the Court.\n<\/p>\n
P.W.3 Sureshkumari was examined on 1.7.1996. Her age was recorded as 21
\nyears. She deposed that PW-3 along with 12 other girls left Sri Lanka
\nthrough a boat and arrived in India. The first accused took them in a van
\nfrom Rameswaram to a house at Crapatti, Tiruchy. At that time she was aged
\n11-12 years and had not attained puberty. Even during that time A-1 used to
\ncall her to his room, made her to sit on his lap and used to kiss her and
\ngive her sweets. This happened three times in 1985. On the fourth occasion,
\nA-1 called her to a separate room, removed her dress and squeezed her
\nbreast hard to the pain of P.W.3, thereafter he pushed her on the bed and
\ntried to have sexual intercourse forcibly. She attained puberty in the year
\n1987. She was confined in a room for nearly one month. After completion of
\none month, A-1 called her to his room on the pretext of giving viboothi
\n(sacred ash) in July, 1987. Thereafter, A-1 made her to sit on his lap,
\nembraced her and after kissing, asked her consent for sexual intercourse.
\nWhen P.W.3 asked him how he could do that when he was wearing saffron
\nrobes. To that A-1 had pacified her by stating that robe is different and
\nsex is different and further said that since he is like her father she
\nwould not beget any children even if he had sexual intercourse with her.
\nP.W.3, however, managed to open the doors and came away running. It was
\nwitnessed by P.W.16. After three days at about 1.30 p.m. while P.W.3 was
\nstanding outside, A-1 gave her a signal to come. When P.W.3 went inside his
\nroom A-1 locked the doors. Thereafter, P.W.3 was taken to his bedroom and
\ninside his bedroom, inspite of her attempt to escape, A-1 removed her dress
\nand when she resisted A-1 slapped her and pushed her over the bed. When she
\nshouted A-1 closed her mouth, mounted on her and started squeezing her
\nbreasts and despite protest A-1 had sexual intercourse with her. A-1 had
\nsexual intercourse with her three times in year 1987. P.W.3 further stated
\nthat at about 1 p.m. in November, 1991 A-1 had forcibly sex with her. She
\nfurther said that since they were orphans and there was nobody else to take
\ncare of them, she did not disclose to anybody. A-1 had also threatened her
\nthat if she revealed this to anybody she would be beaten. She further
\ndisclosed that in October, 1994 when P.W.9 refused to concede to the demand
\nof A-1 during night, A-1 convened a meeting in the next morning on the
\nground that she was talking with one boy and therefore A-1 punished her by
\npushing his big toe in the vagina of P.W.9. When P.W.3 was unable to see
\nsuch torture, she went out of the meeting; she was called and slapped in
\nfront of others. Therefore, P.W.3 not able to bear such torturous conduct
\nof A-1 came out of the Ashram on 31.10.1994. It is also admitted that she
\nleft the Ashram in year 1991 and went to Madras.\n<\/p>\n
P.W.4 Nallammal was examined on 2.7.1996. Her age was recorded as 22 years.
\nShe stated that in the Ashram she was doing flower garden work and the
\npress work. She was also given the responsibility in the Pooja hall. Six
\nmonths prior to the arrest of A-1 she was arranging the vessels in the
\nPooja room at 11.30 on Saturday. A-1 gave Arul vaku at 9.30 a.m. and it was
\ncompleted at 3 p.m. After Arul vaku all the devotees left and only A-1 was
\nin the Arul vaku room. From there A-1 called her and she went there
\nthinking that A-1 would give vibuthi. But when she went near A-1 he closed
\nthree doors in the Arul vaku room. After closing the three doors he pushed
\nher and removed the underskirt and raped her and she was crying. Though she
\nwas crying, the first accused continued to rape her. The first accused
\nthreatened her if she would disclose the happening to anybody he would kill
\nher like Ravi was killed. In that month the first accused raped her 3 or 4
\ntimes. He had raped her two times in his room and once in the Dharmasala.
\nIn his room it was at about 12.30 p.m. and in the Dharmasala it was about
\n2.30 p.m. She further stated that she got three months pregnancy because
\nA-1 forcibly raped her. When A-1 came to know that she was pregnant he
\ninstructed A-3 Divya to give pineapple and papaya and as the pregnancy was
\nnot aborted. A-1 called A-3 and asked her to give medicines and injection.
\nDespite this pregnancy was not aborted and witness started bleeding. She
\nfurther stated that two days later she gave a statement before the
\nMagistrate. Some of the statements were true and other were lies because
\nshe came to learn from the interview that A-1 would be out within two days
\nand she was frightened that if the accused came out in two days he would do
\nsomething to her. So in front of the Magistrate, she gave some false
\ninformation together with the true information.\n<\/p>\n
P.W.5 Princy was examined on 2.7.1996. Her age was recorded as 22 years.
\nShe stated that when they were in Fatima Nagar Ashram, A-1 used to sleep on
\nbed. Myselff and P.W.3 were sleeping on the floor. At 1.00 a.m. the first
\naccused came down from the bed and slept with her. The first accused
\nforcibly raped her even though she was shouting and did not care even
\nSureshkumari was nearby. She further stated that Gurupoornima was held in
\nJuly and two days after Gurupoornima in 1990 around 11.00 p.m. the first
\naccused called her. That night she had the night watch. Night watch was
\nbetween 11.00 p.m. to 12.00 p.m. She went into the Ist accused room. The
\nfirst accused told Balan(A-4) to look outside whether anybody was standing
\noutside. When she went inside the room of the first accused he locked the
\ndoor. She tried to go outside the room but she could not. The 1st accused
\nforcibly hugged her and pushed her on the bed and had sex with her. She
\ntold the first accused “I was grown up by you from 3 years old and I am
\nlike your daughter” even then he forcibly had sex with her.\n<\/p>\n
P.W.6 Mary was examined on 2.7.1996. Her age was recorded as 18 years. She
\nstated that in 1993 she was doing the night watch. That time the first
\naccused called her to pomegranate field. The pomegranate field was in front
\nof the first accused room. There are a lot of guava trees and pomegranate
\ntrees in the Ashram. She went to the pomegranate field as called by A-1.
\nThe first accused told her to have sex with him, whom she refused but then
\nA-1 forcibly had sex with her against her wish. After she had sex with A-1
\nshe did not get period for three months. Thereafter, A-1 called Divya and
\nthe 3rd accused Dr. Chandradevi to give some medicine for abortion. Divya
\n(absconding accused) gave pineapple and papaya. She also took some
\nmedicines given by the third accused. The period was restored. Thereafter
\nA-1 sent for her through a small girl and when she went to A-1, he forcibly
\nhad sex with her in the Dharmasala. She further deposed that she did not
\ntell to anybody that A-1 raped her because in the Ashram no one could do
\nanything against the first accused. She also deposed that A-1 pushed his
\nleg big toe into Pushparani’s vagina. They all put their heads down because
\nthey could not see this.\n<\/p>\n
P.W.7 Selvakumari @ Manjula was examined on 3.7.1996. Her age was recorded
\nas 23 years. She is the sister of P.W.3 Sureshkumari and P.W.8 Sugnakumari
\n@ Sudha and P.W.10 Sasikumari @ Jaya. A-1 is their uncle. She stated that
\nshe attained the age when she was 14 years. In 1988 the Ist accused used to
\ntouch her while talking. She asked the Ist accused “You are my uncle, why
\nare you touching me while talking” and the accused told her this
\nrelationship in earlier days only and now there is no relationship like
\nthis. She states that in August, 1990 the first accused caught her and
\npressed her breast. On being asked A-1 told her that he liked it and he
\nwould do it. She further deposed that six months before the first accused
\nwas arrested she was pouring water in the garden after lunch at 3 p.m. At
\nthat time, the first accused came from his room and showed the signal
\nthrough the hand that she should come to his room. When she went to his
\nroom he removed her clothes and forcibly raped her. On being refused he
\nslapped her on the cheeks. A-1 raped her in his room. She further stated
\nthat one month before the first accused was arrested he had forcibly sex
\nwith her in the evening at 4 p.m. in his room. She further stated that A-1
\ngave interview to the press before she gave statement before the
\nMagistrate. In the interview before the press the accused said that he
\nwould come out in two days. Fearing that the accused would come out he
\nwould do something to her so she hide some of the statement before the
\nMagistrate. She further deposed that in 1993 the first accused kept his
\npenis in her mouth. The first accused beat her to keep his penis in her
\nmouth and also forced her to suck the penis with her mouth. She also stated
\nthat A-1 pushed his leg big toe into Pushparani’s vagina.\n<\/p>\n
P.W.8 Sugunkumari @ Sudha is the younger sister of P.W.3 Sureshkmari and
\nP.W.7 Selvakumari @ Manjula. She was examined on 3.7.1996. Her age was
\nrecorded as 17 years. She stated that A-1 is her uncle. She attained the
\nage in 1992. After two or three days on attaining age the first accused
\nsent her elder sisters by van somewhere. A-1 refused to send me with them
\nand she was sleeping in the room. Her room was about 100 feet distance from
\nthe A-1 room. At about 10 p.m. while she was still awaking A-1 came to her
\nroom and spread out something similar to a powder and she became
\nunconscious. Through the back door A-1 carried her to his room and put her
\non his bed and A-1 forcibly lied down on her and raped her. After 10
\nminutes she became conscious and got up. A-1 threatened her that if she
\ntold this to her elder sisters or any other girls he would kill her. After
\nthe rape she got fever for three days. She did not tell to her sisters when
\nthey came back to the Ashram next day. She did not tell to anybody and kept
\nquiet since A-1 threatened her that he would kill her. One week later A-1
\ncalled her. But because of the fear she did not went to see him. A-1
\nthereafter sent a little girl and called her but because of fear she did
\nnot went to his room. Then the little girl showed the place to A-1 where
\nthe witness was hiding. Thereafter A-1 showed a stick and threatened her
\nand brought her to his room. Again the first accused forcibly raped her in
\na beastly manner. A-1 also threatened her not to tell anybody and because
\nof fear she did not tell anybody that A-1 had raped her. After that
\nwhenever she saw A-1 she used to hide herself. Two months thereafter before
\nA-1 was arrested she went to Arul Vaku room in a queue. A-1 had forcibly
\nraped her for the third time in the Arul Vaku room. When she tried to stop
\naccused nails in his hand touched her right eye. She stated that when A-1
\nraped her for the first time she was 14 years old.\n<\/p>\n
The learned Trial Judge recorded the demeanour of P.W.8, in paragraph 272
\nof the judgment as under :-\n<\/p>\n
\t“While recalling the forcible act of rape, the court noticed
\n\ttorrential flow of tears from the eyes of P.W.8 with all pain and
\n\tconscience shocked, the court listened to the most startling and
\n\tsaddening story of P.W.8 who is yet to attain mental maturity.
\n\tThough P.W.8 attained puberty, she is yet to grow physically and
\n\tmentally. Even her childish voice is not broken into that of a
\n\tgrown up and adult woman.”\n<\/p>\n
The version of P.W.8 not only inspires the confidence of the court, but
\nalso shocks the conscience of the court.\n<\/p>\n
P.W.9 Pusharani was examined on 4.7.1996. Her age was recorded as 18 years.
\nShe stated that they all came from Srilanka in 1984. In the Ashram she was
\ngiven works such as building cleaning, supervising work, looking after the
\nchildren and night watch. Her night watch time was between 2 and 3 a.m.
\nLater on it was changed between 10 to 11 pm. The night watch is in front of
\nthe first accused building. In 1992 A-1 inquired as to why she came late to
\ndo the night watch and beat her. It was about 10.30 p.m. Thereafter A-1
\ntook her to his room in the pooja room and forcibly raped her. Because of
\nrape she started bleeding in her vagina. At about 1.30 a.m. when she came
\nout of the accused room two girls were doing night watch with her inquired
\nas to where she went. As A-1 had threatened her not to disclose to anybody
\nshe did not tell this to girls that A-1 had sex with her. In 1994 A-1 took
\nher to the Dharmasala at 11.30 p.m. and raped her. The accused after
\nclosing all the doors and windows in that room removed all her clothes. A-1
\nalso removed his clothes and A-1 lay her on a table and had sex with her.
\nShe further deposed that after 5 to 6 days A-1 called a meeting and she
\nattended the meeting where P.W.3 Sureshkumari, P.W.14 Aruljothi, P.W.10
\nSasikumari, P.W.7 Selvakumari and other girls also came to that meeting. In
\nthe meeting A-1 removed all her clothes and called four persons to hold her
\nlegs and hands. Thereafter A-1 lay down her without clothes and A-1 beat
\nher with a cane. A-1 also pushed his leg big toe into her vagina and when
\nshe shouted because of pain he did not leave her. Unable to see P.W.3 left
\nthe meeting. Two days before Diwali in 1994 A-1 had also forcibly sex with
\nher in his room.\n<\/p>\n
The learned Trial Judge recorded the demeanour and observed the manner
\nunder which P.W.9 deposed before the Court in paragraph 280 of the judgment
\nas under :-\n<\/p>\n
\t“280. Experiencing the most humiliating form of violence P.W.9 did
\n\tnot even attend the daily pooja. About 2 days prior to Deepavali
\n\t1994. A-1 again had sexual intercourse in his Kudil with P.W.9.
\n\tMuch weight has to be attached to the evidence of P.W.9. While
\n\tnarrating the ugly episode the Court could realize the
\n\tpsychological harassment of this girl. Even while she was
\n\tconfronted about the humiliation she developed a kind of giddiness
\n\tand uneasiness and the Cross examination could be continued only
\n\tthe next day. P.W.9 who was below 16 years during 1992-94, was
\n\travished by A.1. The consent of P.W. 9 is not of much relevance”.\n<\/p>\n
P.W.10 Sasikumari @ Jaya was examined on 4.7.1996. Her age was recorded as
\n17 years. She also stated that they all came from Srilanka to India in
\n1984. She was working in the garden, cleaning office and cleaning Dharmasla
\nin the Ashram. She further stated that when she was two years old, her
\nmother left her in Poobalakrishna Ashram. She attained the age in 1993 when
\nshe was 15 years old. She was kept in a room for 10 to 15 days. After 15
\ndays A-1 came to her room, hugged her and kissed her. The next day she came
\nout of the room. From 10 to 11 p.m. she was doing night watch, A-1 took her
\nto his room. She was near the bell as after every hour we ring the bell in
\nthe Ashram. It was about 50 feet distance from A-1 room and when she was
\nnear the bell A-1 called her making a sign with his hands. He asked her to
\ncome closer. When she went to A-1 he pressed her breasts. She got
\nfrightened and ran out. Two days later, A-1 gave her night watch from 1 to
\n2 a.m. and when she was doing night watch A-1 caught her hands and pulled
\nher to his room and pushed her on his bed. When A-1 pushed her on the bed
\nshe realized that A-1 would do something so she tried to escape from him.
\nBut A-1 slapped her on the cheeks, beat her and had forcibly sex with her.
\nShe further deposed that Arul Vaku room used to be dark and she saw that
\nA-1 used to take girls one by one into that room. She did not disclose to
\nanybody about her rape as A-1 threatened her that if she told about the
\nrape he would kill her on the same day. She further deposed that A-1 used
\nto tell them that “although he is in a human body he is God”. A-1 also
\nthreatened girls that they should not tell against him to the Magistrate
\nand if they disclosed anything he would come out and see them. The witness
\nfurther deposed that two days before the police examined her, A-1
\nthreatened that they should not tell against him to the Magistrate and
\ntherefore they hide something in their statements to the Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
P.W.11 Shanta was examined on 4.7.1996. Her age was recorded as 36 years.
\nThe High Court has acquitted the accused on this count, in our view,
\nwrongly but since no appeal is preferred, we need not examine the statement
\nof this witness, although she admitted having sex with A-1.\n<\/p>\n
P.W.12 Udayakumari was examined on 5.7.1996. Her age was recorded as 24
\nyears. She stated that she born in Sri Lanka. In 1984 she came from Sri
\nLanka. She does not have parents. They were staying in a rented house with
\nA-1 before they shifted to Fatimanagar in 1986. She was doing work in the
\nflower garden and looking after the dogs in the Ashram. In 1990 A-1 called
\nher through A-4. When she went to A-1 room and inquired as to why he had
\ncalled her, A-1 asked her whether she wanted to have sex with him. To which
\nshe replied, “how can I have sex with you because I was grown up by you and
\nI thought you are like my parents”. The first accused then by way of
\nrevenge kept her in the dog kennel for three days without giving her food
\nand water on the excuse that she did not look after the dogs well. The
\nwitness further stated that in May, 1993 when she was working in the flower
\ngarden, A-1 inquired whether I poured water to the plants. To which she
\nreplied that she had poured water. It was about 4 p.m. and in the flower
\ngarden A-1 forcibly hugged her and kissed her and then he pushed down and
\nlay on her and raped her. She did not tell to anybody as the accused
\nthreatened her not to tell.\n<\/p>\n
The learned Trial Judge has observed as to the demeanour of P.W.12 during
\nher examination and recorded in paragraph 304 of the judgment as under :-\n<\/p>\n
\t“P.W.12 had narrated the entire incident in a simple manner and in
\n\ther own language. The court could notice the reflection of pain and
\n\tsuffering on her face. There was torrential flow of tears even
\n\twhile she was recalling the incident. During the examination she
\n\tcould not control herself when she was questioned whether she
\n\tconsented for the act committed on her. Nothing could be more
\n\tperverse than to reject the testimony of this victim girl.”\n<\/p>\n
P.W.13 Vanitha was examined on 5.7.1996. Her age was recorded as 27 years.
\nShe stated that she was born on 31.7.1969 at Srilanka. P.W.11 Shantha is
\nher elder sister. In 1984 she and her family came from Srilanka to India
\nbecause of riots. They were living in a rented house in RMS colony,
\nKarumandabam, Trichy. In 1989 her sisters Shanta and Gita went to Srilanka
\nbut she stayed back in the Ashram. In 1990 her sisters came from Colombo to
\nthe Ashram. In 1991 when Divya Mataji was not in the Ashram A-1 told her to
\ndo the works of Divya Mataji. At that time she was studying plus one. She
\nwas sleeping in the first accused room. There were four rooms in the first
\naccused kudil. She was sleeping in the centre section. In the night at 1
\na.m. she felt that somebody was covering her face with a cloth She also
\nfelt that person the who covered her face had sex forcibly with her. When
\nshe got up she found that it was A-1. She became three months’ pregnant. In
\nthe Ashram if any girl does not get the periods usually it is reported to
\nDivya Mataji and Divya Mataji will convey message to A-1. Accordingly, she
\nreported to Divya Mataji and Divya Mataji reported to A-1 about the delay
\nof three months period. A-1 took the urine for examination through A-7. She
\nstated that A-1 had sex with her in June, 1991. She went to Tanjavur to Dr.
\nGomathi accompanied by P.W.3, P.W.5, A-1 and A-2. A-1 was driving the car.
\nThey were in Tanjavur for three days and pregnancy was aborted in Dr.
\nGomathi hospital. After they came back from hospital A-1 did not allow her
\nto go home for five days and kept her in his kudil. She was in the room
\nnext to A-1 room. In July 1992 at 3 p.m. A-1 called her for some work. When
\nshe went there A-1 closed the door and pushed her on his bed and forcibly
\nhad sex with her. She became five months pregnant after A-1 had sex with
\nher. It was reported to A-1. A-1 again sent her urine for examination and
\nit was found that she was 5 months’ pregnant. Thereafter, A-1 sent her with
\nA-4 to Tanjavur to abort the pregnancy. She was aborted in Arti hospital in
\nTanjavur. She did not disclose it to anybody that she had sex with A-1 and
\nwent twice to do abortion in Tanjavur, because she believed that A-1 was a
\ndivine man and if she would tell about activities of A-1 he would harm her
\nfamily. After 10 days of 2nd abortion doctor told A-1 that her womb was
\nweak and when she told A-1 her womb was weak A-1 had again forcibly raped
\nher. Again in October, 1994 around 11 am A-1 called her and when she went
\nto his room A-1 had forcibly sex with her. She further stated that she did
\nnot tell anybody because she was frightened that A-1 would harm her family
\nand because A-1 told to her father and mother that he was an important
\nperson.\n<\/p>\n
P.W.14 Aruljothi was examined on 12.7.1996. Her age was recorded as 21
\nyears. She stated that she was born in Matala, Sri Lanka. From the age of
\ntwo she was brought up in the Matale Poobala Krishna Ashram. The said
\nAshram was managed by A-1. She does not have parents. In year 1983 A-1 came
\nto India. In the year 1984 she and the other children came to India from
\nSri Lanka. They arrived at Vedaraniam and from there A-1 took them by a van
\nto Crawford, Trichy. There they stayed in a rented house. In 1986 they came
\nto the Ashram at Fathimanagar. In the Ashram, the food and clothes were
\nprovided by A-1. She attained the age in the year 1987. In the year 1988 on
\nKrishna Jayanthi she was sleeping in Sureshkumari’s (P.W.3) room. Early
\nmorning at 5.30 A-1 came to the room took the Vesti he was wearing and put
\nit on her face and had sex with her by force. In 1989 in the evening at 4
\nO’clock A-1 asked her to come to his room. He asked her to apply oil to his
\nlegs. A-1 also asked her to apply oil on his penis. When she refused to do
\nthat A-1 beat her and forced her and asked her to apply oil on his penis.
\nA-1 threatened her that he would murder her, if she told about this to
\noutside. Next day early in the morning at 5.30, P.W.7 Selvakumari, P.W.5
\nPrincy and P.W.12 Udayakumari, four of them ran away from the Ashram. When
\nthey were in Samayapuram A-1 and A-2 forcibly took them from Samayapuram to
\nthe Ashram. In the Ashram A-1 tied her and three others and beat them. In
\n1991 when they were cooking in the kitchen in the afternoon at about 1.
\n0’clock A-1 forcibly took her to his room and pushed her on the bed in his
\nroom and had sex by force. After having sex with him she did not get
\nmenstruation. Divya Devi and A-3 used to have a meeting on every Sunday in
\nthe Ashram and enquired who and who did not get their menstruation. During
\nsuch Sunday’s meeting she told A-3 and Divya Mataji that she did not have
\nher periods. Thereafter Divya Mataji gave her a pineapple fruit and A-3
\nChandra Devi gave tablets for disturbing the conception. Again A-1 had
\nforcibly intercourse with her. After that she had fever for seven days and
\nslept. Then A-3 Dr.Chandra Devi gave treatment to her. After a month when
\nshe was working in the pooja room A-1 came to the pooja room at around 1.00
\nin the day time, pushed her down in the pooja room itself and had forcibly
\nintercourse with her. After this again monthly period stopped. A-3
\nDr.Chandra Devi gave tablets to disturb the conception and she was aborted.
\nIn the year 1992 one day A-1 sent a message to her and she was lying down
\nin her room in fever. Since she did not respond to the calling of A-1, in
\nDharamsala when she was eating A-1 pulled her hair and knocked against the
\nwall. He took a stick and pricked her eyes by the stick, so her eyes became
\nred and got infection. This was witnessed by about 100 girls in the
\nDharmasala.\n<\/p>\n
In 1994 five days before the arrest of A-1 (A-1 was arrested on 19.11.994)
\nshe was doing night watch in the cowshed. At midnight about 12′ 0 clock A-4
\ncame to her and told that A-1 is calling her and took her to A-1 room. A-4
\nleft her in A-1 room and went. Thereafter A-1 shut the doors of the room
\nand pulled her on the bed and had sexual intercourse forcibly. About 20
\ndays before the arrest of A-1 she had her menstruation. She further stated
\nthat she never told to anybody that A-1 had sexual contact with her
\nforcibly. Just before the police arrested A-1, A-1 told that he would come
\nback within 2 days and that she should not tell anybody that he had sexual
\ncontact with her and he told others that there was no way or nobody for
\nthem to give food. Particularly, A-1 called her alone and threatened her
\nthat she should not tell anybody that he had sexual contact with her just
\nfive days before. She further stated that other than A-1 Swami Premananda,
\nnobody had sexual contact with her.\n<\/p>\n
P.W.15 Mallikadevi was examined on 18.7.1996. Her age was recorded as 22
\nyears. She stated that she was born in Colombo in Sri Lanka. She lost her
\nparents. She was in a Guru Shanti Villayam in Matakilapu, Sri Lanka. A-1
\ntook her to Poobala Krishna Ashram in Matale. It was maintained by A-1. In
\n1984 she came from Srilanka to India. She and her sister P.W.12 Udayakumari
\nalong with some other girls came to India from Srilanka. They were made to
\nstay in a rented house in Crawford, Trichy, by A-1. From there they came to
\nFatimanagar Ashram. They were provided food, clothes and shelter by A-1.
\nShe was assigned the library work in the Ashram. She was also doing the
\nnight watch from 10.00 to 11.00 p.m.<\/p>\n
In 1991 when she was doing night watch between 10 to 11 pm A-1 called her
\nto his room and when she went A-1 said that he liked her and hugged her. In
\nhis room when A-1 hugged and kissed her to consent to his wish, she ran out
\nfrom his room.\n<\/p>\n
In April, 1992 one day she went to A-1 and told that she is suffering from
\nasthma and could not work in the library and so she would go and sleep in
\nthe room. A-1 told her that she should compulsorily do the library work and
\nafter that she went to the library. After finishing the work around 2.00
\no’clock in the noon she went to her room. A-1 called her from his room by
\nwaving his hand and when she went to the room A-1 hugged her to which she
\ntold that she had been suffering from asthma and if she got a baby without
\nmarrying, people would talk bad about her. For that A-1 told her that if
\nshe would sleep with him her asthma would be cured and saying so A-1 pushed
\nher to his bed and had forcibly sex with her. A-1 had sex with her about 10
\nminutes after that she returned to her room crying. She also stated that
\nshe gave a statement to Pudukkottai Magistrate. Before the statement A-1
\nthreatened her not to tell anybody and told Magistrate that she had sex
\nwith A-1 on her own wish.\n<\/p>\n
All the prosecutrix were examined by the doctor and found that hymen was
\nnot intact. The potency of A-1 was also established.\n<\/p>\n
The prosecutrix were subjected to incisive cross-examination. However, no
\nmaterial could be brought out to discredit the credit worthiness of the
\nstatement in chief. From the facts of the prosecution as disclosed most of
\nthe victim girls were orphans brought from Srilanka. A-1 provided them
\nfood, clothes and shelter. They were entirely dependent on A-1 for their
\nsurvival. Once they were thrown out by A-1 they had no alternative place to
\nstay. A-1 had dominion control over the prosecutrix physically, mentally
\nand spiritually. In fact, many of them believed that A-1 is God to them. It
\nis in these circumstances, there is no reason why the prosecutrix should
\ndepose falsely against A-1 who was the source of their survival physically,
\nmentally and spiritually, by providing shelter, food and clothes to them.\n<\/p>\n
It is trite law that the prosecutrix is not an accomplice. The evidence of
\nvictim of sexual assault, if inspires confidence, conviction can be founded
\non her testimony alone unless there are compelling reasons for seeking
\ncorroboration. Her evidence is more reliable than that of injured witness.
\nIn a case of sexual assault corroboration as a condition for judicial
\nreliance is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence. Examining
\nthe testimony of prosecutrix in the background, as stated above, and in the
\nfacts and circumstances of this case, we are of the clear view, that the
\ntestimony of prosecutrix inspires confidence, on the basis of which alone
\nconviction can be safely sustained. Moreover, in the instant case we find
\nthat the statements of the prosecutrix are well corroborated by medical and
\nother contemporaneous documents. It is also well established principle of
\nlaw that minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the
\nstatement of the prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an
\notherwise reliable prosecution case. [See State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh
\nand Ors.,<\/a> [1996] 2 SCC 384]<\/p>\n
We have heard Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel, for the
\nappellants and Mr. Sushil Kumar learned senior counsel for the respondent
\nat length.\n<\/p>\n
At the outset we may observe here that the contentions which have been
\nraised before the Trial Court and the High Court and got rejected by
\nassigning good reasons by two courts have been restated again by the
\ncounsel for the appellants before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
Before we proceed to deal with the contentions we may at this stage set out
\nseveral charges on various counts framed against the accused by the Trial
\nCourt :\n<\/p>\n
Charge No. \tAgainst which\tUnder what \tGist of the
\naccused \tsection \toffences<\/p>\n
(1)\t(2)\t(3)\t(4)<\/p>\n
Charge No.1 \tA.1 to A.7 \tU\/s 120B IPC \tA1 to A7<\/p>\n
\t\t\tCriminal
\n\t\t\tconspiracy to
\n\t\t\tcommit rape
\n\t\t\ton victim girls.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tAbatement of
\n\t\t\trape and to
\n\t\t\tcause abortion
\n\t\t\tand to murder
\n\t\t\tRavi.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tA.3 Being a Co-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tConspirator for the
\n\t\t\tfirst part of the
\n\t\t\tConspiracy of
\n\t\t\trape, Abatement of
\n\t\t\trape and abortion. Charge No.2\tA.1\tU\/s 376(2)\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(c) \tFor committing
\n\t\tI.P.C. 14 Counts \trape on 14 Victim
\n\t\tgirls Nallammal,
\n\t\tMary, Princy  \t\t\t\t\tSelvakumari
\n\t\t@  \t\t\t\t\tManjula,
\n\t\tSugunakumari @  \t\t\t\tSudha,
\n\t\tPushparani,
\n\t\tMallikadevi,  \t\t\t\t\tSasikumari
\n\t\t@Jaya,  \t\t\t\tAruljothi,
\n\t\tSureshkumari,  \t\t\t\t\tLatha,
\n\t\tUdayakumari, \t\t\t\t\tVanitha and
\n\t\tShantha.\n<\/p>\n
Charge No.3\tA.2 to A.7\tU\/s 376 r\/w 109\tFor abetment of
\nI.P.C.\trape<\/p>\n
Charge No.4 \tA.1\tU\/s 354 I.P.C.\tFor
\n4 counts.\toutraging the \t\t\t\t\tmodesty of
\n4 \t\t\t\t\tvictim girls
\nSureshkumari, \t\t\t\t\tPrincy, Kumari
\nand Sasikumari.<\/p>\n
Charge No.5\tA.3\tU\/s 313 I.P.C.\tFor causing
\n8 counts \tabortion to 8 \t\t\t\t\tVictim
\ngirls.\n<\/p>\n
Charge No.6\tA.1\tU\/s 302 IPC \tFor causing the<\/p>\n
\tA.2\tU\/s 302 r\/w 34 \tmurder of Ravi
\n\t\tIPC
\nCharge No.7\tA.4 to A.7\tU\/s 302 r\/w 109\tFor abetting the
\nmurder of Ravi \tmurder of Ravi.\n<\/p>\n
Charge No.8\tA.1, A.2, A.4 to\tU\/s 343 I.P.C.\tWrongful
\nA.7 \t\tconfinement of \t\t\t\t\tRavi in
\nKavadi \t\t\t\t\tKudil.\n<\/p>\n
ChargeNo.9\tA.5 to A.7\tU\/s 201 r\/w 302\tFor causing the
\nI.P.C. \tevidence burying \t\t\t\t\tthe body of
\nRavi \t\t\t\t\tin the Ashram.\n<\/p>\n
Charge No.10\tA.2\tU\/s 201 r\/w 114\tAbetment by being
\nIPC \tpresent in the \t\t\t\t\tplace where the
\nbody of Ravi was \t\t\t\tburied.\n<\/p>\n
Charge No.11\tA.1, A.2, A.4\tU\/s 506 (Part II)\tCriminal
\n\t to A.7 \t I.P.C. (4 Counts) \tIntimidation and
\n\t the threat to cause \t\t\t\tdeath.\n<\/p>\n
Charge No.12\tA.1\tU\/s 420 I.P.C.\tFor cheating Mark
\nDennis dishonestly \t\t\t\tinducing him to
\npart with the \t\t\t\t\tmoney.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis case has more than one rarest of rare facts. It is rare that
\n\tA-1, supposed to be incarnation of God and allegedly having divine
\n\tpowers has been alleged of raping 13 of Ashram girls systematically
\n\tand murder of Ravi. It is rare that out of 62 prosecution witnesses
\n\texamined none of them turned hostile. It is rare that in an
\n\tinstitution like Ashram, P.W.62 I.O. seized amongst other things
\n\ttwo new packets of nirodh vide Ex.P.83 from the kudil of Divya Devi
\n\tin the Ashram.\n<\/p>\n
The contention of Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel, that the
\ncharge of rape leveled against A-1 does not come within the ambit of
\ndefinition of rape under Section 375 IPC inasmuch as some of the victim
\ngirls have consented to have sexual intercourse with A-1. It is also
\ncontended that investigation has been carried out in breach of Section 160
\nof the Code of Criminal Procedure. These contentions are to be noted only
\nto be rejected. Section 375 defines rape. It reads :-\n<\/p>\n
“375.Rape.- A man is said to commit “rape” who, except in the case
\nhereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under
\ncircumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions :-\n<\/p>\n
\tFirst. – Against her will.\n<\/p>\n
\tSecondly. – Without her consent.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tThirdly. – With her consent, when her consent has been
\n\t\tobtained by putting her or any person in whom she is
\n\t\tinterested in fear of death or of hurt.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tFourthly. – With her consent, when the man knows that he is
\n\t\tnot her husband, and that her consent is given because she
\n\t\tbelieves that he is another man to whom she is or believes
\n\t\therself to be lawfully married.\n<\/p>\n
\tFifthly. – With her consent, when, at the time of giving such
\n\tconsent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the
\n\tadministration by him personally or through another of any
\n\tstupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand
\n\tthe nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.\n<\/p>\n
\tSixthly. – With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen
\n\tyeas of age.\n<\/p>\n
\tExplanation. – Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual
\n\tintercourse necessary to the offence of rape.\n<\/p>\n
\tException.- Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife
\n\tnot being under fifteen years of age, is not rape.\n<\/p>\n
It is in the evidence of the prosecutrix, as already referred above,
\nconsent of many of the prosecutrix has been obtained by deceitful means
\nthat if they had sex with A-1 they would cure the asthma or that if they
\nhad sex with A-1 it is service to God or some of the girls have been raped
\nunder threat of dire consequences. As already stated A-1 had dominion
\ncontrol over the Ashram girls and most of them are orphans and no
\nalternative place to go. Therefore it clearly falls within the thirdly
\nclause of Section 375 IPC. Furthermore, if the consent is obtained by
\ndeceitful means or under threat of death or hurt, it is no consent at all
\nand it is without her consent. Therefore, the charge of rape leveled
\nagainst A-1 falls within the definition of Section 375 I.P.C. This apart,
\nunder sixthly clause the consent is immaterial when she is under 16 years
\nof age. PWs. 6, 8, 9, 10 were below 16 years of age when they were raped by
\nA-1.\n<\/p>\n
A-1 was charged under Section 376(2)(c) and convicted under that Section.
\nThe charge under Section 376(2)(c) was never challenged by A-1. Section
\n376(2)(c) reads :-\n<\/p>\n
“376(2)(c)- Whoever, –\n<\/p>\n
being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or other
\nplace of custody established by or under any law for the time being in
\nforce or of a woman’s or children’s institution takes advantage of his
\nofficial position and commits rape on any inmate of such jail, remand home,
\nplace or institution<\/p>\n
or ……………\n<\/p>\n
shall be punished with Rigorous Imprisonment for a term which shall not be
\nless than ten years but which may be for life and shall also be liable to
\nfine.”\n<\/p>\n
Similarly, the contention of breach of Section 160 Cr.P.C. is unacceptable.
\nAll the victim girls were the inmates of the Ashram. They were raped by A-1
\nin the Ashram, who had dominion control over the Ashram. The victim girls
\nwere being threatened not to disclose to anybody about the misdeeds of A-1
\nor face the dire consequences including the threat of death. In such
\ncircumstances, the Ashram cannot be the place for the purposes of Section
\n160 Cr.P.C. and the victim girls were rightly examined and interrogated in
\nwomen police stations. They were removed from the Ashram to erase the fear
\npsychosis from them. It was for the safety and to serve the interest of
\njustice, they were removed from the clutches of A-1. Section 160 Cr.P.C.
\nmust be understood and appreciated in the context of given situation.\n<\/p>\n
MISJOINDER OF CHARGES:\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel, contended that Section 218
\nCr.P.C. prescribes that for every distinct offence there shall be a
\nseparate charge and every charge shall be tried separately, which has not
\nbeen done in the present case. According to him, the first injunction
\ncontained in Section 218 is incurable either under Sections 464 or under
\nSection 465 Cr.P.C. In other words, if the charge is framed in
\ncontravention of Section 218 it is the breach of mandate of Section 218 and
\nis illegal and not misjoinder of charges and therefore it is incurable
\neither under Section 464 or Section 465 Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
We are unable to countenance with this contention of Mr. Ram Jethmalani. It
\nis true that Section 218 Cr.P.C. prescribes for every distinct offence
\nthere shall be a separate charge and every charge shall be tried
\nseparately. Chapter XVII of the Code deals with the charge. Section 218 is
\nunder the Heading – “Joinder of Charges”. Therefore, if joinder of charges
\nis in contravention of procedure prescribed under Section 218, it would be
\nmisjoinder of charges and curable under Section 464 and Section 465
\nCr.P.C., provided no failure of justice has in fact been occasioned
\nthereby.\n<\/p>\n
Reliance has been heavily placed on the decision of this Court in W. Slaney
\nv. State of M.P., AIR (1956) SC 116 particularly the observation of Justice
\nImam in paragraphs 97 and 99. That was a case where this Court was
\nconsidering the error and irregularity in which there was conviction with
\nno charge at all from start to the finish down to cases in which there was
\na charge but with errors, irregularities and omissions in it. Therefore,
\nthe decision in Slaney (supra) was not based on misjoinder of charges.
\nThere was no charge under Section 302 IPC from start to finish and in that
\ncontext this Court said that a trial must be examined on the touchstone
\nwhether the trial is fair. It was pointed out in paragraph 44 as under :-\n<\/p>\n
“44 Now, as we have said, sections 225, 232, 535 and 537(a) between them,
\ncover every conceivable type of error and irregularity referable to a
\ncharge that can possibly arise, ranging from cases in which there is a
\nconviction with no charge at all from start to finish down to cases in
\nwhich there is a charge but with errors, irregularities and omissions in
\nit. The Code is emphatic that `whatever’ the irregularity it is not to be
\nregarded as fatal unless there is prejudice.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is the substance that we must seek. Courts have to administer
\n\tjustice and justice includes the punishment of guilt just as much
\n\tas the protection of innocence. Neither can be done if the shadow
\n\tis mistaken for the substance and the goal is lost in a labyrinth
\n\tof unsubstantial technicalities. Broad vision is required, a nice
\n\tbalancing of the rights of the State and the protection of society
\n\tin general against protection from harassment to the individual and
\n\tthe risks of unjust conviction.\n<\/p>\n
\tEvery reasonable presumption must be made in favour of an accused
\n\tperson; he must be given the benefit of every reasonable doubt. The
\n\tsame broad principles of justice and fair play must be brought to
\n\tbear when determining a matter of prejudice as in adjudging guilt.
\n\tBut when all is said and done what we are concerned to see is
\n\twhether the accused had a fair trial, whether he knew what he was
\n\tbeing tried for whether the main facts sought to be established
\n\tagainst him were explained to him fairly and clearly and whether he
\n\twas given a full and fair chance to defend himself.\n<\/p>\n
\tIf all these elements are there and no prejudice is shown the
\n\tconviction must stand whatever the irregularities whether traceable
\n\tto the charge or to a want of one.”\n<\/p>\n
\tJustice Imam in paragraphs 97 and 99 observed that even if there is
\n\ta total absence of a charge from start to finish in a case where
\n\tthe law requires a charge to be framed, is a contravention of the
\n\tprovisions of the Code as to the mode of trial and a conviction of
\n\tthe accused of an offence in such a case is invalid and the
\n\tquestion of prejudice does not arise. As already said in Slaney
\n\t(supra) there was no charge under Section 302 from start to finish
\n\tof the case. That is not the case here; here the charge was framed
\n\ton all counts. Therefore, the facts of the case in Slaney (supra)
\n\tare not applicable in the present facts. However, in Slaney (supra)
\n\tJustice Imam also observed in paragraph 98 as under :-\n<\/p>\n
“98.In cases where a charge has been framed and there is an omission or
\nirregularity in it, it is difficult to see how the mode of trial is
\naffected. In any event, the Code expressly provides that in such cases the
\nconviction need not be set aside, unless, in fact, a failure of justice has
\nresulted.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the case of Birichh Bhuian v. State of Bihar,<\/a> [1963] Supp. 2 SCR
\n\t328, a five Judge Bench of this Court, where Justice Imam was a
\n\tparty, considered the distinction between an illegality and an
\n\tirregularity in such misjoinder of charges. This Court, after
\n\tconsidering the divergent views of the Privy Council as to whether
\n\tmisjoinder of charges is not saved by Section 537 (old) and 465
\n\t(new), the Court then said at p.335 (2) SCR as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“In this state of law, the Parliament has intervened to set at rest the
\nconflict by passing Act XXVI of 1955 making a separate provision in respect
\nof errors, omissions or irregularities in a charge and also enlarging the
\nmeaning of the expression such errors etc. so as to include a misjoinder of
\ncharges. After the amendment there is no scope for contending that
\nmisjoinder of charges is not saved by s.537 of the Criminal Procedure Code
\nif it has not occasioned a failure of justice.”.\n<\/p>\n
This Court summarised its finding at p.337 (2) SCR as under :-\n<\/p>\n
“To summarise : a charge is a precise formulation of a specific accusation
\nmade against a person of an offence alleged to have been committed by him.
\nSections 234 to 239 permit the joinder of such charges under specified
\nconditions for the purpose of a single trial. Such a joinder may be of
\ncharges in respect of different offences committed by a single person or
\nseveral persons. If the joinder of charges was contrary to the provisions
\nof the Code it would be a misjoinder of charges. Section 537 prohibits the
\nrevisional or the appellate court from setting aside a finding, sentence,
\nor order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction on the ground of such
\na misjoinder unless it has occasioned a failure of justice.”\n<\/p>\n
\tAgain in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Cheemalapati
\n\tGaneswara Rao,<\/a> [1964] 3 SCR 297, the Court noticed the decisions
\n\trendered in (supra) and Birichh Bhuian (supra) and said at p.332 3
\n\tSCR as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“Even if we were to assume that there has been a misjoinder of charges in
\nviolation of the provisions of ss.233 to 239 of the Code, the High Court
\nwas incompetent to set aside the conviction of the respondents without
\ncoming to the definite conclusion that misjoinder had occasioned failure of
\njustice. This decision completely meets the argument based upon Dawson’s
\ncase [1960] 1 All. E.R.558. Merely because the accused persons are charged
\nwith a large number of offences and convicted at the trial the conviction
\ncannot be set aside by the appellate court unless it in fact came to the
\nconclusion that the accused persons were embarrassed in their defence with
\nthe result that there was a failure of justice. For all these reasons we
\ncannot accept the argument of learned counsel on the ground of misjoinder
\nof charges and multiplicity of charges.”\n<\/p>\n
 The question was again examined by this Court in the case of State of West
\n Bengal v. Laisal Haque,<\/a> [1989] 3 SCC 166, where the earlier views of this
\n Court including the views of Justice Vivian Bose in Slaney (supra) were
\n reiterated.\n<\/p>\n
It is clear from the aforesaid decisions that misjoinder of charges is not
\nan illegality but an irregularity curable under Section 464 or Section 465
\nCr.P.C. provided no failure of justice had occasioned thereby. Whether or
\nnot the failure of justice had occasioned thereby, it is the duty of the
\nCourt to see, whether an accused had a fair trial, whether he knew what he
\nwas being tried for, whether the main facts sought to be established
\nagainst him were explained to him fairly and clearly and whether he was
\ngiven a full and fair chance to defend himself.\n<\/p>\n
In the light of the aforesaid principle, let us now examine the facts of
\nthe present case, as to whether any failure of justice had occasioned
\nthereby or whether any prejudice is caused to the accused. The accused was
\nrepresented by a very senior and abled criminal lawyer. All the prosecution
\nwitnesses were subjected to incisive cross-examination. The accused put up
\n49 defence witnesses. In his cross-examination under Section 313 altogether
\n445 questions were put to him, affording an opportunity to explain all the
\ncircumstances appearing against him. Having regard to these facts, in our
\nopinion, no failure of justice has occasioned and both the Courts below are
\njustified in rejecting the contention.\n<\/p>\n
ALLEGATION OF TORTURE AND BEATING TO THE VICTIM GIRLS BY THE POLICE.\n<\/p>\n
 If this contention is established it could have been fatal to the
\n prosecution story, but in our opinion not. Mr. Ram Jethmalani in this
\n connection has referred to the statement of Aruljothi PW.14. P.W.14 stated
\n before the Court as under :-\n<\/p>\n
“When the Magistrate examined me I told him that because of the fear of A1
\nfirst we didn’t give statement, after the police beat us, me and the other
\ngirls gave the statement that we were raped by Premananda Swami. I myself
\ntook the decision and told to the Magistrate that I gave the statement
\nafter the police beat me. Not all the girls together took this decision.”\n<\/p>\n
This statement must be examined in the context and under the facts and
\ncircumstances, in which it has been stated. All the victim girls were in
\none voice that because of fear of A-1, ladies in the Ashram did not tell to
\nthe police that A-1 had sexually contact with them. They further stated
\nthat just one hour before the arrest of A-1, he called all the Ashram
\nladies and threatened that nobody should tell the police that he had
\nsexually contact with them. The victim girls were also in one voice that
\nA-1 had given a press statement that he would come out on bail in two days
\nand the victim girls were frightened if the accused really came out on bail
\nhe would take stern action against them. Keeping in view the trauma and
\nagony suffered by all the victim girls at the hands of A-1, it is expected
\nthat the victim girls were reluctant to disclose the misdeeds of A-1 for
\nfear of reprisals. This apart, DW-10 filed a Habeas Corpus Petition No.
\n1808 of 1994. On 7.12.1994 she was questioned by the Hon’ble Judges
\nconstituting the Bench of the High Court in Chamber. She had stated before
\nthe Judges that she had not been ill-treated or wrongly confined by the
\nrespondent at any point of time and was not coerced to give out any
\nstatement against her will. Another detenu Valliammal also filed a Habeas
\nCorpus Petition through her father Sundaram. The allegation in the petition
\nwas that the police are compelling the detenu to give false statement. She
\nwas examined by the Hon’ble Judges in Chamber and it was observed by the
\nHon’ble Judges as under :-\n<\/p>\n
“We examined the detenu in our chambers. According to her, her date of
\nbirth is 9.5.1979. She has crossed 15 years and she is now a student in 9th
\nstandard in the Ashramam School. She was very specific, while stating
\nbefore us, that she was not coerced or tortured by the police to give out
\nany statement against her will and that she was not wrongfully confined or
\nillegally detained.”\n<\/p>\n
Another Habeas Corpus No. 1010 of 1995 was filed by the legal guardian of
\nVasanthi. She was examined in the Chamber and she did not complaint of any
\nill-treatment. She expressed her willingness not to go with the petitioner
\nbut to stay in “Udhavum Karangal”, an institution looking after the persons
\nwho are unable to look after themselves.\n<\/p>\n
The detenus also filed Habeas Corpus Petition No. 623 and 624 of 1995. They
\nwere also examined in the Chambers and there was no complaint of coercion
\nor ill-treatment.\n<\/p>\n
Another Habeas Corpus Petition No. 1688 of 1995 was filed by Devyani DW-32
\nmother of PWs. 7, 8 and 10. The detenus were produced before the Court
\nescorted by two women police from Ambattur Police Station who had nothing
\nto do with the investigating agency in the crime against A-1. No complaint
\nof torture or coercion has been made to the Hon’ble Judge on being
\nquestioned. On the contrary, the victim girls stated that their mother
\n(DW-32) had sent a letter dated 5.4.1995 mentioning that A-1 Swami
\nPramananda would give them all in marriage to suitable bridegrooms and pay
\nto each one of them Rs. 2 lakh in dowry. On being questioned by the Hon’ble
\nJudges DW-32 admitted to have sent the said letter to her daughters. This
\nwould clearly show that even at the belated stage an attempt was made to
\nlure the prosecutrix by offering money and marriages. They were examined on
\nthe 21st day of December, 1995. No complaint of torture or coercion was
\nmade to the Hon’ble Judges.\n<\/p>\n
Reverting back to the statement of P.W.14 Aruljothi, in which she admitted
\nthat they had started disclosing the facts after the police beat them has
\nto be considered in the light of the statement by P.W.14 under Section 164
\nCr.P.C. This is what she has stated :-\n<\/p>\n
“Balan came in search of me at about 12 midnight and took me stating that
\nPremananda Swami is calling me. After letting me inside Premananda’s room,
\nhe went away locked the door. On that day also Premananda swami compelled
\nme to have sexual intercourse. This happened five days prior to his arrest.
\nWhile Premananda Swami was arrested, police also took us to the Pudukkottai
\nPolice Station in a jeep. In the Police Station, we were enquired about the
\ncharacter of Premananda Swami. Since Premananda has already kept us under
\nthreat, myself and others did not reveal anything to the police. After the
\npolice beat us, myself and other girls informed that we were raped by
\nPremananda. Only at that time I came to know that Premananda Swami was
\nhaving sexual relationship with other girls.”\n<\/p>\n
It is in that context the High Court holds that so called beating could
\nhave meant to shake-off their inhibition and fear, to make them free to say
\nwhat they wanted to say. In the given facts and circumstances of this case,
\nbeating will mean to remove the fear psychosis and to come out with truth.
\nWe do not find any infirmity in the concurrent findings recorded by both
\nthe Courts below on this count.\n<\/p>\n
CONSPIRACY CASTED AGAINST A-1.\n<\/p>\n
The allegation of conspiracy hatched by Mark Denis, Ambikanandan P.W.1
\n(Approver), Anandamohan P.W.30 and Latha PW.16 is also to be noted to be
\nrejected. It is admitted that P.W.3 Suresh Kumari along with Latha P.W.16
\nran away from the Ashram on 31.10.14994. Till 15.11.1994 no complaint was
\nlodged. On 15.11.1994, DW-32 the mother of P.W.3 lodged a complaint with
\nthe Viralimalai Police Station, a crime No. 1181 of 1994 was registered
\nunder Section 363 I.P.C. While police was investigating that case P.W.3
\nlodged a complaint (Ex.P.25) as already noted and a crime No. 1183\/94 was
\nregistered on 17.11.1994 under Sections 142 and 376. By an order dated
\n19.11.1994 passed by the DGP the case was handed over to C.B.C.I.D. and
\nC.B.C.I.D. came into picture on 19.11.1994. Therefore, the allegation that
\nthe victim girls were with C.B. CI.D right from 1.11.1994 is belied by the
\ndocuments. The theory of conspiracy hatched by Mark Denis, PW-1,
\nAnandamohan, PW-30 and Latha PW-16 against A-1 is, therefore, demolished.\n<\/p>\n
D.N.A.TEST<\/p>\n
Dr. Lalji Singh, Deputy Director, C.C.M.B. Hyderabad, was examined as
\nP.W.59. Dr.Lalji Singh is working as the Deputy Director at the Centre for
\nCellular and Molecular Biology at Hyderabad. This Centre is on the
\nConstituent Laboratories of the Council of Scientific and Industrial
\nResearch under the Department of Science and Technology, government of
\nIndia. Dr. Lalji Singh initially joined the Centre as Scientist-E-II and
\nwas subsequently promoted as Scientist-F (Deputy Director) from 1992. He is
\nB.Sc., M.Sc. and Ph.D. qualified from Banaras Hindu University, having
\nobtained his Doctorate in the year 1971. He had worked in the Calcutta
\nUniversity as a Pool Officer from 1971 to 1974. He was awarded commonwealth
\nFellowship to go to United Kingdom and he was working in the Institute of
\nAnimal Genetics, University of Edinburg from 1974 to 1987. He came to India
\nand joined the C.C.M.B. Hyderabad on 3.6.1987. According to Dr.Lalji Singh,
\nhe had published 57 Scientific papers in internationally reputed journals.
\nHe was awarded the Banaras Hindu University Gold medal in 1966, the science
\nAcademy Medal for Young Scientists for the year 1974 and various other
\nawards like the C.S.I.R. Technology Award for the year 1992 for Biological
\nSciences Professor S.P. Roy Chaudhuri 75th Birthday Lecture Award for the
\nyear 1994. Professor Viswanathan memorial Lecture award for the year 1995,
\nVASVIK Research Award for Biological Sciences and Technology for the year
\n1992 and the Ranbaxy Research Award in the field of Basic Medical Sciences
\nfor the year 1994. He is the elected Fellow of the Indian Academy of
\nScience since 1989, Fellow of National Academy of Science since 1991 and
\nfellow of Indian National Science Academy elected in 1993. He is also a
\nmember of various other organizations like the Indian Society for cell
\nBiology etc. according to him, he had given opinion in 96 cases and has
\nalso given evidence in 5 cases in various courts, including the Rajiv
\nGandhi’s Assassination Case.\n<\/p>\n
He stated that after the detailed examination, the result was submitted
\nvide Ex.P.185. The operative portion of the Report is as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
“When D.N.A. Profiles in track 3 (Premananda) was compared with that of
\ntrack 2 (tissue from the foetus) and track 1 (Aruljothi) it is seen that
\never bend present in track 2 is fully accounted for either being inherited
\nfrom the mother (track 1) or from the alleged father (track 3). The alleged
\nfather Premananda (source of Exhibit A) and the mother Aruljothi (Source
\nExhibit C) are, therefore, the biological parents of the dead foetus
\n(Source of Exhibit B)”.\n<\/p>\n
Dr.Lalji Singh was subjected to lengthy cross examination. He has
\ncategorically stated that if really there is any contamination, it would
\nresult only in non-matching of bands. He has also stated that
\nmultilocus\/single locus probe have been carried out throughout the world
\nfor DNA test.\n<\/p>\n
Regarding Data Base and contamination Dr.Lalji has stated in cross-
\nexamination as under :-”\n<\/p>\n
“As far as Paternity is concerned, the Paternity of the child is determined
\nby identifying which are the bands of maternal and which are paternal.
\nTherefore, comparison of DNA fingerprinting of the child with the mother
\nwill identify which are the bands maternally inherited. Elimination of
\nthese bands will leave those bands inherited from the childs to father, the
\npaternally specific bands. If the alleged Father’s Fingerprinting pattern
\ncontains all of these bands, then he is the true Biological Father of that
\nChild and Paternity is confirmed. The article published by a Laboratory –
\nCELLMARK, United States is Ex.D.42.”\n<\/p>\n
 The witness further clarified that a laboratory error can produce mismatch
\n but it cannot produce a proper match.\n<\/p>\n
The witness further clarified that when the sample is taken in sterile
\ncontainer following the instructions given by the CCMB scrupulously there
\nis no possibility of any bacterial of any other infection.\n<\/p>\n
The witness further stated that the contamination never results into proper
\nmatch. It can give raise to exclusion not to positive inclusion. The
\nwitness in cross-examination has specifically stated as under :-\n<\/p>\n
“According to me, for paternity test, large scale population Data Base was
\nneither required not even today. When the samples of the parents are not
\navailable and when one has to establish the identity of the child based on
\nprobability only then Data Base is required. In short, where both the
\nparents are available, no data base is required for paternity testing.”\n<\/p>\n
Both the Trial Court and the High Court have appreciated the evidence of
\nDr. Lalji Singh and in our view correctly.\n<\/p>\n
On behalf of A-1, DW-49 Dr.Wilson J.Wall has been examined and the High
\nCourt has rejected his evidence on the following grounds:-\n<\/p>\n
(1)\tHe is a private consultant.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tHe was requested to undertake a review of the evidence of Dr.Lalji
\nSingh P.W.59.\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tHe had held conferences with the defence counsel both in London and
\nIndia.\n<\/p>\n
(4)\tHe was present in the Court on 28.10.1996 and 29.10.1996 when Dr.
\nLalji Singh (P.W.59) was cross examined by the counsel for A-1.\n<\/p>\n
(5)\tHe says “I have been instructed by the counsel for the accused to
\ninform this Honourable Court that if the prosecution wants to repeat this
\nexperiment, the accused is prepared to pay the cost of the same”.\n<\/p>\n
(6)\tHe admit that the test was conducted at the laboratory called
\nUniversity Diagnostics laboratory, London and that he had a working
\narrangement with the above said laboratory, but they are professionally
\nindependent. He further says, “I was present in this court instructing the
\ndefence lawyer for cross-examination P.W.59. I am not a scientist attached
\nto the University Diagnostics Laboratory, London.\n<\/p>\n
We are of the view that these are good reasons to have rejected his
\ntestimony.\n<\/p>\n
DEFENCE WITNESSES<\/p>\n
49 DWs were examined on behalf of the accused, D.W.8 Nirmlal Mataji was
\nchargesheet witness No. 29, D.W. 11 Uma Devi Mataji was chargesheet witness
\nNo. 28, D.W. 14 Amarkumar was chargesheet witness No. 37, D.W. 20 Rajendran
\nwas chargesheet witness No. 45, D.W.31 Lilis Mary was chargesheet witness
\nNo. 20, D.W. 10 Vijaykumari was chargesheet witness No. 11, D.W. 33
\nValaimmal was chargesheet witness No. 17, D.W.12 Durga Devi was chargesheet
\nwitness No. 12, D.W.13 Lakshmi Devi was chargesheet No. 13, D.W. 16
\nBalamurugan was chargesheet witness No. 40, D.W. 27 Parmeshwari was
\nchargesheet witness No. 30, D.W. 29 Kandan was chargesheet witness No. 39
\nand D.W. 34 Damayanti Mataji was chargesheet witness No. 25.\n<\/p>\n
Both the courts have rejected their testimonies on the ground that they are
\nblind followers of Swami and their testimony also do not inspire
\nconfidence. We have been taken through the entire evidence of DWs.\n<\/p>\n
DWs. 10, 31, 33 have been declared perjury by the Trial Court. By way of
\nreference D.W. 41 Nithya Devi Mathaji had stated “Mark Dennis also had
\npersonal problem. Mark Dennis was taking treatment with a psychiatrist for
\nhis mental problem”. This was nobody’s case. It is false even to the
\nknowledge of the maker. No credence can be placed on such evidence. Two
\nCourts have concurrently and rightly rejected the testimony of DWs as not
\ninspire confidence.\n<\/p>\n
MURDER OF RAVI :\n<\/p>\n
Ravi was brought to the Ashram on 22.7.1990. He was allegedly beaten up by
\nthe accused on 10.4.1991 and confined in a Kudil without food and water and
\nsuccumbed to injuries on 17.4.1991. The reason for beating and confining to
\ndeath of the deceased Ravi was that he was shouting in the Ashram that A-1
\nis having sex with Ashram girls. This had infuriated A-1 to take this
\nextreme step with the help of A-2, A-4, A-6 and A-7.\n<\/p>\n
The submission of Mr. Ram Jethmalani that during the period Ravi stayed in
\nthe Ashram there was no allegation of rape against A-1, is factually
\nincorrect. P.W.13 Vanitha stated that in the year 1991 in the night at
\nabout 1.00 A.M. A-1 had sex with her. P.W.14 also stated that in the year
\n1991 when she was cooking in the kitchen in the Dharamshala, A-1 forcibly
\npushed her in his room and had sex with her. P.W.5 Princy also stated that
\nin the year 1990 around 11 p.m. A-1 called her inside his room and had
\nforcibly sex with her. Again in 1991 before Ravi died, A-1 had forcibly sex
\nwith her in his room.\n<\/p>\n
The prosecution relied upon the eye witnesses namely P.Ws. 1, 3, 5, 8, 11,
\n16, 17 and 18. From the evidence of the eye witnesses it is clearly
\nestablished that Ravi died of the injuries suffered by him. Following facts
\nare established:\n<\/p>\n
(1)\tRavi died of the injuries suffered by him.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tThe death of Ravi was not reported either to the police or to the
\nRevenue Authorities.\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tRavi was confined in a room after the injuries he sustained without
\nfood and water for several days.\n<\/p>\n
(4)\tThe skeletal remains were found to be that of the deceased Ravi.
\nFrom the evidence on record, it is also clear that:\n<\/p>\n
(1)\tRavi died and he was buried on 17.4.1991.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tBefore burial, Ravi was given a bath, his face was shaved and he
\nwas clad with a full sleeved sweater and a dhoti.\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tThe death of Ravi was not informed to the police. No information or
\ncomplaint was given either to the village Administrative officer or any
\nrevenue officer.\n<\/p>\n
(4)\tNo prior treatment was given to the deceased before his death.\n<\/p>\n
From the statement of P.Ws. aforesaid, the prosecution has clearly
\nestablished its case that Ravi died out of the injuries caused by A-1 and
\nA-2 and subsequent confinement and starvation accelerated his death.\n<\/p>\n
The defence case was that Ravi died on account of self inflicted injuries
\nand it was a natural death. The homicidal death of Ravi due to beating and
\nstarvation is corroborated by medical evidence of P.W.46 and Serology
\nReport. The evidence of eye witnesses disclosed that when Ravi exposed the
\nmisdeeds of A-1 that A-1 is raping Ashram girls, A-1 ordered that Ravi be
\nbrought and Ravi was brought by A.4, A.6, A.7 near A-1’s kudil and Ravi was
\ntied to the pole. P.W.1 (approver), A.2 and A.5 were also present. A-1 had
\nbeaten Ravi with Casuarina stick on the left lower and upper limb and Ravi
\nsustained bleeding injuries. When the knot was untied and Ravi had fallen
\ndown, A.1 kicked him on the back and A.2 on the chest. A-1 directed P.W.1,
\nA.4 to A.7 to confine Ravi in Kavadi Kudil. A-2 had taken away the key of
\nKudil after confining Ravi in Kavadi Kudil. Ravi was provided neither food
\nor water nor medical assistance and died of starvation. The ocular evidence
\nof PWs is consistent with the medical opinion of P.W.46.\n<\/p>\n
We have been taken through the entire evidence of P.Ws. and D.Ws. We do not
\nfind any infirmity or perversity either in Trial Court or High Court
\njudgment in recording the concurrent findings by appreciating the evidence
\nadduced.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Ram Jethmalani learned senior counsel, referred to the evidence of
\nP.W.15 Mallikadevi when she stated that A-1 had locked Ravi like this and
\nhe had asked to give food also. It is to be noted that regarding the murder
\nof Ravi her evidence was not relied upon by the prosecution. As already
\nnoted, the prosecution relied upon the testimony of P.Ws. 1, 3, 5, 8, 11,
\n16, 17 and 18 which proved otherwise.\n<\/p>\n
Regarding the sentence, the Trial Court resorted to Section 31 Cr.P.C. and
\nordered the sentence to run consecutively, subject to proviso (a) of the
\nsaid Section.\n<\/p>\n
The contention of Mr. Jethmalani that the term `imprisonment’ enjoined in
\nSection 31 Cr.P.C. does not include imprisonment for life is unacceptable.
\nThe term `imprisonment; is not defined under the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure. Section 31 of the Code falls under Chapter III of the Code which
\ndeals with power of Courts. Section 28 of the Code empowers the High Court
\nto pass any sentence authorised by law. Similarly, Sessions Judge and
\nAdditional Sessions Judge may pass any sentence authorised by law, except
\nthe sentence of death which shall be subject to confirmation by High Court.
\nIn our opinion the term `imprisonment” would include the sentence of
\nimprisonment for life.\n<\/p>\n
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we see no infirmity in the well
\nmerited findings concurrently recorded by the two Courts below, which do
\nnot warrant our interference. The appeals are, accordingly dismissed.
\nHaving regard to the amplitude of the gravity of the offence, perpetrated
\nin an organized and systematic manner, the nature of the offence and its
\ndeleterious effects not only against the victims, but the civilized society
\nat large, needs to be curbed by a strong judicial hand. We are inclined to
\nconfirm the sentence and conviction as recorded by the Trial Court and
\nconfirmed by the High Court. The order of the Trial Court that any
\nremission of sentence or amnesty on any special occasions announced or to
\nbe announced be either by the Central or the State Government shall not
\napply to the sentence and imprisonment imposed on all the accused is also
\nmaintained.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Kamalanantha And Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 April, 2005 Author: Sema Bench: B.N. Agrawal, H.K. Sema CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 611-612 of 2003 PETITIONER: Kamalanantha and Ors. RESPONDENT: State of Tamil Nadu DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/04\/2005 BENCH: B.N. Agrawal & H.K. Sema JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT SEMA, J. These appeals […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-137488","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKamalanantha And Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalanantha-and-ors-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kamalanantha And Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalanantha-and-ors-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-07T15:51:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"72 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamalanantha-and-ors-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamalanantha-and-ors-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kamalanantha And Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 April, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-07T15:51:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamalanantha-and-ors-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2005\"},\"wordCount\":14324,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamalanantha-and-ors-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamalanantha-and-ors-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamalanantha-and-ors-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2005\",\"name\":\"Kamalanantha And Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-07T15:51:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamalanantha-and-ors-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamalanantha-and-ors-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamalanantha-and-ors-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kamalanantha And Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 April, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kamalanantha And Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalanantha-and-ors-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kamalanantha And Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalanantha-and-ors-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-07T15:51:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"72 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalanantha-and-ors-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalanantha-and-ors-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kamalanantha And Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 April, 2005","datePublished":"2005-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-07T15:51:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalanantha-and-ors-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2005"},"wordCount":14324,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalanantha-and-ors-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalanantha-and-ors-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalanantha-and-ors-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2005","name":"Kamalanantha And Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-07T15:51:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalanantha-and-ors-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalanantha-and-ors-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalanantha-and-ors-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kamalanantha And Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 April, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/137488","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=137488"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/137488\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=137488"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=137488"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=137488"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}