{"id":142075,"date":"1999-05-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-05-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-through-vs-nalini-and-25-others-on-11-may-1999"},"modified":"2018-03-02T17:31:17","modified_gmt":"2018-03-02T12:01:17","slug":"state-of-tamil-nadu-through-vs-nalini-and-25-others-on-11-may-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-through-vs-nalini-and-25-others-on-11-may-1999","title":{"rendered":"State Of Tamil Nadu Through … vs Nalini And 25 Others on 11 May, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Tamil Nadu Through … vs Nalini And 25 Others on 11 May, 1999<\/div>\n
Author: D Wadhwa<\/div>\n
Bench: D.P. Wadhwa, J.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF TAMIL NADU THROUGH SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,CBI\/SIT\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nNALINI AND 25 OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t11\/05\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nD.P. WADHWA, J.\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
—————\n<\/p>\n
D.P.  WADHWA, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tI have studied the draft  judgment  prepared  by  my
\nlearned and noble  brother K.T.\t Thomas,J.  It is a judgment
\nso well written, but, regrettably, I find myself  unable  to
\nagree with him entirely both on certain questions of law and
\nconviction  and\t sentence  proposed  by\t him  on some of the
\naccused.  Moreover, keeping in\tview  the  fact\t that  since
\nsentence  of  death  passed  on 26 accused by the Designated
\nCourt has been submitted  to  this  Court  for\tconfirmation
\nevidence  needs to be considered in somewhat greater detail,
\nI venture to render separate judgment.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn the night of 21.5.1991  a  diabolical  crime\t was
\ncommitted.  It\tstunned\t the  whole  nation.   Rajiv Gandhi,
\nformer Prime Minister of India, was assassinated by a  human
\nbomb.\tWith  him  15 persons including 9 policemen perished
\nand 43 suffered grievous or simple injuries.  Assassin Dhanu
\nan LTTE (Liberation Tigers  of\tTamil  Elam)  activist,\t who
\ndetonated  the\tbelt  bomb  concealed  under  her  waist and
\nHaribabu, a photographer (and also a conspirator) engaged to
\ntake photographs of the horrific sight,\t also  died  in\t the
\nblast.\t As  in\t any crime, criminals leave some footprints.
\nIn this case it was a camera which was found intact  on\t the
\nbody of\t Haribabu  at  the  scene of the crime.\t Film in the
\ncamera when developed led to unfolding of the dastardly\t act
\ncommitted by the accused and others.  A charge of conspiracy
\nfor  offences  under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities
\n(Prevention) Act, 1987\t(TADA),\t Indian\t Penal\tCode  (IPC),
\nExplosive  Substances  Act,  1908,  Arms Act, 1959, Passport
\nAct, 1967, Foreigners Act, 1946,  and  the  Indian  Wireless
\nTelegraphy Act, 1933 was laid against 41 persons, 12 of whom
\nwere   already\tdead  having  committed\t suicide  and  three
\nabsconded.  Out of these, 26  faced  the  trial\t before\t the
\nDesignated Court.    Prosecution  examined 288 witnesses and
\nproduced   numerous   documents\t  and\tmaterial    objects.
\nStatements  of\tall  the accused were recorded under Section
\n313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code).\tThey  denied
\ntheir involvement.    The Designated Court found them guilty
\nof the offences charged against them.\tThereafter  all\t the
\naccused were  heard on the question of sentence.  Designated
\nCourt awarded death sentence to all of them on the charge of
\nconspiracy to murder.  “A judicial massacre”,  bemoaned\t Mr.
\nNatarajan,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the\taccused, and
\nrightly so in our opinion.  Designated Court also  sentenced
\neach  of  the  accused individually for various offences for
\nwhich they had been separately charged.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn view of the provisions of  Section  20  of  TADA,
\nDesignated  Court  submitted  the  sentence of death to this
\nCourt for confirmation.\t  The  accused\talso  filed  appeals
\nunder  Section\t19  of TADA challenging their conviction and
\nsentence.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe  accused  have   different\t alias\t and   while
\nmentioning the accused name it may not be necessary to refer
\nto  them  with\tall  their  respective alias and alias of an
\naccused will be indicated wherever necessary.  There  is  no
\ndispute about  these alias.  For proper comprehension of the
\nfacts it will be appropriate to refer to the  appellants  as
\naccused.\n<\/p>\n
\tThree  absconding  accused  are (1) Prabhakaran, (2)
\nPottu Amman @ Shanmuganathan Sivasankaran and  (3)  Akila  @
\nAkilakka.   Prabhakaran\t is alleged to be the supreme leader
\nof Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE)  –  a\t Sri  Lankan
\nTamil  organization,  who  along  with Pottu Amman, Chief of
\nIntelligence Wing of LTTE, Akila, Deputy Chief of Women Wing
\nof  LTTE,  and\tothers\tdesigned  criminal   conspiracy\t  to
\nassassinate  Rajiv  Gandhi  and\t commit\t other\toffences  in
\npursuance thereof.\n<\/p>\n
\tDeceased accused (DA) who  are\talleged\t to  be\t the
\nmembers\t of  the  conspiracy  and  died\t either by consuming
\ncyanide or in the blast or by hanging are :\n<\/p>\n
1.  S.\tPackiachandran @ Raghuvaran @ Sivarasan,\n<\/p>\n
2.  Dhanu @ Anbu @ Kalaivani,\n<\/p>\n
3.  Subha @ Nithya,\n<\/p>\n
4.  S.\tHaribabu,\n<\/p>\n
5.  Nehru @ Nero @ Gokul,\n<\/p>\n
6.  N.\tShanmugam @ Jayaraj\n<\/p>\n
7.  Trichy Santhan @ Gundu Santhan,\n<\/p>\n
8.  Suresh Master,\n<\/p>\n
9.  Dixon @ Kishore,\n<\/p>\n
10.  Amman @ Gangai Kumar,\n<\/p>\n
11.  Driver Anna @ Keerthy,\n<\/p>\n
12.  Jamuna @ Jameela,<\/p>\n
The accused, who are put on trial and are appellants  before
\nus, are :\n<\/p>\n
A-1\t       S.  Nalini,\n\nA-2\t       T. Suthendraraja @ Santhan,\n\n\nA-3\t\tSriharan @ Murugan @ Thas @ Indu Master\n\nA-4\t\tShankar @ Koneswaran\n\nA-5\t\tD. Vijayanandan @ Hari Ayya\n\n<\/pre>\n
A-6\t\tSivaruban @ Suresh @ Suresh Kumar @ Ruban<\/p>\n
A-7\t\tS. Kanagasabapathy @ Radhayya<\/p>\n
A-8\t\tA. Chandralekha @ Athirai @ Sonia @ Gowri<\/p>\n
A-9\t\tB. Robert Payas @ Kumaralingam
\n.\n<\/p>\n
A-10\t\tS. Jayakumar @ Jayakumaran @ Jayam<\/p>\n
A-11\t\tJ. Shanthi<\/p>\n
A-12\t\tS. Vijayan @ Perumal Vijayan<\/p>\n
A-13\t\tV. Selvaluxmi<\/p>\n
A-14\t\tS. Bhaskaran @ Velayudam<\/p>\n
A-15\t\tS. Shanmugavadivelu @ Thambi Anna<\/p>\n
A-16\t\tP. Ravichandran @ Ravi @ Pragasam<\/p>\n
A-17\t\tM. Suseendran @ Mahesh<\/p>\n
A-18\t\tG. Perarivelan @ Arivu<\/p>\n
A-19\t\tS. Irumborai @ Duraisingam<\/p>\n
A-20\t\tS. Bhagyanathan<\/p>\n
A-21\t\tS. Padma<\/p>\n
A-22\t\tA. Sundaram @ Subha Sundaram<\/p>\n
A-23\t\tK. Dhanasekaran @ Raju<\/p>\n
A-24\t\tN. Rajasuriya @ Rangan<\/p>\n
A-25\t\tT. Vigneswaran @ Vicky<\/p>\n
A-26\t\tJ. Ranganath<\/p>\n
\tProsecution  case  is that Prabhakaran, Pottu Amman,
\nAkila and Sivarasan masterminded and put into operation\t the
\nplan  to  kill Rajiv Gandhi which was executed by Sivarasan,
\nand Dhanu, of the two assassins (other\tbeing  Subha),\twith
\nthe back-up of other accused, who conspired and abetted them
\nin the commission of the crime which included providing them
\nsafe haven before and after the crime.\tCharge of conspiracy
\nis quite complex and when analysed it states that 26 accused
\nbefore\tus,  and  those absconding, deceased and others, are
\ncharged with having entered into criminal conspiracy between
\nJuly, 1987 and May, 1992 at various places in Sri Lanka\t and
\nIndia to do or cause to be done illegal acts, namely :-\n<\/p>\n
1.\tto infiltrate into India clandestinely,<\/p>\n
2.\tto  carry  and use unauthorized arms, ammunition and
\nexplosives,<\/p>\n
3.\tto set up and operate unauthorized wireless sets  to
\ncommunicate  with  LTTE\t leaders  in  Sri Lanka from time to
\ntime,<\/p>\n
4.\tto  cause  and\tcarry  out  acts  of  terrorism\t and
\ndisruptive  activities\tin  Tamil  Nadu\t and other places in
\nIndia by use of bombs, explosives and lethal weapons  so  as
\nto  scare  and create panic by such acts in the minds of the
\npeople and thereby to strike terror in the people,<\/p>\n
5.\tin the course of  such\tacts  to  assassinate  Rajiv
\nGandhi,\t former Prime Minister of India and others, who were
\nlikely to be with him,<\/p>\n
6.\tto cause disappearance of evidence  thereof  and  to
\nescape,<\/p>\n
7.\tto screen themselves from being apprehended,<\/p>\n
8.\tto  harbour the accused and escape from the clutches
\nof law, and<\/p>\n
9.\tto do such other acts as may be necessary  to  carry
\nout  the  object of the criminal conspiracy as per the needs
\nof situation,<\/p>\n
and in pursuance of the\t said  criminal\t conspiracy  and  in
\nfurtherance  of the same to carry out the object of the said
\ncriminal conspiracy :\n<\/p>\n
(I)\tSanthan\t (A-2),\t Murugan   (A-3),   Shankar   (A-4),
\nVijayanandan  (A-5),  Ruban  (A-6),  Kanagasabapathy  (A-7),
\nAthirai (A-8), Robert Payas (A-9), Jayakumar (A-10), Shanthi
\n(A-11), Vijayan (A-12), Selvaluxmi (A-13), Bhaskaran (A-14),
\nRangam (A-24) and  Vicky  (A-25)  along\t with  the  deceased
\naccused\t  Sivarasan,  Dhanu,  Subha,  Nero,  Gundu  (Trichy)
\nSanthan, Suresh Master, Dixon, Amman, Driver Anna and Jamuna
\ninfiltrated into India\tfrom  Sri  Lanka  clandestinely\t and
\notherwise  on  different  dates\t during\t the  said period of
\ncriminal conspiracy;\n<\/p>\n
(II)\tShanmugam (DA) amongst\tthem  arranged\tto  receive,
\naccommodated  and  rendered all assistance to the members of
\nthe conspiracy;\n<\/p>\n
(III) Robert Payas (A-9), Jayakumar (A-10), Shanthi  (A-11),
\nVijayan (A-12), Selvaluxmi (A-13) and Bhaskaran (A-14) after
\nhaving\tcome  over  to\tIndia  secured\thouses\tat Porur and
\nKodungaiyur in Madras at the instance of Sivarasan (DA)\t for
\naccommodating  one or other of the co-conspirators from time
\nto time and for chalking out the modalities of the course of
\naction to be followed for the achievement of the  object  of
\nthe said criminal conspiracy;\n<\/p>\n
(IV)\tNero  (DA)  established\t contacts  with\t Prabhakaran
\n(absconding)   through\t Pottu\tAmman  (absconding)  through
\nillegally operated  wireless  sets  brought  into  India  by
\nSivarasan  (DA)\t through  illicit  channel from the house of
\nVijayan (A-12);\n<\/p>\n
(V)\tKanagasabapathy (A-7)  and  Athirai  (A-8)  came  to
\nIndia through illicit channel and set up hide outs in Delhi;\n<\/p>\n
(VI)\tSivarasan (DA) brought Santhan (A-2), Shankar (A-4),
\nVijayanandan  (A-5)  and Ruban (A-6) along with the deceased
\naccused Dhanu, Subha, Nero and Driver  Anna  to\t Kodiakkarai
\nand  got  them\tall  accommodated in several places in Tamil
\nNadu to be of assistance  in  carrying\tout  the  object  of
\ncriminal conspiracy;\n<\/p>\n
(VII)  (a)  Arivu  (A-18) visited Jaffna and other places in
\nSri Lanka along with Irumborai (A-19) clandestinely in\tJune
\n1990, purchased a Kawasaki Motor cycle on 4.5.1991 at Madras
\nto facilitate quick movement of himself and one or the other
\nof the co-conspirators,<\/p>\n
(a-1)\tarranged   payment   for  printing  the\t compilation
\ndescribed as “The Satanic Force” and sent one  copy  of\t the
\nsame  to Prabhakaran (absconding) through Sivarasan (DA) and
\nanother set through Murugan (A-3),<\/p>\n
(b)\tpurchased  and\tprovided a battery for operating the
\nwireless apparatus and other two battery cells,\t which\twere
\nused  as  detonator  in the belt bomb used by Dhanu (DA) for
\nthe murder of Rajiv Gandhi and 15 others;\n<\/p>\n
(VIII) Shankar (A-4), Vijayanandan  (A-5)  and\tRuban  (A-6)
\nalong\twith   Driver  Anna  (DA)  rendered  all  assistance
\nnecessary therefor;\n<\/p>\n
(IX)\tSivarasan decided to  murder  Rajiv  Gandhi,  former
\nPrime  Minister of India in the public meeting to be held at
\nSriperumbudhur on 21.5.91 on learning that Rajiv Gandhi\t was
\nto  address  the  meeting  on the said day and finalized the
\nmethod of operation to murder him by enlisting the  services
\nof Nalini (A-1) to be of help at the scene of crime;\n<\/p>\n
(X)\tArivu  (A-18)  handed  over  the  film\troll for the
\npurposes of taking photographs of events to  Haribabu  (DA),
\nwho  also  purchased  a\t sandal\t wood garland from Poompuhar
\nHandicrafts, Mount Road Madras to  be  used  for  garlanding
\nRajiv  Gandhi at the scene of occurrence by Dhanu (DA) so as
\nto gain access to the VVIP under the guise of garlanding;\n<\/p>\n
(XI)\tDhanu equipped herself with the necessary apparel in
\norder to hide a belt bomb and detonator attached thereto for
\ndetonating the same when she was in close proximity to Rajiv
\nGandhi;\n<\/p>\n
(XII) Haribabu (DA) met Suba Sundaram  (A-22)  on  21.5.1991
\nand thereafter took a Chinon camera from a friend for taking
\nphotographs  at\t the scene of offence and loading the camera
\nwith the film already provided by Arivu (A-18);\n<\/p>\n
(XIII)\tNalini\t(A-1)  along  with  the\t  deceased   accused
\nSivarasan,  Dhanu  and\tSubha met Haribabu at Parrys Corner,
\nBroadway Bus Stand and proceeded to the venue of the  public
\nmeeting\t at  Sriperumbudur on the evening of 21.5.1991 where
\nNalini (A-1) provided cover to\tDhanu  and  Subha  and\twhen
\nRajiv  Gandhi  arrived\tat  the scene of occurrence at about
\n10.10 P.M.  Dhanu gained access nearer to Rajiv\t Gandhi\t and
\nwhile in close proximity to Rajiv Gandhi Dhanu detonated the
\nimprovised explosive device kept concealed in her waist belt
\nat about 10.20 P.M.  resulting in the blast and assassinated
\nRajiv  Gandhi  and  15\tothers\tand  also by killing herself
\n(Dhanu) and also causing the death of Haribabu\taccused\t and
\ncausing injuries to 43 persons;\n<\/p>\n
(XIV)\tNalini\t (A-1)\t along\twith  the  deceased  accused
\nSivarasan and Subha  immediately  fled\tfrom  the  scene  of
\noccurrence,  reached  the  house  of  Jayakumar\t (A-10)\t and
\nShanthi (A-11) and took shelter in Jayakumar’s (A-10) house;\n<\/p>\n
(XV)\tSuba  Sundaram\t(A-22)\tattempted  to  retrieve\t the
\ncamera used by Haribabu from the scene of occurrence, caused
\ndestruction   of  documents  and  material  objects  linking
\nHaribabu in this case and arranged to issue  denial  in\t the
\npress  about  any  connection  of the said Haribabu with the
\nLTTE;\n<\/p>\n
(XVI)\tBhagyanathan (A-20) and Padma  (A-21)  rendered\t all
\nassistance  and harboured the deceased accused Sivarasan and
\nSubha, Murugan (A-3) and Arivu (A-18);\n<\/p>\n
(XVII)\tNalini\t(A-1),\tMurugan\t (A-3)\tand   Padma   (A-21)
\naccompanied  the  deceased  accused  Sivarasan\tand Subha to
\nTirupathi, where Nalini (A-1) did “Angapradakshinam”;\n<\/p>\n
(XVIII) Nalini (A-1) and Murugan (A-3)\thide  themselves  in
\ndifferent  places in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka State in order
\nto evade arrest;\n<\/p>\n
(XIX)\tDhanasekaran (A-23), Rangam (A-24) and Vicky  (A-25)
\nharboured  the deceased accused Sivarasan, Subha and Nero by
\ntransporting them and concealing them inside a tanker  lorry
\nbearing No.    TN-27-Y-0808 belonging to Dhanasekaran (A-23)
\nfrom Madras to Bangalore;\n<\/p>\n
(XX)\tNero (DA) operated the wireless set and communicated
\nwith the absconding accused Prabhakaran and Pottu Amman\t and
\nconveyed   the\t developments\ton  behalf  of\tthe  accused
\nSivarasan;\n<\/p>\n
(XXI)\tthe deceased accused  Nero,  Gundu  Santhan,  Suresh
\nMaster, Dixon, Amman and Driver Anna rendered all assistance
\nto the deceased accused Sivarasan;\n<\/p>\n
(XXII)\tRangam\t(A-24)\trendered all assistance to Sivarasan
\nand others by  transporting  them  in  a  Maruthi  Gypsy  in
\nBangalore   and\t other\tplaces\tin  Karnataka  purchased  by
\nDhanasekaran (A-23) using LTTE funds;\n<\/p>\n
(XXIII) Ranganath (A-26) harboured the accused Rangam (A-24)
\nand the deceased  accused  Sivarasan,  Subha,  Nero,  Suresh
\nMaster,\t Amman,\t Driver\t Anna  and  Jamuna  at\tKnonnakunte,
\nBangalore and\ton 19.8.1991 the deceased accused Sivarasan,
\nSubha, Nero, Suresh Master, Amman, Driver  Anna\t and  Jamuna
\ncommitted suicide;\n<\/p>\n
(XXIV)\tShanmugavadivelu   @  Thambi  Anna  (A-15)  rendered
\nfinancial assistance to Sivarasan and to  one  or  other  of
\ncoconspirators\tto  carry  out\tthe object of conspiracy and
\nabetted the commission of the said offence;\n<\/p>\n
(XXV)\tNalini\t(A-1)  to  Ranganath   (A-26)\tcaused\t the
\ndisappearance  of  evidence  of\t murder of Rajiv Gandhi; and
\nthereby Nalini (A-1) to Ranganath (A-26) committed  offences
\npunishable under Section 120-B of IPC read with Sections 302
\nof  IPC,  326 of IPC, 324 of IPC, 201 of IPC, 212 of IPC and
\n216 of IPC; Sections 3,4 and 5 of Explosive  Substances\t Act
\nof  1908;  Section  25\tof  Arms  Act of 1959; Section 12 of
\nPassport Act, 1967; Section 14 of the Foreigners Act,  1946;
\nSection\t 6(1A)\tof  the\t Wireless  Telegraphy  Act, 1933 and
\nSections 3, 4 and 5 of TADA of 1987.\n<\/p>\n
\tIncluding the charge of conspiracy, which is  charge
\nNo.   1,  there\t are  251  other  charges framed against the
\naccused for having committed various offences  in  pursuance
\nto the conspiracy  under Charge No.  1.\t Out of these Nalini
\n(A-1) has been charged on  121\tdifferent  counts.    Second
\ncharge\tagainst\t her  is that in pursuance to the conspiracy
\nand in the course of the same transaction and in furtherance
\nto the common intention of the accused she and the  deceased
\naccused\t Sivarasan,  Dhanu,  Subha  and Haribabu did “commit
\nmurder of Rajiv Gandhi and others, who\twere  likely  to  be
\nwith him  on 21.5.1991 at about 10.20 P.M.  at Sriperumbudur
\nin the public  meeting\twhere  Nalini  (A1)  was  physically
\npresent\t at  the  scene\t of  crime and provided the assassin
\nDhanu [deceased accused (DA)] the necessary cover from being
\ndetected as a foreigner, which enabled the assassin to\tmove
\nfreely in the scene of crime and gain access nearer to Rajiv
\nGandhi\tto  accomplish the object of conspiracy, where Dhanu
\ndid commit murder and  intentionally  caused  the  death  of
\nRajiv  Gandhi  by detonating the improvised explosive device
\nwhich was kept concealed in her waist belt when she  was  in
\nclose  proximity  to  Rajiv  Gandhi and thereby she (Nalini)
\ncommitted an offence punishable under Section 302 read\twith
\nSection 34 IPC.”\n<\/p>\n
\tCharges 3 to 17 are also under Section 302 read with
\nSection\t 34  IPC for having caused the death of persons, who
\nwere in close proximity to Rajiv Gandhi.  Charges 18  to  34
\nare   under  Section  326\/34  IPC  for\tvoluntarily  causing
\ngrievous hurt to the persons who were in close proximity  to
\nRajiv Gandhi at the time of explosion.\tCharges 35 to 60 are
\nunder  Section\t324 read with Section 34 IPC for voluntarily
\ncausing hurt to the persons at the same time.  Charges 61 to
\n119 are under Section 3(2) TADA read with  Section  34\tIPC.
\nIn  these  charges  under  Section 3(2) TADA it is mentioned
\nthat Nalini (A-1)  committed  terrorist\t acts  by  providing
\ncover  to  Dhanu (DA) who detonated the improvised explosive
\ndevice resulting in the bomb blast  and\t in  the  murder  of
\nRajiv Gandhi and  others.    Charge  No.  120 is for offence
\nunder Section 3(3) TADA and this charge is as under :-\n<\/p>\n
That  Nalini  (A-1)  in\t pursuance  of\tthe  said   criminal
\nconspiracy referred  to\t in Charge No.\t1, and in the course
\nof the same transaction she in\tfurtherance  of\t the  common
\nintention,  of\tNalini\t(A-1) she proceeded to Sriperumbudur
\nalong with Sivarasan, Subha, Dhanu and Haribabu on the night
\nof 21.5.1991 at about 10.20 P.M.    in\tthe  public  meeting
\nhaving\tknowledge  of  the  commission\tof the terrorist act
\nviz., explosion of bomb for killing Rajiv Gandhi and  others
\nand  causing injuries to those, who were likely to be around
\nhim, and also striking terror in  the  people  and  rendered
\nassistance  to\tthe  terrorists\t Dhanu,\t Sivarasan and Subha
\nprior to the terrorist act by taking them to the bus, hotel,
\nthe venue of public meeting and the like  and  intentionally
\naided  the  said terrorist act by being present on 21.5.1991
\nat Sriperumbudur in the public meeting, where the  terrorist
\nact  was  committed  by\t Dhanu\tby detonating the improvised
\nexplosive device kept concealed in her waist belt  resulting
\nin the bomb blast, and with intent to aid and facilitate the
\ncommission of the said terrorist act Nalini (A-1) provided a
\ncloak to Dhanu and Subha from being easily identified as Sri
\nLankan Tamils at the scene of crime and also facilitated the
\nescape of the above said accused concerned in the crime, and
\nthus  Nalini  (A-1)  abetted the commission of the terrorist
\nact and acts preparatory to the terrorist act  or  knowingly
\nfacilitated  the  commission  of  the terrorist act and acts
\npreparatory to the terrorist act and  thereby  Nalini  (A-1)
\ncommitted  the\toffence punishable under Section 3(3) of the
\nTADA of 1987.\n<\/p>\n
\tLast charge against Nalini (A-1)  is  under  Section
\n4(1)  TADA  read  with\tSection\t 34 IPC for having committed
\noffence under Section 4(3) TADA for killing of\tnine  police
\nofficials,  who\t were  public servants and were at that time
\nwith Rajiv Gandhi on duty.\n<\/p>\n
\tSanthan (A-2) has been charged for an offence  under
\nSection\t 3(3) TADA and Section 14 of Foreigners Act (Charges
\n122 and 123).\t Other\taccused\t have  also  been  similarly
\ncharged.   As  to  how all the accused have been charged and
\nwhether found guilty or not  and  sentences  passed  against
\nthem  by the Designated Court can be best illustrated by the
\ntable given hereunder :-\n<\/p>\n
 CHARGES<\/p>\n
 COMMON TO ALL 26 ACCUSED<\/p>\n
CHARGE\t\tOFFENCE U\/S\t\tFINDING SENTENCE\n<\/p>\n
—————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
1.\t\t120-B r\/w 3302, 326,324,
\n\t\t201, 212, 216, of IPC<\/p>\n
\t\t3,4 & 5 of Explosives
\n\t\tSubstance Act<\/p>\n
\t\t25 of Arms Act<\/p>\n
\t\t12 of Pasport Act\t\tGuilty\tDeath<\/p>\n
\t\t14 of Foreigners Act<\/p>\n
\t\t6(1-A) Wireless and Telegraphy
\n\t\tAct<\/p>\n
\t\t3,4,& 5 TADA<\/p>\n
—————————————————————-
\n Nalini (A-1)<\/p>\n
Charge\tOffence U\/S\t\tFinding\t\t\tSentence
\nNo.\n<\/p>\n
———————————————————————
\n2 to 17\t\t302, r\/w 34 IPC\t\tGuility\t\tDeath (16
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCourts)<\/p>\n
18 to 34\t\t326 r\/w 34 IPC\t\tGulity\t\t3 years RI
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(13courts)<\/p>\n
35 to 40\t\t324 r\/w 34 IPC\t\tGulity\t\t1 Years RI
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(6
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tcourts)<\/p>\n
41 to 60\t\t324 r\/w 34 IPC\t\tNot\t\tAcquitted
\n\t\t\t\t\tGuilty\t\t(20
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCourts)<\/p>\n
61 to 76\t\t3(2)(i) of TADA r\/w 34\tGuilty\t\tDeath
\n\t\tIPC\t\t\tGuilty\t\t(16
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCourts)<\/p>\n
77 to 99\t\t3(2) (ii) TADA r\/w 34\tGuilty (not\tLife (19
\n\t\t\t\t\tguilty for\tCourts
\n\t\t\t\t\t79.82.9 4.93
\n\t\t\t\t\tAcquitted for
\n\t\t\t\t\tfor four Courts)<\/p>\n
100 to 119\t\t3(2)(ii) TADA r\/w 34\tNot Guilty\tAcquitted<\/p>\n
120\t\t3(3) TADA\t\tGulity\t\tLife (Life
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tImprisonm
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tent<\/p>\n
121\t\t4(3) TADA and 4(1) r\/w\tGuilty\t\tLife
\n\t\t34 IPC\n<\/p>\n
———————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
Santhan (A-2)<\/p>\n
Charge\tOffence U\/S\t\tFinding\t\tSentence
\nNo.\n<\/p>\n
———————————————————————
\n122\t3(3) TADA\t\tGuilty\t\tLife<\/p>\n
123\t14 of Foreigners Act\tGuilty\t\t2 Years RI\n<\/p>\n
———————————————————————-\n<\/p>\n
Murugan (A-3)<\/p>\n
Charge\tOffence U\/S\t\tFinding Sentence
\nNo.\n<\/p>\n
——————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
124\t3(3) TADA\t\tGuilty\t\tLife<\/p>\n
125\t14 of Foreigners Act\tGuilty\t\t2 Years RI<\/p>\n
126\t6(1-A) of Indian\tGuitly\t\t2 Years RI
\n\tWireless and Telegraphy
\n\tAct.\n<\/p>\n
———————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
Shankar (A-4)<\/p>\n
——————————————————————–
\nCharge\tOffence U\/S\t\tFinding\t\tSentence
\nNo.\n<\/p>\n
——————————————————————–
\n127\t3(3) TADA\t\tGuilty\t\tLife<\/p>\n
128\t14 of Foreigners Act\tGuilty\t\t2 Years RI<\/p>\n
———————————————————————
\nVijayanandan (A – 5)<\/p>\n
Charge\tOffence U\/S\t\tFinding Sentence
\nNo.\n<\/p>\n
——————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
129\t3(3) TADA\t\tGuilty\t\tLife<\/p>\n
130\t14 of Foreigners Act\tGuilty\t\t2 Years RI\n<\/p>\n
———————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
Ruban (A-6)<\/p>\n
Charge\tOffence U\/S\t\tFinding Sentence
\nNo.\n<\/p>\n
———————————————————————-
\n131\t3(3) TADA\t\tGuilty\t\tLife<\/p>\n
132\t14 of Foreigners Act\tGuilty\t\t2 Years RI\n<\/p>\n
———————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
Kanagasabapathy (A-7)<\/p>\n
Charge\tOffence U\/S\t\tFinding\t\tSentence
\nNo.\n<\/p>\n
————————————————————————-\n<\/p>\n
133\t3(3) TADA\t\tGuilty\t\tLife<\/p>\n
134\t14 of Foreigners Act\tGuilty\t\t2 Years<\/p>\n
135\t212 IPC\t\t\tGuilty\t\t2 Years RI<\/p>\n
136\t14 of Foreigners Act\tGuilty\t\t2 Years RI\n<\/p>\n
—————————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
Athirai (A-8)<\/p>\n
Charge\tOffence U\/S\t\tFinding\t\tSentence
\nNo.\n<\/p>\n
——————————————————————-
\n137\t3(3) TADA\t\tGuilty\t\tLife<\/p>\n
138\t3(3)| TADA\t\tGuilty\t\tLife<\/p>\n
139\t212 IPC\t\t\tGuilty\t\t2 Years RI<\/p>\n
140\t14 of Foreigners Act\tGuilty\t\t2 Years RI\n<\/p>\n
———————————————————————
\nRobert Payas (A-9)<\/p>\n
Charge\tOffence U\/S\t\tFinding\t\tSentence
\nNo.\n<\/p>\n
——————————————————————-127
\n\t3(3) TADA\t\tGuilty\t\tLife<\/p>\n
———————————————————————
\nJayakumar (A – 10)<\/p>\n
Charge\tOffence U\/S\t\tFinding Sentence
\nNo.\n<\/p>\n
———————————————————————-
\n142\t3(3) TADA\t\tGuilty\t\tLife<\/p>\n
143\t3(4) TADA\t\tGuilty\t\tLife<\/p>\n
144\t212 IPC\t\t\tGuilty\t\t2 years RI<\/p>\n
145\t3(1) & 25 (1-8) (a) ArmsGuilty\t\t2 Years RI<\/p>\n
——————————————————————–Shanthi
\n(A-11)<\/p>\n
———————————————————————
\nCharge\tOffence U\/S\t\tFinding Sentence
\nNo.\n<\/p>\n
——————————————————————-127
\n143\t3(4) TADA\t\tGuilty\t\tLife<\/p>\n
144\t212 IPC\t\t\tGuilty\t\t2 Years RI<\/p>\n
145\t3(1) & 25 (1-B) (a)\tGuilty\t\t2 Years RI
\n\tArms Act<\/p>\n
146\t3(3) TADA\t\tGuilty\t\tLife\n<\/p>\n
———————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
Vijayan (A-12)<\/p>\n
Charge\tOffence U\/S\t\tFinding\t\tSentence
\nNo.\n<\/p>\n
——————————————————————–
\n147\t3(3) TADA\t\tGuilty\tLife<\/p>\n
148\t3(4) TADA\t\tGuilty\t\tLife<\/p>\n
149\t212 IPC\t\t\tGuilty\t2 Years RI<\/p>\n
150\t6(IA) of Indian Wire-\tGuilty\t2 Years RI
\n\tless and Telegraphy Act\n<\/p>\n
———————————————————————-
\nSelvaluxmi (A-13)<\/p>\n
Charge\tOffence U\/S\t\tFinding\t\tSentence
\nNo.\n<\/p>\n
——————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
148\t3(4) TADA\t\tGuilty\t\tLife
\n149\t212 IPC\t\t\tGuilty\t\t2 Years RI
\n150\t6(IA) of Indian Wire-\tGuilty\t\t2 Years RI
\n\tless and Telegraphy Act
\n152\t3(3) TADA\t\tGuilty\t\tLife\n<\/p>\n
———————————————————————-
\nBhaskaran (A-14)<\/p>\n
Charge\tOffence U\/S\t\tFinding\t\tSentence
\nNo.\n<\/p>\n
——————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
148\t3(4) TADA\t\tGuilty\t\tLife<\/p>\n
149\t212 IPC\t\t\tGuilty\t\t2 Years RI<\/p>\n
152\t3(3) TADA\t\tGuilty\t\tLife\n<\/p>\n
———————————————————————-\n<\/p>\n
Shanmugavadivelu (A-15)<\/p>\n
Charge\tOffence U\/S\t\tFinding\t\tSentence
\nNo.\n<\/p>\n
——————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
153\t3(4) TADA\t\tGuilty\t\tLife<\/p>\n
———————————————————————-\n<\/p>\n
Ravi (A-16)<\/p>\n
Charge\tOffence U\/S\t\tFinding\t\tSentence
\nNo.\n<\/p>\n
——————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
154\t3(3) TADA\t\tGuilty\t\tLife<\/p>\n
155\t3(4) TADA\t\tGuilty\t\tLife<\/p>\n
156\t212 IPC\t\t\tGuilty\t\t2 Years RI<\/p>\n
157\t5 of TADA\t\tGuilty\t\tLife<\/p>\n
158\t5 of Explosive & Sub-\tGuilty\t\t2 Years RI<\/p>\n
159\t3(1) & 25 (1-B) (a)\tGuilty\t\t2 Years RI
\n\tArms Act\n<\/p>\n
———————————————————————-
\nSuseendran (A-17)<\/p>\n
Charge\tOffence U\/S\t\tFinding\t\tSentence
\nNo.\n<\/p>\n
——————————————————————–
\n160\t3(3) TADA\t\tGuilty\t\tLife<\/p>\n
161\t3(4) TADA\t\tGuilty\t\tLife<\/p>\n
162\t212 IPC\t\t\tGuilty\t\t2 Years RI<\/p>\n
163\t3 of TADA\t–\tGuilty\t\tLife<\/p>\n
164\t5 of Explosive &\tGuilty\t\t2 Years RI
\n\tSubstances Act<\/p>\n
165\t3(1) & 25 (1-B) (a)\tGuilty\t\t2 Years RI
\n\tArms\n<\/p>\n
———————————————————————-\n<\/p>\n
Arivu (A-18)<\/p>\n
Charge\tOffence U\/S\t\tFinding\t\tSentence
\nNo.\n<\/p>\n
——————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
166\t3(3) TADA\t\tGuilty\t\tLife<\/p>\n
1617 to 109 & 302 IPC\t\tGuilty\t\tDeath (16
\n\t\t\t\t\t\tCounts)
\n183 to 199\t109 and 326 IPC\t\tGuilty\t\t3 years RI
\n\t\t\t\t(13\t\t(13 counts)
\n\t\t\t\tcounts)
\n\t\t\t\t183,184,
\n86,187,
\n\t\t\t\t191 to\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t198.  200
\n\t\t\t\tto 205,226
\n\t\t\t\tto 228 Acqu-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\titted of
\n\t\t\t\tcharges 185,
\n\t\t\t\t188,190
\n\t\t\t\t& 199 (4
\n\t\t\t\tcounts)<\/p>\n
200 to 225\t109 and 324 IPC\t\tGuilty (6\t1 Years RI
\n\t\t\t\tCounts)
\n\t\t\t\t200 to 205
\n\t\t\t\tacquitted
\n\t\t\t\ton counts
\n\t\t\t\t(206 to\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t225)<\/p>\n
226\t6(1-A) of Wire-\t\tGuilty\t\t2 Years RI
\n\tless & Telegraphy
\n\tAct and 109 IPC
\n227\t12 of Passport Act\tGuilty\t\t3 months RI
\n228\t4(3) TADA punishable\tGuilty\t\tLife
\n\tu\/s 4(1) TADA and 109
\n\tIPC r\/w 34 IPC\n<\/p>\n
———————————————————————-\n<\/p>\n
Irumborai (A-19)
\nCharge\tOffence U\/S\t\tFinding\t\tSentence
\nNo.\n<\/p>\n
——————————————————————–
\n229\t3(3) TADA\t\tGuilty\t\tLife
\n230\t3(4) TADA\t\tGuilty\t\tLife
\n231\t212 IPC\t\t\tGuilty\t\t2 Years RI
\n232\t12 of Passport Act-\tGuilty\t\t3 months RI\n<\/p>\n
———————————————————————-\n<\/p>\n
Bhagyanathan (A-20)<\/p>\n
Charge\tOffence U\/S\t\tFinding\t\tSentence
\nNo.\n<\/p>\n
——————————————————————–
\n233\t3(3) TADA\t\tGuilty\t\tLife
\n234\t212 IPC\t\t\tGuilty\t\t2 Years RI\n<\/p>\n
———————————————————————-\n<\/p>\n
Padma (A-12)<\/p>\n
Charge\tOffence U\/S\t\tFinding\t\tSentence
\nNo.\n<\/p>\n
——————————————————————–
\n235\t3(3) TADA\t\tGuilty\t\tLife
\n236\t212 IPC\t\t\tGuilty\t\t2 Years RI
\n237\t6 (1-A) Wireless &\tGuilty\t\t2 Years RI
\n\tTelegraphy Act\n<\/p>\n
———————————————————————-
\nSuba Sundaram (A-22)<\/p>\n
Charge\tOffence U\/S\t\tFinding\t\tSentence
\nNo.\n<\/p>\n
——————————————————————–
\n238\t3(3) TADA\t\tGuilty\t\tLife
\n239\t212 IPC\t\t\tGuilty\t\t2 Years RI\n<\/p>\n
———————————————————————-
\nDhanasekaran (A-23)<\/p>\n
Charge\tOffence U\/S\t\tFinding\t\tSentence
\nNo.\n<\/p>\n
——————————————————————–
\n240\t3(3) TADA\t\tGuilty\t\tLife
\n241\t3(4) TADA\t\tGuilty\t\tLife
\n242\t212 IPC\t\t\tGuilty\t\t2 Years RI\n<\/p>\n
———————————————————————-
\nRangam (A-24)<\/p>\n
Charge\tOffence U\/S\t\tFinding\t\tSentence
\nNo.\n<\/p>\n
——————————————————————–
\n243\t3(3) TADA\t\tGuilty\t\tLife
\n244\t212 IPC\t\t\tGuilty\t\t2 Years RI
\n245\t14 Foreigners Act\tGuilty\t\t2 Years RI\n<\/p>\n
———————————————————————-
\nVicky (A-25)<\/p>\n
Charge\tOffence U\/S\t\tFinding\t\tSentence
\nNo.\n<\/p>\n
——————————————————————–
\n246\t3(4) TADA\t\tGuilty\t\tLife
\n247\t212 IPC\t\t\tGuilty\t\t2 Years RI
\n248\t14 Foreigners Act\tGuilty\t\t2 Years RI\n<\/p>\n
———————————————————————-
\nRanganath (A-26)<\/p>\n
Charge\tOffence U\/S\t\tFinding\t\tSentence
\nNo.\n<\/p>\n
——————————————————————–
\n249\t3(4) TADA\t\tGuilty\t\tLife
\n250\t212 IPC\t\t\tGuilty\t\t2 Years RI
\n251\t212 IPC\t\t\tGuilty\t\t2 Years RI\n<\/p>\n
———————————————————————-\n<\/p>\n
\tBefore we consider the evidence\t and  the  arguments
\nadvanced  by  both the parties it may be more appropriate to
\nset  out  various  provisions\tof   law   which   are\t the
\nsubjectmatter of the charges against the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t    THE TERRORIST AND DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITIES
\n\t\t   (PREVENTION) ACT, 1987<\/p>\n
“2.   Definitions.-(1)\tIn  this  Act,\tunless\tthe  context
\notherwise requires,-\n<\/p>\n
(a) to (c) …\n<\/p>\n
(d) “disruptive activity” has the meaning assigned to it  in
\nsection\t 4,  and  the  expression  “disruptionist”  shall be
\nconstrued accordingly;\n<\/p>\n
(e) to (gg) …\n<\/p>\n
(h) “terrorist act”  has  the  meaning\tassigned  to  it  in
\nsub-section (1) of section 3, and the expression “terrorist”
\nshall be construed accordingly;\n<\/p>\n
Section 3.  Punishment for terrorist acts.- (1) Whoever with
\nintent to overawe the Government as by law established or to
\nstrike\tterror\tin people or any section of the people or to
\nalienate any section of the people or  to  adversely  affect
\nthe  harmony  amongst  different sections of the people does
\nany act or thing by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive
\nsubstances or inflammable substances or fire-arms  or  other
\nlethal\t weapons  or  poisons  or  noxious  gases  or  other
\nchemicals or by any other substances (whether biological  or
\notherwise)  of\ta  hazardous  nature  in such a manner as to
\ncause, or as is likely to cause, death of, or  injuries\t to,
\nany  person  or\t persons  or  loss  of,\t or  damage  to,  or
\ndestruction of, property or disruption or  any\tsupplies  or
\nservices  essential to the life of the community, or detains
\nany person and threatens to kill or injure  such  person  in
\norder  to compel the Government or any other person to do or
\nabstain from doing any act, commits a terrorist act.\n<\/p>\n
(2) Whoever commits a terrorist act, shall,-\n<\/p>\n
(i) if such act has resulted in the death of any person,  be
\npunishable  with death or imprisonment for life and shall be
\nliable to fine;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) in any other case, be punishable with imprisonment\t for
\na term which shall not be less than five years but which may
\nextend\tto imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to
\nfine.\n<\/p>\n
(3) Whoever conspires or attempts to commit,  or  advocates,
\nabets,\tadvises\t or  incites  or  knowingly  facilitates the
\ncommission of, a terrorist act or any act preparatory  to  a
\nterrorist  act,\t shall be punishable with imprisonment for a
\nterm which shall not be less than five years but  which\t may
\nextend\tto imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to
\nfine.\n<\/p>\n
(4) Whoever harbours or conceals, or attempts to harbour  or
\nconceal, any terrorist shall be punishable with imprisonment
\nfor a term which shall not be less than five years but which
\nmay extent to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable
\nto fine.\n<\/p>\n
(5)  Any  person  who  is a member of a terrorists gang or a
\nterrorists organisation, which is involved in terrorist act,
\nshall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall
\nnot be\tless  than  five  years\t but  which  may  extend  to
\nimprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.\n<\/p>\n
(6)  Whoever  holds  any  property  derived or obtained from
\ncommission of any terrorist act or has been acquired through
\nthe terrorist funds shall be  punishable  with\timprisonment
\nfor a term which shall not be less than five years but which
\nmay extent to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable
\nto fine.\n<\/p>\n
Section 4.Punishment for disruptive activities.- (1) Whoever
\ncommits\t or  conspired\tor  attempts  to  commit  or  abets,
\nadvocates, advises, or knowingly facilitates the  commission
\nof,  any  disruptive  activity\tor  any act preparatory to a
\ndisruptive activity shall be  punishable  with\timprisonment
\nfor a term which shall not be less than five years but which
\nmay extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable
\nto fine.\n<\/p>\n
(2)   For  the\tpurposes  of  sub-section  (1),\t “disruptive
\nactivity” means any action  taken,  whether  by\t act  or  by
\nspeech\tor  through  any  other media or in any other manner
\nwhatsoever,<\/p>\n
(i) which questions, disrupts or  is  intended\tto  disrupt,
\nwhether\t  directly   or\t  indirectly,  the  sovereignty\t and
\nterritorial integrity of India; or<\/p>\n
(ii) which is intended to bring about or supports any claim,
\nwhether directly or indirectly, for the cession of any\tpart
\nof  India  or  the  secession  of any part of India from the
\nUnion.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation:- For the purposes of this sub-section-\n<\/p>\n
(a) “cession” includes the admission of\t any  claim  of\t any
\nforeign country to any part of India, and<\/p>\n
(b)  “secession”  includes  the\t assertion  of\tany claim to
\ndetermine whether a part of India  will\t remain\t within\t the
\nUnion.\n<\/p>\n
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of
\nsub-section  (2),  it  is  hereby  declared  that any action
\ntaken, whether by act or by  speech  or\t through  any  other
\nmedia or in any other manner whatsoever, which-\n<\/p>\n
(a) advocates, advises, suggests or incites; or<\/p>\n
(b)   predicts,\t  prophesies   or  pronounces  or  otherwise
\nexpresses, in such manner as to incite, advise,\t suggest  or
\nprompt,<\/p>\n
the  killing  or the destruction of any person bound by oath
\nunder  the  Constitution  to  uphold  the  sovereignty\t and
\nintegrity  of India or any public servant shall be deemed to
\nbe a disruptive activity within the meaning of this section.\n<\/p>\n
(4) Whoever harbours or conceals, or attempts to harbour  or
\nconceal,   any\t disruptionist\t shall\tbe  punishable\twith
\nimprisonment for a term which shall not be  less  than\tfive
\nyears  but  which  may\textend\tto imprisonment for life and
\nshall also be liable to fine.\n<\/p>\n
5.   Possession\t of  certain  unauthorized  arms,  etc.,  in
\nspecified  areas.-  Where any person is in possession of any
\narms and ammunition specified in columns 2 and 3 of Category
\n1 and III (a) of Schedule I to\tthe  Arms  Rules,  1962,  or
\nbombs, dynamite or other explosive substances unauthorisedly
\nin  a  notified\t area,\the  shall,  notwithstanding anything
\ncontained in any other law for the time being in  force,  be
\npunishable  with  imprisonment for a term which shall not be
\nless than five years but which may  extend  to\timprisonment
\nfor life and shall also be liable to fine.\n<\/p>\n
6.  Enhanced penalties.-(1) If any person with intent to aid
\nany  terrorist\tor  disruptionist, contravenes any provision
\nof, or any rule made under, the Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959),
\nthe  Explosives\t Act,  1884  (4\t of  1884),  the   Explosive
\nSubstances  Act,  1908\t(6  of\t1908),\tor  the\t inflammable
\nSubstances Act, 1952 (20 of 1952), he shall, notwithstanding
\nanything contained in any of the aforesaid Acts or the rules
\nmade thereunder be punishable with imprisonment for  a\tterm
\nwhich shall not be less than five years but which may extend
\nto imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  For  the  purposes\t of  this  section,  any  person who
\nattempts to contravene or abets, or  attempts  to  abet,  or
\ndoes  any  act\tpreparatory  to\t the  contravention  of\t any
\nprovision of any law, rule or order, shall be deemed to have
\ncontravened  that   provision,\t and   the   provisions\t  of
\nsub-section  (1)  shall,  in  relation\tto such person, have
\neffect subject to the modification  that  the  reference  to
\n“imprisonment for life” shall be construed as a reference to
\n“imprisonment for ten years”.\n<\/p>\n
15.  Certain confessions made to police officers to be taken
\ninto consideration.-(1) Notwithstanding anything in the Code
\nor in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), but subject
\nto  the\t provisions  of this section, a confession made by a
\nperson before a police officer not  lower  in  rank  than  a
\nSuperintendent of Police and recorded by such police officer
\neither\t in   writing  or  on  any  mechanical\tdevice\tlike
\ncassettes, tapes or sound tracks from out of which sounds or
\nimages can be reproduced, shall be admissible in  the  trial
\nof  such person or co-accused, abettor or conspirator for an
\noffence under this Act or rules made thereunder.\n<\/p>\n
Provided that co-accused, abettor or conspirator is  charged
\nand tried in the same case together with the accused.\n<\/p>\n
(2)   The   police   officer  shall,  before  recording\t any
\nconfession under sub-section  (1),  explain  to\t the  person
\nmaking\tit  that  he  is  not bound to make a confession and
\nthat, if he does so, it may be used as evidence against\t him
\nand such police officer shall not record any such confession
\nunless\tupon questioning the person making it, he has reason
\nto believe that it is being made voluntarily.\n<\/p>\n
25.  Over-riding effect.- The provisions of this Act or\t any
\nrule  made  thereunder or any order made under any such rule
\nshall  have  effect  notwithstanding  anything\tinconsistent
\ntherewith  contained in any enactment other than this Act or
\nin any instrument having effect by virtue of  any  enactment
\nother than this Act.\n<\/p>\n
28.   Power  to\t make  rules.-(1)  Without  prejudice to the
\npowers of the Supreme Court to make rules under Section\t 27,
\nthe  Central Government may, by notification in the Official
\nGazette, make rules for carrying out the provisions of\tthis
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  In\t particular, and without prejudice to the generality
\nof the foregoing power, such rules may provide\tfor  all  or
\nany of the following matters, namely:\n<\/p>\n
(a)  regulating\t the  conduct of persons in respect of areas
\nthe control of which is considered  necessary  or  expedient
\nand the removal of such persons from such areas;\n<\/p>\n
(b) the entry into, and search of,<\/p>\n
(i) any vehicle, vessel or aircraft; or<\/p>\n
(ii) any place, whatsoever,<\/p>\n
reasonably  suspected  of  being  used\tfor  committing\t the
\noffences referred to in\t section  3  or\t section  4  or\t for
\nmanufacturing  or storing anything for the commission of any
\nsuch offence;\n<\/p>\n
(c) conferring powers upon,<\/p>\n
(i) the Central Government;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) a State Government;\n<\/p>\n
(iii)an Administrator of a Union territory under article 239
\nof the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
(iv) an officer of the Central Government not lower in\trank
\nthan that of a Joint Secretary; or<\/p>\n
(v)  an\t officer  of  the State Government not lower in rank
\nthan that of a\tDistrict  Magistrate,  to  make\t general  or
\nspecial\t orders\t to  prevent  or cope with terrorist acts or
\ndisruptive activities;\n<\/p>\n
(d) the arrest and trial of persons contravening any of\t the
\nrules or any order make thereunder;\n<\/p>\n
(e) the punishment of any person who contravenes or attempts
\nto contravene or abets or attempts to abet the contravention
\nof any rule or order made thereunder with imprisonment for a
\nterm which may extend to seven years or for a term which may
\nnot  be\t less  than six months but which may extend to seven
\nyears or with fine or with  imprisonment  as  aforesaid\t and
\nfine;\n<\/p>\n
(f)  providing\tfor seizure and detention of any property in
\nrespect of which such contravention, attempt or abetment  as
\nis  referred to in clause (e) has been committed and for the
\nadjudication of such seizure and detention, whether  by\t any
\ncourt or by any other authority.”\n<\/p>\n
TADA Rules<\/p>\n
15.  Recording of confession made to police officers.- (1) A
\nconfession  made  by  a\t person\t before a police officer and
\nrecorded by such police officer under Section 15 of the\t Act
\nshall  invariably  be recorded in the language in which such
\nconfession is made and if that is not  practicable,  in\t the
\nlanguage  used\tby such police officer for official purposes
\nor in the language of the Designated Court and it shall form
\npart of the record.\n<\/p>\n
(2) The confession so  recorded\t shall\tbe  shown,  read  or
\nplayed\tback  to  the  person  concerned  and if he does not
\nunderstand the language in which it is recorded, it shall be
\ninterpreted to him in a language which he understands and he
\nshall be at liberty to explain or add to his confession.\n<\/p>\n
(3) The confession shall, if it is in writing, be-\n<\/p>\n
(a) signed by the person who makes the confession; and<\/p>\n
(b) by the police officer who shall also certify  under\t his
\nown  hand that such confession was taken in his presence and
\nrecorded by him and that the record contains a full and true
\naccount of the confession made by the person and such police
\nofficer shall make a memorandum at the end of the confession
\nto the following effect:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“I have explained to (name) that he is not bound  to
\nmake a confession and that, if he does so, any confession he
\nmay  make  may be used as evidence against him and I believe
\nthat this confession was voluntarily made.  It was taken  in
\nmy presence and hearing and recorded by me and was read over
\nto  the\t person making it and admitted by him to be correct,
\nand it contains a full and true\t account  of  the  statement
\nmade by him.\n<\/p>\n
Sd\/- Police Officer.”\n<\/p>\n
(4)\tWhere  the  confession is recorded on any mechanical
\ndevice, the memorandum referred to in sub-rule (3) in so far
\nas it is applicable and a declaration  made  by\t the  person
\nmaking\tthe  confession that the said confession recorded on
\nthe mechanical device has been\tcorrectly  recorded  in\t his
\npresence  shall also be recorded in the mechanical device at
\nthe end of the confession.\n<\/p>\n
(5)\tEvery confession recorded under the said section  15
\nshall be sent forthwith to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
\nor  the\t Chief\tJudicial Magistrate having jurisdiction over
\nthe area in which such confession has been recorded and such
\nMagistrate shall froward the recorded confession so received
\nto the Designated Court which may  take\t cognizance  of\t the
\noffence.\n<\/p>\n
INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC)\n<\/p>\n
———————–\n<\/p>\n
“120-A.\t Definition  of\t criminal conspiracy.  – When two or
\nmore persons agree to do, or cause to be done,-\n<\/p>\n
(1) an illegal act, or<\/p>\n
(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal  means,  such  an
\nagreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided  that\tno  agreement except an agreement to
\ncommit an offence shall\t amount\t to  a\tcriminal  conspiracy
\nunless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more
\nparties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.\n<\/p>\n
\tExplanation  –\tIt is immaterial whether the illegal
\nact is the ultimate object of such agreement, or  is  merely
\nincidental to that object.\n<\/p>\n
120-B.\tPunishment of criminal conspiracy –\n<\/p>\n
(1) whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an
\noffence\t punishable  with  death,  imprisonment\t for life or
\nrigorous imprisonment for a term of two\t years\tor  upwards,
\nshall,\twhere  no  express provision is made in the Code for
\nthe punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same
\nmanner as if he had abetted such offence.\n<\/p>\n
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a
\ncriminal conspiracy  to\t commit\t an  offence  punishable  as
\naforesaid  shall  be  punished\twith  imprisonment of either
\ndescription for a term not exceeding  six  months,  or\twith
\nfine or with both.\n<\/p>\n
34.   Acts  done by several persons in furtherance of common
\nintention.– When a criminal act is done by several  persons
\nin  furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such
\npersons is liable for that act in the same manner as  if  it
\nwere done by him alone.\n<\/p>\n
302.   Punishment for murder — Whoever commits murder shall
\nbe punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and  shall
\nalso be liable to fine.\n<\/p>\n
326.  Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons
\nor  means.–  Whoever,\texcept\tin  the case provided for by
\nSection 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt  by  means  of
\nany  instrument\t for  shooting,\t stabbing or cutting, or any
\ninstrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely  to
\ncause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or
\nby  means  of  any  poison or any corrosive substance, or by
\nmeans of  any  explosive  substance,  or  by  means  of\t any
\nsubstance  which  it  is  deleterious  to  the human body to
\ninhale, to swallow, or to receive  into\t the  blood,  or  by
\nmeans of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for
\nlife,  or with imprisonment of either description for a term
\nwhich may extend to ten years, and shall also be  liable  to
\nfine.\n<\/p>\n
324.   Voluntarily  causing  hurt  by  dangerous  weapons or
\nmeans.– Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section
\n334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument\t for
\nshooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used
\nas  a  weapon  of  offence,  is likely to cause death, or by
\nmeans of fire or any heated substance, or by  means  of\t any
\npoison\tor  any\t corrosive  substance,\tor  by\tmeans of any
\nexplosive substance or by means of any substance which it is
\ndeleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow,  or  to
\nreceive\t into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be
\npunished with imprisonment of either description for a\tterm
\nwhich may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.\n<\/p>\n
201.   Causing\tdisappearance  of  evidence  of\t offence, or
\ngiving\tfalse  information  to\tscreen\toffender–  Whoever,
\nknowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been
\ncommitted,  causes  any\t evidence  of the commission of that
\noffence to disappear, with the intention  of  screening\t the
\noffender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives
\nany  information  respecting  the  offence which he knows or
\nbelieves to be false.\n<\/p>\n
\tif a capital offence shall, if the offence which  he
\nknows  or believes to have been committed is punishable with
\ndeath, be punished with imprisonment of\t either\t description
\nfor  a\tterm which may extend to seven years, and shall also
\nbe liable to fine;\n<\/p>\n
\tif punishable with imprisonment for life and if\t the
\noffence\t is  punishable\t with imprisonment for life, or with
\nimprisonment  which  may  extend  to  ten  years,  shall  be
\npunished  with imprisonment of either description for a term
\nwhich may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to
\nfine;\n<\/p>\n
\tif punishable with less than ten years’ imprisonment
\nand if the offence is punishable with imprisonment  for\t any
\nterm  not  extending  to  ten  years, shall be punished with
\nimprisonment of the description provided  for  the  offence,
\nfor  a\tterm  which  may  extend  to  one-fourth part of the
\nlongest term of the imprisonment provided for  the  offence,
\nor with fine, or with both.\n<\/p>\n
212  Harbouring\t offender.–  Whenever\tan  offence has been
\ncommitted, whoever harbours or conceals\t a  person  whom  he
\nknows  or has reason to believe to be the offender, with the
\nintention of screening him from legal punishment,<\/p>\n
\tif a  capital  offence\tshall,\tif  the\t offence  is
\npunishable  with  death,  be  punished\twith imprisonment of
\neither description for a  term\twhich  may  extend  to\tfive
\nyears, and shall also be liable to fine;\n<\/p>\n
\tif  punishable\twith  imprisonment for life, or with
\nimprisonment  and  if  the  offence   is   punishable\twith
\nimprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend
\nto  ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
\ndescription for a term which may extend to three years,\t and
\nshall also be liable to fine;\n<\/p>\n
\tand  if\t the offence is punishable with imprisonment
\nwhich may extend to one year, and not to ten years, shall be
\npunished with imprisonment of the description  provided\t for
\nthe  offence  for a term which may extend to one fourth part
\nof  the\t longest  term\tof  imprisonment  provided  for\t the
\noffence, or with fine, or with both.\n<\/p>\n
\t“Offence” in this section includes any act committed
\nat  any\t place\tout  of India, which, if committed in India,
\nwould be punishable under any  of  the\tfollowing  sections,
\nnamely,\t 302,  304,  482,  392, 393, 394, 395, 396 397, 398,
\n399, 402, 435, 436, 449, 450, 457, 458,\t 459  and  460;\t and
\nevery  such  act shall, for the purposes of this section, be
\ndeemed to be punishable as if the accused  person  had\tbeen
\nguilty of it in India.\n<\/p>\n
\tException  — This provision shall not extend to any
\ncase in which the harbour or concealment is by\tthe  husband
\nor wife of the offender.\n<\/p>\n
216.\tHarbouring  offender who has escaped from custody or
\nwhose apprehension has\tbeen  ordered.-Whenever\t any  person
\nconvicted  or  charged\twith  an  offence,  being  in lawful
\ncustody for that offence, escapes from such custody,<\/p>\n
\tor whenever a public servant, in the exercise of the
\nlawful powers of  such\tpublic\tservant,  orders  a  certain
\nperson to be apprehended for an offence, whoever, knowing of
\nsuch  escape or order for apprehension, harbours or conceals
\nthat person with the intention of preventing him from  being
\napprehended, shall be punished in the manner following, that
\nis to say,<\/p>\n
\tif  a  capital\toffence if the offence for which the
\nperson was in custody or is ordered  to\t be  apprehended  in
\npunishable   with   death,   he\t  shall\t  be  punished\twith
\nimprisonment of either description  for\t a  term  which\t may
\nextend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;\n<\/p>\n
\tif  punishable\twith  imprisonment for life, or with
\nimprisonment if the offence is punishable with\timprisonment
\nfor life or imprisonment for ten years, he shall be punished
\nwith imprisonment of either description for<\/p>\n
\tand  if\t the offence is punishable with imprisonment
\nwhich may extend to one year and not to ten years, he  shall
\nbe  punished  with  imprisonment of the description provided
\nfor the offence for a term which may  extend  to  one-fourth
\npart  of  the  longest term of the imprisonment provided for
\nsuch offence, or with fine, or with both.\n<\/p>\n
\t“Offence” in this section includes also any  act  or
\nomission  of  which  a person is alleged to have been guilty
\nout of India, which, if he had been guilty of it  in  India,
\nwould  have  been punishable as an offence, and for which he
\nis, under any law  relating  to\t extradition,  or  otherwise
\nliable\tto  be\tapprehended or detained in custody in India,
\nand every such act or omission shall, for  the\tpurposes  of
\nthis  sections, be deemed to be punishable as if the accused
\nperson had been guilty of it in India.\n<\/p>\n
\tException — The provision does not  extend  to\t the
\ncase  in  which the harbour or concealment is by the husband
\nor wife of the person to be apprehended.”\n<\/p>\n
EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT, 1908<\/p>\n
“3.\tPunishment for causing explosion likely to  endanger
\nlife   or   property   —  Any\tperson\twho  unlawfully\t and
\nmaliciously causes by any explosive substance  an  explosion
\nof  a  nature  likely  to  endanger life or to cause serious
\ninjury to property, shall, whether any injury to  person  or
\nproperty  has  been actually caused or not, be punished with
\ntransportation for life or any shorter term, to\t which\tfine
\nmay  be\t added,\t or  with  imprisonment for a term which may
\nextend to ten years, to which fine may be added.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tPunishment for attempt to cause\t explosion,  or\t for
\nmaking\tor keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or
\nproperty — Any person who unlawfully and maliciously –\n<\/p>\n
(a) does any act  with\tintent\tto  cause  by  an  explosive
\nsubstance,  or conspires to cause by an explosive substance,
\nan explosion in India of a nature likely to endanger life or
\nto cause serious injury to property; or<\/p>\n
(b) makes or has in his possession or under his control\t any
\nexplosive substance with intent by means thereof to endanger
\nlife,  or  cause  serious injury to property in India, or to
\nenable any other person by means thereof to endanger life or
\ncause serious injury to property in India;\n<\/p>\n
shall, whether any explosion does or does not take place and
\nwhether any injury to person or property has  been  actually
\ncaused\tor  not,  be punished with transportation for a term
\nwhich may extend to twenty  years,  to\twhich  fine  may  be
\nadded,\tor  with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
\nseven years, to which fine may be added.\n<\/p>\n
5.  Punishment for making  or  possessing  explosives  under
\nsuspicious   circumstances   —\t Any  person  who  makes  or
\nknowingly has in his possession or  under  his\tcontrol\t any
\nexplosive  substance,  under  such  circumstances as to give
\nrise to a reasonable suspicion that he is not making  it  or
\ndoes  not have it in his possession or under his control for
\na lawful object, shall, unless he can show that he  made  it
\nor  had\t it  in\t his  possession  or under his control for a
\nlawful object, be punishable with transportation for a\tterm
\nwhich  may  extend  to\tfourteen years, to which fine may be
\nadded, or with imprisonment for a term which may  extend  to
\nfive years, to which fine may be added.”\n<\/p>\n
ARMS ACT, 1959<\/p>\n
3.\tLicence\t for  acquisition and possession of firearms
\nand ammunition.– [1] No person shall acquire, have  in\t his
\npossession,  or\t carry\tany  firearm or ammunition unless he
\nholds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the
\nprovisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder :\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided that a person may, without himself  holding
\na  licence, carry any firearm or ammunition in the presence,
\nor under the written authority, of the holder of the licence
\nfor repair or for renewal of the licence or for use by\tsuch
\nholder.”\n<\/p>\n
“25 (1-B) Whoever –\n<\/p>\n
(a)  acquires,\thas in his possession or carries any firearm
\nor ammunition in contravention of Section 3;\n<\/p>\n
xxx\txxx\t\txxx\t\txxx<\/p>\n
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall
\nnot be less than one year but  which  may  extend  to  three
\nyears and shall also be liable to fine.\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided  that\tthe  Court  may for any adequate and
\nspecial reasons to be recorded\tin  the\t judgment  impose  a
\nsentence of imprisonment for a term of less than one year.”\n<\/p>\n
PASSPORTS ACT, 1967\n<\/p>\n
——————-\n<\/p>\n
“12.\tOffences and penalties — (1) Whoever —\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tcontravenes the provisions of section 3; or<\/p>\n
(b)  knowingly furnishes any false information or suppresses
\nany material information with a view to obtaining a passport
\nor  travel  document  under  this  Act\tor  without   lawful
\nauthority alters or attempts to alter or causes to alter the
\nentries made in a passport or travel document; or<\/p>\n
(c)  fails  to produce for inspection his passport or travel
\ndocument (whether issued under this Act or not) when  called
\nupon to do so by the prescribed authority; or<\/p>\n
(d)  knowingly\tuses a passport or travel document issued to
\nanother person; or<\/p>\n
(e) knowingly allows another person to\tuse  a\tpassport  or
\ntravel document issued to him;\n<\/p>\n
Shall  be  punishable with imprisonment for a term which may
\nextend to two years or with fine which may  extend  to\tfive
\nthousand rupees or with both.\n<\/p>\n
(1A) Whoever, not being a citizen of India,<\/p>\n
(a)  Makes  an\tapplication  for  a  passport  or  obtains a
\npassport by suppressing information about  his\tnationality,
\nor<\/p>\n
(b) Holds a forged passport or any travel document,<\/p>\n
Shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall
\nnot be less than one year but which may extend to five years
\nand  with  fine\t which\tshall  not be less than ten thousand
\nrupees but which may extend to fifty thousand rupees.\n<\/p>\n
(2) Whoever abets any offence punishable  under\t sub-section
\n(1)  or\t sub-section  (1A)  shall,  if\tthe  act  abetted is
\ncommitted in consequence of the abetment, be punishable with
\nthe  punishment\t provided  in  that  sub-section  for\tthat
\noffence.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  Whoever  contravenes  any\tcondition  of  a passport or
\ntravel document or any provision of this  Act  or  any\trule
\nmade   thereunder   for\t which\tno  punishment\tis  provided
\nelsewhere in this Act shall be punishable with\timprisonment
\nfor  a\tterm  which  may extend to three months or with fine
\nwhich may extend to five hundred rupees or with both.\n<\/p>\n
(4) Whoever, having been convicted of an offence under\tthis
\nAct,  is  again convicted of an offence under this Act shall
\nbe punishable with  double  the\t penalty  provided  for\t the
\nlatter offence.”\n<\/p>\n
THE FOREIGNERS ACT, 1946\n<\/p>\n
————————\n<\/p>\n
“14.   Penalties.– If any person contravenes the provisions
\nof this\t Act  or  of  any  order  made\tthereunder,  or\t any
\ndirection  given  in pursuance of this Act or such order, he
\nshall be punished with imprisonment for\t a  term  which\t may
\nextend\tto  five years and shall also be liable to fine; and
\nif such person has entered  into  a  bond  in  pursuance  of
\nCl.(f) to  subsection  (2)  of\tSec.\t3, his bond shall be
\nforfeited, and\tany  person  bound  thereby  shall  pay\t the
\npenalty\t thereof,  or  show cause to the satisfaction of the
\nconvicting Court why such penalty should not be paid.”\n<\/p>\n
“3(2) In particular and without prejudice to the  generality
\nof  the\t foregoing power, orders made under this section may
\nprovide that the foreigner,<\/p>\n
(a) to (e)<\/p>\n
(f) Shall enter into a bond with or without sureties for the
\ndue observance of as in alternative to a enforcement of\t any
\nor all prescribed or specified restrictions or conditions.\n<\/p>\n
(g)  and make provision for any matter which is to be or may
\nbe prescribed and  for\tsuch  incidental  and  supplementary
\nmatters\t as  may in the opinion of the Central Government be
\nexpedient or necessary for giving effect to this Act.”\n<\/p>\n
INDIAN WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY ACT, 1933\n<\/p>\n
————————————\n<\/p>\n
“6(1-A) Whoever\t possesses  any\t wireless   transmitter\t  in
\ncontravention  of  the\tprovisions  of\tSection\t 3  shall be
\npunished with imprisonment which may extend to three  years,
\nor  with  fine\twhich  may extend to one thousand rupees, or
\nwith both.\n<\/p>\n
3.   Prohibition  of  possession  of   wireless\t  telegraphy
\napparatus  without  licence – Save as provided by section 4,
\nno person shall possess wireless telegraphy apparatus except
\nunder and in accordance with a\tlicence\t issued\t under\tthis
\nAct.”\n<\/p>\n
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872\n<\/p>\n
————————-\n<\/p>\n
“10.   Things  said  or\t done by conspirator in reference to
\ncommon design.– Where there is reasonable ground to believe
\nthat two or more persons have conspired together  to  commit
\nan  offence  or\t an actionable wrong, anything said, done or
\nwritten by any one of such persons  in\treference  to  their
\ncommon\tintention,  after  the\ttime when such intention was
\nfirst entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact  as
\nagainst each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as
\nwell  for  the\tpurpose\t of  proving  the  existence  of the
\nconspiracy as for the  purpose\tof  showing  that  any\tsuch
\nperson was a party to it.\n<\/p>\n
30.   Consideration  of\t proved\t confession affecting person
\nmaking\tit  and\t others\t jointly  under\t  trial\t  for\tsame
\noffence.-When  more persons than one are being tried jointly
\nfor the same offence, and a confession made by one  of\tsuch
\npersons\t affecting himself and some other of such persons is
\nproved,\t the  Court  may  take\t into\tconsideration\tsuch
\nconfession  as\tagainst such other person as well as against
\nthe person who makes such confession.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation — “Offence” as used in this  section,  includes
\nthe abetment of, or attempt to commit, the offence.”\n<\/p>\n
\tHaving set out provisions of law we may refer to the
\npreliminary submissions of   Mr.    N.\t  Natarajan,  senior
\nadvocate,  who\tappeared  for\tall   the   accused   except
\nShanmugavadivelu @ Thambi Anna (A-15).\tHe submitted that he
\nis  not challenging the convictions of various accused under
\nthe Foreigners Act, Passport Act, Explosive Substances\tAct,
\nIndian\tWireless  and  Telegraphy Act, Arms Act and Sections
\n212 and 216 IPC.  This he said was on account  of  the\tfact
\nthat  for  offences  under  these  Acts accused were awarded
\nsentence of imprisonment for two years or for a period\tless
\nthan  two  years  which\t in any case has to be set off under
\nSection 428 of the Code as they\t had  been  under  detention
\nthroughout the\tperiod\tduring\ttrial.\t We are thus left to
\nconsider offences  under  Section  120-B  IPC,\t302\/34\tIPC,
\n326\/34 IPC 324\/34 IPC and under Sections 3,4 and 5 of TADA.\n<\/p>\n
\tOpening his  arguments Mr.  Natarajan submitted that
\nthe first charge gives the over all view of the case of\t the
\nprosecution.   In  brief  he  said there were five facets of
\nconspiracy alleged by the prosecution against  the  accused,
\nnamely,\t (1) clandestine infiltration into India, (2) hiring
\nof safe accommodation for the conspirators, (3) unauthorized
\nwireless operation  by\tthem,  (4)  assassination  of  Rajiv
\nGandhi\tand  others  on\t 21.5.1991,  and  (5)  harbouring of
\noffenders in order to escape from India and disappearance of
\nevidence.  The prosecution  evidence  propounds\t a  criminal
\nconspiracy.  Mr.    Natarajan  was  right in his submissions
\nwhen he said it would be futile to contend that there was no
\nconspiracy.  The questions that arise for consideration\t are
\nas  to\twhat  is  the  object  of  that conspiracy, who were
\nmembers of the conspiracy, whether any offence under TADA is
\nmade out and whether it was a case of conspiracy  to  murder
\nand  causing  grievous\tand  simple  hurt  by  use of bombs.
\nAssuming that whatever prosecution evidence has\t led  to  be
\nadmissible and reliable there is no conspiracy to commit any
\noffence\t under TADA and the conspiracy is only to commit the
\nmurder of Rajiv Gandhi.\t On the question of  motive  of\t the
\ncrime, we  find,  there\t is  no dispute.  For past couple of
\nyears there has been unrest in the north part of Sri  Lanka,
\na  neighbouring\t country  which\t area is inhabited mostly by
\nTamils.\t These Tamils or Tamilians complained of  atrocities
\ncommitted  by  the majority community of Sinhalis inhabiting
\nin south of Sri Lanka.\tTo protect the rights of the  Tamils
\nvarious\t organizations\tcame up in Sri Lanka, foremost being
\nthe Liberation\tTigers\tof  Tamil   Elam   (LTTE).\tThis
\nOrganization  claimed  to be the only representative body of
\nthe Tamils.  For the independence of Tamil area in Sri Lanka
\narm struggle started between LTTE and Sri Lankan army.\t  On
\nthis account there was turmoil in Sri Lanka resulting in the
\ninflux of Tamil refugees to India from Sri Lanka and by 1987
\nthe problem,  it appeared, was getting out of hands.  During
\nthe arm struggle LTTE was having a free field in India.\t  To
\nsupport\t its  struggle against Sri Lankan army cadre of LTTE
\nhad been operating from Indian soil for the purpose of\tarms
\ntraining,  treatment  of  injured  LTTE\t people,  supply  of
\nmedicines  and\tother  provisions,  collection\t of   funds,
\nprinting  and  publishing  of propaganda material, buying of
\nprovisions  like  petrol,   diesel,   wireless\t equipments,
\nexplosives and even cloths.\n<\/p>\n
\tAn  Indo-Sri Lankan Agreement to establish peace and
\nnormalcy in Sri Lanka was entered into on 29.7.1987.  It was
\nsigned by Rajiv Gandhi, Prime Minister of  the\tRepublic  of
\nIndia and  J.R.\t   Jayewardene,\t President of the Democratic
\nSocialist Republic of Sri Lanka.  After\t the  agreement\t was
\nsigned\tPrime  Minister Rajiv Gandhi made a statement in the
\nRajya Sabha  on\t the  Agreement\t which\the  said  aimed\t “at
\nbringing   to  an  end\tthe  difficult\tconflict  which\t has
\nafflicted our friendly neighbour Sri Lanka  for\t years”\t and
\nthat  the  conflict  assumed  acute dimensions over the last
\nfour  years  endangering  the  very  stability,\t unity\t and
\nintegrity of  Sri  Lanka.   The agreement among other things
\nenvisaged lifting of emergency in the eastern  and  northern
\nprovinces  of  Sri Lanka by 15.8.1987, holding of elections,
\nconstitution of\t interim  council,  etc.      Cessation\t  of
\nhostilities  was  to  come  into  effect all over the island
\nwithin 48 hours of the signing of the Agreement and all arms
\npresently  held\t by  Tamil  militant  groups  were   to\t  be
\nsurrendered,  in  accordance  with  an\tagreed procedure, to
\nauthorities to be designated by the Government of Sri Lanka.
\nSri Lanka will grant a\tgeneral\t amnesty  to  political\t and
\nother  prisoners now held in custody under the Prevention of
\nTerrorism Act and other Emergency laws.\t Para  2.16  of\t the
\nAgreement provided as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t2.16\tThese  proposals are also conditional to the
\n\tGovernment of India taking the following actions  if
\n\tany  militant  groups  operating in Sri Lanka do not
\n\taccept this framework of proposals for a settlement,
\n\tnamely,<\/p>\n
\t(a)  India  will  take all necessary steps to ensure
\n\tthat Indian territory is  not  used  for  activities
\n\tprejudicial  to the unity, integrity and security of
\n\tSri Lanka.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) The Indian Navy\/Coast Guard will co-operate with
\n\tthe Sri Lanka  Navy  in\t preventing  Tamil  militant
\n\tactivities from\t affecting  Sri Lanka.\n<\/p>\n
\t(c)  In\t the  event that the Government of Sri Lanka
\n\trequests the Government of India to afford  military
\n\tassistance   to\t  implement   these  proposals,\t the
\n\tGovernment of India will co-operate by giving to the
\n\tGovernment of Sri Lanka<\/p>\n
\t(d)  The   Government\tof   India   will   expedite
\n\trepatriation  from  Sri\t Lanka of Indian citizens to
\n\tIndia who are resident there, concurrently with\t the
\n\trepatriation of Sri Lankan refugees from Tamil Nadu.\n<\/p>\n
\t(e)  The  Government  of  India\t and  Sri Lanka will
\n\tco-operate in  ensuing\tthe  physical  security\t and
\n\tsafety\tof  all\t communities inhabiting the Northern
\n\tand Eastern Provinces.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Indo-Sri Lankan Accord had\tthus  the  following
\nfeatures  :\n<\/p>\n
(1) It contains a package for the  devolution  of  political
\npower  recognising  the Northern and Eastern province of Sri
\nLanka as the traditional homeland of the Tamils.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  It\t gives\tto  India  a   “Guarantor”   role   in\t the
\nimplementation\tof  the\t devolution  package  and  the other
\nprovisions within the frame work of “United Sri Lanka”.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  It\t takes\taccount\t of India’s security concerns in the
\narea.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn  pursuance  to the Agreement Indian forces called
\nthe Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) went to Sri  Lanka  on
\n29.7.1987.    After   the  initial  somewhat  reluctance  to
\nacceptance LTTE got disallusioned with the accord  which  is
\nreflected  from the following factors :-\n<\/p>\n
1.\tThe  Accord  ruled  out\t separate  Tamil Elam in Sri
\nLanka and so went against the objectives of LTTE to form  an
\nindependent Tamil Elam.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tLTTE looked towards India with certain\texpectations
\nunder\tthe   Accord,  which,  according  to  it,  were\t not
\nfulfilled.  It was the way the Tamil refugees of  Sri  Lanka
\nwere rehabilitated by Sri Lankan Government which was not to
\nthe satisfaction of  LTTE.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tIn the interim council to be formed under the Accord
\nLTTE was given less seats though it claimed to be  the\tsole
\nrepresentative body of\tSri Lankan Tamils.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tOn 15.9.1987 one Dileepan of  LTTE  went  on  hunger
\nstrike in  Sri\tLanka.\t He took fast against the atrocities
\ncommitted by IPKF and for Government  of  India\t not  acting
\nproperly.  He died  fasting  on 26.9.1987.\n<\/p>\n
5.   17 important functionaries of LTTE were captured by Sri
\nLankan Navy in the first week of October, 1987.\t  They\twere
\nbeing taken  to\t Colombo for interrogation.  LTTE approached
\nGovernment of India for their release.\tGovernment of  India
\ndid  not  vigorously  pursue  the  matter  and\twhile it was
\nnegotiating with the Sri Lankan Government to  secure  their
\nrelease,  12 of them committed suicide by consuming cyanide.\n<\/p>\n
6.  In\tthe  night  of\t3\/4.10.1987  when  IPKF\t convoy\t was
\ncarrying  ration  it  was  attacked  by\t LTTE  and 11 Indian
\nsoldiers were killed.  It was  the  flash  point  of  breach
\nbetween\t IPKF  and LTTE and active confrontation between the
\ntwo started.  Prabhakaran,  supreme  leader  of\t LTTE,\twent
\nunderground.\n<\/p>\n
7.  The agreement or the accord, as it\tis  normally  called
\nultimately,  did  not  find favour with LTTE and in spite of
\nthe  agreement\tactivities  of\tLTTE  on  the  Indian\tsoil
\ncontinued growing substantially.\n<\/p>\n
\tLTTE  became  opposed to the Accord and also against
\nthe IPKF.  Prabhakaran at one stage even said  that  it\t was
\nstabbed\t in  the back by agreeing to the accord and had been
\nbetrayed.  There was more influx of refugees to India.\t Now
\nLTTE  complained  of  atrocities  committed  by\t IPKF on the
\nTamils in Sri Lanka  and  accused  IPKF\t of  torture,  rape,
\nmurder, etc.   As to what led India to enter into the Accord
\nwith Sri Lankan Government and the background of the  ethnic
\ntrouble\t in Sri Lanka and also reservations expressed on the
\nAccord, there is the statement of R.M.\tAbhyankar  (PW-173),
\nJoint\tSecretary  in  the  Ministry  of  External  Affairs,
\nGovernment of India.   Two  volumes  of\t the  book  “Satanic
\nForce”\t(MO-124\t and  MO-125) were published in India at the
\nbehest of LTTE which contained compilation  of\tspeeches  of
\nPrabhakaran  and  other articles and photographs showing the
\natrocities committed by IPKF on Tamils in  Sri\tLanka  after
\nthe  Accord  and  the  animosity which Prabhakaran developed
\ntowards Rajiv Gandhi.  The book was compiled by N.  Vasantha
\nKumar (PW-75).\tHe is an artist by profession.\tThe printing
\nand publishing of the book was authorised  and\tfinanced  by
\nLTTE.\tIt  was\t published  in\tJanuary,  1991\tand contains
\ninformation up to March,  1990.\t   In  his  statement  Brig.
\nVivek Sapatnekar (PW-186), who was earlier in-charge of IPKF
\noperations in Sri Lanka, also stated that the Accord was not
\nhaving the  support  of\t LTTE.\tMO-125 (Volume 2 of “Satanic
\nForce”) contained the news  item  published  in\t the  Indian
\nExpress\t  of   April,\t1990  which  quotes  the  speech  by
\nPrabhakaran saying that he was against the former leadership
\nin India and that LTTE\twas  not  against  India  or  Indian
\npeople.\t  These\t two volumes of “Satanic Force” contain over
\n1700 pages.  No article or writing has been pointed out from
\nthe “Satanic Force” from which it could be inferred that  it
\nwas  ever  in  the contemplation of Prabhakaran or any other
\nfunctionary  of\t LTTE  questioning   the   sovereignty\t and
\nterritorial  integrity of India rather they identified Rajiv
\nGandhi with the Accord and the atrocities committed by IPKF.
\nIn the editorial in the official Journal of LTTE  ‘Voice  of
\nTigers’ dated 19.1.1990 the following comment appears:\n<\/p>\n
\t“In the meantime, the  defeat  of  Rajiv’s  Congress
\n\tParty  and  the\t assumption to power of the National
\n\tFront alliance\tunder  Viswanath  Pratap  Singh\t has
\n\tgiven  rise  to\t a  sense  of relief and hope to the
\n\tpeople of  Tamil  Elam.\t   The\tLTTE   has   already
\n\tindicated to the new Indian Government its desire to
\n\timprove\t and  consolidate  friendly ties with India.
\n\tThe  new  Indian  leadership  responded\t  positively
\n\taccrediting to\tMr.    Karunanidhi,  the  Tamil Nadu
\n\tChief  Minister,  the  role  and  responsibility  of
\n\tmediating with\t the   Tamil   Tigers.\t   The\tLTTE
\n\trepresentatives who had four rounds  of\t talks\twith
\n\tthe  Tamil Nadu Chief Minister in Madras, are firmly
\n\tconvinced that the Tamil Nadu Government and the new
\n\tIndian administration  are  favourably\tdisposed  to
\n\tthem and  the  V.P.   Singh’s government will act in
\n\tthe  interests\tof  the\t Tamil\tspeaking  people  by
\n\tcreating appropriate conditions for the LTTE to come
\n\tto political power in the Northeastern Province.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIt  may\t be noted that in general elections in India
\nCongress was defeated and new Government under V.P.    Singh
\nas Prime  Minister  had taken over.  Withdrawal of IPKF from
\nSri Lanka was  completed  on  24.3.1990.    In\tMarch,\t1991
\ngeneral elections  in  India  were  again  announced.  First
\nphase of elections was over on 20.5.1991 and next phase\t was
\nto be  held  on\t 23.5.1991.  This second phase was postponed
\nfor 15 days on account of assassination of Rajiv  Gandhi  on
\n21.5.1991.\n<\/p>\n
\tAveek Sarkar (PW-255) had an  interview\t with  Rajiv
\nGandhi\twhich  was published in the Sunday magazine issue of
\nAugust 12-19, 1990.  The  interview  is\t dated\tJuly  30\/31,
\n1990.\tIn  the\t interview Rajiv Gandhi supported the Accord
\nand criticized V.P.  Singh in withdrawing the IPKF.  He said
\nthere was no rationale behind the withdrawal and  as  things
\ntill  then  had not stabilized and Accord had not been fully
\nimplemented.  In the Congress manifesto which  was  released
\nin  1991  for  Lok  Sabha  elections  Congress supported the
\nAccord.\t  This\tmanifesto  was\tbrought\t on  record  in\t the
\nstatement of  K.  Ramamurthi (PW-258), who was the President
\nof Tamil Nadu Congress Committee at the relevant time.\n<\/p>\n
\tRajiv  Gandhi  in  August,  1990  predicted  general
\nelections in the country in early 1991.\t In the writings and
\narticles in the two volumes of “Satanic\t Force”\t there\twere
\nscathing  attacks on Shri Rajiv Gandhi, who was projected as
\nthe perpetrator of the sufferings of Tamils in Sri Lanka  by
\nsending IPKF.\t Prabhakaran  when he came out of his hiding
\nafter about two and a half years he made statement in April,
\n1990 that he was  against  the\tformer\tleadership,  namely,
\nRajiv Gandhi.\tThough the Congress lead by Rajiv Gandhi was
\nout of power in 1990 there was clear indication of  mid-term
\npoll  and  perceptible\tupswing\t in  the popularity of Rajiv
\nGandhi.\t LTTE apprehended the reversal of the Government  of
\nIndia’s\t policy\t of  non-interference  towards Sri Lanka and
\nwith the possibility of return\tof  Rajiv  Gandhi  as  Prime
\nMinister.   Rajiv  Gandhi stood for territorial integrity of
\nSri Lanka and for role of various Tamil organizations in Sri
\nLanka for any Tamil  solution.\t  LTTE\ton  the\t other\thand
\nclaimed\t to be the sole representative body of Tamils there.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt was\ton  this  account, submitted Mr.  Natarajan,
\nthat there was conspiracy to eliminate Rajiv Gandhi in order
\nto prevent him from coming back to  power.    He  said\tLTTE
\nperceived  the accord as object to stop creation of separate
\nTamil Elam which went against the basic objective  of  LTTE.
\nThe  creation  of  separate  Tamil  Elam was thwarted by the
\ninduction of IPKF and in the fight with IPKF more Tamil\t Sri
\nLankan died  than  they died fighting Sri Lankan army.\tIPKF
\ncommitted atrocities on Tamils in  Sri\tLanka.\t  LTTE\tthus
\nturned\tagainst\t the  Government  of  India  and  the former
\nleadership as it identified Rajiv Gandhi and his  Government
\nas bringing the struggle of Sri Lankan Tamils to square one.
\nRajiv Gandhi and the Congress manifesto supported the Accord
\neven after  IPKF  had  been  withdrawn\tfrom Sri Lanka.\t Mr.
\nNatarajan said that motive was not to overawe the Government
\nof India or to create terror as was  being  alleged  by\t the
\nprosecution.   Animosity  of  LTTE  was\t only  against Rajiv
\nGandhi who was identified with the Accord.  Prabhakaran, the
\nsupreme leader of LTTE, had clearly stated  more  than\tonce
\nthat he was not against the Indian Government and the Indian
\npeople.\n<\/p>\n
\tAccording  to  prosecution  conspiracy was activated
\nwith the publication of an  interview  of  Rajiv  Gandhi  in
\nSunday\t magazine  and\tnow  the  conspiracy  was  put\tinto
\noperation.  First  group  of  conspirators  to\tachieve\t the
\nobject of conspiracy arrived in India on September 12, 1990.
\nThis  group  consisted\tof Vijayan (A-12), Selvaluxmi (A-13)
\nand Bhaskaran  (A-14).\t  Bhaskaran  (A-14)  is\t father\t  of
\nSelvaluxmi (A-13).    They  arrived  at Rameshwaram in India
\nlike other  refugees  from  Sri\t Lanka\tand  got  themselves
\nregistered.   At  Jaffna  in Sri Lanka they were seen off by
\ndeceased accused Sivarasan without paying any toll to  LTTE.
\nIt  is\tin  evidence  that anyone leaving Sri Lanka from the
\narea in the control of LTTE had to  pay\t two  sovereigns  of
\ngold and  Rs.1500\/-.  The reason for not paying the toll was
\nthat they had left for India to take a house on rent for the
\nwork of LTTE.\tFrom  Rameshwaram  they\t were  sent  to\t the
\nrefugee camp  at Tuticorin.  Sivarasan visited them there on
\ntwo occasions – once in December, 1990 and on second time in
\nthe first week of April, 1991.\tSivarasan during  his  visit
\nin  December,  1990 told Vijayan (A12) that he was to take a
\nhouse on rent in Madras at the time  when  he  would  be  so
\ntold.  In April, 1991 Sivarasan gave instructions to Vijayan
\n(A-12)\tto go to Madras and to take a house on rent with the
\nhelp of Vijayan’s cousin Munusamy.  At that  time  Sivarasan
\nalso  told  Vijayan  (A-12)  that he would be meeting him on
\n10.4.1991 at the house of  Munusamy.\tVijayan\t (A-12)\t was
\ngiven Rs.1000\/towards expenses for the purpose by Sivarasan.
\nSivarasan  did\tmeet  Vijayan  (A-12) at Munusamy’s house as
\npromised.  Sivarasan wanted that the house which was  to  be
\ntaken  on  rent should be in a secluded place as “he thought
\nthat the  movements  of\t LTTE  men  are\t not  known  to\t the
\nneighbours”.  House  of\t J.   Duraisamy Naidu (PW-82) at No.
\n12, Eveready Colony, Kodungaiyur, Madras (Kodungaiyur house)
\nwas thus taken on rent by Vijayan (A-12).    He,  thereafter
\nbrought\t his family (Selvaluxmi (A-13) and Bhaskaran (A-14))
\nfrom the refugee camp at Tuticorin  and\t started  living  in
\nthis Kodungaiyur house from 20.4.1991.\n<\/p>\n
\tSecond group comprising Robert Payas (A-9), his wife
\nPrema, his sister Premlatha, Jayakumar (A-10) and  his\twife
\nShanthi\t (A-11) case to India from Sri Lanka on 20.9.1990 as
\nrefugees and reported at Rameshwaram.  Shanthi (A-11) is  an
\nIndian\tTamil  while Robert Payas (A-9) and Jayakumar (A-10)
\nare Sri Lankan Tamils.\tThis group  was\t similarly  exempted
\nfrom  paying toll to LTTE and was sent for taking a house on
\nrent for the work of LTTE.  They  registered  themselves  at
\nthe refugee  camp  there.  They left for Madras of their own
\nand on reaching there stayed with the relatives\t of  Shanthi
\n(A-11).\t From  1.10.1990  house of G.J.\t Srinivasan (PW-252)
\nbearing number 26, Sabari Nagar Extn., Porur, Madras  (Porur
\nhouse)\twas  taken  on rent in the name of Jayakumar (A-10).
\nIt was taken through an M.  Utham Singh (PW-56), a  property
\nagent and   proprietor\t of   Ebenezer\tStores.\t   Sivarasan
\n(deceased accused) and Kanthan (not named accused)  used  to
\nvisit them in  their  Porur  house.   Telephone No.  2343402
\ninstalled at Abenezer Stores, Porur was used  by  Sivarasan,
\nRobert Payas  (A-9)  and  others  to contact one another.  A
\nwireless set was installed in the  Porur  house,  which\t was
\nnumbered as Station  No.   95.\tTill December, 1990 families
\nof Robert Payas (A-9), Jayakumar (A-10) and  Shanthi  (A-11)
\nstayed together in this house.\tSivarasan then wanted Robert
\nPayas  (A-9)  to  take another independent house at secluded
\nplace for him (Sivarasan) to stay.   This  third  house\t was
\ntaken  on  rent\t in  the  name\tof Ramasamy, fatherin-law of
\nJayakumar (A-10) (father of Shanthi (A-11)).  The house\t was
\nowned by K.  Kottammal (PW-63) and was at No.  153, Muthamil
\nNagar, Kodungaiyur,  Madras (Muthamil house).  On 18.12.1990
\nJayakumar (A-10), Shanthi (A-11) and their  child  moved  to
\nthis house and Sivarasan also started staying with them.\n<\/p>\n
\tThird Group comprising Ravi  (A-16)  and  Suseendran
\n(A-17)\talongwith  Sivarasan arrived in India from Sri Lanka
\nin the\tend  of\t December,  1990.    Both  Ravi\t (A16)\t and
\nSuseendran (A-17)  are\tIndian\tTamils.\t This group was seen
\noff at Sri Lanka by Pottu Amman.  They\twere  instructed  by
\nPottu Amman  to\t follow the instructions of Sivarasan.\tBoth
\nRavi (A-16) and Suseendran (A-17) had  gone  to\t Jaffna\t and
\ntook   training\t  in   LTTE   camp  in\tarms  and  in  their
\nindoctrination regarding atrocities  committed\tby  IPKF  on
\nTamils\tin Sri Lanka and to enlist more people in Tamil Nadu
\nin India for the movement of LTTE and for creation of  Tamil
\nState separate from India.\n<\/p>\n
\tFourth group comprising Arivu (A-18)  and  Irumborai
\n(A-19) came to India in October, 1990.\tThey had gone to Sri
\nLanka  in May, 1990 with Baby Subramaniam where they had met
\nPrabhakaran.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn  the\t fifth\tgroup  there  is  only\tone person –
\nMurugan (A-3), who arrived in  India  clandestinely  in\t the
\nthird  week  of January, 1991 with the directions from Pottu
\nAmman.\tHe reached Kodiakkarai on  the\tIndian\tcoast  where
\nSivarasan was  waiting to receive him.\tThey thereafter went
\nto the house of one Mahalingam, a Sri Lankan Tamil, residing
\nin Kodiakkarai.\t Then they came to Madras and  went  to\t the
\nPorur  house  where  now Robert Payas (A-9) was staying with
\nhis family.  Murugan (A-3) stayed  there  for  a  few  days.
\nMuthiraja,  an LTTE activist took Murugan (A-3) to the house
\nof  Padma  (A-21),  who\t was  staying  there  with  her\t son
\nBhagyanathan (A-20).   This  house  is\tsituated at No.\t 22,
\nMuthiah\t Garden\t Street,  Royapettah,\tMadras\t (Royapettah
\nhouse).\n<\/p>\n
\tSixth group  comprising\t Kanagasabapathy  (A-7)\t and
\nAthirai (A-8) came to India on 23.4.1991 and was seen off by
\nPottu  Amman  with  certain specific instructions in an LTTE
\nboat with escort.  They reached Kodiakkarai on the coast  of
\nIndia  and were received by Chokan, an LTTE helper, who took
\nthem to the house of V.\t Kantha Raja (PW-60).  After staying
\nthere for two days Kanagasabapathy (A-7) and  Athirai  (A-8)
\nleft  for  Madras  and\tstayed\tin  the\t house of Jayakumari
\n(PW-109), niece of Kanagasabapathy  (A-7).    Sivarasan\t met
\nthem there on 2.5.1991 as per the prior arrangement fixed by
\nPottu Amman.\n<\/p>\n
\tSeventh\t and  the  last\t group\tconsisting  of\tnine
\npersons\t under\tthe  leadership\t of  Sivarasan\tarrived\t  at
\nKodiakkarai on\t1.5.1991  in  an  LTTE boat.  This group was
\nseen off by Pottu Amman on 27.4.1991.\tThe  boat  in  which
\nthey  were  travelling\tdeveloped  a snag and had to return.
\nThey left shore of Sri Lanka on 30.4.1991 when\tagain  Pottu
\nAmman was  there  to  see  them\t off.\t Nine  persons\twere
\nSivarasan, Santhan (A-2), Shankar (A-4), Vijayanandan (A-5),
\nRuban (A-6), Subha, Dhanu, Nero and Keerthi.  Last four\t and
\nSivarasan are  deceased accused.  On 2.5.1991 Sivarasan took
\nSubha and Dhanu to the house (Muthamil house)  of  Jayakumar
\n(A-10)\tand Nero to the house (Kodungaiyur house) of Vijayan
\n(A-12).\t On 6.5.1991 Sivarasan took Subha and Dhanu also  to
\nthe Kodungaiyur\t house.\t   A wireless set, which belonged to
\nSivarasan, was installed by Nero in  the  Kodungaiyur  house
\nwhich is  Station  No.\t  910 and started communicating with
\nLTTE Headquarters in Sri Lanka.\t On 3.5.1991  Santhan  (A-2)
\nand Ruban (A-6) went to Porur house of Robert Payas (A-9) at
\nMadras.\t Shankar (A-4) stayed at Kodiakkarai till 15.5.1991.
\nThen  he  came\tto Madras and stayed at Eswari Lodge up till
\n23.5.1991.  Vijayanandan  (A-5)\t went  to  Trichy  where  he
\nstayed\ttill  7.5.1991 and then came to Madras and stayed at
\nKomala Vilas Lodge, Madras.    Arivu  (A-18)  also  came  to
\nMadras\ton  9.5.1991  and took Vijayanandan (A-5) to meet N.
\nVasantha Kumar (PW-75) on  the\tinstructions  of  Sivarasan.
\nKeerthi\t @  Driver  anna,  who\twas also in the nine members
\ngroup, who had come to India on 1.5.1991,  was\tlater  found
\ndead  along with Sivarasan, Subha and others in the house at
\nKonanakunte, Bangalore on 20.8.1991.  There  is\t nothing  on
\nrecord\tas  to\twhere  Keerthi\tstayed\tfrom the time of his
\narrival in India till he was found dead.\n<\/p>\n
\tWhen  Murugan (A-3) met Shankar (A-4) at Kodiakkarai
\non 14.5.1991 he\t gave  him  a  slip  of\t paper\t(Exh.P-1062)
\ncontaining  the\t names Nalini (A-1)-Thas (also pronounced as
\nDas by which name Murugan  (A-3)  was  as  well\t known)\t and
\ntelephone  number  419493, which was the phone number of the
\noffice of Nalini (A-1).\t Before\t Santhan  (A-2)\t arrived  in
\nIndia  in  the nine members group on 1.5.1991 at Kodiakkarai
\nShanmugavadivelu (A-15) (also described as Thambi Anna)\t had
\nmade arrangements  with\t P.    Veerappan  (PW-102), a travel
\nagent and C.  Vamadevan (PW114), a Sri Lankan travel  agent,
\nfor  getting an Indian passport and travel documents for him
\n(Santhan (A-2)) in the last week of April, 1991 for  Santhan
\n(A-2) to go abroad.\n<\/p>\n
\tSivarasan  has been travelling between India and Sri
\nLanka though clandestinely during the period February,\t1990
\nto May,\t 1991.\t  Evidence  shows  his presence in these two
\ncountries as follows :\n<\/p>\n
1.  15.2.1990 arrives India along with Santhan(A-2).\n<\/p>\n
2.  21.6.1990 went to Sri Lanka<\/p>\n
3.  Last week Sivarasan, Ravi (A-16) and Sussendran
\n     of Dec., (A-17) arrive in India.\n<\/p>\n
      1990<\/span><\/p>\n
4.  Feb.,1991  Went to Sri Lanka.\n<\/p>\n
5.  24.4.1991  He was at  Madras  in  the  house  of
\n\t       Vijayan (A-12).\n<\/p>\n
6.  27.4.1991 He was at Jaffna in Sri Lanka<\/p>\n
7.  1.5.1991  Reached Kodiakkarai<\/p>\n
\tUp  till  now  we  have referred to that part of the
\nevidence as to how different  groups  arrived  in  India  to
\nachieve the  object  of\t conspiracy.\tThey  are  all\tLTTE
\nactivists or its ardent supporters and were to act under the
\ninstructions of Sivarasan.  It\tis  not\t disputed,  however,
\nthat existence of LTTE was already in India.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe first step was to hire places for shelter of the
\nconspirators and this was achieved by hiring houses – one at
\nPorur and two at Kodungaiyur.  Fourth house is that of Padma
\n(A-21).\t Nalini (A-1) was living with  her  mother.    Since
\nOctober,  1990\tshe  started living separately in a house at
\nNo.  11,  High\tCourt  Colony,\tVillivakkam,  Madras.\t  On
\n7.3.1991 Rangam\t (A-24) took on rent a house at No.  3, Park
\nAvenue, Alwarthirunagar, Madras, purportedly for the stay of
\nLTTE men.  The house belonged to Nageswara Rao (PW-178).  On
\n21.3.1991 a house at Indira Nagar, Bangalore  was  taken  on
\nrent in\t the  name  of\tSivapackiam, wife of K.\t Jagannathan
\n(PW-211) at the instance  of  Dhanasekaran  (A-23)  for\t the
\nalleged\t purpose  of  serving  it  as  a  hide\tout  for the
\nconspirators.\n<\/p>\n
\tOf the remaining accused facing trial, Suba Sundaram
\n(A-22)\t owned\tstudio\tand  had  trained  deceased  accused
\nHaribabu in photography.  Haribabu was assigned the role  of
\ntaking photographs  of\tthe  scene  of\tcrime.\tDhanasekaran
\n(A-23), Rangam\t(A-24)\tand  Vicky  (A-25)  transported\t the
\ndeceased accused Sivarasan, Subha, etc., who were proclaimed
\noffenders  from\t Madras\t to  Bangalore\tin a tanker owned by
\nDhanasekaran (A23).  Ranganath (A-26)  harboured  proclaimed
\noffenders Sivarasan, Subha and others.\n<\/p>\n
\tAccording to prosecution steps to achieve the object
\nof conspiracy had already started even prior to\t arrival  in
\nIndia\ton   1.5.1991  of  the\tassassins  Dhanu  and  Subha
\naccompanied by Sivarasan and six others.  Houses for the use
\nof LTTE persons had already been  hired.    In\tMarch,\t1991
\nArivu  (A-18),\tBhagyanathan  (A-20)  and  deceased  accused
\nHaribabu removed certain incriminating material of LTTE from
\nthe house of M.\t Sankari (PW-210) and kept them in the house
\nof V.  Radhakrishnan (PW-231).\tBaby  Subramaniam,  an\tLTTE
\nactivist was  staying  in the house of M.  Sankari (PW-210).
\nArivu (A-18) purchased a Kawasaki Bajaj motor cycle  (MO-82)
\non 4.5.\t  1991.\t   Vijayan (A-12) purchased two bicycles for
\nuse of Subha and Dhanu.\t A Maruti Gypsy (MO-540) had already
\nbeen purchased by Dhanasekaran (A-23) in November,  1990  in
\nthe name  of  Mohan.  This Maruti Gypsy was driven by Rangam
\n(A-24) and was used by deceased\t accused  Sivarasan,  Subha,
\nNero,  Suresh  Master  and  Keerthi  for  their movements in
\nBangalore after\t the  crime.\tOn  3.5.1991  Arivu   (A-18)
\npurchased  a  12  volt Exide car battery (MO-209) for use in
\nthe house of Vijayan (A-12)  to\t operate  the  wireless\t set
\ninstalled there\t (Station  910).   During the second week of
\nMay, 1991 Arivu (A-18) purchased two  9\t volt  Golden  Power
\nbatteries and  gave  them  to Sivarasan.  These golden power
\nbatteries are  alleged\tto  have  been\tultimately  used  to
\ndetonate the belt bomb on 21.5.1991 killing Rajiv Gandhi and
\nothers.\t  Various  conspirators\t had been meeting each other
\nunder the charge  of  Sivarasan\t for  communicating  amongst
\nthemselves.   While at Madras they used telephone numbers of
\nEbenezer Stores (2343402),  Nalini  (A-1)  (419493)  and  of
\nShanmugavadivelu (A-15)\t  (864249).\t An   OYT  telephone
\nconnection was applied\tfor  on\t 8.4.1991  in  the  name  of
\nShanthi\t (A-11)\t for the shop premises hired in her name for
\ncoffee powder machine.\tOn 11.5.1991 Nalini (A-1) took Subha
\nand Dhanu to the shop of M.  Gunankhalal Soni (PW-179), gave
\nhim the measurement of Subha for stitching  a  loose  salwar
\nkameez from  the material bought from the shop itself.\tThis
\nsalwar\tkameez\twas  used  by  Dhanu  for   concealing\t the
\nimprovised explosive  device.\t On  18.4.1991 Nalini (A-1),
\nMurugan (A-3), Arivu (A-18) and\t Suba  Sundaram\t (A-22)\t and
\ndeceased  accused  Haribabu  attended  the  meeting of Rajiv
\nGandhi and Jayalalitha at Marina  Beach,  Madras.    On\t the
\nnight  between\tMay  7-8,  1991\t Nalini (A-1), Murugan (A3),
\nArivu (A-18) and deceased accused  Sivarasan,  Subha,  Dhanu
\nand  Haribabu  attended\t the  meeting of Prime Minister V.P.
\nSingh at Nandanam, Madras, where they conducted a ‘dry\trun’
\nby securing access  to\tV.P.   Singh for garlanding him.  On
\nMay 16\/17, 1991 Vijayan (A-12), Sivarasan and Nero dug a pit
\nin the kitchen room of the house of Vijayan (A-12)  for\t the
\npurpose of  concealing\twireless  set and gun.\tOn 17.5.1991
\nRuban (A-6) along with\tVijayendran  (PW-111)  was  sent  to
\nJaipur\tfor  the  purported  purpose of fixing an artificial
\nlimb on the leg of Ruban (A-6) but in fact for\thiring\tsafe
\naccomodation.\tSimilar\t role  has  been  assigned to Robert
\nPayas (A-9) and Athirai (A-8) for hiring a  place  at  Delhi
\nfor LTTE   activists.\t   All\t the   payments\t for  hiring
\naccommodation, buying vehicles and expenses of\tRuban  (A-6)
\nand going to  Jaipur,  etc.    were  borne by Sivarasan.  On
\n19.5.1991 tour programme of Rajiv Gandhi to Tamil  Nadu\t for
\nMay 21 and 22, 1991 was published in local newspapers.\tWhen
\nNalini\t(A-1),\tSubha and Dhanu after visiting Mahabalipuram
\ncame to the house of Nalini (A-1) at Villivakkam they  found
\nSivarasan waiting  for\tthem.  He showed the clipping of the
\nTamil newspaper\t in  which  the\t visit\tto  Tamil  Nadu\t for
\nelection campaign  of Rajiv Gandhi was published.  Sivarasan
\ntold Nalini (A-1) to take two  days  leave.    On  19.5.1991
\nitself Sivarasan  went\tto  the\t house of N.  Vasantha Kumar
\n(PW-75) where Vijayanandan (A-5) was staying and shifted him
\nto the house of one Vanan.    On  20.5.1991  Kanagasabapathy
\n(A-7)  along  with  Vanan  went\t to Delhi by flight to fix a
\nhouse there.  One house in Delhi was secured  at  Moti\tBagh
\nbelonging to K.\t     Thiagarajan   (PW-57).    On  20.5.1991
\nSivarasan visited the house  of\t Bhagyanathan  (A-20)  where
\nBhagyanathan   (A-20),\t Murugan  (A-3),  Arivu\t (A-18)\t and
\ndeceased accused Haribabu  were\t present.    A\tmessage\t had
\nalready\t been  left at the house of Haribabu when he was not
\nthere by Murugan (A-3) to go to the  house  of\tBhagyanathan
\n(A-20).\t Nalini (A-1) also joined the group.  Sivarasan told
\nNalini (A-1) to apply for half day casual leave on 21.5.1991
\nas  venue  of  the public meeting, which Rajiv Gandhi was to
\naddress, was at Sriperumbudur.\tArivu (A-18)  gave  a  Kodak
\ncolour film roll to Haribabu.  This Kodak colour film was to
\nbe  used by Haribabu to take pictures of the scene of crime.
\nOn 21.5.1991 Haribabu purchased a  sandalwood  garland\tfrom
\nPoompuhar Emporium.   He then went to the studio of K.\tRavi
\nShankar (PW-151) and borrowed his camera  (MO-1).    In\t the
\nafternoon he went to the studio of Suba Sundaram (A-22) when
\nhe was\thaving\tgarland\t packet\t in his hands.\tOn 21.5.1991
\nNalini (A-1) got permission from her office to\tleave  early
\nand told  her  colleague  N.  Sujaya Narayan (PW96) that she
\nwas going to Kancheepuram for buying sarees.   She  went  to
\nher  mother’s  house  at  Royapettah where Murugan (A-3) was
\npresent.  He directed her to rush to her  Villivakkam  house
\nwhere Sivarasan would be waiting for her or else he would be
\nangry.\t From  there  Nalini  (A-1)  immediately went to her
\nhouse at Villivakkam.  It was about 3.00 p.m.<\/p>\n
\tOn   that   very  day  Sivarasan  dressed  in  white
\nkurta-pyjama left the house of Jayakumar  (A-10).    Santhan
\n(A-2) was  also\t present  there at that time.  Sivarasan was
\narmed with a pistol.  Sivarasan then went to  the  house  of
\nVijayan (A-12)\tand  talked  to Subha and Dhanu.  Both Subha
\nand Dhanu went inside the room and  after  about  30  to  40
\nminutes came  out.    Dhanu  was  wearing  the orange colour
\nsalwar kameez.\tSivarasan, Subha and Dhanu went to the\touse
\nof   Nalini   (A-1)   at  Villivakkam  in  an  auto-rikshaw.
\nSivarasan had asked Vijayan (A-12) to hire the\tauto-rikshaw
\nand  had  told\thim  to\t stop  at a distance from his house.
\nSubha told Nalini (A-1)\t that  Dhanu  was  going  to  create
\nhistory\t by  assassinating  Rajiv  Gandhi  and they would be
\nhappy if she participated in that.    Nalini  (A-1)  agreed.
\nNalini\t(A-1)  also  saw  that some apparatus were concealed
\nunderneath the dress of Dhanu.\tAll four  of  them,  namely,
\nSivarasan,  Subha,  Dhanu  and\tNalini\t(A-1)  went  in\t the
\nauto-rikshaw to a nearby temple where Dhanu offered prayers.
\nThey then went to Parrys Corner where Haribabu\twas  waiting
\nfor them  with camera and sandalwood garland.  All five then
\nnow left for Sriperumbudur by bus and reached there at about
\n7.30 p.m.  Near\t Indira\t Gandhi\t Statue\t Sivarasan  directed
\nNalini\t(A-1)  to give cover to Subha and Dhanu at the place
\nof meeting before the occurrence and  after  the  occurrence
\nhad  taken  place  to take care of Subha and to wait for him
\nnear the statue of Indira Gandhi for about ten\tminutes\t and
\nif  he\tfailed\tto  turn  up  they  could proceed as already
\nplanned.  They then proceeded towards the place of  meeting.
\nSivarasan and  Haribabu\t went  towards\tthe  stage.   Nalini
\n(A-1),\tSubha  and  Dhanu  sat\tin  the\t  women\t  enclosure.
\nSivarasan  then came to the women enclosure, got the garland
\nparcel from Subha and took with him Dhanu towards the stage.
\nNalini (A-1) saw Dhanu standing\t in  between  a\t young\tgirl
\n(Kokila) and  a\t lady (Lata Kannan) near the red carpet.  It
\nwas about  9.30\t p.m.\t Thereafter  Rajiv  Gandhi  arrived.
\nNalini\t(A-1)  and Subha got up from the women enclosure and
\nmoved away.  There was a loud explosion.  Nalini  (A-1)\t and
\nSubha  ran  across  to\tIndira\tGandhi statue and waited for
\nSivarasan.  Sivarasan came there and told  them\t that  Rajiv
\nGandhi\tand  Haribabu  died  in\t the  blast  and that it was
\nunfortunate that Haribabu died.\t Dhanu\tof  course  exploded
\nherself.   All\tthis  has  come\t in the confession of Nalini
\n(A-1) admissibility of which  has  been\t challenged  by\t Mr.
\nNatarajan.\n<\/p>\n
\tAfter  the  occurrence\tprosecution  led evidence of
\nharbouring,  escaping  and  removal   and   destruction\t  of
\nincriminating evidence.\n<\/p>\n
\tDhanu is already dead in the blast.  She was a human
\nbomb.\tPrincipal  perpetrators\t of the crime and others met
\ntheir end during the course of investigation.  They are\t all
\ndead.  They  committed\tsuicide.  They are Sivarasan, Subha,
\nHaribabu, Nero, Shanmugam, Trichy  Santhan,  Suresh  Master,
\nDixon,\tAmman,\tDriver\tAnna @ Keerthy and Jamuna @ Jameela,
\nall Sri Lankan nationals.\n<\/p>\n
\tFirst  Information Report of the crime was lodged at
\n1.15 a.m.  on 22.5.1991 under Section 302, 307, 326 IPC\t and
\nSection 3  to 5 of Indian Explosives Act.  Camara (MO-1) was
\nfound lying on the dead body of Haribabu without any damage.
\nTen photographs taken by Haribabu  before  he  died  at\t the
\nscene of crime showed the presence of the accused Sivarasan,
\nDhanu, Subha  and  Nalini (A-1).  One photograph also showed
\nthe event of the explosion itself.   (Exh.    P-735  is\t the
\nexposed part of the film and MO-542 is the unexposed part of
\nthe film).   During the course of investigation accused were
\narrested on various dates and confessions of all the accused
\nexcept\tShankar\t (A-4),\t Vijayanandan  (A-5),  Ruban  (A-6),
\nKanagasabapathy\t (A-7),\t Shanthi  (A-11), Selvaluxmi (A-13),
\nBhaskaran (A-14), Suba Sundaram (A-22) and Ranganath  (A-26)
\nwere recorded.\t  Their\t dates\tof  arrest,  confession\t and
\nnationality are as under :-\n<\/p>\n
Name\t   Nationality\t    Date of   Date of\n\t\t\t    attest   confession\n<\/pre>\n
———————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
Nalini (A-1)\t   Indian\t14.6.91\t    9.8.91\n\nSanthan(A-2)\t  Srilankan\t22.7.91\t   17.9.91\n\nMurugan (A-3)\t   Srilankan\t14.6.91\t    8.8.91\n\nShankar (A-4)\t   Srilankan\t19.5.92\t  No. confession\n\n<\/pre>\n
Vijayanandan (A-5) Srilankan\t16.5.92\t  No. confession<\/p>\n
Ruban (A-6)\t   Srilankan\t16.5.92\t  No. confession<\/p>\n
Kanagasabapathy(A-7)  Srilankan\t 4.7.91\t  No. confession<\/p>\n
Athirai (A-8)\t      Srilankan\t  5.7.91     29.8.91<\/p>\n
Robert Payas (A-9)  Srilankan\t  18.6.91    15.8.91<\/p>\n
Jayakumar    (A-10) Srilankan\t  26.6.91    22.8.91<\/p>\n
Shanthi\t (A-11)\t    Indian\t  16.5.92  No confession<\/p>\n
Vijayan (A-12)\t   Srilankan\t   8.7.91     4.9.91<\/p>\n
Selvaluxmi (A-13)   Indian\t  16.5.92   No\tconfession<\/p>\n
Bhaskaran     (A-14)\tIndian\t  8.7.91    No\t  confession<\/p>\n
Shanmugavadivelu(A-15) Srilankan   16.5.92\t17.5.92<\/p>\n
Ravi (A-16)\t     Indian\t    6.1.92\t 14.2.92<\/p>\n
Suseendran (A-17) Indian\t    6.1.92\t 14.2.92<\/p>\n
Arivu  (A-18)\t  Indian\t   19.6.91\t  15.8.91<\/p>\n
Irumborai  (A-19) Indian\t    9.10.91\t  3.12.91<\/p>\n
Bhagyanathan (A-20) Indian\t    11.6.91\t   5.8.91<\/p>\n
Padma  (A-21)\t    Indian\t    11.6.91\t   7.8.91<\/p>\n
Suba   Sundaram\t  (A-22)   Indian   2.7.91   No\t  confession<\/p>\n
Dhanasekaran (A-23) Indian\t   13.10.91\t   4.11.91<\/p>\n
Rangam\t (A-24)\t   Srilankan\t    28.8.91\t   23.10.91<\/p>\n
Vicky  (A-25)\t    Srilankan\t     4.2.92\t    24.2.92<\/p>\n
Ranganath (A-26)     Indian\t    28.8.91\t No confession\n<\/p>\n
———————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
\tThe immediate fall out of the assassination of Rajiv
\nGandhi was that general elections in India got postponed.  A
\nnotification  was  issued by Election Commission of India on
\n22.5.1991 stating that earlier notification dated  19.4.1991
\nhad  been  issued  under Section 30 of the Representation of
\nPeople Act, 1951 fixing 20.5.1991, 23.5.1991  and  26.5.1991
\nas   the   dates  on  which  poll  shall  be  taken  in\t the
\nparliamentary constituencies in India and that “the  country
\nhas  suffered  a  great\t tragedy  in the death of Shri Rajiv
\nGandhi at the assassins’ hands”.   The\tElection  Commission
\ndirected  that\telection  to  the  constituencies  fixed for
\n22.5.1991 shall be held on  12.6.1991  and  that  fixed\t for
\n26.5.1991 shall be held on 15.6.1991.\n<\/p>\n
\tDuring the course of investigation  prosecution,  as
\nstated\t above,\t arrested  the\taccused\t on  various  dates,
\nrecorded  their\t confessions,  recorded\t the  statements  of
\nwitnesses,   collected\tdocuments  and\tother  material\t and
\nsubmitted challan under Section 173 of the Code for offences
\npunishable under Sections 120-B IPC read with 302, 326, 324,
\n201 and 212 IPC; Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Explosive Substances
\nAct; Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act; Section 12 of Passports
\nAct; Section 14 of Foreigners Act; Section 6(1A) of Wireless
\nTelegraphy Act and Sections 3(3),  4(2),  4(3)\tTADA,  1987.
\nSpecific  offences  committed  by  each\t of  the  accused in
\npursuance to the criminal conspiracy were also stated.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.  Natarajan took us through\tthe  evidence.\t  He
\nunderstood the futility of the arguments, and in our opinion
\nrightly,  to  challenge\t the very existence of a conspiracy.
\nFrom the evidence led by the prosecution he did not  dispute
\nthat  reasonable grounds existed to believe that there was a
\nconspiracy to commit an\t offence.    According\tto  him\t the
\nobject of conspiracy was to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi and not
\nto  commit  any terrorist act or disruptive activity falling
\nunder  Sections\t 3  and\t 4  of\tTADA  as  contended  by\t the
\nprosecution.  Having accepted the existence of conspiracy he
\nsaid it was only to be seen as to what was the object of the
\nconspiracy  and\t who  were  the\t members  of the conspiracy.
\nConfessions of the accused have been recorded under  Section
\n15 of  TADA.  Rule 15 of the TADA Rules framed under Section
\n28 of  TADA  prescribes\t the  conditions  for  recording  of
\nconfession made to police officer.  He said confessions were
\nnot voluntary and have been retracted by the accused.  Under
\nSection\t 20  of TADA certain modified provisions of the Code
\nare applicable.\t Except for Shanmugavadivelu (A-15), who was
\ntaken into custody  on\t16.5.1992  and\this  confession\t was
\nrecorded  on the following day, in the case of other accused
\nconfessions have been recorded only a day  or  so  when\t the
\npolice remand  was  to\texpire\twhich  was  for 60 days.  No
\nsufficient time was granted to the  accused  to\t reflect  if
\nthey wanted to make confession.\t In the case of Nalini (A-1)
\nand  Arivu  (A-18)  mandatory safeguards have been violated.
\nConfession  of\tone  accused   could   not   be\t  used\t for
\ncorroboration of the confession of another accused.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.  Natrajan said that confessions of\tthe  accused
\ncould not be taken into consideration.\tHis arguments were:\n<\/p>\n
(1) all these confessions have been retracted by the accused
\nhaving\t being\t taken\t under\tcoercion  and  under  Police
\ninfluence;\n<\/p>\n
(2)  sufficient\t time  was  not\t given\tto  accused   before
\nrecording of the confession.  They were given only few hours
\nto reflect if they wanted to make any confession;\n<\/p>\n
(3) under the provisions of the Code as amended by TADA, the
\nPolice\ttook full remand of the accused for 60 days and when
\na day or so before the remand was to expire the accused were
\nmade to give their  confessions.    There  is,\tthus,  every
\npossibility of\tthe  confessions being extracted.  It cannot
\nalso be ruled out that\tthe  confessions  were\tobtained  by
\ncausing\t physical harm to the accused and playing upon their
\npsychology;\n<\/p>\n
(4)  confessions  of  Nalini  (A-1)  and  Arivu\t (A-18)\t are
\notherwise  inadmissible as mandatory provisions contained in
\nSection 15 of TADA and Rule 15(3) of TADA  Rules  have\tbeen
\nviolated;\n<\/p>\n
(5)  all the accused were kept together in a building called
\nMalagai situated at Green Pass Road, Madras which  were\t the
\nheadquarters of\t CBI.\t Firstly,  remand  was taken for one
\nmonth but no confession came to be recorded.  Further remand
\nof one month was  taken.    During  this  period,  Ponamalai
\nsub-jail  was  denotified as jail and handed over to CBI and
\nconverted into\tPolice\tStation.    All\t the  accused\twere
\ntransferred  there and again kept together under the control
\nof special investigating team  of  CBI.\t   Legal  principles
\nrequired that the accused should have been kept separate and
\nsufficient  time  should  have\tbeen given to them for their
\nminds to reflect if they wanted to make clean breast of\t the
\nwhole thing;\n<\/p>\n
(6)\tit  is\tsettled\t law  that  confession of an accused
\ncannot be used for corroboration of the confession  made  by
\nco-accused.  The rule of prudence so requires; and<\/p>\n
(7)\tall  these  confessions\t are post-arrest confessions
\nand confession of one accused cannot  be  used\tagainst\t the
\nother even with reference to Section 10 of the Evidence Act.
\nIt  could  not\tbe  said  that\tobject of conspiracy was not
\naccomplished by the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi  and\tthat
\nthe conspiracy was still in existence.\n<\/p>\n
\tComing\tto  the\t confession  of Nalini (A-1), it was
\nsubmitted by Mr.  Natrajan  that  she,\tin  her\t confession,
\nreferred to Murugan (A-3), Arivu (A-18), Bhagyanathan (A-20)
\nand  Padma (A-21) among the accused now arraigned before the
\nCourt.\tShe also referred  to  Jayakumar  (A-10)  though  he
\ncomes in the picture after the act of assassination has been
\ncompleted.  Nalini (A-1) who was present at the scene of the
\ncrime  is  the\tsole  surviving accused of the group and had
\ngone  to  Sriperumbdur\tin  furtherance\t of  conspiracy\t  to
\nassassinate Rajiv  Gandhi.    Nalini (A-1) has denied in her
\nstatement under Section 313 of the Code that her  confession
\nwas voluntary.\t  She said blank papers were got signed from
\nher.  This confession does not satisfy\tthe  requirement  of
\nlaw  under  Section  15 of TADA and Rule 15(3) of TADA Rules
\nthough it is not  disputed  that  all  the  confessions\t are
\nrecorded by  V.\t   Thiagarajan\t(PW-52),  Superintendent  of
\nPolice.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt was submitted that the certificate required to be
\nrecorded  under\t Rule  15 (3) of the Rules of TADA is on the
\nsame lines as given in Section 164 (4) of the Code.  Section
\n164(4) of the Code is as under :\n<\/p>\n
\t“(4)Any such confession shall  be  recorded  in\t the
\n\tmanner\tprovided  in  section  281 for recording the
\n\texamination of an accused person and shall be signed
\n\tby  the\t person\t making\t the  confession;  and\t the
\n\tMagistrate  shall  make\t a memorandum at the foot of
\n\tsuch record to the following effect:\n<\/p>\n
\t“I have explained to (name) that he is not bound  to
\n\tmake  a\t confession  and  that,\t if  he does so, any
\n\tconfession he may  make\t may  be  used\tas  evidence
\n\tagainst\t him  and I believe that this confession was
\n\tvoluntarily made.  It was taken in my  presence\t and
\n\thearing,  and  was read over to the person making it
\n\tand admitted by him to be correct, and it contains a
\n\tfull and true account of the statement made by him.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t     (Signed) A.B.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t      Magistrate”.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt  is unnecessary to refer to provisions of Section
\n281 of the Code as it is not  disputed\tthat  otherwise\t the
\nconfessions  of\t the  accused  have  been properly recorded.
\nContention in the case of Nalini (A-1) is that the mandatory
\nprovision of Rule 15 (3) have been violated  as\t it  is\t not
\nsigned\tby Nalini (A-1) which signatures are required at the
\nend of the confession.\tIt was thus submitted that since the
\nconfession does not bear the signatures of Nalini  (A-1)  it
\ncould not be said to be a valid confession.  It is important
\nthat the  accused  signs the confession at the end.  In that
\nway he comprehends that he has made confession.\t  Confession
\nof Nalini (A-1), it was submitted, has to be rejected in its
\nentirety.  Confession is said to be in 18 pages out of which
\nonly  pages  1\tto 16 bear her signatures while pages 17 and
\n18, which are crucial to the confession,  do  not  bear\t her
\nsignatures.   It  may  be  said\t that the police officer has
\nappended his certificate at the end of\tthe  confession\t but
\nhis  recording\tof  the\t certificate  is  immaterial  if the
\naccused did not append his signatures  at  the\tend  of\t the
\nconfession.   Omission\tof  signatures of Nalini (A1) cannot
\ncure the defect.  V.  Thiagarajan (PW-52), who recorded\t the
\nconfession,  merely  stated in the examination-in-chief that
\nhis not getting\t the  signatures  of  Nalini  (A-1)  was  an
\nomission.   No\texplanation  has  been\tgiven  as to why the
\nomission occurred and it was not for the  accused  to  bring
\nout in cross-examination as to the circumstances under which
\nsignatures  of Nalini (A-1) could not be obtained at the end
\nof the confession.  It is also not relevant if each page  of
\nthe  confession\t is  signed,  signature has to be put on the
\nlast page at  the  end\tof  the\t confession  and  only\tthen
\nendorsement  by\t the police officer recording the confession
\nhas a meaning.\tBoth  the  signatures  at  the\tend  of\t the
\nconfession  and\t the certificates of the police officer must
\ngo together.  Rule 15 provided an assurance that  confession
\nrecorded is as per prescribed provisions.  In support of the
\nsubmission Mr.\t  Natarajan referred to a Constitution Bench
\ndecision of this Court in Kartar Singh vs.  State of  Punjab
\n(1994\t(3)   SCC   569)   where   this\t  Court\t  considered
\nconstitutional validity of the provisions of Section  15  of
\nTADA and  Rule\t15 of TADA Rules.  It was submitted that the
\nconstitutional validity of TADA was upheld  because  of\t the
\nsafeguards  provided  by Rule 15 for recording confession by
\npolice officer which under ordinary  law  is  impermissible.
\nIn Kartar Singh’s case the Court said :-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“In  view  of  the  legal  position  vesting
\n\tauthority  on  higher  police  officer to record the
\n\tconfession hitherto enjoyed by the judicial  officer
\n\tin  the normal procedure, we state that there should
\n\tbe no breach of procedure and the accepted norms  of
\n\trecording  the\tconfession which should reflect only
\n\tthe true and voluntary statement and there should be
\n\tno room for hyper criticism that the  authority\t has
\n\tobtained an invented confession as a source of proof
\n\tirrespective  of  the  truth and creditability as it
\n\tcould be ironically put that when a judge  remarded,
\n\t“Am I not to hear the truth”, the prosecution giving
\n\ta  startling  answer,  “No, Your Lordship is to hear
\n\tonly the evidence”.” (Para 254)<\/p>\n
\tThis  is how this Court analyzed Section 15 and Rule
\n\t15:-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“As per\t Section  15(1),  a  confession\t can
\n\teither\tbe  reduced  into writing or recorded on any
\n\tmechanical device like\tcassettes,  tapes  or  sound
\n\ttracks\t from\twhich\tsounds\t or  images  can  be
\n\treproduced.  As rightly pointed out by\tthe  learned
\n\tcounsel\t  since\t  the\trecording   or\tevidence  on
\n\tmechanical  device  can\t  be   tampered,   tailored,
\n\ttinkered,  edited  and erased etc., we strongly feel
\n\tthat there must\t be  some  severe  safeguards  which
\n\tshould\tbe  scrupulously  observed while recording a
\n\tconfession  under  Section   15(1)   so\t  that\t the
\n\tpossibility of extorting any false confession can be
\n\tprevented to some appreciable extent.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tSub-section  (2)  of  Section  15  enjoins a
\n\tstatutory obligation  on  the  part  of\t the  police
\n\tofficer\t recording  the confession to explain to the
\n\tperson making it that he is  not  bound\t to  make  a
\n\tconfession  and\t to give a statutory warning that if
\n\the does so it may be used as evidence against him.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tRule 15 of the TADA  Rules  imposes  certain
\n\tconditions  on the police officer with regard to the
\n\tmode of recording the confession  and  requires\t the
\n\tpolice\tofficer\t to  make a memorandum at the end of
\n\tthe confession to the effect that he  has  explained
\n\tto  the\t maker\tthat  he  was  not bound to make the
\n\tconfession and that the confession, if made by\thim,
\n\twould  be  used\t as against him and that he recorded
\n\tthe confession only on being satisfied that  it\t was
\n\tvoluntarily made.    Rule  15(5) requires that every
\n\tconfession recorded under Section 15 should be\tsent
\n\tforthwith   either   to\t  the\tChief\tMetropolitan
\n\tMagistrate or the Chief Judicial  Magistrate  having
\n\tjurisdiction  over the area in which such confession
\n\thas  been  recorded  and   the\t Magistrate   should
\n\tforthwith  forward  the recorded confession received
\n\tby him to the Designated Court taking cognizance  of
\n\tthe offence.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tFor  the  foregoing discussion, we hold that
\n\tSection 15 is not liable to  be\t struck\t down  since
\n\tthat  section  does  not offend either Article 14 or
\n\tArticle 21 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tNotwithstanding our final conclusion made in
\n\trelation to the intendment of Section 15,  we  would
\n\thasten\tto add that the recording of a confession by
\n\ta Magistrate under Section 164 of the  Code  is\t not
\n\texcluded  by  any exclusionary provision in the TADA
\n\tAct, contrary to the Code but on the other hand\t the
\n\tpolice officer investigating the case under the TADA
\n\tAct  can get the confession or statement of a person
\n\tindicted  with\tany  offence  under   any   of\t the
\n\tprovisions   of\t  the\tTADA  Act  recorded  by\t any
\n\tMetropolitan   Magistrate,   Judicial\t Magistrate,
\n\tExecutive Magistrate or Special Executive Magistrate
\n\tof  whom  the two latter Magistrates are included in
\n\tSection 164(1) by sub-section (3) of Section  20  of
\n\tthe TADA Act and empowered to record confession.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tThe  net  result  is  that any confession or
\n\tstatement of a person under  the  TADA\tAct  can  be
\n\trecorded  either  by  a\t police officer not lower in
\n\trank than of a Superintendent of Police, in exercise
\n\tof the powers conferred under Section  15  or  by  a
\n\tMetropolitan  Magistrate  or  Judicial Magistrate or
\n\tExecutive Magistrate or Special Executive Magistrate
\n\twho are empowered to  record  any  confession  under
\n\tSection\t 164  (1)  in  view  of\t sub-section  (3) of
\n\tSection 20 of the TADA Act.”\n<\/p>\n
\tReference was also made to a Division Bench decision
\nof the Bombay High Court in Abdul Razak Shaikh vs.  State of
\nMaharashtra (1988   Crl.L.J.\t382),  which  relying  on  a
\ndecision of Privy Council in Nazir Ahmad vs.\tKing-Emperor
\n(AIR  1936  PC\t253),  held,  “that  the  provision that the
\nMagistrate after  recording  confession\t should\t obtain\t the
\nsignature of the accused thereon is a salutary provision and
\nhas  been  specially  provided\tfor,  for  safeguarding\t the
\ninterest of the accused and, therefore,\t it  is\t mandatory”.
\nHigh  Court  said  that\t this  omission\t cannot\t be cured by
\nexamining the Magistrate under\tSection\t 463  of  the  Code.
\nSection 463 of the Code is as under :-\n<\/p>\n
\t“463.  Non-compliance with provisions of section 164
\n\tor  section  281.–  (1) If any Court before which a
\n\tconfession or other statement of an  accused  person
\n\trecorded, or purporting to be recorded under section
\n\t164  or\t section  281,\tis  tendered,  or  has\tbeen
\n\treceived,  in  evidence\t finds\tthat  any   of\t the
\n\tprovisions  of either or such sections have not been
\n\tcomplied  with\tby  the\t Magistrate  recording\t the
\n\tstatement,    it   may,\t  notwithstanding   anything
\n\tcontained in section 91 of the Indian Evidence\tAct,
\n\t1872  (1  of  1872), take evidence in regard to such
\n\tnon-compliance, and  may,  if  satisfied  that\tsuch
\n\tnoncompliance  has  not\t injured  the accused in his
\n\tdefence on the merits and  that\t he  duly  made\t the
\n\tstatement recorded, admit such statement.\n<\/p>\n
\t(2)\tThe  provisions\t of  this  section  apply to
\n\tCourts of appeal, reference and revision.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Nazir  Ahmad\t vs.  King-Emperor (AIR 1936 PC 253)
\nthe Magistrate, who purportedly recorded the confession, was
\ncalled as a witness.  He said that the accused made  a\tfull
\nconfession of\this   participation   in  the  crime.\t The
\nMagistrate said he made rough notes of what he was told and,
\nafter dictating to a typist memorandum from the rough notes,
\nthen destroyed them.  The Board then noticed :\n<\/p>\n
\t“He produced, and  there  was  put  in\tevidence,  a
\nmemorandum,  called  a\tnote,  signed by him, containing the
\nsubstance but not all  of  the\tmatter\tto  which  he  spoke
\norally.\t  The  note  was signed by him and at the end, above
\nthe signature, there was appended a certificate somewhat  to
\nthe same  effect  as  that  prescribed\tin  S.\t 164, and in
\nparticular stating that the Magistrate\tbelieved  that\t‘the
\npointing out and the statements were voluntarily made’.\t But
\nit  was\t not  suggested\t that  the Magistrate, though he was
\nmanifestly acting under Part 5 of the Code, either purported
\nto follow or in fact followed the procedure of Ss.  164\t and
\n364 (old Code).\t Indeed, as there was no record in existence
\nat the material time, there was nothing to be shown or to be
\nread  to the accused, and nothing he could sign or refuse to
\nsign.  The Magistrate offered no explanation of why he acted
\nas he did instead of following the procedure required by  S.\n<\/p>\n
164.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe  Board  did not express any opinion in this case
\non the question of the operation or  scope  of\tSection\t 533
\n(old) corresponding  to Section 463 of the present Code.  It
\nwas conceded that the Magistrate neither acted nor purported
\nto act under Section 164 or Section 364\t (old)\tand  nothing
\nwas  tendered  in  evidence  as recorded or purporting to be
\nrecorded under either of the sections.\tThe Board then\twent
\non to hold as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“On the\t matter of construction Ss.  164 and
\n\t364 must be looked at and construed together, and it
\n\twould be an unnatural construction to hold that\t any
\n\tother  procedure  was  permitted  than that which is
\n\tlaid down with\tsuch  minute  particularity  in\t the
\n\tsections themselves.   Upon the construction adopted
\n\tby the Crown, the only effect of S.  164 is to allow
\n\tevidence to be put in a form in which it  can  prove
\n\titself under Ss.    74\tand 80, Evidence Act.  Their
\n\tLordships are satisfied that the scope and extent of
\n\tthe section is far other than this, and that it is a
\n\tsection\t conferring  powers   on   Magistrates\t and
\n\tdelimiting them.  It is also to be observed that, if
\n\tthe  construction  contended  for  by  the  Crown be
\n\tcorrect, all the  precautions  and  safeguards\tlaid
\n\tdown by\t Ss.   164 and 364 would be of such trifling
\n\tvalue as to be almost idle.  Any Magistrate  of\t any
\n\trank could depose to a confession made by an accused
\n\tso  long  as  it  was  not  induced  by\t a threat or
\n\tpromise, without  affirmatively\t satisfying  himself
\n\tthat  it was made voluntarily and without showing or
\n\treading to the accused any version of  what  he\t was
\n\tsupposed  to  have said or asking for the confession
\n\tto be vouched  by  any\tsignature.    The  range  of
\n\tmagisterial confessions would be so enlarged by this
\n\tprocess that  the provisions of S.  164 would almost
\n\tinevitably be widely disregarded in the same  manner
\n\tas they were disregarded in the present case.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Abdul Razak Shaikh’s case Bombay High Court\talso
\nrelied\ton  a  decision\t of the Nagpur High Court in Neharoo
\nMangtu Satnami vs.  Emperor (AIR 1937 Nag 220),\t where\talso
\nNagpur\tHigh  Court  relying  the  aforesaid decision of the
\nPrivy Council in Nazir Ahmad vs.  King-Emperor (AIR 1936  PC\n<\/p>\n
253)  held that the evidence of the Magistrate, who recorded
\nthe confession\tof  the\t accused  and  did  not\t obtain\t his
\nsignatures thereon  was\t inadmissible.\t The Magistrate also
\nwhile recording the confession of the accused did not follow
\nthe provisions of Sections 164 and 364 of the Code (old) and
\ndid not record the confession of the accused  with  required
\ncare and  formality.  He also did not record the certificate
\nas required  by\t Section  164  and  also  failed  to  obtain
\nsignature of  the accused.  The Magistrate subsequently went
\ninto the witness box for the prosecution  and  deposed\tthat
\nthe confession\twas  made  by  the  accused voluntarily.  In
\nthese circumstances High Court held that the evidence of the
\nMagistrate was inadmissible and the confession\trecorded  by
\nhim was ineffective.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the case before the Bombay High Court  contention
\nwas  that  “as\tper  the  provisions  of  sub-section (4) of
\nSection 164 Cr.P.C.  it is  mandatory  for  the\t Magistrate,
\nafter  recording  the confession, to obtain the signature of
\nthe accused thereon and as in the present case\tthe  learned
\nJudicial  Magistrate  failed  to obtain the signature of the
\naccused on the confession recorded by him,  that  confession
\ncould  not  be admitted in evidence and the defect could not
\nbe cured by invoking the provisions of S.   463,  Cr.P,.C.”.
\nThis  contention was upheld by the High Court relying on the
\naforesaid two decisions one of the  Privy  Council  and\t the
\nother of  the  Nagpur  High Court.  We do not think the view
\ntaken by the Bombay High Court\tand  Nagpur  High  Court  is
\ncorrect.   It  may  noted  that\t the  Privy  Council did not
\nconsider the scope and applicability of Section 463  in\t the
\ncircumstances of  the  case  before it.\t In that case it was
\nconceded that the confessions were not recorded either under
\nSection 164 or Section 281 of the Code.\t The view  taken  by
\nthe  Bombay  High  Court  appears  to  us  to  be rather too
\ntechnical and if we accept this\t view  it  would  be  almost
\nmaking Section\t463  of the Code ineffective.  Confession of
\nNalini (A-1)  runs  into  18  pages.\tThe  certificate  as
\nrequired by Rule 15 (3) of TADA Rules in the form prescribed
\nhas been  appended  by V.  Thiagarajan (PW-52), S.P., at the
\nend of the confession.\tSignatures of Nalini (A-1) appear on
\npages 1 to 16.\tIn his testimony V.  Thiagarajan (PW-52) has
\nsubmitted that his not getting signatures of Nalini (A-1) at
\nthe end\t of  confession\t is  an\t omission.    There  is\t  no
\ncross-examination of  V.   Thiagarajan (PW-52) as to why the
\nomission occurred.  It\thas  not  been\tsuggested  that\t the
\nomission was deliberate.    Statement  of  V.\t Thiagarajan
\n(PW-52) is forthright.\tThere could  certainly\tbe  a  human
\nerror  but  that would not mean that Section 463 of the Code
\nbecomes inapplicable.  Mr.   Natarajan\tis  correct  in\t his
\nsubmission   that  when\t the  requirement  of  law  is\tthat
\nconfession should be signed by\tthe  person  making  it,  it
\nwould  mean  his  signatures  at  the end of the confession.
\nWhat Section 463 requires is that evidence could be  led  of
\npolice officer recording the confession as to why provisions
\nof  Rule  15  (3)  could not be complied while recording the
\nconfession.  It has not been suggested or brought on  record
\nas to how not getting signatures of Nalini (A-1) on the last
\npages  of  the\tconfession has injured her in her defence on
\nthe merits  of\tthe  case.     The   confession\t  has\tbeen
\ncorroborated in material particulars by means of independent
\nevidence  even\tif the confessions of the co-accused are set
\napart.\tConfession of Nalini (A-1) was recorded on  7.8.1991
\nand  was  sent to the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate
\non the following day and on 9.8.1991  it  was  sent  to\t the
\nDesignated Court.    We\t find  that  the confession was duly
\nmade, which was recorded by V.\t Thiagarajan  (PW-52).\t  We
\nare,  therefore,  inclined to admit the confession of Nalini
\n(A-1) overruling the objection that Rule 15 (3) of the\tTADA
\nRules has been violated.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe think sufficient time was given to the accused in
\nthe  circumstances  of\tthe case for them to reflect if they
\nwanted to make confession.  Merely  because  confession\t was
\nrecorded  a day or so before the police remand was to expire
\nwould not make the confession involuntary.  No complaint was
\nmade before the trial court that confession was\t the  result
\nof  any\t coercion, threat or use of any third degree methods
\nor even playing upon psychology of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the Case of Arivu (A-18) it\twas  submitted\tthat
\nwhen he\t was  produced\tbefore\tV.    Thiagarajan (PW-52) on
\n14.8.1991 his statement was recorded that he wanted to\tgive
\nconfession statement  voluntarily.    But  then while giving
\ntime to him for reflection V.  Thiagarajan (PW-52)  recorded
\nthat “the accused Shri Payas @ Kumaralingam has been made to
\nremain\talone in his apartment for the purpose of reflection
\nin order to further make up his mind as to whether he should
\nmake a confessional statement or not”.\tArgument was that it
\nwas not Arivu (A-18), who was called on 14.8.1991 and rather
\nit was accused Payas (A-9).   We  do  not  think  that\tthis
\nsubmission  has\t any  merit  as\t on the following day, i.e.,
\n15.8.1991 confession dated 15.8.1991  of  Arivu\t (A-18)\t was
\nduly recorded.\t    We\thave  examined\tthe  proceedings  of
\n14.8.1991 and of 15.8.1991 and we have no doubt in our minds
\nthat these refer to the accused Arivu (A-18)  and  that\t the
\nname of Payas (A-9) was merely typing error and no advantage
\ncan be drawn from that.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.   Natrajan\tsaid  that evidence in the present case does
\nnot show if any offence under Section 3 or  4  of  TADA\t has
\nbeen  made  out\t and  when  there  is no offence under TADA,
\nprovisions of Section 15 of TADA would not apply and all the
\nconfessions would become inadmissible  in  evidence  as\t all
\nthese were  made before a Police Officer.  In support of his
\nsubmissions, he referred to a  decision\t of  this  Court  in
\nBilal Ahmed Kaloo vs.  State of Andhra Pradesh<\/a> [(1997) 7 SCC
\n431].\tIn  that  case, the accused was challaned before the
\nDesignated Court at Hyderabad for  offences  under  Sections
\n124-A, 436, 153-A and 505(2) IPC and under Sections 3, 4 and
\n5 of  TADA  and\t also under Section 25 of the Arms Act.\t The
\nDesignated Court acquitted him of the  offences\t under\tTADA
\nbut  convicted\thim  of\t the offences under the IPC and also
\nunder Section 25 of the Arms Act.  In  these  circumstances,
\nthis  Court  said that confession made by the accused before
\nthe Police  Officer  was  inadmissible\tin  respect  of\t the
\noffences under the IPC.\t The Court observed as under :\n<\/p>\n
\t“While\tdealing\t with  the  offences  of  which\t the
\n\tappellant  was\tconvicted  there  is  no question of
\n\tlooking into the confessional  statement  attributed
\n\tto  him,  much\tless  relying  on  it  since  he was
\n\tacquitted of  all  offences   under   TADA.\t Any
\n\tconfession  made to a police officer is inadmissible
\n\tin evidence as for these offences and  hence  it  is
\n\tfairly conceded that the said ban would not wane off
\n\tin  respect  of offences under the Penal Code merely
\n\tbecause the trial was held by the  Designated  Court
\n\tfor offences  under  TADA  as  well.  Hence the case
\n\tagainst him would stand or  fall  depending  on\t the
\n\tother evidence.”\n<\/p>\n
\tAs  to\twhether\t any offence under Section 3 or 4 of
\nTADA is made out in the present case, we  will\tconsider  at
\nsubsequent stage  of  the judgment.  In view of the decision
\nof this Court in Bilal Ahmed Kaloo’s case contention of\t Mr.
\nNatrajan is  rather correct.  However, it appears to us that
\nwhile holding the confession to be inadmissible in  a  trial
\nwhen the accused is acquitted of offences under Section 3 or
\n4  of  TADA,  provisions  of Section 12 of the TADA were not
\ntaken into consideration by this Court in the said judgment.
\nSection 12 reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
\t“12.Power of Designated Courts with respect to other
\n\toffences.-(1)  When trying any offence, a Designated
\n\tCourt may also try any other offence with which\t the
\n\taccused\t may, under the Code, be charged at the same
\n\ttrial if the offence is connected  with\t such  other
\n\toffence.\n<\/p>\n
\t(2)\tIf,  in\t the  course of any trial under this
\n\tAct of any offence, it is  found  that\tthe  accused
\n\tperson\thas  committed\tany other offence under this
\n\tAct or any rule made thereunder or under  any  other
\n\tlaw, the Designated Court may convict such person of
\n\tsuch  other offence and pass any sentence authorised
\n\tby this Act or such rule or, as\t the  case  may\t be,
\n\tsuch other law for the punishment thereof.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is apparent that provisions of Section 12 of TADA
\nwere not brought to the notice of the Court in\tBilal  Ahmed
\nKaloo’s case.\t This  judgment\t which\twas  rendered by two
\nlearned Judges of this Court, does not lay  a  good  law  on
\nthis aspect of\tthe  matter.   Continuing Mr.  Natrajan said
\nthat even if the confession  of\t an  accused  is  admissible
\nunder  Section\t15  of TADA it is not a substantive piece of
\nevidence and cannot be used against a co-accused  unless  it
\nis  corroborated  in material particulars by other evidence.
\nConfession of one accused cannot corroborate the  confession
\nof another.    In  support of his submission, he referred to
\nanother two Judge Bench decision in Kalpanath Rai vs.  State
\n(Through CBI) [(1997) 8 SCC 732] where this Court said\tthat
\nconfession  under  Section  15\tof  TADA  cannot  be used as
\nsubstantive evidence and  that\tit  has\t only  corroborative
\nvalue.\tThis is how this Court considered this question :\n<\/p>\n
\t“70.\tSection\t  15   of   TADA    provides\tthat
\n\t“notwithstanding  anything  in\tthe  Code  or in the
\n\tIndian Evidence Act …\t  a  confession\t made  by  a
\n\tperson\tbefore\ta  police  officer not lower in rank
\n\tthan a\tSuperintendent\tof  Police  …\t   shall  be
\n\tadmissible   in\t  the\ttrial\tof  such  person  or
\n\tco-accused, abettor or conspirator  for\t an  offence
\n\tunder  this  Act  or rules made thereunder, provided
\n\tthat co-accused, abettor or conspirator\t is  charged
\n\tand  tried  in\tthe  same  case\t together  with\t the
\n\taccused”.  In this context we may point out that the
\n\twords “or co-accused, abettor or conspirator” in the
\n\tproviso were not in the section until the  enactment
\n\tof  Act\t 43  of\t 1993  by  which  those\t words\twere
\n\tinserted.  By the same Amendment Act Section 21\t was
\n\talso  recast  which, as it originally stood, enabled
\n\tthe Designated Court to\t draw  a  legal\t presumption
\n\tthat the accused had committed the offence “if it is
\n\tproved\t that  a  confession  has  been\t made  by  a
\n\tco-accused  that  the  accused\thad  committed\t the
\n\toffence”.\n<\/p>\n
\t71.\tThe  legal  presumption linked to an accused
\n\tvis-a-vis a confession made by a coaccused has\tbeen
\n\tdeleted\t by Parliament through Act 43 of 1993 and as
\n\ta package inserted  the\t words\tmentioned  above  in
\n\tSection 15.\n<\/p>\n
\t72.\tWhat  is  the  effect  of such deletion from
\n\tSection 21 and addition to Section 15 of TADA?\t  It
\n\tshould\tbe  remembered that under Sections 25 and 26
\n\tof the Evidence Act no confession made by an accused
\n\tto a police officer, or to any person while  he\t was
\n\tin police custody could be admitted in evidence, and
\n\tunder  Section\t162 of the Code no statement made by
\n\tany person during investigation to a police  officer
\n\tcould  be  used in a trial except for the purpose of
\n\tcontradiction.\tIn view of the aforesaid ban imposed
\n\tby the legislature Section 15 of  TADA\tprovides  an
\n\texception to  the  ban.\t  But it is well to remember
\n\tthat other confessions\twhich  are  admissible\teven
\n\tunder  the  Evidence  Act could be used as against a
\n\tco-accused  only  upon\t satisfaction\tof   certain
\n\tconditions.    Such  conditions\t are  stipulated  in
\n\tSection 30 of the Evidence Act, which reads thus :\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“30.\tWhen more persons than one are being
\n\ttried jointly for the same offence, and a confession
\n\tmade by one of such persons  affecting\thimself\t and
\n\tsome  other of such persons is proved, the court may
\n\ttake into consideration such confession\t as  against
\n\tsuch  other person as well as against the person who
\n\tmakes such confession.”\n<\/p>\n
\t73.\tThe first condition is that there should  be
\n\ta confession i.e.     inculpatory  statement.\t Any
\n\texculpatory admission is not usable for any  purpose
\n\twhatsoever as  against\ta  coaccused.\t The  second
\n\tcondition is that the maker of\tthe  confession\t and
\n\tthe  co-accused\t should\t necessarily have been tried
\n\tjointly for the same offence.  In  other  words,  if
\n\tthe  coaccused\tis  tried  for\tsome  other offence,
\n\tthough in the same trial, the confession made by one
\n\tis not usable against the  co-accused.\t  The  third
\n\tcondition is that the confession made by one accused
\n\tshould affect  him  as\twell  as the co-accused.  In
\n\tother words, if the confessor absolves himself\tfrom
\n\tthe  offence but only involves the co-accused in the
\n\tcrime,\twhile  making\tthe   confession,   such   a
\n\tconfession cannot be used against the coaccused.\n<\/p>\n
\t74.\tEven  if no conditions are satisfied the use
\n\tof a confession as against a co-accused is only\t for
\n\ta very\tlimited\t purpose i.e.  the same can be taken
\n\tinto consideration as against such other person.  It
\n\tis now well settled that under\tSection\t 30  of\t the
\n\tEvidence  Act  the confession made by one accused is
\n\tnot substantive evidence against a co-accused.\t  It
\n\thas  only a corroborative value (vide Kashmira Singh
\n\tv.  State of M.P.  (AIR 1952 SC\t 159  :\t   1952\t SCR\n<\/p>\n
\t526), Nathu v.\t State of U.P.\t(AIR 1956 SC 56) and
\n\tHaricharan Kurmi v.  State of  Bihar  (AIR  1964  SC
\n\t1184).\n<\/p>\n
\t75.\tA  confession  made admissible under Section
\n\t15 of TADA can be used as against a co-accused\tonly
\n\tin   the   same\t manner\t and  subject  to  the\tsame
\n\tconditions  as\tstipulated  in\tSection\t 30  of\t the
\n\tEvidence Act.”\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.    Altaf  Ahmad,  learned  Additional  Solicitor
\nGeneral submitted that the statement of law as\tspelled\t out
\nin  para  75  of  the  judgment in Kalpnath Rai’s case needs
\nre-consideration.  He said what Section\t 15  contains  is  a
\nnon-absente   clause  and  it  applies\tnotwithstanding\t the
\nprovisions of the Evidence Act and the Code.\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 21 of TADA was amended by the  amending\t Act
\n43 of 1993 and clauses (c) and (d) were omitted.  Section 21
\nbefore deletion of clauses (c) and (d) was as under :-\n<\/p>\n
“21.\tPresumption as\tto  offences under Section 3.  – (1)
\nIn a prosecution for an offence\t under\tsub-section  (1)  of
\nSection 3, if it is proved –\n<\/p>\n
\t(a)\tthat the arms or  explosives  or  any  other
\n\tsubstances  specified  in  Section  3 were recovered
\n\tfrom the possession of\tthe  accused  and  there  is
\n\treason\tto  believe  that such arms or explosives or
\n\tother substances of a similar nature, were  used  in
\n\tthe commission of such offence; or<\/p>\n
\t(b)\tthat by the evidence of an expert the finger
\n\tprints\tof the accused were found at the site of the
\n\toffence or on anything including arms  and  vehicles
\n\tused  in  connection  with  the\t commission  of such
\n\toffence; or<\/p>\n
\t(c)\tthat  a\t confession  has  been\tmade  by   a
\n\tco-accused   that  the\taccused\t had  committed\t the
\n\toffence; or<\/p>\n
\t(d)\tthat the accused had made  a  confession  of
\n\tthe  offence  to  any  person  other  than  a police
\n\tofficer,<\/p>\n
\tthe  Designated\t Court\tshall  presume,\t unless\t the
\n\tcontrary  is  proved, that the accused had committed
\n\tsuch offence.\n<\/p>\n
\t(2)\tIn  a  prosecution  for\t an  offence   under
\n\tsub-section  (3)  of Section 3, if it is proved that
\n\tthe accused rendered any financial assistance  to  a
\n\tperson\taccused\t of,  or reasonably suspected of, an
\n\toffence under that  section,  the  Designated  Court
\n\tshall  presume,\t unless the contrary is proved, that
\n\tsuch person has committed  the\toffence\t under\tthat
\n\tsubsection.”\n<\/p>\n
\tBy  the\t same  amending\t Act  words  “or co-accused,
\nabettor or conspirator” were introduced in Section  15\tTADA
\nafter  the  words  “shall be admissible in the trial of such
\nperson”.  Now this Section reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
\t“15.\tCertain\t confessions made to police officers
\n\tto be\ttaken\tinto   consideration.\t    –\t (1)
\n\tNotwithstanding\t anything  in  the  Code  or  in the
\n\tIndian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872),\tbut  subject
\n\tto the provisions of this section, a confession made
\n\tby  a  person  before  a police officer not lower in
\n\trank than a Superintendent of Police and recorded by
\n\tsuch police officer either  in\twriting\t or  on\t any
\n\tmechanical  device  like  cassettes,  tapes or sound
\n\ttracks from out of which sounds\t or  images  can  be
\n\treproduced, shall be admissible in the trial of such
\n\tperson\tor co-accused, abettor or conspirator for an
\n\toffence under this Act or rules made thereunder.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tProvided   that\t  co-accused,\tabettor\t  or
\n\tconspirator  is\t charged  and tried in the same case
\n\ttogether with the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t(2)\tThe police officer shall,  before  recording
\n\tany confession under sub-section (1), explain to the
\n\tperson\tmaking\tit  that  he  is not bound to make a
\n\tconfession and that, if he does so, it may  be\tused
\n\tas  evidence  against  him  and\t such police officer
\n\tshall not record any  such  confession\tunless\tupon
\n\tquestioning  the  person making it, he has reason to
\n\tbelieve that it is being made voluntarily.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Kalpnath Rai’s case this Court said that Sections
\n25  and 26 of the Evidence Act were excluded and not Section\n<\/p>\n
30.  The question that arises for  consideration  is  as  to
\nwhat  is  the  effect  of  deletion  clauses  (c) and (d) in
\nSection 21 and addition of words in Section 15.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.   Altaf  Ahmad  said  that\tthe  provisions\t  of
\nSections  15  and  21  after their amendment provided that a
\nconfession of an  accused  is  now  admissible\tin  evidence
\nagainst co-accused.   It is the substantive evidence against
\nthe co-accused as well.\t   Concept  of\tdrawing\t presumption
\nthough\tas  was\t earlier mentioned in Section 21 now no more
\nexisted.\n<\/p>\n
\tWhen Section 15 TADA  says  that  confession  of  an
\naccused is admissible against co-accused as well it would be
\nsubstantive evidence  against  the  co-accused.\t   It  is  a
\ndifferent matter as to what value is to be attached  to\t the
\nconfession  with  regard to the coaccused as that would fall
\nin the realm of appreciation of evidence.\n<\/p>\n
The term ‘admissible’ under Section 15 has  to\tbe  given  a
\nmeaning.  When it says that confession is admissible against
\na  co-accused  it  can\tonly  mean  that  it  is substantive
\nevidence against him as well as against\t the  maker  of\t the
\nconfession.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.   Natrajan\tsaid  that  the\t confession  may  be
\nsubstantive evidence against the accused who made it but not
\nagainst his co-accused.\t He reasoned that the confession was
\nnot that of the co-accused and it was not the  evidence;  it
\nis the confessor who owned his guilt and not the co-accused;
\nit  is\tnot evidence under Section 3 of the Evidence Act; it
\nis not tested by cross-examination; and lastly, after all it
\nis the statement of an accomplice.  According to him it\t can
\nhave only corroborative value and that is a well established
\nprinciple  of the evidence even though Section 3 and Section
\n30 of the Evidence Act be ignored.  But then Section 15 TADA
\nstarts with non-absente clause.\t It says Evidence  Act\twill
\nnot apply  and neither the Code of Criminal Procedure.\tThis
\nis certainly a departure from the ordinary law.\t But then it
\nwas also the submissions of Mr.\t Natrajan that the bar which
\nis removed under Section 15 is qua Sections 24, 25 and 26 of
\nthe Evidence Act and not that  all  the\t provisions  of\t the
\nEvidence Act  have  been  barred  from its application.\t He,
\ntherefore, said\t that  the  view  taken\t by  this  Court  in
\nKalpnath  Rai’s\t case  [(1997)\t8  SCC\t732) that Section 30
\nEvidence Act was in any case applicable, was  correct.\t  We
\nthink,\thowever,  that the view expressed in that case needs
\nreconsideration.\n<\/p>\n
\tIf we analyze Section 15 the words which  have\tbeen
\nadded  by  the\tAmending  Act,\t1993 have to be given proper
\nmeaning and if we accept the argument of Mr.  Natrajan these
\nwords  will  be\t superfluous  which  would  be\tagainst\t the
\nelementary principles of interpretation of statute.  For the
\nconfession  of\taccused\t to  be admissible against coaccused
\nproviso to  Section  15\t says  that  they  should  be  tried
\ntogether.  That\t is  also  Section 30 Evidence Act.  Clauses\n<\/p>\n
(c) and (d) of\tSection\t 21  were  deleted  which  raised  a
\npresumption of\tguilt  against the co-accused.\tAccording to
\nMr.   Natrajan\tthat  provision\t made  the   confession\t  of
\nco-accused  a  substantive  evidence  and Parliament did not
\nthink it proper that it should be so.  But then why add\t the
\nwords in Section 15?\n<\/p>\n
\t‘Admissible’  according\t to  Black’s  Law Dictionary
\nmeans, “pertinent and proper to be considered in reaching  a
\ndecision.   Used  with reference to the issues to be decided
\nin any judicial proceeding.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIt defines ‘Admissible evidence’ as, “As applied  to
\nevidence,  the term means that the evidence introduced is of
\nsuch a character that the court or judge is bound to receive
\nit; that is, allow it to be introduced\tat  trial.    To  be
\n“admissible”  evidence must be relevant, and, inter alia, to
\nbe  “relevant”\tit   must   tend   to\testablish   material
\nproposition….” If we again refer to Black’s Law Dictionary
\n‘substantive  evidence’\t means “that adduced for the purpose
\nof proving a fact in issue, as opposed to evidence given for
\nthe purpose of discrediting a witness (i.e.  showing that he
\nis unworthy of belief), or of corroborating his testimony”.\n<\/p>\n
\tTADA was enacted to  meet  extra-ordinary  situation
\nexisting in  the  country.    Its  departure  from  the\t law
\nrelating to confession\tas  contained  in  Evidence  Act  is
\ndeliberate.   Law  has\tto  respond  to\t the  reality of the
\nsituation.  What is admissible is the evidence.\t  Confession
\nof  the\t accused  is  admissible  with the same force in its
\napplication to the coaccused who is tried in the same  case.
\nIt is  primary\tevidence  and  not  corroborative.  When the
\nlegislature enacts that Evidence Act would not\tapply  which
\nwould  mean all the provisions of the Evidence Act including
\nSection 30.    By  judicial   interpretation   or   judicial
\nrigmarole,  as\twe  may put it, the Court cannot again bring
\ninto operation Section 30 of the Evidence Act and  any\tsuch
\nattempt would  not  appear to be quite warranted.  Reference
\nwas  made  to  a  few\tdecisions   on\t the   question\t  of
\ninterpretation\tof  Sections3  and  30\tof the Evidence Act,
\nforemost being that of the Privy Council in Bhuboni Sahu vs.
\nThe King (AIR 1949 PC 257), and though we note this decision
\nit would not be applicable because of the view which we have
\ntaken on the exclusion of Section 30 of\t the  Evidence\tAct.
\nIn Bhuboni Sahu’s case the Board opined as under :-\n<\/p>\n
\t“Section 30 seems to be based on the  view  that  an
\n\tadmission  by  an  accused  person  of his own guilt
\n\taffords some sort of  sanction\tin  support  of\t the
\n\ttruth  of  his\tconfession against others as well as
\n\thimself.   But\ta  confession  of  a  co-accused  is
\n\tobviously evidence of a very weak type.\t It does not
\n\tindeed\tcome  within  the  definition  of “evidence”\n<\/p>\n
\tcontained in S.\t   3,  Evidence\t Act.\t It  is\t not
\n\trequired to be given on oath, nor in the presence of
\n\tthe   accused,\t and   it   cannot   be\t  tested  by
\n\tcross-examination.  It is  a  much  weaker  type  of
\n\tevidence  than\tthe evidence of an approver which is
\n\tnot subject to any of those  infirmities.    Section
\n\t30,  however,  provides\t that the Court may take the
\n\tconfession into consideration and thereby, no doubt,
\n\tmakes it evidence on which the Court  may  act;\t but
\n\tthe  section  does not say that the confession is to
\n\tamount to  proof.    Clearly  there  must  be  other
\n\tevidence.  The confession is only one element in the
\n\tconsideration  of  all the facts proved in the case;
\n\tit can be put into the scale and  weighed  with\t the
\n\tother evidence.\t Their Lordships think that the view
\n\twhich  has  prevailed  in most of the High Courts in
\n\tIndia, namely that the confession  of  a  co-accused
\n\tcan  be\t used  only in support of other evidence and
\n\tcannot be made the foundation of  a  conviction,  is
\n\tcorrect.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Kashmira Singh vs.  State of Madhya Pradesh<\/a> (1952
\nSCR  526)  one\tof the questions was how far and in what way
\nthe confession of an accused person can be  used  against  a
\nco-accused.   The  Court  relied on the observations made by
\nthe Privy Council in  Bhuboni  Sahu’s  case  and  said\tthat
\ntestimony of an accomplice can in law be used to corroborate
\nanother\t though\t it ought not to be used save in exceptional
\ncircumstances and for reasons disclosed.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Hari Charan Kurmi and Jogia Hajam vs.   State  of
\nBihar<\/a>  (1964  (2)  SCR\t623)  this Court again relied on its
\nearlier\t decision  in  Kashmira\t Singh’s  case\tand  on\t the
\ndecision of  the  Privy\t Council in Bhuboni Sahu’s case.  It
\nsaid that technically construed, definition of\tevidence  as
\ncontained in Section 3 of the Evidence Act will not apply to
\nconfession.   Even so, Section 30 provides that a confession
\nmay be taken into consideration not only against its  maker,
\nbut also against a co-accused person; that is to say, though
\nsuch a confession may not be evidence as strictly defined by
\nSection\t 3  of\tthe Act, it is an element which may be taken
\ninto consideration by the criminal court and in that  sense,
\nit may be described as evidence in a non-technical way.\t But
\nit is significant that like other evidence which is produced
\nbefore\tthe Court, it is not obligatory on the court to take
\nthe confession into account.  When evidence  as\t defined  by
\nthe  Act is produced before the Court, it is the duty of the
\nCourt to consider that evidence.    What  weight  should  be
\nattached  to such evidence, is a matter in the discretion of
\nthe Court.  But a  Court  cannot  say  in  respect  of\tsuch
\nevidence  that\tit  will  just\tnot  take that evidence into
\naccount.  Such an approach can, however, be adopted  by\t the
\nCourt  in  dealing  with  a  confession,  because section 30
\nmerely\tenables\t the  Court  to\t take  the  confession\tinto
\naccount.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn view\t of  the  above\t discussions,  we  hold\t the
\nconfessions  of\t the  accused  in  the\tpresent\t case  to be
\nvoluntarily and validly made and under Section\t15  of\tTADA
\nconfession of an accused is admissible against co-accused as
\na substantive evidence.\t Substantive evidence, however, does
\nnot necessarily\t means\tsubstantial  evidence.\t  It  is the
\nquality of evidence that matters.  As to what value is to be
\nattached to a confession will  fall  within  the  domain  of
\nappreciation of evidence.  As a matter of prudence court may
\nlook  for  some\t corroboration\tif  confession is to be used
\nagainst a co-accused though that  will\tagain  be  with\t the
\nsphere of appraisal of evidence.\n<\/p>\n
\tHaving thus held the confessions to be voluntary and
\nadmissible we proceed to examine these confessions and other
\nevidence  but before that it may be useful to have a look at
\nthe witnesses and  the\tnature\tof  the\t evidence  produced.
\nRajiv  Gandhi  had  come  to  Sriperumbudur  to\t address  an
\nelection  meeting  for\tMaragatham  Chandrasekar,  who\t was
\ncontesting   election\ton   Congress\tticket\tas  MP\tfrom
\nSriperumbudur constituency.    She  is\therself\t a   witness
\n(PW-29) and  was  injured  in  the  blast.  PWs-1 to 51 give
\nevidence of the tour programme of Rajiv Gandhi, his  arrival
\nat  the venue at Sriperumbudur, security arrangements by the
\npolice and eye witnesses to the blast being  Congress  party
\nworkers, photographers\t and   journalists.\tWe  are\t not
\nconcerned with the tour programme of Rajiv  Gandhi  and\t the
\nsecurity arrangements  made for him.  His addressing meeting
\nat Sriperumbudur on May 21,  1991  was\tpublished  in  local
\nnewspapers and\twas  known to some of the conspirators.\t All
\nthe security arrangements could not save his life  from\t the
\nhuman suicide  bomb.   Many by-standers and police personnel
\ndied along with him or suffered grievous or simple injuries.
\nOne such person was a young girl Kokila of 14 years who\t had
\ncome  with her mother Latha Kankan to recite a poem to Rajiv
\nGandhi which she had written in Hindi.\tShe was\t talking  to
\nRajiv Gandhi  when  blast  occurred.\tShe  died and so her
\nmother.\t In one of the\tphotographs  in\t the  camera  (MO-1)
\nKokila with her mother Latha Kankan is seen standing next to
\nDhanu, the  human  bomb.    Some of the persons who suffered
\nhurt have been examined.  Of these 51 witnesses, who are not
\nin the list of injured one is C.S.   Ganesh  (PW-18),  Music
\nDirector, who was giving his programme at the meeting before
\nthe arrival of Rajiv Gandhi; and Sundararajan Murali (PW-34)
\nand  Subramaniyan  (PW-35) who give opinion regarding motive
\nof LTTE against Rajiv Gandhi.  In the photographs  found  in
\nthe camera (MO-1) and other photographs taken at the site by
\nother  witnesses  Dhanu,  Subha, Nalini (A-1), Sivarasan and
\nHaribabu are identified at the scene  of  the  crime.\t The
\nwitnesses  give\t gory  picture\tof  the\t scene of the crime.
\nThere is no dispute that death of Rajiv Gandhi and 15 others
\nwas homicidal and the grievous and simple hurt caused to  43
\non account of the blast.  There is also no dispute about the
\nidentity of the\t accused.   Dr.\t Cecelia Cyril (PW-121), Dr.
\nM.N.  Damodaran (PW-124) to Dr.\t Jishnu Mohan (PW-127),\t Dr.
\nN.  Ramasamy (PW-129),\tDr.    B.  Santhakumar (PW-130), Dr.
\nVeerapandian (PW-134) to Dr.   T.S.    Koshy  (PW-146),\t Dr.
\nRaja Venkatesh (PW-150),  Dr.\t Kanagaraj (PW-155), Dr.  A.
\nSrinivasan (PW-162), Dr.    E.V.    Yuvaraj  (PW-163),\t Dr.
\nPonnusamy (PW-165), Dr.\t  K.  Poongothai M.S.  (PW-166), Dr.
\nSaraswathi (PW-169) and Dr.  Ramesh  Kumar  Sharma  (PW-182)
\nare medical officers, who conducted post-mortem and examined
\nthe injured.  Dr.   L.\t  Thirunavukkarasu  (PW243), Dr.  S.
\nRajendran (PW-244), Dr.\t S.  Maghivanan (PW-246) and Dr.  T.
\nShankughavel Samy (PW-247)  are\t the  medical  officers\t who
\nconducted the post-mortem on the dead bodies of the deceased
\naccused, who  committed\t suicide  during investigation.\t Dr.
\nAmrit Patnaik (PW-147) is the medical officer who  conducted
\nthe post-mortem on the dead body of Dhanu.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe  may\t now  examine  the  confessions given by the
\naccused and other evidence led by the prosecution to see how
\neach confession corroborates the other and how the  evidence
\ncorroborates the confessions.\n<\/p>\n
\tNalini\t(A-1) is the only accused who was present at
\nthe scene of the crime.\t She is the sister  of\tBhagyanathan
\n(A-20) and  daughter  of  Padma (A-21).\t During 1991 she was
\nworking as P.A.\t to Managing Director  of  Anabond  Silicons
\nPvt.  Ltd.   at\t Adyar, Madras.\t Her office telephone number
\nwas 419493.  N.\t Sujaya Narayan (PW-96)\t was  her  colleague
\nand acquainted\twith her hand-writing.\tBaby Subramaniam, an
\nLTTE leader, was running a printing press  in  Madras  which
\nwas  bought  by\t Bhagyanathan  (A-20)  and  named it BPL All
\nRounders.  Till January, 1991 Padma (A-21)  was\t staying  in
\nKalyani\t  Nursing  Home\t quarters  where  she  was  working.
\nThereafter she rented Royapettah  house\t in  January,  1991.
\nShe  was living with her three children Bhagyanathan (A-20),
\nNalini (A-1) and Kalyani, another  daughter.\tWhen  Nalini
\n(A-1)  started living separately she for a short while lived
\nwith M.\t Sankari (PW-210), who is sister  of  Muthuraja,  an
\nLTTE activist.\t This Muthuraja was a friend of Bhagyanathan
\n(A-20).\t  Nalini  (A-1)\t thereafter  rented   a\t  house\t  in
\nVillivakkam.   Muthuraja  was working with Baby Subramaniam,
\nwho was a top leader of LTTE.  Family of Bhagyanathan (A-20)
\nwas introduced to  M.\t Sankari  (PW-210)  by\ther  brother
\nMuthuraja.   Baby  Subramaniam used one room in the house of
\nM.  Sankari (PW-210) and kept his belongings such  as  books
\nand papers   there.    Bhagyanathan  (A-20),  Arivu  (A-18),
\nHaribabu (DA) and Irumborai (A-19) used to  visit  the\troom
\noccupied by  Baby  Subramaniam\tand  meet him.\tIn February,
\n1991 Irumborai (A-19) and Suresh Master (DA) met M.  Sankari
\n(PW-210) and told her that they had  come  from\t Jaffna\t and
\nwanted\ther to take them to the house of Bhagyanathan (A-20)
\nwhich she did.\tMuthuraja had told M.  Sankari (PW-210) that
\nhe was working in Subha Sundaram Studio but for how long  he
\nworked there  she  did\tnot  know.   This studio belonged to
\nSubha Suba Sundaram (A-22).  Muthuraja had left\t for  Jaffna
\nin February,  1991.   He was a professional photographer and
\nwas recording video cassettes and he did that work for\tLTTE
\nmovement.\n<\/p>\n
\tBhagyanathan (A-20) had also a job in Subha Sundaram
\nStudio of Subha Suba Sundaram (A-22) which job Padma  (A-21)
\nhad arranged  for him.\tSubha Suba Sundaram (A-22) was known
\nto Padma (A-21) as she attended the delivery of the wife  of
\nthe former at Kalyani Nursing Home.  Bhagyanathan (A-20) was
\nintroduced to  Baby  Subramaniam by Muthuraja.\tArivu (A-18)
\nalso became friend of Bhagyanathan (A-20).  Like  Muthuraja,
\nArivu (A-18)  used  to gather news and photographs.  He used
\nto  compile  Tamil  and\t English  news,\t record\t  in   video
\ncassettes,  edit  them and send them to LTTE Headquarters in
\nSri Lanka.  He was staying in  the  house  of  Padma  (A-21)
\nsince February,\t 1991.\tFor the purpose of recording news on
\nvideo cassettes he had bought a National colour TV and video
\ndeck.\tIn  the\t first\tweek  of  February,  1991  Muthuraja
\nintroduced Murugan  (A-3) to the family of Padma (A-21).  He
\nbelonged to LTTE organization.\tPadma (A-21)  at  first\t did
\nnot  like  Murugan (A-3) to stay in her house but she agreed
\nwhen Muthuraja told her that police was keeping a watch over
\nhis house and he could not keep him there.    Murugan  (A-3)
\nused to\t provide  financial help to Padma (A-21).  He helped
\nBhagyanathan (A-20) by giving him money as  well.    One  K.
\nBharathi (PW-233),  a  nurse,  was a friend of Kalyani.\t She
\nalso stayed in the house of  Padma  (A-21)  since  February,
\n1991.  On  one\toccasion  in  February,\t 1991  K.   Bharathi
\n(PW-233) found Murugan (A-3) in the house of  Padma  (A-21).
\nOn  inquiry  Padma  (A-21)  told  her  that he had come from
\nTirunelveli  and  that\tMuthuraja  had\tsent  him  to  learn
\nEnglish.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the second week of February, 1991 Kalyani, sister
\nof Nalini (A-1), accompanied with K.  Bharathi (PW-233)\t and
\nMurugan (A-3)  came  to\t the office of Nalini (A-1).  Nalini
\n(A-1) was introduced to Murugan (A-3) and was told  that  he
\nwas  staying  in  the  house  of  her  mother  Padma (A-21).
\nMurugan (A-3) started coming to the office of  Nalini  (A-1)
\nregularly  thereafter  and  she was quite infatuated of him.
\nHaribabu (DA) and Robert Payas (A-9) were friends of Murugan
\n(A-3) and they also used to come to  the  office  of  Nalini
\n(A-1)  and  used  her  telephone  to  talk to their friends.
\nAfter some time Murugan (A-3) told Nalini (A-1) that he\t was
\nan  important  member  of LTTE and had been sent to India by
\nPottu Amman, Intelligence Chief of LTTE.  Murugan (A-3) also
\ntold Nalini (A-1) that in India he  was\t working  under\t the
\ncharge of Sivarasan (DA), who was in-charge of operations of
\nLTTE in\t India.\t On April 18, 1991 Nalini (A-1) attended the
\nelection meeting of Rajiv Gandhi and Jayalalitha  at  Marina
\nBeach, Madras  along  with Murugan (A-3).  She went there at
\nthe instance of Murugan (A-3).\tIn the month of April,\t1991
\nwhen  Nalini  (A-1)  was  in  the  house of her mother Padma
\n(A-21) she met Sivarasan.  Murugan (A-3) told  her  that  he
\n(Sivarasan)   was  his\tboss  and  that\t it  was  under\t his
\ninstructions that he was carrying  out\this  work.    Nalini
\n(A-1)  wanted  to  vacate  her Villivakkam residence but was
\npersuaded by Murugan (A-3) to stay on there  for  some\tmore
\ntime.\tHe  told  her  that Sivarasan was bringing two girls
\nfrom Sri Lanka for LTTE operations and those girls would  be
\nstaying with her.     Nalini  (A-1)  agreed.\tOn  2.5.1991
\nSivarasan brought Subha and  Dhanu  to\ther  house.    They,
\nhowever,  did  not  stay with Nalini (A-1) and used to visit
\nher on some days.  They told her that they were\t staying  in
\nKodungaiyur house.  Nalini (A-1) learnt both Subha and Dhanu
\nwere  committed LTTE tigresses and committed to the cause of
\nLTTE.  Murugan (A-3) had told Nalini (A-1)  that  they\twere
\nworking under\tPottu\tAmman\tand  Akila.    During  their
\ndiscussions Nalini (A-1) was told by  Murugan  (A-3),  Subha
\nand  Dhanu  about  the\tatrocities  committed by IPKF on Sri
\nLankan Tamils.\tThey said Rajiv Gandhi was  responsible\t for
\nsending\t troops\t to  Sri  Lanka who killed Tamils, raped and
\nhumiliated their women.\t Nalini (A-1) was  also\t told  about
\nthe  suicide  committed\t by  12\t Tamil\tactivists,  who were
\ndetained by Sri Lankan Navy.  All this led Nalini  (A-1)  to
\nhave strong  feeling  of  disgust against Rajiv Gandhi.\t She
\nalso read the book “Satanic  Force”  and  developed  extreme
\nhatred for  Rajiv Gandhi.  Since Subha and Dhanu had come to
\nIndia for the first time and were finding  it  difficult  to
\ncommunicate  and thus required a natural cover to facilitate
\ntheir movements.  Nalini (A-1) by  this\t time  was  mentally
\nprepared  by  Sivarasan,  Murugan (A-3), Subha and Dhanu for
\nany kind of retaliatory action including killing of leaders.
\nOn 2.5.1991 when Sivarasan brought Subha and  Dhanu  to\t the
\nhouse  of Nalini (A-1) and she was told that they were going
\nto garland Indian leaders while\t addressing  public  meeting
\nNalini\t(A-1)  felt  instinctively  that  they were going to
\nassassinate some leader.  They had, however,  not  discussed
\nabout it.    Sivarasan\twas  of\t the  view  that in order to
\nacquaint with the method by which  they\t could\tby-pass\t the
\npolice\t security  and\treach  the  leaders  addressing\t the
\nmeetings they should attend those meetings.  He said it\t was
\nvery  important\t that  Subha and Dhanu reached very close to
\nVIP for garlanding him\tat  the\t meeting.    Sivarasan\ttold
\nNalini\t(A-1) that her role was a very important one because
\nbeing an Indian nobody would suspect Subha and Dhanu if\t she
\naccompanied them.    At\t the  instance\tof  Sivarasan Nalini
\n(A-1),\tSubha  and  Dhanu  attended  the  election   meeting
\naddressed by   V.P.\t Singh,\t the  then  Prime  Minister.
\nSivarasan briefed them in advance that how they\t should\t try
\nto go  to the dais.  Dhanu and Subha were to carry garlands.
\nHaribabu, who had also been briefed, was to  be\t present  at
\nthe  dais  to  take  photographs and was to be a part of the
\nrehearsal.  Murugan (A-3) gave Nalini  (A-1)  a\t camera\t and
\ntold her  that\tshe  should try to take photographs.  Before
\ngoing to the meeting they purchased two rose garlands from a
\nnearby shop.  Nalini (A-1), Subha and Dhanu were  unable  to
\ngo  to\tthe  dais  as  organizers  did not permit them to go
\nthere.\tThey were all standing near the\t stair-case  leading
\nto the\tdais  and  when\t V.P.  Singh reached there Subha and
\nDhanu managed to hand over garlands to him.    Nalini  (A-1)
\ntried  to take photographs but could not operate the camera.
\nHaribabu also for some reason could  not  take\tphotographs.
\nAfter  the  meeting when they all assembled failure of Dhanu
\nand Subha reaching the dais was considered.    It  was\talso
\nthought\t that  some donations or bribes should be offered to
\nparty workers and the security people in order to go to\t the
\ndais.  Now by this time Nalini (A-1) was convinced that they
\nhad definite mission to perform.  The meeting of V.P.  Singh
\nwas also attended by Arivu (A-18) but separately.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn 9.5.1991 Murugan (A-3) told Nalini (A-1) that  he
\nwas  to go Sri Lanka on instructions received from Sri Lanka
\nas conveyed to him by Sivarasan.  He left for Sri  Lanka  on
\n11.5.1991.   Sivarasan gave him two letters written by Dhanu
\nand Subha to Pottu Amman and  Akila.\tBhagyanathan  (A-20)
\nalso   wrote  a\t letter\t (Exh.P-453)  on  9.5.1991  to\tBaby
\nSubramaniam and gave that to Murugan (A-3) to  be  delivered
\nto Baby\t Subramaniam  at Sri Lanka.  These two letters dated
\n9.5.1991 are Exh.   P-95  and  P-96  and  were\tsubsequently
\nseized during  the  course  of\tinvestigation.\tThese are in
\nTamil.\tThough these are written by Subha but  are  sent  on
\nbehalf of  both\t Subha\tand  Dhanu.   English translation of
\nthese two letters  is  as  under  :\n<\/p>\n
 Ex.P.\t95<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t      “Tamil Elam
\n\t\t\t\t       09.05.91.\n<\/p>\n
Dear Akila sister,<\/p>\n
\tWe  are\t well  and  we\tshall be confident until the
\nfulfillment of the job we came here.  Here it  is  very\t hot
\nand hence we cannot proceed to any place in the noon.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe  are\t confident  that  the work for which we came
\nwould be finished in a\tproper\tmanner.\t   Because  we\twere
\nexpecting  another  opportunity\t appropriately\tit  would be
\nexecuted within this month.\n<\/p>\n
\tOtherwise,  the\t state\tof this country is very bad.
\nWe have to practise only to speak.  Otherwise  there  is  no
\nproblem for us.\t   It  is necessary to enact a drama.  Akila
\nsister’s, every word shall remain in our mind until last.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe remaining, if we meet?  Are everybody  is  well?\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t     Yours<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t       Sd\/- Subha-Dhanu”\n<\/p>\n
 Ex.  P.96<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t     “Tamil Elam
\n\t\t\t\t\t       09.05.91
\nTo<\/p>\n
     Pottanna,<\/p>\n
\tWe are confident and well.  I am confident  that  we
\nwill be successful in the attempt of job for which we came.\n<\/p>\n
\tBecause, we expected a similar opportunity (we\twent
\nvery near to Singh).\n<\/p>\n
\tWe will be confident until last.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t  Yours
\n\t\t\t\t    Sd\/Subha-Dhanu”\n<\/p>\n
\tOn 7.5.1991 Sivarasan sent a coded wireless  message
\nfrom Madras to Pottu Amman in Sri Lanka (Exh.  P-392) which,
\nwhen decoded, reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
\t“She  is  the  eldest  daughter in the house of Indu
\n\tMaster.\t Moving closely.  Our intention is not known
\n\tto anybody except we three.  I have told her that it
\n\tis to have the support of  the\tparty  who  will  be
\n\tcoming to power.   Here\t V.P.\tSingh is coming.  We
\n\tare receiving.\tLike that we are receiving  all\t the
\n\tleaders.\n<\/p>\n
\tI am  slowly  approaching.   If I tell our intention
\n\tthere is no doubt that she will stand firmly on\t our
\n\tside.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe   are   moving   with   her\tclosely,  have\tfull
\n\tsatisfaction.  Girls are telling that the  intention
\n\tcan be\trevealed  to  her she can be believed.\n<\/p>\n
\tIf I  return  I\t will  return  as  your man.  We are
\n\tstrong in powder business.”\n<\/p>\n
\tHere reference to ‘eldest  daughter’  is  to  Nalini
\n(A-1) and  Indu Master is Murugan (A-3).  On 11.5.1991 Subha
\nand Dhanu came to  Nalini  (A-1)  and  all  three  went\t for
\nshopping.   They  purchased  a\tset  of ‘churidar’ in orange
\ncolour with designs, green colour  ‘kameez’  (shirt)  and  a
\ngreen ‘duppatta’   from\t a  shop  in  Purasawakkam.    These
\npurchases were\tmade  for  Dhanu.    Her  measurements\twere
\nrequired  but  she said she need not give any measurement as
\nshe wanted a very loose\t kurta.\t   It  was  Subha  who\tgave
\nmeasurements on\t her  benalf.\t From another shop a pair of
\nsleepers (‘chappals’) was also\tpurchased  for\tDhanu.\t  S.
\nChinnamani (PW-203) is salesman working in shop called Metro
\nSquare in Pondy Bazaar, Madras, who testified of having sold
\nchappals to Dhanu and identified the same as worn in the leg
\nin photograph (MO-527).\t He said at that time there were two
\nmore ladies with   her.\t   M.\t Gunankhalal  Soni  (PW-179)
\ntestified having sold the ‘churidar’ to Dhanu from his shop.
\nHe has identified the dress sold by him and worn by Dhanu in
\nthe photograph (MO-31).\t   M.\t Gunankhalal  Soni  (PW-179)
\nidentified Subha and Nalini (A-1) in photograph (MO-105) and
\nalso  Nalini  (A-1) in the court as one of the two women who
\ncame along with Dhanu.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the morning of 19.5.1991 Nalini (A-1), Subha\t and
\nDhanu went to Mahabalipuram and returned in the evening when
\nthey  found that Sivarasan was waiting for them in the house
\nof Nalini (A-1).  He showed them the clipping of an  evening
\nTamil  newspaper in which the visit of Rajiv Gandhi to Tamil
\nNadu in connection with the election campaign was published.
\nNalini (A-1) found Sivarasan tense and\texcited.    He\tsaid
\nthat  “they had come only for that and that we should attend
\nhis meeting on 21st  or\t 22nd,\twhether\t at  Pondicherry  or
\nSriperumbudur”.\t  He  asked  Nalini  (A-1)  to apply for two
\ndays’ leave.  Sivarasan’s presence at the  house  of  Nalini
\n(A-1)  at that odd hour, his excitement and his command gave
\nNalini (A-1) a feeling of terror.  She, however, managed  to
\ntell  him  that it would be difficult to apply for two days’
\nleave and go to Pondicherry and that she would\tbe  able  to
\nvisit the  nearest  point.    Sivarasan\t said  that he would
\ndecide about the venue the next day.  Nalini (A-1) now had a
\nstrong feeling that Rajiv Gandhi  was  their  final  target.
\nSivarasan  again  came\tto  the house of Nalini (A-1) on the
\nmorning of 20.5.1991 and said that he would inform her about
\nthe venue in the evening.  He told her to go  to  Royapettah
\nhouse in  the evening at about 6.30 p.m.  He asked her where
\nSriperumbudur was and when she told him that she would\tmake
\ninquiries  and\tlet  him  know\the  said  sternly that on no
\naccount she should discuss that matter with any one and that
\nhe would himself find out about\t Sriperumbudur.\t   Sivarasan
\ntold Nalini (A-1) to apply for leave on some pretext but not
\nfor Sriperumbudur  meeting.    Then he left along with Dhanu
\nand Subha.  Nalini (A-1) went to  Royapettah  house  in\t the
\nevening.   Sivarasan also came there and told her that venue
\nwas Sriperumbudur and that she need  take  only\t half  day’s
\nleave  on  21.5.1991  and  should  be available at her house
\npositively at 3.00 p.m.\t sharp.\t He said he would come along
\nwith Dhanu and Subha and pick her up.  At that time Haribabu
\nhad also come to Royapettah house since message was left  at
\nhis house  by  Murugan (A-3) to go there.  Murugan (A-3) was
\nalso present as he had returned to Madras  and\ttold  Nalini
\n(A-1) that  he\tcould  not  go\tto Sri Lanka.  After getting
\ninstructions to return to Sri  Lanka  on  11.5.1991  Murugan
\n(A-3)  after purchasing certain articles and getting letters
\nfrom Subha  and\t Dhanu\t(Exh.\t P-95  and  P-96)  and\tfrom
\nBhagyanathan (A-20) (Exh.    P-453) went to Kodiakkarai.  He
\nalso  carried  a  dress\t given\tby  Arivu  (A-18)  for\tBaby
\nSubramaniam  and  negatives  of photographs of Chennai Fort,
\nD.G.P.\tOffice.\t At Kodiakkarai he had met Shankar (A-4) and
\nwhile returning he gave him piece of  paper  containing\t his
\nname  and that of Nalini (A-1) and also her telephone number
\n419493.\t He waited there till 17.5.1991 and as no boat\tcame
\nfrom  Sri  Lanka  he  returned\tto  Madras after leaving his
\narticles in boxes at Kodiakkarai.  These boxes contained the
\ntwo letters by Subha and  Dhanu\t and  that  one\t written  by
\nBhagyanathan (A20)  to\tBaby  Subramaniam.    Murugan  (A-3)
\nreached Madras on 18.5.1991.\n<\/p>\n
\tWhen the  meeting  disbursed  Haribabu\ttold  Nalini
\n(A-1)  that  he\t was  also coming to Sriperumbudur next day,
\ni.e, 21.5.1991.\t   After   Murugan   (A-3)   returned\tfrom
\nKodiakkarai on 18.5.1991 he was staying with Nalini (A-1).\n<\/p>\n
\tOn  the morning of 21.5.1991 while Nalini (A-1) went
\nto her office Murugan (A3) went to Royapettah house.  In the
\nmeeting Arivu  (A-18)  and  Bhagyanathan  (A-20)  were\talso
\npresent.  Arivu (A-18) gave a Kodak colour film to Haribabu.\n<\/p>\n
\tNalini (A-1) told her  boss  that  she\twanted\thalf
\nday’s leave.   She was told that she need not take leave and
\ncould go after finishing her work.  She, however,  told\t her
\ncolleague N.\tSujaya Narayan (PW-96) that she was going to
\nKanchipuram for buying sarees.\t Sriperumbudur\tis  mid\t way
\nbetween Madras and Kanchipuram.\t After Nalini (A-1) left her
\noffice at  about  2.00\tp.m.   she went to Royapettah house.
\nShe found only Murugan (A3)  was  present  there.    Murugan
\n(A-3)  told  her  to  hurry  and  go  to her house otherwise
\nSivarasan would get annoyed.  Nalini (A-1) reached her house
\nat 3.00 p.m.  At 3.45 p.m.  Sivarasan came there along\twith
\nSubha and  Dhanu.   He was wearing a white loose ‘kurta’ and
\nnarrow ‘pyjama’ and was carrying a note pad and a camera  in
\nhis hand.   Subha was wearing a green colour saree which had
\nbeen purchased earlier.\t Dhanu\twas  wearing  loose  fitting
\ngreen  colour ‘kameez’, orange colour ‘churidar’ and a green
\ncolour dupatta which had been  purchased  earlier  from\t the
\nmarket.\t  Subha\t told  Nalini  (A-1) that Dhanu was going to
\ncreate history that day by assassinating  Rajiv\t Gandhi\t and
\nthey  would  he very happy if Nalini (A-1) also participated
\nin that.  Nalini (A-1) agreed.\tShe could see that Dhanu was
\nconcealing an apparatus under her dress.  Nalini (A-1)\twore
\na saree.   At  about  4.00  p.m.    they all left in an auto
\nrikshaw.  Dhanu said that she would go\tto  temple  for\t her
\nfinal prayers.\t  They went to Pillayar Temple near Nadamuni
\nTheatre and Dhanu offered prayers.  Before leaving the house
\nNalini (A-1) left her keys with Rani (PW-90), her neighbour,
\nwhom she told that she was going to Vellore.  They  went  to
\nParrys\tCorner\tand  reached  Thiruvalluvar bus stand around
\n5.00 p.m.  Haribabu was already there.\tHe had\tpurchased  a
\nsandalwood garland which was wrapped in a brown cover.\tThis
\ngarland\t was  purchased\t in  the  morning  by  Haribabu from
\nPoompuhar Handicrafts, Madras.\tIt was sold to him  by\tA.K.
\nAnbalagan (PW-94).   He\t was also having a camera.  This was
\nthe camera (MO-1) which was found at the scene of the  crime
\nand had\t been  borrowed\t from  K.    Ravi  Shankar (PW-151).
\nThereafter they boarded a bus for Sriperumbudur.    For\t all
\nfive, tickets  were  purchased\tby  Sivarasan.\tThey reached
\nSriperumbudur at about 7.30 p.m.   They\t purchased  flowers.
\nDhanu\tpurchased   Kanakambaram,   Subha  and\tNalini\t(A1)
\npurchased Jasmine.    They  ate\t their\tdinner\tand  started
\ntowards\t the meeting point where Rajiv Gandhi was to address
\na meeting.  On the  way\t they  stopped\tnear  Indira  Gandhi
\nstatue and  discussed their roles.  Nalini (A-1) was to help
\nSubha after the assassination to take refuge  in  some\tcity
\ntill Sivarasan\tgave  further instructions.  Haribabu was to
\ntake photographs of the assassination scene.   Nalini  (A-1)
\nwas also to provide cover to both Subha and Dhanu during the
\nevent.\t After the event Nalini (A-1) and Subha were to wait
\nfor ten minutes near Indira Gandhi statue for Sivarasan.  If
\nhe did not come they would push off  as\t instructed  before.
\nSubha,\tDhanu  and Nalini (A-1) went to the ladies enclosure
\nin the meeting and sat there.  Haribabu and  Sivarasan\twent
\nseparately towards  the\t stage.\t   Music  programme  of C.S.
\nGanesh (PW-18) was going on at that time.   After  surveying
\nthe scene  Sivarasan  came and called Dhanu.  Subha, who was
\nhaving the garland parcel, given to her by Haribabu,  handed
\nover the  same to Dhanu.  She opened the parcel and took out
\nthe garland.  Dhanu and Sivarasan then went  back  near\t the
\ndais.  Nalini (A-1) could see them with Haribabu.  Sivarasan
\nwas also trying to put Dhanu in the crowd of people who were
\nwaiting to  greet  Rajiv  Gandhi.    There were a mother and
\ndaughter sitting in the women enclosure behind\twhere  Subha
\nand Nalini  (A-1) were sitting.\t The mother was telling that
\nher daughter had written a poem which she  would  recite  to
\nRajiv Gandhi.  After some time both daughter and mother were
\nseen  standing\tnear  Dhanu, who was talking to the daughter
\nand appeared to befriend her.  About 9.30 p.m.\t  there\t was
\nannouncement  that  all\t persons who were waiting to garland
\nand greet Rajiv Gandhi might make a queue near\tthe  carpet.
\nDhanu was  standing  between the mother and daughter.  After
\nsome time  announcement\t was  made  that  Rajiv\t Gandhi\t was
\ncoming.\t Thereafter  Rajiv Gandhi arrived.  Subha and Nalini
\n(A-1) got up from  the\tladies\tenclosure  and\tmoved  away.
\nSubha  was holding the hand of Nalini (A-1) and was nervous.
\nThere was a loud explosion.  Dhanu exploded herself.  Nalini
\n(A-1) and Subha ran across to the Indira  Gandhi  statue  as
\ninstructed earlier  by\tSivarasan  and waited for him.\tSoon
\nthereafter Sivarasan came running there.  He told that\tboth
\nRajiv  Gandhi and Dhanu had died and said that unfortunately
\nHaribabu also died.  Sivarasan took out a pistol wrapped  in
\na  white  cloth\t and  gave it to Nalini (A-1) to be given to
\nSubha.\tNalini (A-1) handed over that pistol to Subha.\tThey
\ncame to the bus stand and saw there was a bus but they\twere
\ntold that  that\t bus would not be leaving.  They ran further
\ndown the road and saw a lady Samundeeswari (PW-215) who\t was
\nstanding outside a house.  They requested her and were given
\nwater to  drink.  They were able to reach Madras by changing
\ntwo auto rikshaws.  Last  auto\trikshaw\t was  driven  by  K.
\nVardarajan (PW-183).   They reached Kodungaiyur at 1.30 a.m.
\nin the night of 21\/22.5.1991.  Jayakumar (A-10) and his wife
\nShanthi (A-11) were in the house.  Nalini (A-1) met them for
\nthe first time.\t They spent night there.  Nalini  (A-1)\t and
\nSubha  were  quite upset that Haribabu had unexpectedly also
\ndied in the blast.  Subha told Nalini (A-1) that it was\t she
\nwho  had  personally  prepared\tDhanu to put the belt on her
\nwaist containing the bomb.  The bomb had  two  switches\t and
\nfor  it\t to  explode  Dhanu  had  pressed  one\tswitch after
\nanother.  The bomb contained a small  battery  for  electric
\ncircuit.   On the morning of 22.5.1991 Santhan (A-2) brought
\nsome newspapers.  At about 7.30 a.m.  they all went  to\t the
\nhouse of D.J.  Swaminathan (PW-85), a neighbour, to watch TV
\nnews.\tThe  whole  day they spent in the house of Jayakumar
\n(A-10).\n<\/p>\n
\tOn the morning of 23.5.1991 Sivarasan left the house
\nand came  back\tat  about 8.30 a.m.  on a red Kawasaki Bajaj
\nmotor cycle.  He dropped Nalini (A-1) to her office  on\t the
\nmotor cycle.\tSince the office on that day was not working
\nNalini (A-1) went to Royapettah house to her  mother.\t She
\nlearnt that in the morning Sivarasan had come there and gave
\ndetails\t of  the  incident to Murugan (A-3) and Bhagyanathan
\n(A-20).\t In the evening Nalini (A-1) accompanied by  Murugan
\n(A-3) went  to her house at Villivakkam.  She got the key of
\nthe house from Rani (PW-90).\n<\/p>\n
\tOn the morning of 25.5.1991  Sivarasan\ttold  Nalini
\n(A-1)  that  they  all\tshould\tgo  out\t of Madras and go to
\nTirupathi.  Nalini (A-1) and Murugan (A-3) after locking the
\nhouse and handing over the  key\t to  Rani  (PW-90)  went  to
\nRoyapettah house.  In the afternoon Sivarasan, Nalini (A-1),
\nMurugan (A-3), Padma (A-21) and Subha went in a tourist taxi
\nto Tirupathi.\tThey returned on the next day.\tIn Tirupathi
\nNalini (A-1) did Angapradakshnam.  Rooms in  Tirupathi\twere
\ntaken in the name of taxi driver V.  Ramasmy (PW-107).\tTaxi
\nwas  arranged  by Bhagyanathan (A-20) from Sriram Travels of
\nR.  Shankar (PW-117) and S.  Vaidyanathan (PW-104).  It\t was
\non  the suggestion of Sivarasan that nobody would suspect if
\nPadma (A-21) also accompanied them  to\tTirupathi.    Before
\nleaving\t for  Tirupathi\t Nalini\t (A-1) went to her neighbour
\nGajalakshmi (PW-189) and told her that she had arranged\t for
\nAbhishekam at Pillaiyar Temple for 26.5.1991 and that as she
\nwould not be available Gajalakshmi (PW-189) might attend the
\nAbhishekam.   While  going  to Tirupathi Sivarasan and Subha
\nwere picked up from Parrys Corner and on  return  they\twere
\ndropped there.\t  Padma (A-21) went to her Royapettah house.
\nMurugan (A-3) and Nalini (A-1)\twent  to  Villivakkam  house
\nwhere  they  packed  up their belongings and came to stay at
\nRoyapettah house.  Murugan (A-3) arranged a house for him at
\nMadipakkam on 28.5.1991 where  Nalini  (A-1)  and  he  could
\nhide.\t However,   he\tstarted\t staying  in  the  press  of
\nBhagyanathan (A-20).  Nalini (A-1) continued to\t attend\t her
\noffice till  7.6.1991.\tOn 7.6.1991 she gave a plastic cover
\ncontaining Rs.25,000\/- to her colleague N.   Sujaya  Narayan
\n(PW-96)\t and  requested\t her  to  keep the same in her table
\ndrawer.\t Three days earlier Murugan (A-3) had  come  to\t the
\noffice of Nalini (A-1) and took her to a lady doctor to know
\nif Nalini  (A-1)  was  pregnant.    That  day they stayed in
\nMadipakkam house.  On 6.6.1991 Nalini (A-1) asked her sister
\nKalyani to go to  Villivakkam  house  and  settle  the\trent
\narrears with the landlord there.  On 7.6.1991 as per earlier
\nprogramme  Nalini (A-1) and Murugan (A-3) went to Ashtalaxmi
\ntemple at Besant Nagar where Subha and Sivarasan also  came.
\nSivarasan  said\t that  CBI was making detailed inquiries and
\ninvited Nalini (A-1) to go to Sri Lanka with  him.    Nalini
\n(A-1) declined.\t  He then told her to take Subha to a doctor
\nas she was very weak.  Nalini  (A-1)  took  Subha  to  Asian
\nHospital at Besant Nagar and doctor advised her to take rest
\nand prescribed\tsome  medicines.    Sivarasan and Subha then
\nleft by an auto.    Nalini  (A-1)  and\tMurugan\t (A-3)\talso
\nreturned.   Nalini  (A-1)  went\t to see the lady doctor, who
\nconfirmed that she was pregnant.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn the morning of 8.6.1991 Nalini (A-1) suggested to
\nher mother  that  they\tall should commit suicide.  This was
\nbecause of the fear that CBI was looking for them.    Nalini
\n(A-1)  brought\tsome poison from a nearby shop but then they
\ndecided not to\tcommit\tsuicide.    She\t and  Murugan  (A-3)
\ndecided to  go\tout  of\t Madras.  On the morning of 9.6.1991
\nNalini (A-1) went to her office.  It was Sunday.   She\ttook
\nout the\t amount\t of  Rs.25,000\/-  kept by N.  Sujaya Narayan
\n(PW-96) in her table drawer.   Nalini  (A-1)  then  wrote  a
\nresignation letter (Exh.  P-471) on a slip of paper and kept
\nit on the  table  of N.\t Sujaya Narayan (PW-96).  She handed
\nover the key of her office to maid servant  of\tN.    Sujaya
\nNarayan (PW-96).    She\t did  not  attend  the\toffice\tfrom
\n10.6.1991.  Murugan (A-3) and she left for Tirupathi by\t bus
\nand stayed  there  in  a  lodge.   The lodge was taken in an
\nassumed name  “Lalitha\twith  one  other”.    Murugan  (A-3)
\ntonsured his  head.    On  11.6.1991 they left Tirupathi and
\nwent to Madurai\t and  stayed  in  the  house  of  R.\tRavi
\nSrinivasan (PW-115).   Nalini  (A-1)  had  known to R.\tRavi
\nSrinivasan (PW-115) as she had worked with him as his steno.
\nBefore coming to the house of R.  Ravi\tSrinivasan  (PW-115)
\nNalini\t(A-1)  had called him up from Tirupathi on phone and
\nasked him whether she could stay with  her  husband  in\t his
\nhouse for few  days.   Nalini (A-1) told R.  Ravi Srinivasan
\n(PW-115) that she had married one  Sri\tLankan\tcitizen\t and
\nintroduced Murugan (A-3) as her brother-in-law by name Raju.
\nWhile  they  were all sitting for breakfast a telephone call
\ncame for Muthupandian, who was sub-inspector of police.\t  R.
\nRavi  Srinivasan  (PW-115)  sent  his  maid  servant to call
\nMuthupandian.  He was, however, not in his  house.    Nalini
\n(A-1) was quite perplexed when she asked R.  Ravi Srinivasan
\n(PW-115) how   he  knew\t the  police.\t He  told  her\tthat
\nMuthupandian  was  his\tneighbour  and\the  had\t given\t the
\ntelephone number of  R.\t  Ravi Srinivasan (PW-115).  He then
\nasked Nalini (A-1) as to why she was  afraid  of  police  to
\nwhich  she  replied  that since she had married a Sri Lankan
\nand her parents did not like that and that they had lodged a
\ncomplaint with the police.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn the morning of 12.6.1991 Nalini (A-1) woke up and
\ntold R.\t   Ravi\t Srinivasan (PW-115) that they were going to
\nMeenakshi Temple  and  will  come  back\t later.\t   When\t the
\nnewspapers came\t that day R.  Ravi Srinivasan (PW-115) found
\na notice published with\t the  caption  “Do  you\t know  these
\nwomen, who  are\t connected  with Rajiv’s assassination”.  In
\nthat notice there was description of Nalini (A-1) mentioned.
\nR.  Ravi Srinivasan (PW-115) gave information  on  telephone
\nto SIT\tat about 10.00 a.m.  Nalini (A-1) and Murugan (A-3),
\nhowever, did not return from the temple.  Murugan (A-3)\t had
\nleft his cap (MO-395) in the house which R.  Ravi Srinivasan
\n(PW-115) handed\t over  to  the\tpolice.\t From Madurai Nalini
\n(A-1) and Murugan (A-3)\t went  to  Villupuram  and  then  to
\nDevangere  near\t Bangalore  on 13.6.1991 and stayed there in
\nthe house  of  Sasikala\t (PW-132).    There   Nalini   (A-1)
\nintroduced  Murugan  (A-3) as her brother-in-law Thas (Doss)
\nto Sasikala (PW-132).  Sasikala (PW-132)  met  Nalini  (A-1)
\nearlier\t in  a\tcommon\tacquaintance house and had conversed
\nwith her.  Nalini (A-1) told Sasikala (PW-132) that she\t was
\ntwo months  pregnant.\tHusband of Sasikala (PW-132) came to
\nthe house in the evening.  He asked  Nalini  (A-1)  how\t and
\nwhen she got married.  Nalini (A-1) said it was a long story
\nand it\twould take time to narrate.  While she was narrating
\nher story Murugan (A-3) stopped her mid way  and  said\tthey
\nhad to\tgo  to\tMadras urgently.  During the course of their
\nstay Nalini (A-1) told Sasikala (PW-132)  that\ther  husband
\nwas  a\tSri Lankan citizen and that he had brought two girls
\nto see Madras.\tSasikala (PW-132) in her statement then says
\nas under :\n<\/p>\n
\t“Then Nalini told me that she showed them beach\t and
\n\tmarket.\t  Then\tNalini told me that those girls told
\n\ther that they have to  see  Rajiv  Gandhi’s  meeting
\n\twhich is to be held at Sriperumbudur on May 21, 1991
\n\tand  so\t that  she  took  them\tto  the Rajiv Gandhi
\n\tmeeting and one girl died in it.    Nalini  told  me
\n\tthat  since the police had suspected her husband, he
\n\tgave the sum of\t Rupees\t twenty\t five  thousand\t and
\n\tasked  her  to go with his brother and later he will
\n\tcome and bring her.  She told me  that\ther  husband
\n\ttold  her  that\t he will come and take her after the
\n\telection was over and there  will  be  tight  police
\n\tsecurity in the seashore.  Nalini told me that since
\n\tthe police suspect them, they came to this area.  On
\n\thearing this I was frightened.\tThen my husband came
\n\tto   our   house  I  told  him\tabout  this  matter,
\n\tseparately.  He also frightened.  Then Thas told  us
\n\tthat  we  should  not  tell  about this with anybody
\n\telse.”\n<\/p>\n
Both Nalini (A-1) and Murugan (A-3) left for the  bus  stand
\nand  were  dropped  there  by  husband of Sasikala (PW-132).
\nWhile at Sasikala’s (PW-132) place they bought\tnew  cloths.
\nNalini\t(A-1)  left behind in the house of Sasikala (PW-132)
\nher old dress which was seized by the CBI (Exh.\t P-634)\t and
\nlater  identified  in  court by Sasikala (PW-132) as that of
\nNalini (A-1).\tSasikala  (PW-132)  identified\tboth  Nalini
\n(A-1)  and  Murugan  (A-3)  as the persons who stayed in her
\nhouse.\tSasikala (PW-132) also said that Nalini\t (A-1)\ttold
\nher that her husband had brought two girls from Sri Lanka to
\nMadras for  sight  seeing.    After being dropped at the bus
\nstand Nalini (A-1) and\tMurugan\t (A-3)\tcame  to  Bangalore.
\nFrom  there  they  picked  up  a bus for Villupuram and from
\nVillupuram to Madras.  It was on  14.6.1991  when  they\t got
\ndown at Saidapet bus stand, Madras they were arrested.\n<\/p>\n
\tConfession  of\tBhagyanathan  (A-20)  bears out what
\nNalini (A-1) said in her confession.  Apart  from  the\tfact
\nthat  we  find\ttruthfulness  in the version given by Nalini
\n(A-1), it also stands corroborated by material\tparticulars.
\nWe  may\t briefly  note\twhat Bhagyanathan (A-20) said in his
\nconfession.  In 1988 he got acquainted\twith  Muthuraja,  an
\nIndian and   strong   LTTE  sympathizer.    It\twas  through
\nMuthuraja that Baby Subramaniam became known to Bhagyanathan
\n(A-20) when he was working at Suba Studio.  Various  persons
\nconnected with LTTE used to come to Suba Studio to meet Baby
\nSubramaniam.   In the course of time Bhagyanathan (A-20) was
\nalso attracted towards LTTE.  In  1989\tBhagyanathan  (A-20)
\nused to\t stay  in  the house of Muthuraja during nights.  He
\nthen came in contact with Arivu (A-18), a diploma holder  in
\nElectronics and\t Communications.    Arivu (A-18) was meeting
\nBaby Subramaniam  everyday.    He  was\tselling\t books\t and
\ncollecting  news  for the political propaganda wing of LTTE.
\nBaby Subramanian was senior member of LTTE and was  incharge
\nof political  wing of LTTE in Tamil Nadu.  At the suggestion
\nof Muthuraja, Bhagyanathan (A-20) purchased the press  being
\nrun by\tBaby  Subramaniam in 1990.  He bought it for a petty
\nsum of\tRs.5,000\/-  though  he\tpurportedly  bought  it\t for
\nRs.51,000\/-.   He was told not to pay the balance amount and
\ninstead he was required to print monthlies of Tamileelam and
\nUrumal which were being published  from\t the  press.\tBaby
\nSubramaniam  left  for\tSrilanka  in  the  end of May, 1990.
\nArivu (A-18) and Irumborai (A-19) also went along with\thim.
\nThey,  however,\t returned  after  about four or five months.
\nIrumborai (A-19) came to be  known  to\tBhagyanathan  (A-20)
\nthrough\t Baby  Subramaniam  as\the was also in the political
\nwing of LTTE.\n<\/p>\n
\tDuring\tlast  months  of  1990\tState Government had
\ntaken strong steps against LTTE because of  the\t killing  of
\nEPRLF leader  Padmanabha  and  his associates at Madras.  It
\nhad become difficult for LTTE to operate freely in India and
\nnow they were doing so\tclandestinely.\t  Arivu\t (A-18)\t and
\nIrumborai  (A-19)  when\t on their return came from Sri Lanka
\nbrought with them photographs and  literature  published  by
\nLTTE showing  weapons  seized by LTTE from IPKF.  These were
\ndistributed by\tArivu  (A-18)  to  Tamil  magazines  and  to
\nvarious supporters  of\tLTTE  movement.\t   LTTE was having a
\noffice of its political wing in Madras which was sealed\t and
\nsome persons  were  arrested by the police.  That was around
\nNovember, 1990.\t According to Bhagyanathan (A-20) it was  at
\nthe  instance  of Muthuraja that he allowed Murugan (A-3) to
\nreside with their family at Royapettah house though that was
\ninitially objected by Padma  (A-21).\tMurugan\t (A-3)\ttold
\nBhagyanathan  (A-20)  that  he\thad  come  to India to learn
\nEnglish.   Subsequently,  however,  he\ttold  him  that\t  he
\nbelonged  to  Intelligence  Wing of LTTE under the charge of
\nPottu Amman.  Bhagyanathan (A-20) was put in fear, the\ttime
\nhe purchased the press from Baby Subramaniam that he and his
\nfamily\tmight  have  to\t face  consequences  if\t he operated
\nagainst LTTE.\n<\/p>\n
\tWhen Murugan (A-3) needed a  person  to\t assist\t him
\nBhagyanathan (A-20)  introduced\t Haribabu  to him.  Haribabu
\nhad also worked with Suba Sundaram (A-22)  as  photographer.
\nHe  was\t also known to Muthuraja and was interested in LTTE.
\nHe would come to the meetings conducted in support of  LTTE,
\ntake  photographs  and give them to Suba Sundaram (A-22) and
\nMuthuraja.  He was being  paid\tanything  from\tRs.100\/-  to
\nRs.1000\/- a month.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn  April,  1991  there was change of Government and
\nLTTE men were searched and arrested  with  the\tresult\tthat
\nArivu  (A-18)  also  started  residing\tin Royapettah house.
\nMurugan (A-3) joined English speaking course in an institute
\nin Madras.  At the request of Muthuraja\t LTTE  publications,
\nphotographs and posters were shifted, which were kept in the
\nhouse of   M.\t  Sankari  (PW-210),  to  the  house  of  V.
\nRadhakrishnan (PW-231) (MO594 to 632).\tThe  material  which
\nwas  shifted  included\tthe  ‘Black  Book’  (B.B.)  in three
\nvolumes.  In the third volume (MO-609) there was  a  diagram
\nof electric  circuit.\t Prosecution has tried to infer that
\nthe electric circuit used in the  waist\t belt-bomb  to\tkill
\nRajiv Gandhi  was  identical  to the diagram in MO-609.\t The
\nmaterial was shifted by Arivu  (A-18),\tBhagyanathan  (A-20)
\nand Haribabu.\tP.    Vadivelu (PW-202) is a tempo driver in
\nwhose tempo the material was shifted from the  house  of  M.
\nSankari (PW-210) to the house of V.  Radhakrishnan (PW-231).
\nV.    Radhakrishnan  (PW-231)  is  working  in\tthe  Customs
\nDepartment of the State Government.  He\t was  familiar\twith
\nArivu (A-18)  and  Suba\t Sundaram  (A-22).  In January, 1991
\nArivu (A-18) had asked him  for\t a  house  for\tkeeping\t his
\nbooks.\tV.   Radhakrishnan (PW-231) told him that he was not
\nhaving any house at Madras  but\t had  one  in  his  village.
\nArivu (A-18) agreed for that house and in March, he sent his
\nbooks in  a  tempo  with  two  persons.\t When the books were
\nbeing kept there Arivu (A-18) had also come.   After  seeing
\nthat the  books\t related  to LTTE movement V.  Radhakrishnan
\n(PW-231) asked Arivu (A-18) to remove those books  on  which
\nArivu  (A-18) said that he would do so within a month or two
\nmonths time.  A sum of Rs.50\/- was paid by him to the mother
\nof V.\tRadhakrishnan  (PW-231)\t towards  rent.\t   All\tthis
\nmaterial was subsequently seized by the police.\n<\/p>\n
\tVarious\t persons  connected  with LTTE activities in
\nTamil Nadu came to be known  to\t Bhagyanathan  (A-20)  since
\nthey  used  to\tcome  either to meet Suba Sundaram (A-22) or
\nBaby Subramaniam  or  Murugan  (A-3).\t   In\this   letter
\n(Exh.P-453)  Bhagyanathan  (A-20)  to  Baby Subramaniam said
\nthat he was running the press properly though he had shifted
\nthe press to another place and that he\thad  informed  Arivu
\n(A-18) about  that  and he was keeping contact with him.  He
\nalso described the working of the press.    The\t letter\t was
\nrecovered during  course  of  investigation.\tBhagyanathan
\n(A-20) learnt about  the  attending  the  meeting  of  Rajiv
\nGandhi and  Jayalalitha\t and  of  V.P.\tSingh and also about
\nSubha and Dhanu from his sister Nalini (A-1).\tBhagyanathan
\n(A-20) in  his\tconfession  said  that\taround 7.00 p.m.  on
\n20.5.1991 Haribabu came to their house\twhen  K.    Bharathi
\n(PW-233),  his\tother  sister Kalyani, Nalini (A-1), Murugan
\n(A-3), Arivu (A-18) and he were there in the house.  He said
\nat the instance of Haribabu he did get from  Arivu  (A18)  a
\nKodak colour  roll  which  he  handed over to Haribabu.\t But
\nthere is no  charge  against  Bhagyanathan  (A-20)  that  he
\nhanded over  the  film roll to Haribabu.  Rather this charge
\nis against Arivu (A-18) of handing  over  the  Kodak  colour
\nfilm roll  to Haribabu.\t According to Bhagyanathan (A-20) on
\n23.5.1991 when Nalini (A-1) came  to  Royapettah  house\t she
\ntold  him  as  to  how\tSivarasan asked her to take leave on
\n21.5.1991; how they all went to Sriperumbudur  by  bus\twhen
\nduring travel from Madras to Sriperumbudur Nalini (A-1) came
\nto  know  that\tDhanu was about to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi;
\nhow after reaching the place of meeting Sivarasan took Dhanu
\nwith him and by paying\tRs.500\/-  to  woman  constable\tthey
\nmoved to the front row and Haribabu took photos; and finally
\nhow they escaped after the blast.  On 21.5.1991 Bhagyanathan
\n(A-20) and Arivu (A-18) had gone to see a movie at 9.30 p.m.
\nand  when  they returned they came to know that Rajiv Gandhi
\nhad been assassinated.\tAfter reaching\thome  they  informed
\nMurugan (A-3)  and others about this.  Murugan (A-3) did not
\nexpress any surprise or shock.\tNext morning video and audio
\ncassettes  belonging  to  Arivu\t (A-18)\t were  removed\tfrom
\nRoyapettah  house  and\ttaken  to  the house of Veeramani, a
\nfriend of Arivu (A-18).\n<\/p>\n
\tOn 23.5.1991 Sivarasan came to Royapettah house\t and
\ninformed the  death  of\t Haribabu.  Arivu (A-18) and Murugan
\n(A-3) were there at that time.\tBhagyanathan (A20) and Arivu
\n(A-18) went to Subha Studio to get the address of  Haribabu.
\nMurugan\t (A3) sent Rs.1000\/- to the family of Haribabu which
\nmoney was handed over by Bhagyanathan (A-20) there.  At this
\nstage Bhagyanathan (A-20)  also\t learnt\t that  Haribabu\t had
\ntaken a\t camera\t from  K.    Ravi  Shankar  (PW-151)  to get
\nphotograph  of\tgarlanding  Rajiv  Gandhi  as  was  told  by
\nHaribabu to K.\t  Ravi\tShankar (PW-151).  When Bhagyanathan
\n(A-20) told this fact to Suba Sundaram (A-22) he said not to
\nopen his mouth in this regard.\tBut  Ravi  Shanker  (PW-151)
\ndoes  not  say of any conversation he had with Haribabu when
\nhe took the camera (MO-1).  Bhagyanathan (A-20) said that he
\ncompelled his mother Padma (A-21) to go to  Tirupathy  along
\nwith Nalini (A-1), Murugan (A-3), Sivarasan and Subha in the
\ncar arranged   by   him.      He  burnt\t LTTE  stickers\t and
\nPrabhakaran’s stickers.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn  25.5.1991 Dhanu’s photo, which had been taken by
\nHaribabu, was  published  in  the  papers.    On   26.5.1991
\nSivarasan’s photo was published.  On 27.5.1991 Murugan (A-3)
\nasked  Bhagyanathan  (A-20)  to meet Sivarasan at Mount Road
\nPost Office.  They  both  went\tby  auto.    Sivarasan\tgave
\nBhagyanathan (A-20) the motor cycle key and a bag containing
\ndocuments  of the motor cycle and asked him to take away the
\nmotor cycle (MO-82) and conceal it, which  had\tbeen  parked
\nnearby.\t  He  warned  them that even though he was not there
\nthey may be watched by somebody.  He also said that he would
\narrange a cyanide capsule for Nalini (A-1).  Fearing  arrest
\nby  the\t police Bhagyanathan (A-20) allowed Murugan (A-3) to
\nstay in his press for four or five days.  Thereafter he\t was
\narrested by the police.\n<\/p>\n
\tMO-82  Kawasaki\t Bajaj\tMotorcycle used by Sivarasan
\nwas subsequently seized by the police  during  investigation
\nfrom the press of Bhagyanathan (A-20).\n<\/p>\n
\tWe may\tat  this  stage\t note a letter (Exh.  P-128)
\ndated 7.9.1991 written by Trichi Santhan (deceased  accused)
\nto  Irumborai  (A-19)  when  he was on his way to Sri Lanka.
\nThis letter was seized\tfrom  Irumborai\t (A-19).    In\tthis
\nTrichy Santhan gave instructions to Irumborai (A-19) what he
\nwas to\ttell  Prabhakaran  in  Sri Lanka.  Photocopy of this
\nletter is Exh.P-131.  But another letter  (Exh.P-129)  which
\nwas seized from Irumborai (A-19) was one addressed by Trichy
\nSanthan to   Prabhakaran.    He\t is  complaining  about\t the
\nmishandling of the whole affair by Sivarasan and about other
\nthings.\t Letter of Irumborai (A-19) gives  him\tinstructions
\nas  to\twhat  he  should tell prabhakaran and what he should
\nnot.  Some of these instructions  are  :-\n<\/p>\n
\t“Don’t speak as though you  knew  in  advance  about
\n\tRajiv’s incident.\n<\/p>\n
\tSpeak  about  the  persons  who\t are  monthly  paid,
\n\tbecause we are\tcaught\tonly  while  going  to\tmake
\n\tpayments to   them.\n<\/p>\n
\tSpeak  about the prevailing political situation\/also
\n\tabout the  leader.\n<\/p>\n
\tSpeak in details about the mistake committed in\t our
\n\tassociation  with  the supporters of Raghuvaran like
\n\tArivu\/person connected with the press of Baby  Anna\/
\n\tHaribabu\/Subha Sundaram.  Name of the movement would
\n\tnot have come to light, had it been done through our
\n\town people  as\tdone in Padmanabha’s case.  Movement
\n\tbehind Arivu, Subha Sundaram  and  presence  of\t our
\n\temblems in the press are these not evidence?”\n<\/p>\n
\tFrom these instructions prosecution wants  to  infer
\nthat  Irumborai\t (A-19) was member of the conspiracy to kill
\nRajiv Gandhi and so was Trichy Santhan (DA),  Arivu  (A-18),
\nHaribabu  Suba\tSundaram  (A-22)  and  perhaps\tBhagyanathan
\n(A-20), who was\t running  the  press  earlier  run  by\tBaby
\nSubramaniam.   We,  however, do not think that advantage can
\nbe drawn by the prosecution from  this\tletter.\t   It  is  a
\npost-conspiracy letter.\t  It does not show if Trichy Santhan
\nwas a conspirator.  There is no evidence of  Trichy  Santhan
\nbeing a\t member\t of the conspiracy to kill Rajiv Gandhi.  He
\nwas one of the persons who committed suicide  in  Bangalore.
\nThen  any knowledge of conspiracy is not enough to implicate
\na person as a member of the conspiracy.\n<\/p>\n
\tPadma (A-21) did not know if Murugan  (A-3)  was  an
\nLTTE  activist\twhen  he  came\tto  stay in her house at the
\ninstance of Muthuraja, who told her that his house was being
\nwatched by police.  Only later on  she\tcame  to  know\tthat
\nMurugan (A-3)\twas   an  LTTE\tactivist.    He\t helped\t her
\nfinancially as financial condition of Padma (A-21)  was\t not
\nsound.\t Padma\t(A-21)\thad  even  borrowed  money  from  M.
\nChandra (PW-214) (Rs.4000\/-), who was working as a  maid  in
\nthe  neighbourhood  of\tKalyani\t Nursing  Home,\t where Padma
\n(A-21) was working and where her employer had been admitted.
\nThis amount Padma (A-21) returned three months prior to\t the
\ndeath of Rajiv Gandhi.\tPadma (A-21) had also borrowed money
\nfrom R.\t  Janaki  (PW-226)  whom  she knew.  This amount she
\nreturned in the month of March, 1991.  From the notebook  of
\nMurugan\t (A-3)\t(MO-286), which was seized during the course
\nof investigation, the amounts paid by him  to  Padma  (A-21)
\nhave been  mentioned.  Padma (A-21) introduced Murugan (A-3)
\nto K.  Bharathi (PW-233) as the boy who\t had  been  sent  by
\nMuthuraja  and\thad  come from Tirunelveli to learn English.
\nWhenever Sivarasan came to the house  of  Padma\t (A-21)\t she
\nfound  that  Sivarasan,\t Murugan  (A-3),  Arivu\t (A-18)\t and
\nBhagyanathan (A-20) “used to discuss matters in\t low  tone”.
\nOn  20.5.1991 a day before the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi
\nDhanu had  sprain  in  her  leg.    Nalini  (A-1)  suggested
\nSivarasan  to  take  Subha and Dhanu to Kalyani Nursing Home
\nfor treatment of Dhanu where her  mother  Padma\t (A-21)\t was
\nworking.  K.\tRajalakshmi  (PW-76),  who  was working as a
\npharmacist in Kalyani Medical Centre, stated on the basis of
\nthe records maintained in the Centre  that  six\t tablets  of
\nBrufen were  given  to Padma (A-21) on 20.5.1991.  Sivarasan
\nasked Padma (A-21) to prescribe medicine for  Dhanu  as\t she
\nwas having  sprain  in\ther leg.  Dhanu, however, refused to
\nshow her leg.  She asked for pain-killer.  She was given six
\nbrufen tablets.\t Later in the evening at about 8.30 p.m.  on
\n20.5.1991 when\tPadma  (A-21)  came  back  home\t she  learnt
\nthrough Kalyani, K.  Bharathi (PW-233) and Arivu (A-18) that
\nNalini\t(A-1),\tMurugan (A3) and Haribabu had come and after
\nfinishing their dinner they had left.\tSivarasan  also\t met
\nNalini (A-1)  in  the house.  Next day Padma (A-21) returned
\nfrom her  duty\tat  4.00  p.m.\t  After\t Arivu\t(A-18)\t and
\nBhagyanathan  (A-20) came back from the late night show they
\ntold her that Rajiv Gandhi had been assassinated in  a\tbomb
\nblast.\t  On   23.5.1991  Nalini  (A-1)\t when  came  to\t the
\nRoyapettah house she informed Padma (A-21) that she had gone
\nalong  with  Sivarasan,\t Subha,\t Dhanu\t and   Haribabu\t  to
\nSriperumbudur  on  the night of 21.5.1991 for Rajiv Gandhi’s
\nassassination.\tThis made Padma (A-21)\tworried.    She\t was
\nmore concerned\tabout  Nalini (A-1) and Murugan (A-3).\tWhen
\non the morning of 24.5.1991 Dhanu’s photo was  published  in
\nthe  papers  Padma  (A-21) was frightened and was in fear of
\nher arrest.  On 26.5.1991 after return from Tirupathi Nalini
\n(A-1) vacated her Villivakkam  house  and  she\tand  Murugan
\n(A-3) came  to\tthe  house  of Padma (A-21).  From 27.5.1991
\nonwards Nalini (A-1) was going to her office  while  Murugan
\n(A-3) was  staying in the house.  On 27.5.1991 Murugan (A-3)
\ngave Padma (A-21) one Code Sheet belonging  to\tLTTE,  meant
\nfor  transmitting  secret messages through wireless, so that
\nit might not be seized by the police.  He asked her to\tkeep
\nthat safely  hidden.\tPadma (A-21) gave that Code Sheet to
\nher  co-nurse  Devasena\t Raj  (PW-73)  for   safe   custody.
\nDevasena  Raj  (PW-73)\tin her statement said that it was on
\nthe morning of 7.5.1991 when she was  going  for  duty\tthat
\nPadma  (A-21)  asked  her  to  keep  one  brown cover in her
\nlocker.\t Padma (A-21) said it was important.  MO-106 is\t the
\nbrown  cover  and  papers which were in the cover are MO-107
\nand MO-108.  These were taken into possession by the  police
\nduring investigation.\t Both  Padma (A-21) and Bhagyanathan
\n(A20) were arrested on\t12.6.1991.    There  is\t a  wireless
\nmessage\t dated\t12.6.1991  sent\t by  Sivarasan from Wireless
\nStation 910 to Station 91 of Pottu Amman  which\t reads\t“the
\nbrother\t  of   officer-girl,   her  mother  were  arrested”.
\nReference to office-girl is to Nalini (A1).\n<\/p>\n
Murugan (A-3) is a  Srilankan  national.    He\tjoined\tLTTE
\nmovement in 1988.    He\t is hardcore LTTE activist.  He took
\ntraining  in  shooting,\t  drill,   political   classes\t and
\nweaponary.  He\tused  to  train\t new entrants.\tHe spent two
\nmonths in Yalpanam (Jaffna) fort and was also  guarding\t the
\nprison there.  He subjected prisoners to torture in order to
\nelicit information.    Over  thirty  persons died due to the
\ntorture inflicted on them by various methods.  Murugan (A-3)
\nin his confession described the set up of LTTE.\t   He  said,
\namong  them,  Prabhakaran (absconding accused) was the world
\nleader,\t Mathiah   was\t political   leader,   Pottu   Amman
\n(absconding  accused)  was  leader  of\tspy wing and the man
\nincharge of military was Palraj.  Shanthi  was\tincharge  of
\nintelligence  wing  of women in LTTE and her next in command
\nwas Akila (absconding accused).\t Murugan  (A-3)\t told  Pottu
\nAmman that  he\tdid  not  like\tthe job he was doing.  Pottu
\nAmman asked him to go to India for an  important  job.\t  In
\nJanuary,  1991\tMurugan\t (A-3)\tjoined\tthe suicide squad of
\nLTTE.  He was given the job of procuring the sketch  of\t the
\ninterior of Chennai Fort, Police Headquarters at Chennai and
\nvarious other  police stations with their locations.  He was
\nalso asked to take  photographs\t and  videographs  of  those
\nplaces.\t  He  was  given two gold biscuits weighing one kilo
\neach and a sum of Rs.2000\/- in cash.  He was told that\twhen
\nhe  reached  Indian  soil  he  would be met by Sivarasan who
\nwould take him to Kanthan at Madras.  Kanthan would  arrange
\na  house for him and if any news were to be given by Murugan
\n(A-3), these were to be sent through wireless set of Kanthan
\nand if any further amount was required Kanthan was  to\tgive
\nthe same.   In the third week of January, 1991 Murugan (A-3)
\nreached Kodiakkarai on Indian soil.    Along  with  him\t one
\nMukunthan came,\t who  was  a  smuggler.\t   Sivarasan met him
\nthere.\tHe told him that though his name was  Raghuvaran  he
\nwas  having  the  name\tof  Sivarasan in India and should be
\ncalled by that name.  From there both Sivarasan and  Murugan
\n(A-3)  came  to Madras and went to the house of Robert Payas
\n(A-9).\tKanthan met Murugan (A-3) in  the  house  of  Robert
\nPayas (A-9).   He was having a red colour Yamaha motorcycle.
\nKanthan and Sivarasan were quite close to each other.\t One
\nNisanthan was assisting Kanthan.  After staying in the house
\nof  Robert  Payas  (A-9) for five days, in the first week of
\nFebruary, 1991 arrangements for his stay in Royapettah house
\nof Padma (A-21)\t were  made.\tThis  was  as  per  plan  of
\nMuthuraja as  stated  by  Murugan (A-3).  Here Murugan (A-3)
\ncame in contact with Nalini (A-1) and other members  of\t the
\nfamily.\t  Murugan  (A3)\t did go to an institute for learning
\nEnglish for two or three days  and  thereafter\the  stopped.
\nBecause\t of  his  influence  Nalini  (A-1)  became very much
\nattracted to LTTE movement.  In March, 1991 Sivarasan  asked
\nMurugan (A-3) to find out from Padma (A21) if she would come
\nwith him  to Delhi to arrange a house for their stay.  Padma
\n(A-21) did not agree.  When Sivarasan  asked  Murugan  (A-3)
\nabout  this he felt that there was some plan for serious act
\nlike murder.  However, he did not ask for any  details\tfrom
\nSivarasan.   On\t his  request Bhagyanathan (A-20) introduced
\nHaribabu as his confidential man to Murugan (A-3).   In\t the
\nthird week of February, 1991 Murugan (A-3) and Haribabu went
\nto  Vellore and saw the Fort where certain persons belonging
\nto LTTE were arrested and detained.   Haribabu\tof  his\t own
\nwent  to  Vellore  three  or  four  times  and collected the
\nstructure of the jail  interiors  and  maps  as\t desired  by
\nMurugan (A-3).\t  These\t were  sent  to\t Pottu Amman through
\nKanthan’s code message.\t Murugan (A-3) was snubbed  that  he
\nshould\tdo  that  work\tonly  which  was entrusted to him at
\nMadras and he was to do his duty without questioning.  Pottu
\nAmman told Murugan (A-3) that if he was\t asked\tto  watch  a
\nparticular shop he should not watch the next shop.  Haribabu
\nwas  doing  the\t job of taking photographs and videograph of
\nSt.  George  Fort,  Chennai,  Fort  buildings,\tDGP  Office,
\nPolice stations\t and  their  locations.\t Murugan (A-3) asked
\nBhagyanathan (A20) and Arivu (A-18) also to take photographs
\nof these places.  After collecting the same he sent them  to
\nSri Lanka.   In the last week of March, 1991 Sivarasan asked
\nMurugan (A3) that he had plan to garland  Rajiv\t Gandhi\t for
\nthe first time in a public meeting and asked him if he could
\narrange for  an Indian girl for that purpose.  When the name
\nof Rajiv Gandhi was mentioned Murugan (A-3) understood\tthat
\nthe next  target  was  Rajiv  Gandhi.\t As Rajiv Gandhi was
\nresponsible for the atrocities committed by IPKF, there were
\nstrong feelings among the women folk to wreak  vengeance  on
\nhim.   Murugan (A-3) understood that Sivarasan had come with
\na plan to murder Rajiv Gandhi  but  Sivarasan  neither\ttold
\nthat nor  confirmed  about  that  to Murugan (A-3).  Murugan
\n(A-3) said he would arrange for\t an  Indian  girl.    Nalini
\n(A-1) was  thus thought of.  Again in the first week of May,
\n1991 Sivarasan told Murugan (A-3) that he  had\tbrought\t two
\ngirls  Subha  and  Dhanu  from\tSri Lanka and he required an
\nIndian girl for him to finish the  job\tas  both  Subha\t and
\nDhanu  would  speak Tamil in Sri Lankan dialect and in order
\nto mix with the crowd without any suspicion he felt the need
\nof an Indian Tamil girl.  They then decided to make  use  of
\nNalini (A-1).\t Murugan  (A-3)\t knew Subha and Dhanu as the
\nwomen working with LTTE.    Murugan  (A-3)  attended  public
\nmeeting\t of  Rajiv Gandhi and Jayalalitha on 18.4.1991 along
\nwith Nalini (A-1) at Madras.  Haribabu had also come to that
\nmeeting\t and  took  photographs\t of  Jayalalitha  and  Rajiv
\nGandhi.\t  Murugan  (A-3),  Subha, Dhanu, Haribabu and Nalini
\n(A-1) went to the public meeting of V.P.  Singh on 7.5.1991.
\nThat was to rehearse if Dhanu and Subha could go to the dais
\nand garland V.P.  Singh.  Nalini (A-1) was assigned to\ttake
\nphotographs.  This  was\t a  “dry  run”.\t  A fabricated press
\naccredited card prepared by Haribabu was  given\t to  Murugan
\n(A-3) (Exh.   P-521).\t This  press  accredited  card\twith
\nMurugan’s (A-3) photo and name was  seized  from  the  house
\ntaken on rent by Murugan (A-3) at Madiapakkam.\tForged press
\naccreditation  photo  card  was\t also  given  by Haribabu to
\nSivarasan.  This was for them to gain access to VIP.\tWhen
\nMurugan\t (A-3)\tgot  instructions  to  go  to  Sri  Lanka he
\npurchased some articles and got collected other things.\t  He
\nreached\t Kodiakkarai  on  the  Indian  soil on 14.5.1991 and
\nstayed there upto 17.5.1991.  Since no boat came he returned
\nto Madras.  The boxes which  he\t was  carrying\the  left  at
\nKodiakkarai with  M.\tMariappan  (PW-86),  an\t employee of
\nShanmugham(DA).\t  Those\t were  subsequently  recovered\t and
\nseized\tand letters written by Subha, Dhanu and Bhagyanathan
\n(A-20) (Exh.  P-95, P-96 and P-453) were found.\t Two volumes
\nof “Satanic Force” (MO-125 and 126), video cassettes showing
\nvarious parts of Fort St.  George (MO-323),  photographs  of
\nDGP Office etc.\t   (Mos-256-259)  were\talso found.  Murugan
\n(A-3) reached Madras on 18.5.1991  and\tstayed\twith  Nalini
\n(A-1).\t While\tat  Kodiakkarai,  Murugan  (A-3) met Shankar
\n(A-4) and gave him a slip of paper  (Exh.P-1062)  containing
\nthe name:   “NaliniThass-419493”.    On\t 20.5.1991 Sivarasan
\ncame to Royapettah house to instruct them to  be  ready\t for
\nthe meeting  of Rajiv Gandhi on the next day.  Murugan (A-3)
\nwent to the house of Haribabu and  since  Haribabu  was\t not
\navailable  he  asked  his  sister  to tell Haribabu to go to
\nRoyapettah house.  On the night of 21.5.1991  Murugan  (A-3)
\nwas in Royapettah house.  When Arivu (A-18) and Bhagyanathan
\n(A-20) came  at 1.30 a.m.  after seeing late night show they
\ntold him about Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination by\thuman  bomb.
\nFrom  this  Murugan  (A-3)  understood\tthat  Sivarasan\t had
\nfinished his task.  Now he was anxcious about Nalini  (A-1).
\nWhile at Tirupathi on 25.5.1991 Sivarasan told Murugan (A-3)
\nabout the  belt\t bomb.\t He told him there were two switches
\nand  after  switching  the  first  switch  on,\tDhanu  asked
\nSivarasan to  go  away.\t  Murugan (A-3) when asked Sivarasan
\nthe reasons for killing of Rajiv Gandhi he replied that Kasi
\nAnandhan (PW-242) had met Rajiv Gandhi at Delhi and was told
\nthat the meeting was very cordial there and if Rajiv  Gandhi
\ncame to\t power\the  would  help\t LTTE movement.\t Prabhakaran
\nshowed\tthe  letter  written  by  Kasi\t Anandhan   (PW-242)
\nsuggesting  cordial  relations\tto Pottu Amman and said that
\npeople like Kasi Anandhan (PW-242) should  be  removed\tfrom
\nthe movement.\t When  Sivarasan met Prabhakaran he told him
\nthat “we must teach a lesson to\t Rajiv\tGandhi\tthrough\t the
\ngirls since  IPKF  dishonoured\twomen”.\t   From this Murugan
\n(A-3) understood that decision to assassinate  Rajiv  Gandhi
\nwas taken  by  Prabhakaran.   When on 7.6.1991 Murugan (A-3)
\nmet Sivarasan at Astalakshmi  Temple  it  was  decided\tthat
\nMurugan (A-3) would continue the task of Sivarasan and these
\ntasks  were to take care of old Vijayanandan (A-5) living in
\nthe house of Vanan; to send Arivu (A-18) to Delhi  and\talso
\nto contact  Santhan  (A-2).    Sivarasan also said that they
\nmust go back to Sri Lanka on or before June 10\/11, 1991\t and
\nthat  he  was  arranging  the  boat  for  the  purpose\tfrom
\nNagapattinam.\n<\/p>\n
\tSanthan (A-2) is a Sri Lankan  national.    He\tknew
\nSivarasan  as  they both belonged to same town in Sri Lanka.
\nAccording to Santhan (A-2) important decisions\tlike  murder
\nof any\tbody  could  be\t taken only by Prabhakaran.  Santhan
\n(A-2) knew that Sivarasan was a member of military  wing  of
\nLTTE movement.\t  He knew the set up of LTTE, its activities
\nand its skirmishes with IPKF.  In February,  1988  Sivarasan
\nasked Santhan (A2) if he wished to continue his education at
\nMadras, LTTE  would  make  arrangements\t for  that.  Santhan
\n(A-2) accepted the offer.  He and Sivarasan came to India on
\n15.2.1990.  They reached Kodiakkarai by boat  and  overnight
\nstayed in the house of Shanmugam(DA).  Next day they went to
\nMadras\tand  to the house of one Nagarajan, a smuggler and a
\nSri Lankan Tamil.  Sivarasan, Nagarajan and Shanmugavadivelu
\n(A-15) took Santhan (A-2) to Madras Institute of Engineering
\nTechnology where he got admission.  Nagarajan was introduced
\nas uncle of Santhan (A-2).  Fees and expenses were  paid  by
\nSivarasan.   Santhan  (A-2)  was  residing  in\tthe  hostel.
\nSanthan (A-2) in his confession\t has  described\t as  to\t how
\nPadmanabha,  leader of EPRLF and other leaders of EPRLF were
\nkilled by Sivarasan and other LTTE tigers  David,  Danial  @
\nDinesh Kumar and Ravi on 19.6.1990 and how they were able to
\neffect the  escape  back to Sri Lanka.\tSanthan (A-2) though
\nhimself did not take part in the killing was entrusted\twith
\nthe duty to watch the place where meeting of EPRLF was being
\nheld and  to  give  that  information to Sivarasan.  He also
\nescaped with Sivarasan and other Sri Lankans.\tPottu  Amman
\nwelcomed  them\tand praised them by patting their shoulders.
\nPrabhakaran also met them and shook hands  with\t David,\t who
\nwas incharge  of  Padmanabha’s\tmurder.\t   Because  of\tthis
\nincident Santhan  (A-2)\t discontinued  his  studies.\tP.S.
\nPadmanabhan  (PW-187)  was  a student of Madras Institute of
\nEngineering Technology.\t He identified Santhan (A-2) as Raja
\nwho was studying in that Institute.  He said  Santhan  (A-2)
\nstudied\t in  the  institute  only  for\ta couple of days and
\nthereafter he did not see him.\tIn the last week  of  April,
\n1990  Pottu  Amman  called him and asked him to get ready on<\/p>\n
((SCO LYRIX 6.1
\n))<\/p>\n
(A-10) and his wife Shanthi  (A-11).\tThat  night  Santhan
\n(A-2)\tstayed\t in  the  house\t of  Jayakumar\t(A-10)\twith
\nSivarasan.  Next day Santhan (A-2)  went  to  the  house  of
\nHaribabu.   When  Haribabu’s  mother asked Santhan (A-2) his
\nnative place he told  her  that\t he  was  from\tPariyakulam,
\nMadurai.   Santhan (A-2) stayed in the house of Haribabu for
\nabout a week.  On 12.6.1991 Santhan (A-2) met Sivarasan\t who
\ninquired from  him  about  his\tSwitzerland  visit.  Santhan
\n(A-2) said he had inquired about that from a travel agent P.
\nVeerappan (PW-102) who told him that his passport  would  be
\nready within  a week.  Sivarasan remarked that if he did not
\ngo to Switzerland LTTE would suffer a loss of Rs.1,00,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\tP.  Veerappan (PW-102) said that he  was  doing\t the
\njob  of\t getting  passports and renewal of old passports and
\nalso getting visas.  He\t knew  C.    Vamadevan\t(PW114)\t who
\nstarted the business of brokerage of letting houses on rent.
\nIn  that  connection Vamadevan (PW-114) came in contact with
\nShanmugavadivelu (A-15).      In   the\t end\tof    April,
\nShanmugavadivelu (A-15) met Vamadevan (PW-114) and asked him
\nif  he could suggest some agent to send his brother-inlaw to
\na foreign  country.    Vamadevan  (PW-114)  thought  of\t  P.
\nVeerappan  (PW-102) and took Shanmugavadivelu (A-15) to him.
\nWhen P.\t Veerappan (PW-102) asked Shanmugavadivelu (A-15) as
\nto which country his brother-in-law belonged to\t he  replied
\nthat he belonged  to  Madras  only.   P.  Veerappan (PW-102)
\ntold him that he had a friend  who  would  arrange  for\t his
\nbrother-in-law to  go  to  a  foreign  country.\t   He  asked
\nShanmugavadivelu (A-15) to bring necessary documents such as
\npassport, ration card, school certificate,  etc.    and\t his
\nbrother-in-law\t  should   also\t  come\t along\t with\thim.
\nShanmugavadivelu (A-15) was told that the expenses of  visa,
\nticket\tand  foreign  exchange\tfor  the  purpose  would  be
\nRs.80,000\/- and Rs.50,000\/- were required in  advance.\t  In
\nthe  first week of May, 1991 Shanmugavadivelu (A-15) brought
\nhis brother-in-law and\tintroduced  him\t to  P.\t   Veerappan
\n(PW-102).  He  asked  him  certain  questions.\tAfter two or
\nthree days C.  Vamadevan (PW114) and Shanmugavadivelu (A-15)
\ncame to P.  Veerappan (PW-102)\tand  gave  him\tRs.50,000\/-.
\nShanmugavadivelu  (A-15)  said\tthat other documents he will
\nbring within a few days.  Shanmugavadivelu (A-15) again\t met
\nP.   Veerappan\t(PW-102)  two\/three  times and told him that
\nnecessary documents were getting ready.\t In the second\tweek
\nof July, 1991 brother-in-law of Shanmugavadivelu (A-15) came
\nto P.  Veerappan (PW-102) and asked him if papers were ready
\nfor his foreign trip.  He told that documents have still not
\nbeen given to  him.    P.    Veerappan\t(PW-102)  identified
\nSanthan (A-2), who was introduced to him  as  brother-in-law
\nby Shanmugavadivelu (A-15).    P.    Veerappan (PW-102) was,
\nhowever, unable to identify if Shanmugavadivelu\t (A-15)\t was
\nthe person who brought Santhan (A-2) to him though Vamadevan
\n(PW-114)  identified both Santhan (A-2) and Shanmugavadivelu
\n(A-15) in court.\n<\/p>\n
\tSanthan\t  (A-2)\t told  Sivarasan  that\the  was\t not
\ncomfortable staying in the house  of  Haribabu.\t   Sivarasan
\nthen took him to the house of Jayakumar (A-10) on 13.5.1991.
\nOn  15.5.1991  Sivarasan  gave a letter to Santhan (A-2) and
\nasked him to give it to Kanthan, who was in  Robert  Payas’s
\n(A-9) house.\tSanthan (A-2) gave the letter to Kanthan who
\nin turn gave him Rs.5 lacs and asked him to give the sum  to
\nSivarasan.   Santhan  (A-2)  accordingly  paid the amount to
\nSivarasan who took Rs.2.00 lacs and asked him  to  keep\t the
\nbalance with  him.  On 17.5.1991 Sivarasan and Santhan (A-2)
\nwent to Eashwari Lodge and met\tShankar\t (A-4).\t   Sivarasan
\ntook Rs.10,000\/- from Santhan (A-2) and gave that to Shankar
\n(A4).\tOn  18.5.1991  Sivarasan  again got Rs.20,000\/- from
\nSanthan (A-2).\tHe asked Santhan (A-2) to go to the house of
\nRobert Payas (A-9) where he gave Rs.4,000\/- to Ruban  (A-6).
\nThen both Robert Payas (A-9) and Santhan (A-2) went to Pondy
\nBazaar\tand  purchased\tclothes and a watch for Ruban (A-6).
\nRuban (A-6) came to stay at Robert Payas’s (A-9) house\tonly
\na day  before.\t At the instance of Sivarasan, Santhan (A-2)
\nbrought Ruban (A-6) to Marina Beach on 19.5.1991.  Sivarasan
\nand Ruban (A-6) talked to each other and then all three went
\nto the house of Vijayendran (PW-111), a Sri Lankan national.
\nAfter that all four of them and one more boy went to Central
\nStation of Railway.  A send off was given  to  Ruban  (A-6),
\nVijayendran  (PW-111) and the boy on a train to Delhi on way
\nto Jaipur.\n<\/p>\n
\tSanthan (A-2) said that Ruban (A-6) had lost one  of
\nhis  legs  in  bomb  blast  and\t that  journey\twas  to take
\ntreatment for that.  More money\t was  given  by\t Kanthan  to
\nSanthan\t (A-2)\twho  in\t turn  gave  that back to Sivarasan.
\nSivarasan asked Santhan (A-2) to furnish him the account  of
\nmoney  he  received from Kanthan which account Sivarasan had
\nto give to a man going to Sri  Lanka.\t The  account  which
\nSanthan (A-2) wrote as told to him by Sivarasan was as under
\n:-\n<\/p>\n
“Income:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  Received from Kanthan
\n\t\t  Through Santhan\t    Rs.9,50,000<\/p>\n
\t\t  Received from Kanthan
\n\t\t  by Sivarasan\t\t    Rs.9,50,000<\/p>\n
Expenditure<\/p>\n
\t       To X Y\t\t\t  Rs. 3,00,000
\n\t       Delta (murugan)\t\t  Rs.\t25,000
\n\t\t\t\t\t  Rs.\t 5,000<\/p>\n
\t       A.T.\t\t\t  Rs. 1,00,000
\n\t\t\t\t\t  Rs. 3,50,000
\n\t\t\t\t\t  Rs. 1,00,000<\/p>\n
\t       To Y X through Delta\t  Rs. 5,00,000
\n\t       To self (Sivarasan)\t  Rs.\t15,000<\/p>\n
\tSivarasan  then asked Santhan (A-2) as to why he had
\nnot shown the amount  of  Rs.50,000\/-  which  was  given  to
\nSanthan (A-2).\t  He  asked  Santhan  (A-2) that out of that
\namount Rs.25,000\/- be paid to Murugan (A-3)  and  Rs.5,000\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
each to Jayakumar (A-10) and Keerthi.  These amounts Santhan
\n(A-2)  paid  as\t directed  after  the assassination of Rajiv
\nGandhi.\t On 20.5.1991 Santhan (A-2),  Jayakumar\t (A-10)\t and
\nSivarasan were in the house of Jayakumar (A10).\t Before that
\non   16.5.1991\t Sivarasan   had  told\tSanthan\t (A-2)\tthat
\nPrabhakaran had paid  special  attention  on  Santhan  (A-2)
\nafter  the  murder  of\tPadmanabha  and important works were
\nallotted  to  him  and\tall  this  was\ton  account  of\t the
\ncooperation  given  by\tSanthan\t (A-2)\tin  Padmanabha case.
\nSanthan (A-2) said that Sivarasan also told him that he\t was
\ngoing to  help\tSubha  and Dhanu to finish Rajiv Gandhi.  In
\nJayakumar’s  (A-10)  house   Santhan   (A-2)   stayed\tupto
\n28.5.1991.  D.J.  Swaminathan (PW-85) in his deposition said
\nthat  Santhan  (A-2) stayed in the house of Jayakumar (A-10)
\nfrom 16.5.1991 to 26.5.1991.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn 21.5.1991 Santhan (A-2) saw\tSivarasan  in  white
\nkurtapyjama.\tSivarasan   inserted   a   white  cloth\t bag
\ncontaining a pistol in his  hip\t pocket\t and  asked  Santhan
\n(A-2) whether  the gun was protruding outside the dress.  To
\nthis Santhan (A-2) replied in the negative.  The pistol\t was
\nCzechoslovakia make.\tCloth  bag  was\t stitched by Shanthi
\n(A-11) two days earlier.  A pistol  (MO-79)  was  seized  by
\nP.P.\tChandrasekara\tNair  (PW-271)\tfrom  the  house  at
\nKonanakunte (Bangalore) where Sivarasan,  Subha\t and  others
\ncommitted suicide.    Sivarasan\t then  went out and returned
\naround mid-night when Santhan (A-2) was sleeping.  Sivarasan
\nwoke him up and told him that Rajiv  Gandhi  and  Dhanu\t had
\ndied.  He also told that he had brought one sister who was a
\nhelper of LTTE.\t   His\treference was to Nalini (A-1).\tNext
\nmorning Sivarasan, Subha and Nalini (A-1) went to the  house
\nof a neighbour to watch TV.  On 28.5.1991 Santhan (A-2) went
\nto Tirupathi  in  the  assumed\tname  of  Kumaresan.  On his
\nreturn\tjourney\t from  Tirupathi  he  saw  the\tpicture\t  of
\nSivarasan in  Kurta  Pyjama  in a newspaper.  He went to the
\nhouse of  Robert  Payas\t (A-9)\tand  not  to  the  house  of
\nJayakumar (A-10).  On 30.5.1991 Robert Payas (A-9), his wife
\nPrema,\tsister\tLatha and Santhan (A-2) went to Thiruchendur
\nand planned to stay in a cottage there.\t Receptionist there,
\non hearing Santhan (A2), asked him his address.\t He gave the
\naddress as No.\t30, Vanniar Street,  Choolaimedu.    Santhan
\n(A-2) then left the place fearing that they would be trapped
\nif the receptionist asked the PIN code of Choolaimedu.\tFrom
\nThiruchendur  they  came  to Madurai and after staying there
\nfor a while left for Madras reaching  there  early  morning.
\nRobert\tPayas  (A-9)  and his family returned to Porur house
\nwhile Santhan (A-2) went to K.K.  Nagar.  In between he\t had
\nbeen  meeting  Sivarasan  and getting instructions from him.
\nHe said Sivarasan told him  that  thereafter  Murugan  (A-3)
\nwould look after his work and that of Kanthan, i.e., to send
\nKeerthi to Colombo, Athirai (A-8) to Delhi, to send money to
\nRuben  (A-6);  provision  of  a\t house\tfor Shankar (Shankar
\n(A-4)); and arranging money for such works.   Sivarasan\t was
\nfrantically trying  to escape to Sri Lanka.  Santhan went to
\nthe house of P.\t Thirumathi Vimala (PW-62) to  meet  Athirai
\n(A-8) who  was\tstaying\t there.\t   He  took Shanmugavadivelu
\n(A-15) along with him.\n<\/p>\n
\tP.  Thirumathi\tVimala\t(PW-62)\t said  that  Santhan
\n(A-2)  did come to her house and said that he was acquainted
\nwith Athirai (A8) that he knew her already and that  he\t had
\ncome to\t see  her.  She told him that she was having problem
\nand asked him to take away Athirai (A-8)  immediately.\t  He
\nsaid he\t would\tdo  that.  He wanted a letter for Dixon (DA)
\nwho was staying in Gowri Karunakaran’s house, a relative  of
\nP.  Thirumathi Vimala (PW-62).\tThat letter was delivered at
\nGowri Karunakaran’s  house.  Santhan (A-2) got a reply while
\nhe was still in the house of P.\t Thirumathi  Vimala  (PW62).
\nAt his request Santhan (A-2) was taken to the house of Gowri
\nKarunakaran.  When he met Dixon he knew that he was a member
\nof LTTE.    A few days later Santhan (A-2) again came to the
\nhouse of P.  Thirumathi Vimala (PW-62)\tand  told  her\tthat
\nShanmugavadivelu’s (A-15) house had been searched by the CBI
\nand  had  caught  him and that perhaps CBI would come to the
\nhouse of P.  Thirumathi Vimala (PW-62)\talso  since  Athirai
\n(A-8)  who  was\t staying  there was not holding passport and
\nthat it\t would\tbe  problem  for  her.\t  He  said  he\thad,
\ntherefore,  come  to  take  Athirai  (A-8)  as\tdirected  by
\nSivarasan.  Athirai  (A-8)  then  went\talong  with  Santhan
\n(A-2).\t Before\t leaving, Athirai (A-8) left Rs.8,000\/- with
\nP.  Thirumathi Vimala (PW-62).\t  Around  1.7.1991  when  P.
\nThirumathi  Vimala  (PW-62)  came  to  her  house  she found
\nSanthan (A-2) and Athirai (A-8) waiting for  her.    Athirai
\n(A-8) wanted her  money back.  P.  Thirumathi Vimala (PW-62)
\nsaid that she never expected them to come  back\t immediately
\nand  that  she\thad already spent Rs.1,500 out of that money
\nfor certain purchases and was left with\t Rs.6,500\/-.\tThey
\nsaid  it  was  alright\tand  asked her to give that money to
\nthem.  They then left.\tKangasabapathy (A-7) had  also\tcome
\nalong  with  Santhan  (A-2) and Athirai (A-8) but afterwards
\nhad left before P.  Thirumathi Vimala  (PW-62)\treturned  to
\nher house.\n<\/p>\n
\tSanthan\t (A-2)\tthen  received\ta message from Dixon
\nthat he wanted to meet him.  Dixon told Santhan\t (A-2)\tthat
\nall their wireless messages were spied by Tamil Nadu police.
\nSanthan\t (A-2)\ttook  Athirai  (A-8) to Pamal house where he
\nalso stayed.  On the night of 1.7.1991\tSanthan\t (A-2)\tmade
\nAthirai (A-8) to get in the train at Central Railway Station
\nto  Delhi  and\tthen  went  to Pamal house and stayed there.
\nThough Santhan (A-2) in his confession said that he saw\t off
\nAthirai\t (A-8)\tat  the Central Railway Station but evidence
\nshows that he saw off both Kanagasabapathy (A-7) and Athirai
\n(A-8) on 1.7.1991 to New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn letter  (Exh.P-129)\tdated  7.9.1991\t written  by
\ndeceased  accused Trichy Santhan to Prabhakaran he mentioned
\nthat arrest of Santhan (A-2) was a great danger to LTTE\t and
\nthat  members  of  the\tmovement had been captured alive and
\nthat members  had  made\t disclosure  right  from  Padmanabha
\nincident.\n<\/p>\n
\tConfession  statement  of  Shanmugavadivelu @ Thambi
\nAnna (A15) was recorded on 18.5.1992 while he  was  arrested
\non 16.5.1992.\t He  is\t a Sri Lankan national and gives his
\nfamily background.  He was owning a lorry along with another
\nin Sri\tLanka  and  doing  business  there.    However,\t his
\nbusiness  was hit because of war between LTTE and Sri Lankan
\narmy.  His house was damaged in 1987 by bomb lodged  by\t Sri
\nLankan army.   He then decided to stay in India.  Since 1985
\nwhile in Sri Lanka LTTE had started  collecting\t money\tfrom
\neach family  for  its  war  efforts.\tHe  left  Colombo on
\n19.6.1987 and came to Madras with his wife and two  children
\nand his\t sister’s  son.\t  Initially he stayed with his elder
\nsister’s son Dr.  Thiru Vadivel (Dentist).  Then he rented a
\nhouse where he started living with his family.\tIn 1988\t Dr.
\nThiru  Vadivel\twent back to Sri Lanka hoping that situation
\nwould normalize after the presence of  IPKF  in\t Sri  Lanka.
\nShanmugavadivelu (A-15) got the telephone No.  864249 of Dr.
\nThiru Vadivel installed in his house.  That telephone always
\nremained in    the    name    of   Dr.\t    Thiru   Vadivel.\n<\/p>\n
Shanmugavadivelu (A-15) started lorry service along with his
\nwife’s brother Arvinda Das.  One Karunakaran was working  as
\na lorry contractor in Madras harbour.  35% of the profit was
\ntaken  by  Karunakaran\tand  rest  65%\twas  shared  between
\nShanmugavadivelu (A-15)\t and  Arvinda  Das.    According  to
\nShanmugavadivelu  (A-15) Arvinda Das was disbursing money to
\nSri Lankan Tamils there from lorry service.    He  was\talso
\nreceiving  money from Sri Lanka at times for distribution as
\nper   instructions   received\ton   telephone\t  by\thim.
\nShanmugavadivelu (A-15)\t knew  P.  Thirumathi Vimala (PW-62)
\nfrom Sri Lanka.\t She had come to India three or\t four  years
\nearlier to  Shanmugavadivelu  (A-15).\t She  shifted to her
\nhouse at Royapettah in 1990.  P.  Thirumathi Vimala  (PW-62)
\nwas known  to wife of Shanmugavadivelu (A-15).\tThey were on
\nvisiting terms.\t One  child  was  born\tto  Shanmugavadivelu
\n(A-15) while  in  India.    One\t day two persons by the name
\nSivarasan  and\tSanthan\t (A-2)\tcame   to   the\t  house\t  of
\nShanmugavadivelu  (A-15)  and  wanted to give a letter to P.
\nThirumathi Vimala (PW-62).    Shanmugavadivelu\t(A-15)\ttook
\nthem to the  house  of\tP.  Thirumathi Vimala (PW-62).\tWhen
\nSivarasan  and\tSanthan\t (A-2)\texpected  some\tmoney\tfrom
\nShanmugavadivelu  (A-15)  he  told them that that matter was
\nattended to by Arvinda Das.  Sivarasan\tsaid  that  whenever
\nSanthan\t (A-2) would come and ask for money that be given to
\nhim.   When  Shanmugavadivelu  (A-15)  took   them   to\t  P.
\nThirumathi Vimala’s  (PW-62) house she was not at home.\t He,
\nhowever, introduced Sivarasan to her daughters who were aged
\n15 and 16 years.  After four  or  five\tdays  Santhan  (A-2)
\nagain came to the house of Shanmugavadivelu (A-15) and asked
\nto be  taken  to  the house of P.  Thirumathi Vimala (PW-62)
\nwhich again Shanmugavadivelu (A-15) did.  At that time\talso
\nP.  Thirumathi\tVimala\t(PW-62)\t was  not at home.  One week
\nbefore Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination Santhan  (A-2)  came  to
\nthe  house  of Shanmugavadivelu (A-15) and gave him a bundle
\ncontaining Rs.1.25 lacs for safe custody.   Shanmugavadivelu
\n(A-15) had helped Santhan (A-2) to get admission in M.I.E.T.
\nInstitute through Nagaraja.  After four or five days Santhan
\n(A-2)  again  came  and\t this  time  gave  Rs.3.20  lacs  to
\nShanmugavadivelu (A-15).  This money Santhan (A-2) took back
\nsubsequently.  One day when he came to get some\t money\tfrom
\nShanmugavadivelu  (A-15)  by  that  time  photo of Sivarasan
\nconnected  with\t the  assassination  of\t Rajiv\tGandhi\t was
\npublished in   newspaper.    Shanmugavadivelu  (A-15)  asked
\nSanthan (A-2) about Sivarasan and  his\tphoto  appearing  in
\npaper  to  which  Santhan (A-2) said that he need not worry.
\nBefore\tthe  assassination  of\tRajiv  Gandhi\tone-day\t  P.
\nThirumathi  Vimala  (PW-62)  with  her\tdaughter and Athirai
\n(A-8) came to the house of Shanmugavadivelu (A-15).  Athirai
\n(A-8) said that she  expected  a  phone\t call  from  foreign
\ncountry\t and  told Shanmugavadivelu (A-15) that she might be
\ninformed about that.  Daughter\tof  P.\t  Thirumathi  Vimala
\n(PW-62)\t told  Shanmugavadivelu (A15) that Athirai (A-8) was
\nSivarasan’s person.  Next day when phone call came which was
\nattended to and the person who spoke on the phone said\tthat
\nhe was\tAthirai’s  (A-8)  brother.  He asked to call Athirai
\n(A-8) and said that he would  call  again  within  an  hour.
\nShanmugavadivelu  (A-15)  went\tand  called  Athirai  (A-8).
\nAfter one hour phone call came but  Shanmugavadivelu  (A-15)
\ndid not\t know  what  were they talking about.  On May 30\/31,
\n1991  Athirai\t(A-8)\tagain\tcame   to   the\t  house\t  of
\nShanmugavadivelu  (A-15) to receive a phone call about which
\nShanmugavadivelu (A-15)\t  did\tnot   know.\t  Wife\t  of
\nShanmugavadivelu  (A-15) did not like Athirai (A-8) when she
\ncame to\t know  that  she  was  LTTE   person.\t   Wife\t  of
\nShanmugavadivelu  (A-15) had strong dislike for LTTE because
\non one occasion they kidnapped their son aged four years and
\non other two brothers-in-law  including\t Arvinda  Dass\twere
\nkidnapped.   LTTE used to ask for money before releasing the
\nkidnapped but no one did  make\tany  complaint\tabout  that.
\nWife  of  Shanmugavadivelu (A-15) had thus developed a great
\nhatred for LTTE.  When Sivarasan and Santhan (A-2)  came  to
\nthe house of Shanmugavadivelu (A-15) for the first time they
\nhad noted his phone number.  Shanmugavadivelu (A15) does not
\ntalk  of  any  help  rendered  by him to Santhan (A-2) to go
\nabroad and for that purpose to get passport and visa for him
\nor about any conversation between  him\tand  P.\t   Veerappan
\n(PW-102) and C.\t   Vamadevan  (PW114).\tIn one of the papers
\nseized\tfrom  Ruban  (A6)  at  Jaipur  telephone  number  of
\nShanmugavadivelu (A-15)\t 864249\t is  mentioned.\t   From this
\nprosecution seeks to draw an inference that Ruban (A-6)\t was
\nsent  to  Jaipur by Santhan (A-2) and Sivarasan on 17.5.1991
\nfor fixing a hide out and he was given telephone  number  of
\nShanmugavadivelu    (A-15)    as    his\t   contact   number.
\nShanmugavadivelu (A-15) was known to Sivarasan\tand  Santhan
\n(A-2)  as  early as 1990 and had helped Santhan (A-2) to get
\nadmission in Madras Institute of Engineering Technology.\n<\/p>\n
\tThere is no confession of Ruban (A-6).\t Vijayendran
\n(PW-111) is  a\tSri  Lankan  national.\t He came to India in
\n1979, studied here, wrote many books  and  acted  in  films.
\nSivarasan  met\tVijayendran  (PW-111)  in the second week of
\nApril, 1991 at railway\tplatform  bookstall  and  introduced
\nhimself.  During conversation Sivarasan told him that he was
\nleaving for  Sri  Lanka\t in  a\tweek’s\ttime.\t Vijayendran
\n(PW-111) had not received any letter from his  home  in\t Sri
\nLanka for  more\t than  one  and\t a  half  years.    He asked
\nSivarasan to hand over his letter to  his  mother,  brothers
\nand also  to  receive  a reply to that.\t Sivarasan after two
\ndays of\t the  meeting  came  to\t the  house  of\t Vijayendran
\n(PW-111) to  collect the letter.  Sivarasan again met him on
\n11.5.1991 bringing  to\thim  reply  dated  8.5.1991  to\t his
\nletter.\t   He  addressed  Vijayendran  (PW111)\tas  brother.
\nVijayendran (PW-111) expressed gratitude  to  Sivarasan\t for
\nhis help.    Once Sivarasan came to the house of Vijayendran
\n(PW-111) with\tSanthan\t  (A-2).      Sivarasan\t   requested
\nVijayendran  (PW-111)  to  accompany  Ruban  (A-6),  who was
\nintroduced as Suresh Kumar, to Jaipur to fix  an  artificial
\nlimb as\t he  did  not  have  left leg.\tVijayendran (PW-111)
\nasked whether there was no doctor available  in\t Madras\t but
\nSivarasan said\tthat in India Dr.  Sethi was a specialist in
\nthat medical field and was based in  Jaipur  and  he  wanted
\ntreatment for  Ruban  (A-6)  from him.\tVijayendran (PW-111)
\nagreed.\t He, however, told  Sivarasan  that  he\t would\ttake
\nanother\t person\t along\twith  him as he himself did not know
\nHindi.\tSivarasan gave him Rs.15,000\/- in cash to  meet\t the
\nmedical expenses  and  the  conveyance\tcharges.    He asked
\nVijayendran (PW-111) to buy tickets of\tG.T.\tExpress\t for
\nDelhi leaving  on  17.5.1991.\tThe railway tickets were got
\nreserved by Vijayendran (PW-111) on 14.5.1991.\tRuban (A-6),
\nVijayendran (PW-111) and a boy called Ajas Ali left by\tG.T.
\nExpress on  17.5.1991.\tSivarasan and Santhan (A-2) had come
\nto see them off.  Sivarasan told Vijayendran  (PW-111)\tthat
\nSanthan\t (A-2) would come to him to receive any letter which
\nmight be  given\t to  him  by  Ruban  (A-6)  on\this  return.
\nVijayendran  (PW-111)  said  that Sivarasan asked him to use
\nhis name as Maharaja in which name he was writing his poems.
\nAfter arriving at Delhi the group then went to Jaipur on the
\nevening of 19.5.1991.  They stayed in Golden  Lodge  in\t the
\nnames of Ajas Ali, Suresh Kumar and Maharaja.  Next day they
\nwent to\t meet  the  doctor.    While  at Jaipur on 22.5.1991
\nVijayendran (PW-111) came to know about the assassination of
\nRajiv Gandhi at Sriperumbudur.\tHe said they got into  panic
\nas they\t could\tbe  suspected  as  Tamilians.\t Ruban (A-6)
\nsuggested to vacate the lodge.\tNext day in the evening they
\nchanged to Vikram Lodge.  Vijayendran (PW-111) met Mr.Rajan,
\nManager of the Lodge and asked him to help Ruban  (A-6)\t for
\ngetting treatment  as  Dr.  Sethi had given them appointment
\nfor 13.6.1991.\tHe  along  with\t Ajas  Ali  left  Jaipur  on
\n24.5.1991   for\t Madras\t reaching  there  on  the  night  of
\n27.5.1991.  Ruban (A-6) told him that he would write  letter
\nto  him\t addressed  as\tMaharaja  and  to  hand over that to
\nSanthan (A-2).\tRuban (A-6) gave  him  a  letter  which\t had
\nalready been  written  by him.\tVijayendran (PW-111) saw the
\nphoto of Sivarasan published in newspaper on 29.5.1991\twith
\nannouncement  that his whereabouts be informed as he was the
\nmain person involved in the assassination of  Rajiv  Gandhi.
\nThat shook  Vijayendran\t (PW-111).    On 30.5.1991 Sivarasan
\ncame to him and inquired about Ruban (A-6) if he  had  given
\nany letter.    The  letter which Ruban (A-6) had written was
\nhanded over to Sivarasan.  Vijayendran (PW-111) asked  about
\nhis picture  published\tin  the newspapers.  At this he gave
\nsarcastic smile and told him in authoritative tone  that  he
\nwas  going  to Sri Lanka and would return after three months
\nand then left.\tOne more  letter  was  received\t from  Ruban
\n(A-6) by  Vijayendran  (PW-111)\t on 3\/4.6.1991.\t On 7.6.1991
\nSanthan (A-2) came to collect that letter.   As\t seen  above
\nSanthan\t (A-2) gave Vijayendran (PW-111) a sum of Rs.2,000\/-
\nand asked him to send it to Ruban (A-6) by telegraphic money
\norder.\tEntries in the lodge registers at Jaipur  were\tmade
\nby Vijayendran (PW-111) (Exh.P-111 and 523).\n<\/p>\n
\tRuban  (A-6)  was  one\tof  the nine persons who had
\nclandestinely landed at Indian soil in a boat from Sri Lanka
\non 1.5.1991.  In his confession Robert Payas (A-9) said that
\nhe met an LTTE boy who had come\t to  his  house\t along\twith
\nIndrankutti on\t9.5.1991.   He said the name of that boy was
\nRuban @ Suresh.\t He had lost one of his legs in\t bomb  blast
\nin  Sri Lanka and had come to India along with Sivarasan for
\nhis treatment.\n<\/p>\n
\tY.R.  Nagarajan (PW-106) was working as receptionist
\nin Golden Lodge in Jaipur.  He has testified to the stay  of
\nVijayendran (PW-111),  Ruban  (A-6)  and  Ajas Ali.  He said
\nRuban (A-6) did not have left leg.  Ruban  (A-6)  stayed  in
\nJaipur till  20.6.1991\twhen  he  was  arrested.  Search was
\neffected in the room in the  lodge  where  Ruban  (A-6)\t was
\nstaying.   One\tof the documents seized is a telephone index
\nbook (MO-659) containing telephone numbers of  Robert  Payas
\n(A-9) and  Shanmugavadivelu  (A-15).\tIn a bunch of papers
\n(MO-667) seized on 15.6.1991 from the house of Murugan (A-3)
\nat Madipakkam, in one of the papers there was Jaipur address
\nof Ruban (A-6).\t   A  letter  (Exh.P-1200)  dated  18.6.1991
\nwritten\t by  Santhan  (A-2)  to\t Ruban (A-6) at Vikram Lodge
\naddress was also recovered from the lodge.  In\tthis  letter
\nSanthan\t (A-2)\thad  advised Ruben (A-6) to again shift from
\nhis present place of stay to another safe place.  This is an
\ninland letter written after the death of Rajiv Gandhi.\tThis
\nletter is stated to have been handed over by Rajan,  Manager
\nof Vikram  Lodge,  to police inspector R.D.  Kalia (PW-236).
\nIt is not the original letter rather a Xerox copy.  Original
\nis stated to have  been\t lost  in  the\tcourt  and  as\tsuch
\nsecondary evidence  was allowed to be led.  This document is
\nproved by the handwriting expert K.   Ramakrishnan  (PW-262)
\nbut only the address is said to be in the writing of Santhan
\n(A-2).\t There\tis  no\tevidence  about\t the contents of the
\nletters as if written by Santhan (A-2).\t   In  the  notebook
\n(MO-159)  there\t is  entry  (Exh.P-439)\t giving\t details  of
\nexpenses incurred for Ruban (A-6).   In\t the  confession  of
\nIrumborai (A-19) he has mentioned about the deceased accused
\nJamuna\t@ Jameela an injured LTTE tigress staying in Neyveli
\nin Tamil Nadu for getting an artificial leg fixed as she had
\nlost her leg in the fight at Jaffna against the Army.  Ruban
\n(A-6) did not get artificial limb in Jaipur and it was fixed
\nin Madras itself while he was in judicial custody.\n<\/p>\n
\tArivu (A-18) was little less than 20 years of age on
\nthe date  of  assassination  of\t Rajiv\tGandhi.\t    He\t was
\nsympathizer of\tLTTE  movement.\t  In 1986 he took part in an
\nagitation and was imprisoned for 15 days in  Madras.\tSuba
\nSundaram (A-22)\t was  known  to\t his  father.\tArivu (A-18)
\njoined his studio (Suba Studio) in May, 1989.  Muthuraja and
\nBaby Subramaniam used to visit Suba Studio.    Arivu  (A-18)
\nbecame close  to  them\tand  started  working  for LTTE.  He
\nstarted selling and distributing LTTE literature.   He\tused
\nto sell\t these\tbooks in public meetings.  In Suba Studio he
\nalso came in contact with Bhagyanathan (A-20)  and  deceased
\naccused Haribabu,  who\twere also working there.  Even after
\nthey had left Suba Studio they\tused  to  come\tthere.\t  On
\naccount\t of  the  influence  of\t Baby  Subramaniam  and\t his
\nassistant Muthuraja both Bhagyanathan  (A-20)  and  Haribabu
\nwere attracted towards LTTE movement and got involved there.
\nWhen  Arivu  (A-18)  came  to Madras in May, 1989 he started
\nstaying with Bhagyanathan (A-20) and  also  with  Muthuraja.
\nPlace of  Muthuraja  was used by LTTE people.  In connection
\nwith LTTE work Arivu (A-18) used to  visit  Bangalore  quite
\noften.\t Arivu (A-18) also got in contact with Suresh Master
\n(DA) and Trichy Santhan.  Both were having  important  place
\nin LTTE.   Arivu (A-18) was being paid by Trichy Santhan for
\nthe work done by him for LTTE.\t  He  was  getting  a  fixed
\namount every  month.  After the shooting incident of killing
\nof Padmanabha and others by LTTE at Madras offices  of\tLTTE
\nwere  closed  and thereafter it was an underground movement.
\nArivu (A-18) went to Sri  Lanka\t with  Baby  Subramaniam  in
\nJune, 1990.   Irumborai\t (A-19) also went with them.  In Sri
\nLanka Arivu (A-18) met Prabhakaran  and\t other\tleaders\t and
\nassured them to give full support for LTTE movement.  During
\nhis  stay  in  Sri  Lanka there was war between LTTE and Sri
\nLankan Army.  Then he learnt about the atrocities  committed
\nby IPKF\t and  a feeling of revenge came to his mind.  He and
\nIrumborai (A-19) came back to India in the  second  week  of
\nOctober, 1990  with other wounded LTTE soldiers.  Now he was
\nfull-fledged worker of LTTE.  It  was  from  February,\t1991
\nthat  Arivu (A-18) started staying with Bhagyanathan (A-20).
\nIt was on account  of  the  fact  that\tPresident  Rule\t was
\nextended  in  January,\t1991  and  police  was taking strong
\naction against LTTE.  Arivu (A-18) left\t his  own  residence
\nand went  to stay with Bhagyanathan (A-20).  After Muthuraja
\nwent to Sri Lanka his job was taken over  by  Arivu  (A-18).
\nHe was getting money from deceased accused Suresh Master and
\nTrichy\tSanthan for meeting his expenses and was also paying
\nto M.  Sankari (PW-210), sister of Muthuraja.  Arivu  (A-18)
\nin his confession statement said that Murugan (A-3) had come
\nto  Tamil  Nadu from Sri Lanka for an important work of LTTE
\nand in this work Haribabu  was\thelping\t him  and  for\tthat
\nHaribabu  had  been  receiving\tmonthly\t salary from Murugan
\n(A-3).\tMurugan (A-3) had been appointed in the spy wing  of
\nLTTE.\tArivu  (A-18)  was  recording  TV  news\t in  VCR  in
\nRoyapettah house.  In March, 1991 he went with Murugan (A-3)
\nto Vellore for LTTE work as in Vellore\tFort  and  Jail\t Sri
\nLankan\tTamils\tand  LTTE  personnel  were  kept in custody.
\nBlast of  Vellore  Fort\t and  Jail  and\t releasing  of\tLTTE
\nmilitants was  one  of\tthe  LTTE  works  in India.  Various
\npeople connected with  LTTE  would  come  to  the  house  of
\nBhagyanathan (A-20).\tArivu  (A-18) said when these people
\nwere talking among themselves he understood that it was\t for
\na  very\t important  and\t dangerous  act\t and he had a strong
\nsuspicion that the target would be Rajiv Gandhi.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn April, 1991 when Sivarasan came to the  house  of
\nPadma  (A-21)  he  asked  Arivu (A-18) if he was prepared to
\nwork with him.\tArivu (A-18)  agreed  to  work\tfor  him  as
\nSivarasan was a senior LTTE member.  Bhagyanathan (A-20) had
\nalready accepted to work for Sivarasan.\t Before going to Sri
\nLanka Muthuraja has handed over his work to Arivu (A-18) and
\nalso  instructed  Bhagyanathan\t(A-20)\tto  give all help to
\nArivu (A-18) as may be needed for the movement.\t   Muthuraja
\nhad also requested Nalini (A-1) to provide all help to Arivu
\n(A-18) in  his\tabsence.    Photos  and publications of LTTE
\nmovement and other books which were with Muthuraja were kept
\nby Arivu (A-18).  In March, 1991  he  shifted  them  to\t the
\nhouse of  V.\tRadhakrishnan  (PW-231),  a  friend of Arivu
\n(A-18).\t These contained a 3 volume Black Book\tand  in\t the
\n3rd  volume  of\t the book there was a diagram of an electric
\ncircuit similar to  one\t used  for  the\t belt  bomb  by\t the
\nassassin Dhanu.\t   Arivu  (A-18) said that when the material
\nwas being transported Bhagyanathan (A-20) was also with him.
\nOn 3.5.1991 Arivu (A-18) met Sivarasan in India and at\tthat
\ntime  deceased\taccused\t Gokul @ Nero and Murugan (A-3) were
\nalso with him.\tSivarasan asked Arivu (A-18) to buy a  large
\nsize car  battery,  clips  and other articles.\tArivu (A-18)
\nwent to a shop along with Nero and bought battery, wire\t and
\nother articles.\t   Apart from other things battery was meant
\nfor a wireless set which Sivarasan  wanted  to\tinstall,  by
\nwhich  he  would  contact  LTTE\t Headquarters  in Sri Lanka.
\nWhile buying battery he gave his  name\tas  Rajan  and\talso
\nwrong address.\t  Sivarasan  also  told Arivu (A-18) that he
\nwanted a motorcycle to facilitate his  travel  and  for\t the
\npurpose he had come to India.  He asked Arivu (A-18) to make
\narrangements  for  it as he himself did not want his name to
\nbe exposed.    Arivu  (A-18)  arranged\tone  Kawasaki  Bajaj
\nMotorcycle (Registration No.\t  TN-07-A-5203).    He\ttook
\nSivarasan  to  the  showroom  on  4.5.1991  and\t bought\t the
\nmotorcycle in his own name but giving a wrong address.\tWith
\nthe  same  wrong  address Arivu (A18) had also opened a bank
\naccount in the bank.  Sivarasan\t had  given  money  for\t the
\npurchase of the motorcycle.  Arivu (A-18) also bought 9-volt
\nbattery (golden\t power)\t and  gave that to Sivarasan.  Arivu
\n(A-18) said in\this  confession\t that  Sivarasan  used\tthis
\n(Battery) only\tto blast the bomb.  On 7.5.1991 Arivu (A-18)
\nhad also gone to attend the public meeting of  V.P.    Singh
\nand  there  he\tsaw  Nalini  (A-1), Subha, Dhanu and Murugan
\n(A-3).\tThese three women were trying to step on towards the
\nstage.\tNalini (A-1) was requesting the\t organizers  of\t the
\nmeeting\t and  the police while Subha and Dhanu were standing
\nwith rose garlands in their hands.  Haribabu was  also\tseen
\non the stage.\t Arivu\t(A-18) did not see Sivarasan.  Arivu
\n(A-18) knew that Subha and Dhanu were lady tigresses of LTTE
\nbrought from Jaffna in Sri Lanka by Sivarasan  for  his\t job
\nand they  were\t“going and coming with Nalini (A-1)”.  After
\nthe end of the public meeting Murugan (A-3)  gave  a  colour
\nfilm roll  to  Arivu  (A-18)  for  developing.\t None of the
\npictures had come out clearly.\tArivu (A-18) also  bought  a
\nmulti  meter  for  Sivarasan  for use to test the electrical
\nequipments.  He had also bought earth wire.  Sivarasan asked
\nArivu (A-18) to look after Vijayanandan\t (A-5),\t who  was  a
\nsenior LTTE  leader.\tVijayanandan (A-5) had come to India
\nalong with Sivarasan in the group of nine  persons  arriving
\non 1.5.1991.  Vijayanandan (A-5) was staying in Komala Vilas
\nlodge.\tArivu (A-18) met him and took him to the house of N.
\nVasantha Kumar\t(PW-75).  Vijayanandan (A-5) was to buy some
\nbooks for the LTTE movement.  In his confession Arivu (A-18)
\ndescribed N.  Vasantha Kumar (PW-75) as\t his  partner.\t  He
\nalso described\tN.  Vasantha Kumar (PW-75) as an LTTE member
\nand close to Sivarasan.\t Once he said he had  gone  with  N.
\nVasantha  Kumar\t (PW75) to the house of Trichy Santhan (DA).
\nN.  Vasantha Kumar (PW75) was  involved\t in  publishing\t the
\nLTTE   propaganda   book  “Satanic  Force”  which  contained
\narticles relating to atrocities committed by IPKF.   It\t was
\nTrichy Santhan\t(DA)  who  was\tgiving finance for that.  On
\n20.5.1991 Arivu (A-18)\tlearnt\tthat  in  the  evening\twhen
\nNalini\t(A-1),\tMurugan (A-3) and Haribabu were in the house
\nof Bhagyanathan (A-20) Sivarasan  had  a  talk\twith  Nalini
\n(A-1) and  Haribabu.\tPadma (A-21) had also come back from
\nhospital at 8.00 p.m.  According to Arivu  (A-18)  Sivarasan
\nhad  a\ttalk regarding the public meeting of Rajiv Gandhi to
\nbe held on the next day at Sriperumbudur.  He gave  a  Kodak
\ncolour film  roll  to  Haribabu.    After  having their food
\nHaribabu, Murugan (A-3) and Nalini (A-1) left.\tOn 21.5.1991
\nArivu (A-18) and Bhagyanathan (A-20) went to see late  night
\nmovie  and  when  they returned from the show they heard the
\nnews that  Rajiv  Gandhi  was  murdered.     Murugan   (A-3)
\nconfirmed it.\t On  22.5.1991 Arivu (A-18) packed his goods
\nfrom the house of Padma (A-21) and cleared them one  by\t one
\nand kept  at  the  houses  of  his  friends.\tOn 23.5.1991
\nSivarasan came to the house of Padma (A-21) in\tthe  morning
\nand  gave  details  about  the\tincident  resulting  in\t the
\nassassination of Rajiv Gandhi.\tHe also told them about\t the
\nunexpected death  of  Haribabu\tin the bomb blast.  He asked
\nArivu (A-18) to go  to\tSuba  Sundaram\t(A-22)\tto  see\t the
\nprogress in  getting  the  body\t of  Haribabu.\tThat evening
\nNalini (A1) also came to the house of Padma (A-21)  late  in
\nthe  evening  and  told\t about\tthe  murder of Rajiv Gandhi.
\nArivu (A-18) did not feel safe in the house of\tBhagyanathan
\n(A-20).\t   Murugan  (A-3)  had\talready\t hidden\t himself  at
\nBhagyanathan’s Press.  Arivu (A-18) had a fear that he might
\nbe found so he then went and  stayed  with  his\t parents  at
\nJolarpet.   Before going to Jolarpet Murugan (A-3) had asked
\nArivu (A-18) to come to Gandhi Beach  on  10.6.1991  in\t the
\nevening\t at  7 O’clock to discuss about further proceedings.
\nArivu (A-18) came to Gandhi Beach but Murugan (A-3) was\t not
\nthere.\t He  also  searched for Bhagyanathan (A-20) next day
\nbut again could not meet him.  After few days  Arivu  (A-18)
\nwas arrested.\n<\/p>\n
\tN.  Vasantha Kumar (PW-75) is an artist.  In 1984 he
\nmet  a person by the name Raghavan in a bookshop who came to
\nthe shop to buy books for LTTE.\t When Raghavan came to\tknow
\nthat N.\t   Vasantha Kumar (PW-75) was an artist he asked him
\nif he would print books for LTTE organization.\tN.  Vasantha
\nKumar (PW-75) agreed.  Raghavan introduced himself  to\tBaby
\nSubramaniam  and  Nithyanandam, President of LTTE Propaganda
\nCommittee.  N.\t  Vasantha  Kumar   (PW-75)   was   promised
\nRs.1000\/-  for\this  labour in getting the books printed for
\nLTTE.  In his deposition N.    Vasantha\t Kumar\t(PW-75)\t has
\ndescribed  as to how he had become close to top rank leaders
\nof LTTE including Pottu Amman, Prabhakaran, Kasi Anandan and
\nothers.\t He also visited LTTE training camp near  Mettur  in
\nTamil Nadu.   N.  Vasantha Kumar (PW-75) in partnership with
\nBasheer Ahamad also published magazine called ‘Pudhu Yugam’.
\nThe publication was stopped after two issues.\tIn  1988  N.
\nVasantha  Kumar\t (PW-75)  was engaged to print calendars and
\nsome other  pamphlets  for  LTTE  at  a\t monthly  salary  of
\nRs.1500\/-.   He\t got  printed various pamphlets like ‘Indian
\nMilitary  Offensive’,  ‘An  unjust  war\t  against   Tamils’,
\n‘Indo-Sri Lanka Accord’, ‘LTTE point of view’, etc.  In 1989
\nwhen  DMK  came\t to power in Tamil Nadu Baby Subramaniam was
\nmoving about openly in all places in an auto.\t He  met  N.
\nVasantha  Kumar (PW-75) and asked him to print a book by the
\nname ‘Socialistic  Tamil  Ezham’.    That  book\t  gave\t the
\npolitical programme of LTTE.  The book was got printed by N.
\nVasantha  Kumar\t (PW-75)  and  his  work  was appreciated by
\nPrabhakaran.  Later Baby  Subramaniam  asked  N.    Vasantha
\nKumar  (PW-75)\tto  publish  a big book by the name “Satanic
\nForce” containing the atrocities of IPKF and other  articles
\ncriticizing Rajiv Gandhi.    N.\t   Vasantha Kumar (PW75) was
\npromised Rs.2000\/- per month for the work  in  printing\t the
\nbook.  A  separate  flat  was  hired  for  the purpose.\t All
\nexpenses of printing the book  and  hiring  the\t flat,\tetc.
\nwere met  by  Baby  Subramaniam.   The material for the book
\n“Satanic Force” was supplied by Baby Subramaniam.  The\tbook
\ncontained  statements  of  LTTE\t leaders,  news published in
\nIndia\tand    foreign\t  countries,\tessays,\t   comments,
\nadvertisements,\t  cartoons  and\t statements  of\t Sri  Lankan
\nTamilians who  had  suffered.\t The  book  also   contained
\ncollections of photographs.    N.    Vasantha  Kumar (PW-75)
\ndesigned the book.  Paper for the book was purchased in\t the
\nname of\t Ramesh,  a  member  of\t LTTE for Rs.3,20,000\/-.  N.
\nVasantha Kumar (PW-75) had also gone with Ramesh to buy\t the
\npaper.\t Ramesh\t gave  a bogus address to the shopkeeper for
\npreparation of the bill.  “Satanic Force” is  in  two  parts
\nwhich contained information up to March, 1990.\tN.  Vasantha
\nKumar (PW-75) said he used to often meet Baby Subramaniam in
\nSuba Studio.   Arivu (A-18) and Irumborai (A-19) were always
\nwith Baby Subramaniam.\tSince the book “Satanic\t Force”\t was
\nagainst\t Indian\t Peace Keeping Force and Rajiv Gandhi it was
\nthought not to mention that it was printed in India.\tBaby
\nSubramaniam asked  N.\t Vasantha Kumar (PW-75) to show that
\nthe book was printed in U.K.  Some copies for the books when
\nfinished were sent to Sri Lanka to Baby Subramaniam and\t the
\nmode   of   transport  was  informed  to  Baby\tSubramaniam.
\nThereafter Baby Subramaniam went  to  Jaffna  in  Sri  Lanka
\naccompanied by\t Arivu\t(A18)  and  Irumborai  (A-19).\t  N.
\nVasantha Kumar (PW-75) then described the  attempt  made  by
\nhim  to\t get  the  payment of the book to be made to various
\nparties.  Four sets of the books  were\tprinted\t and  ready.
\nTwo sets were kept by N.  Vasantha Kumar (PW75) and two sets
\nwere given by  him  to\tArivu  (A-18).\t  N.  Vasantha Kumar
\n(PW-75)\t said  he  received  a\t letter\t  from\t Prabhakaran
\nappreciating  his  work\t who  told  him\t that he had written
\nletter to Trichy Santhan (DA) who was in charge at Trichy to
\nmake the payment for the book.\tPrabhakaran also wrote\tthat
\nN.   Vasantha Kumar (PW-75) could come to Sri Lanka whenever
\nhe wished.  He said he tore the letter after  reading  that.
\nOn 2 or 3.5.1991 N.  Vasantha Kumar (PW-75) and Arivu (A-18)
\nwent to\t Trichy\t to get payment from Trichy Santhan.  In the
\nmorning Arivu (A-18) took N.  Vasantha Kumar  (PW-75)  to  a
\nhouse  at  Ramalinga  Nagar  where Irumborai (A-19) was also
\npresent along with some other workers.\tAt about 11.00\ta.m.
\nTrichy Santhan\t(DA)  came.    Arivu  (A-18)  introduced  N.
\nVasantha Kumar (PW-75) to him.\t Trichy\t Santhan  (DA)\tpaid
\nRs.90,000\/- to\tN.    Vasantha Kumar (PW-75) and promised to
\npay the balance through Arivu (A-18).  They then returned to
\nMadras.\t In the first week of May, 1991 Arivu (A-18) came to
\nthe house of N.\t Vasantha Kumar\t (PW-75)  with\tVijayanandan
\n(A-5).\tArivu (A-18) asked him to help Vijayanandan (A-5) in
\npurchasing the books  for  LTTE library.  N.  Vasantha Kumar
\n(PW-75) made Vijayanandan (A-5) to  stay  in  his  adjoining
\nflat.  Vijayanandan  (A-5)  told  N.  Vasantha Kumar (PW-75)
\nthat he was a supporter of LTTE and  that  Pottu  Amman\t had
\ncalled\thim  and had asked him to take charge of the library
\nand for that purpose he had come to purchase the books.\t  He
\nalso told him that about seven or eight days ago he had come
\nto Kodiakkarai with eight other persons illegally in an LTTE
\nboat.  When  N.\t  Vasantha Kumar (PW-75) asked him if he had
\nthe list of books to be purchased, he replied  that  he\t did
\nnot  have  the\tlist  and  that\t he would purchase the books
\ndirectly.  N.  Vasantha Kumar (PW-75) sent Basheer Ahmad for
\nhelping\t Vijayanandan  (A-5)  in   purchasing\tthe   books.
\nVijayanandan   (A-5)   had   purchased\t about\t 400  books.
\nVijayanandan  (A-5)  used  to  talk  about  the\t  atrocities
\ncommitted  by IPKF in Sri Lanka and his hatred towards Rajiv
\nGandhi.\t  He  gave  him\t a  book  ‘Alisiya’  and  its  Tamil
\nmanuscript and\ttold  N.   Vasantha Kumar (PW-75) that Pottu
\nAmman had asked him to print three thousand  copies  of\t the
\nbook in\t the  letter  press.\tVijayanandan  (A-5) for that
\npurpose gave Rs.10,000\/- and again  Rs.20,000\/-.    He\talso
\ngave N.\t   Vasantha  Kumar  (PW-75) a list of books which he
\ncould not purchase and asked him to purchase those books and
\nfor that purpose also he gave N.    Vasantha  Kumar  (PW-75)
\nRs.5,500\/-.   On  10.5.1991  Arivu  (A-18)  came  to meet N.
\nVasantha Kumar (PW-75) with Sivarasan on  a  Kawasaki  Bajaj
\nmotorcycle.   Sivarasan\t had come to see Vijayanandan (A-5).
\nAll three of them talked for  about  ten  minutes  and\tthen
\nArivu (A-18) and Sivarasan left.  N.  Vasantha Kumar (PW-75)
\nwanted to  visit  Moogambigai  on 19.5.1991.  He, therefore,
\nasked Arivu (A-18) to  take  Vijayanandan  (A-5)  with\thim.
\nArivu (A-18)  promised\tthat he would come and take him.  On
\n17.5.1991 early in the\tmorning\t at  6.00  a.m.\t   Irumborai
\n(A-19) came  to\t the house of N.  Vasantha Kumar (PW-75) and
\ninquired about Arivu (A-18).  When told Arivu (A-18) had not
\ncome Irumborai (A-19)  left  leaving  a\t message  for  Arivu
\n(A-18) to  meet\t him urgently.\tLater when Arivu (A-18) came
\nN.  Vasantha Kumar (PW-75) informed him accordingly.   Again
\nhe  asked  Arivu (A-18) to take Vijayanandan (A-5) with him.
\nOn the morning of 18.5.1991 Sivarasan came on motorcycle and
\ntook Vijayanandan (A-5) with him.    He\t asked\tVijayanandan
\n(A-5) if  he  had  purchased  the books.  Vijayanandan (A-5)
\nreplied that he had purchased everything.    Sivarasan\ttold
\nVijayanandan  (A-5)  that he would give him an address where
\nhe  could  stay\t and  asked  him   to\tleave\timmediately.
\nVijayanandan (A-5)  packed  his\t dresses  and  left.   While
\nleaving he told N.  Vasantha Kumar  (PW-75)  that  he  would
\ntake the  books\t later.\t   On the morning of 19.5.1991 Arivu
\n(A-18) again came to the house of N.  Vasantha Kumar (PW-75)
\nand told him that Trichy Santhan had  sent  Rs.75,000\/-\t for
\nthe book “Satanic  Force”.   N.\t Vasantha Kumar (PW-75) told
\nhim that since he was leaving for the tour the\tmoney  could
\nbe given by  Arivu  (A-18)  to\tBalcon\tPress.\tN.  Vasantha
\nKumar (PW-75) after his tour with  his\tfamily\tand  friends
\nreturned to   Madras.\t While\taway  he  learnt  about\t the
\nassassination of Rajiv\tGandhi\tthrough\t news  broadcast  on
\nradio  on  the\tmorning\t of  22.5.1991\tby  a  bomb blast at
\nSriperumbudur while attending the  meeting.    On  29.5.1991
\npicture\t of  Sivarasan was published in the Hindu newspaper.
\nN.  Vasantha Kumar (PW-75) recognized Sivarasan who had been
\nbrought to his house by Arivu (A-18).\tOn  30.5.1991  Arivu
\n(A18) again came to meet N.  Vasantha Kumar (PW-75) and gave
\nhim Rs.25,000\/-.   He was asked about the photo of Sivarasan
\nand whereabouts of Sivarasan and if Arivu (A-18) was  having
\nany connection\twith  the  murder.    At  this\tArivu (A-18)
\nlaughed sarcastically and left without any reply.    Due  to
\nfear N.\t Vasantha Kumar (PW-75) did not inform the matter to
\nanybody.   At  Balcon  Press  where Arivu (A-18) had gone to
\nhand over Rs.75,000\/- he came to know  that  police  was  in
\nsearch of  him.\t   He was afraid and left Madras and went to
\nhis friend  at\tNeyveli.    In\this  absence   on   4.6.1991
\nVijayanandan (A-5) had come to his house and gave his wife a
\nbag,  Rs.5,000\/- and three sarees and told her that he would
\ncome and collect the same later.  N.  Vasantha Kumar (PW-75)
\nreturned from Neyveli and then with his family\tleft  Madras
\nand stayed  at\ta  place outside the city.  At this point of
\ntime he learnt the name of Sivarasan though earlier  he\t was
\nnever introduced  to him by that name.\tOn 18.1.1992 one CBI
\ninspector came to meet N.  Vasantha Kumar (PW-75) and  asked
\nhim to appear at Malligai police station where he identified
\nthe books “Satanic  Force” got printed by him.\tN.  Vasantha
\nKumar (PW-75) identified various material got printed by him
\nfrom time to time.  He identified the  notes  regarding\t the
\nbooks, etc.    purchased  by  Vijayanandan (A-5) when he had
\ncome to the house of N.\t   Vasantha  Kumar  (PW-75)  and  N.
\nVasantha Kumar\t(PW-75)\t seen  him  writing (Exh.P-351).  He
\nalso identified the books ‘Alisiya’ and its Tamil manuscript
\n(MO-113 and  114).    He  also\tidentified   various   other
\ndocuments and the articles recovered from the house.\n<\/p>\n
\tDelip  Chordia\t(PW-88)\t is  a\tdealer\tof tyres and
\nbatteries.  The name of\t his  firm  is\tInternational  Tyres
\nService\t from whose shop Arivu (A-18) purchased the battery.
\nHe identified the battery (MO-209)  sold  to  one  Rajan  on
\n3.5.1991.  Battery  (MO-209)  was  seized  by  M.  Narayanan
\n(PW-281), D.S.P.  from the pit dug in  the  kitchen  of\t the
\nhouse occupied\t by  Vijayan  (A-12).\t Mohanraj  (PW-254),
\nwireless  expert,  stated  that\t a  wireless  set  could  be
\noperated using\tthe  12\t volt battery like MO-209.  Wireless
\nset was installed in the house of Vijayan (A-12)  by  making
\nuse of battery MO-209 for communication with LTTE leaders in
\nSri  Lanka  which was operated by deceased accused Nero, who
\nwas a wireless operator and came to  India  in\tnine  member
\ngroup on 1.5.1991.\n<\/p>\n
\tR.   Ravichandran  (PW-95)  is\ta  salesman  of\t the
\nshowroom  from\twhere  Kawasaki\t Bajaj\tmotorcycle   (MO-82)
\nbearing registration  No.    TN-07-A-5203  was\tpurchased by
\nArivu (A-18).  The address which  Arivu\t (A-18)\t gave  while
\nbuying\tmotorcycle  was the address of Padma (A-21) when she
\nwas staying in\tKalyani\t Nursing  Home\tquarters.    At\t the
\nrelevant  time\tof  purchase of motorcycle she was, however,
\nstaying in Royapettah house.\n<\/p>\n
\tN.  Moideen (PW-91) was working as a salesman  in  a
\nshop in\t Royapettah  High  Road.  He said that in the second
\nweek of May, 1991 he sold two  golden  power  batteries\t for
\nRs.46.\t He  was  asked\t if  he\t could identify the man whom
\npolice officers had brought to the shop\t as  the  person  to
\nwhom he sold the batteries.  He identified Arivu (A-18).\n<\/p>\n
\tG.J.  Srinivasan (PW-252), Assistant Director, Tamil
\nNadu Forensic Science Laboratory, Madras after examining the
\nportion\t of  9\tvolt golden power battery (MO-678) recovered
\nfrom the scene of the crime gave opinion that these were the
\nportions of 9 volt golden power battery.\n<\/p>\n
\tLt.  Col.  Manik Sabharwal (PW-157), Bomb expert and
\nDr.  P.\t Chandrasekaran (PW-280),  Director,  TNFSL,  Madras
\ngave  opinion  that  9 volt golden power battery was used as
\npower source in the belt bomb  used  by\t Dhanu.\t   From\t the
\nstatement of  N.    Vasantha  Kumar (PW-75) it was seen that
\nArivu (A-18) was connected with the printing and publication
\nof propaganda material for LTTE including the book  “Satanic
\nForce”.\t Dr.   R.   Kuppusamy (PW-194) said in his statement
\nthat after examining the exposed frames of negatives used by
\nHaribabu at the scene of crime (Exh.P-735) that\t these\twere
\nfrom  Kodak colour film and that was used for camera (MO-1).
\nThe unexposed portion of the Kodak  colour  film  is  MO-542
\nwhich was  cut\tand  removed  from  Exh.P-735.\tThe material
\nwhich had been removed by Arivu (A-18)\tfrom  the  house  of
\nPadma  (A-21)  after  learning\tthe  assassination  of Rajiv
\nGandhi,\t was  subsequently  recovered  on   the\t  basis\t  of
\ndisclosure statement (Exh.P-1343).  In his letter (Exh.P128)
\nwritten\t by  Trichy Santhan to Irumborai (A-19) he mentioned
\nabout the mistake committed in LTTE with the  supporters  of
\nSivarasan like Arivu (A-18) connected with Baby Anna.\n<\/p>\n
\tAthirai (A-8) is a Sri Lankan national.\t At the very
\nyoung  age  of\t13  years she got involved in LTTE movement.
\nShe  learnt  how  to  prepare  code  sheets  for   conveying
\nmessages, making of bombs and driving.\tIn the military camp
\nshe got\t training to use AK-47 rifle.  She also got training
\nin photography and videography.\t Her  brothers\tand  sisters
\nare settled  in\t Germany  or Switzerland.  In her confession
\nshe said that one of the principles of LTTE is that it\tdoes
\nnot  brook  any opposition and the undisputed leader of LTTE
\nis Prabhakaran.\t She gave the names of various LTTE  leaders
\nin whose  contacts  she\t came.\t  She  said  Pottu  Amman is
\nincharge of Intelligence Branch of LTTE and  sister  Shanthi
\nand Akila  are also in that branch.  Athirai (A-8) said that
\nher friend, who was  24\t years\tof  age\t and  LTTE  wireless
\noperator died  in  fight  with\tIPKF  in  1988.\t Her own boy
\nfriend also died in 1989 in a raid by IPKF.   Athirai  (A-8)
\nalso got  training  in\tthe political wing of LTTE.  She had
\nbeen explained as to how Prabhakaran was compelled  to\tsign
\nthe   Indo-Sri\t Lankan\t Accord\t and  how  IPKF\t instead  of
\nprotecting Tamilians in Sri Lanka was fighting against\tthem
\nand  committing\t atrocities on the innocent Tamilians there.
\nShe said about the organizations of Black Tigers  and  Black
\nWomen  Tigers  whose  members would sacrifice their lives in
\nsuicide daring acts.  Athirai (A-8) said  she  was  able  to
\nrecognize all  the persons in the LTTE organization.  Dhanu,
\nshe said, belonged to suicide squad.  She was a black  woman
\ntiger.\t She  did not wear spectacles but for the purpose of
\nnot being identified in Rajiv Gandhi murder  case  she\twore
\nspectacles.   Subha  also  belonged  to army branch of LTTE.
\nBoth had received the same training in the military camp  of
\nLTTE in\t Sri  Lanka.  Subha might have come along with Dhanu
\nto encourage her and to give training to her and to tie belt
\nbomb.  In March, 1991 Athirai  (A-8)  met  Pottu  Amman\t who
\nintroduced her\tto  Kanagasabapathy (A-7).  Pottu Amman told
\nher that Kanagasabapathy (A-7) was  a  helper  in  LTTE\t and
\nwould  be  coming with her to Delhi to make arrangements for
\nher stay.  The arrangement was that Athirai (A-8)  would  go
\nto Delhi  purportedly  to  learn  Hindi\t or  computer.\t She
\nunderstood that the arrangement was with a  view  to  gather
\ninformation regarding certain marked places in Delhi and the
\nwork  was  in  connection with the organization, and further
\nthat if persons belonging to LTTE came to Delhi\t they  would
\nbe  staying  there  in her house and would finish their work
\nwithout any suspicion.\n<\/p>\n
Relatives of Kanagasabapathy (A-7) were in Madras.   He\t had
\nalready been   to   Delhi   earlier.\t Athirai  (A-8)\t and
\nKanagasabapathy (A-7) came to India in\tthe  end  of  April,
\n1991.  They came in a fully armed boat of LTTE.\t On reaching
\nIndian soil  they  went\t to  the  house\t of  V.\t Kantha Raja
\n(PW-60) @ Chokan, another LTTE sympathizer.  That place\t was
\nKodiakkarai.  From  there  V.  Kantha Raja (PW-60) took them
\nto Madras and they went to the house of Jayakumari  (PW-109)
\nwho was\t a  relative  of  Kanagasabapathy (A-7).  While they
\nwere staying in the house of Jayakumari\t (PW-109)  Sivarasan
\ncame to meet her which was a pre-arranged meeting earlier by
\nPottu Amman.\tSivarasan  gave\t money\tto Athirai (A-8) for
\nexpenses and for her stay in Delhi.  It appeared to  Athirai
\n(A-8) that  Sivarasan  was  incharge  of her.  Athirai (A-8)
\nsaid in her confession that later on she came to  understand
\nthat  when  occasion  would  arise  Sivarasan and other LTTE
\npeople would come for their purposes to Delhi and  would  be
\nstaying in  the\t house\ttaken  by  her.\t Sivarasan also gave
\nmoney to Kanagasabapathy (A-7)\tfor  expenses.\t  Once\twhen
\nSivarasan  came to the house of Jayakumari (PW-109), Athirai
\n(A-8) told him that there were all male members in the house
\nof Jayakumari (PW-109).\t He,  therefore,  took\ther  to\t the
\nhouse of P.   Thirumathi Vimala (PW-62).  Athirai (A-8) said
\nthat that house was arranged through Shanmugavadivelu (A-15)
\nas both P.  Thirumathi Vimala (PW-62)  and  Shanmugavadivelu
\n(A-15) are sympathizers of LTTE.  Athirai (A-8) would either
\ngo  to\tthe  house  of\tShanmugavadivelu  (A-15)  or Thangam
\nStores, a store nearby, to telephone her elder\tbrothers  in
\nGermany.  P.\tThirumathi  Vimala  (PW-62)  or her daughter
\nwould company her.  Athirai (A-8),  P.\t  Thirumathi  Vimala
\n(PW-62), her family members and her father then went outside
\nMadras on   excursion\tfrom  8.5.1991\tto  14.5.1991.\t  P.
\nThirumathi Vimala (PW-62) in  her  statement  said  that  on
\n5.5.1991  Shanmugavadivelu (A-15) with some other person had
\ncome to her house in her absence.  That person had brought a
\nletter from her mother in Sri Lanka for\t her.\t The  letter
\n(Exh.P-209) was\t left  in  the house.  Next day the boy aged
\nabout 22 or 23 years came to her house.\t He was wearing pant
\nand shirt and was also wearing spectacles.  P.\t  Thirumathi
\nVimala\t(PW-62)\t said  she could not find if that person was
\nhaving artificial eye in his left eye.\t By  the  time\tthat
\nperson came  she  had  read  the  letter.   Shanmugavadivelu
\n(A-15) was not there at that time.  That  person  introduced
\nhimself as Raghu (Sivarasan).  On account of the letter from
\nher mother  P.\t  Thirumathi  Vimala (PW-62) asked Sivarasan
\nwhat help she could offer  him.\t   Sivarasan  said  that  he
\nbrought\t a  lady  with him who had to go to Germany and that
\nher name was Gowri (Athirai (A-8)) and he wanted  a  secured
\nplace for her to stay.\tSivarasan told P.  Thirumathi Vimala
\n(PW-62)\t that she being mother of daughters might accept his
\nrequest to allow Athirai (A-8) to stay in  her\thouse.\t  He
\nsaid Athirai   (A-8)   would  leave  within  a\tmonth.\t  P.
\nThirumathi Vimala (PW-62) agreed.    On\t 7.5.1991  Sivarasan
\nbrought\t Athirai  (A8)\talong  with  him  to  stay  with  P.
\nThirumathi Vimala (PW-62).   On\t 16.5.1991  Sivarasan  again
\ncame  to meet Athirai (A-8) and gave her Rs.10,000\/- to meet
\nher expenses.  In between  Sivarasan  asked  Kanagasabapathy
\n(A-7)  to  make\t efforts  to  arrange  the house for himself
\n(Kanagasabapathy (A-7)) and  for  Athirai’s  (A-8)  stay  at
\nDelhi  and  for\t this  purpose\the  gave Rs.23,000\/- to him.
\nKanagasabapathy (A-7) accompanied by one Vanan, whom she did
\nnot know, left for Delhi on 20.5.1991.\t Sivarasan  came  to
\nmeet  Athirai (A-8) one day after the assassination of Rajiv
\nGandhi and told her that it was difficult to take charge  of
\nher as\tpolice\tmight  arrest him.  He told her that Santhan
\n(A-2) would  take  charge  of  her.    Speaking\t about\t the
\nassassination of  Rajiv Gandhi Sivarasan laughed.  After his
\nreturn from Delhi Kanagasabapathy (A-7) did not meet Athirai
\n(A-8).\tHe, therefore, shifted from the house of  Jayakumari
\n(PW-109) due  to police surveillance.  Sivarasan met Athirai
\n(A-8) on 3.6.1991.  Thereafter Santhan (A-2) used  to  visit
\nher frequently.\t   Sivarasan,  Kanagasabapathy (A-7), Manju,
\ndaughter of P.\tThirumathi Vimala (PW-62) and Athirai  (A-8)
\nused  to meet at Marina Beach and talked about the status of
\nSri Lankan Tamilians as compared to status of  Tamilians  in
\nIndia.\t In one of these meetings Kanagasabapathy (A-7) told
\nAthirai (A-8) that he had arranged a double bed\t room  house
\nat Delhi.   They  decided to go to Delhi on 1.7.1991.  Three
\ndays before that day Santhan (A-2)  came  and  told  Athirai
\n(A-8)  that police was interrogating Shanmugavadivelu (A-15)
\nand it\twould  be  better  for\ther  not  to  stay  with  P.
\nThirumathi Vimala  (PW-62)  any\t further.    He took Athirai
\n(A-8) to the house of one Rajagopal at Pammal and introduced
\nher to him as Sasikala.\t   Santhan  (A-2)  himself  went  in
\nhiding.\t Athirai  (A-8)\t went to the house of P.  Thirumathi
\nVimala\t(PW-62)\t for  taking  leave  of\t her  that  she\t and
\nKanagasabapathy\t (A-7)\twere going to Trichy as they did not
\nlike to be caught by police.  Rajagopal\t and  Santhan  (A-2)
\nthen  took  them  to  the  railway  station  from where they
\nboarded a train for Delhi.  At Delhi they  were\t taken\tinto
\npolice custody.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn  The\t morning of 15.5.1991 Athirai (A-8), who was
\nstaying with P.\t Thirumathi Vimala (PW-62) wanted to make  a
\nphone call from the house of Shanmugavadivelu (A-15).  Anju,
\ndaughter of  P.\t   Thirumathi Vimala (PW-62) went along with
\nher but found the house of  Shanmugavadivelu  (A-15)  locked
\nand came back.\t  P.\tThirumathi  Vimala (PW-62) then took
\nAthirai (A-8) again to the house of Shanmugavadivelu  (A-15)
\nfor  making  a\tphone  call but the house was locked at that
\ntime too.  She then advised that they could make a call from
\nThangam Stores which was near to her house.    Athirai\t(A8)
\nsaid  that  they  gave\ttheir  address to the shopkeeper who
\nwould immediately come and inform them if there was  a\tcall
\nfor Athirai  (A-8).    On  21.5.91  Athirai  (A-8) was still
\nstaying with P.\t   Thirumathi  Vimala  (PW-62).\t   When\t  P.
\nThirumathi Vimala (PW-62) saw the photograph of Sivarasan in
\nthe  newspaper\twith the news that he was connected with the
\nmurder of Rajiv Gandhi she told this to Athirai (A-8).\t  P.
\nThirumathi  Vimala  (PW-62) asked Athirai (A-8) if Sivarasan
\nwas the person connected with the murder of Rajiv Gandhi and
\nwhether he brought Athirai (A-8) along with  him.    Athirai
\n(A-8)  said  it\t was  not  so and that Sivarasan was a paper
\nreporter and that he might have gone  there  (Sriperumbudur)
\nand   that   by\t mistake  his  photograph  would  have\tbeen
\npublished.  Athirai (A-8) told P.  Thirumathi Vimala (PW-62)
\nthat she need not get scared about that and  that  it  would
\nnot be so.    On 3.6.1991 when P.  Thirumathi Vimala (PW-62)
\ncame back from her school in the afternoon and was  climbing
\nstairs\tto  go to her house Sivarasan and Athirai (A-8) were
\ncoming down from the upper stairs talking to each other.  P.
\nThirumathi Vimala (PW-62) was shocked and scared  and  asked
\nSivarasan as  to  why  he  acted  in that way.\tShe said her
\nchildren and grand-father at home were crying  bitterly\t and
\nthat  he should take away Athirai (A-8) from there and asked
\nhim not to come to her house any further.    Sivarasan\tsaid
\nthat he would not come thereafter and that persons who would
\nidentify  him and give information about him would meet with
\nthe same fate as Padmanabha  and  that\tit  would  apply  to
\nwhomsoever it  might  be.   Saying this he went away and did
\nnot come thereafter.  P.    Thirumathi\tVimala\t(PW62)\ttold
\nAthirai\t (A-8)\talso not to stay there any further and asked
\nher to go away.\t At this Athirai (A-8) cried  and  said\t she
\ndid not\t have  anyone  else other than P.  Thirumathi Vimala
\n(PW-62) and that Sivarasan  had\t already  gone\taway.\t She
\npleaded that she  be  permitted\t to stay on.  P.  Thirumathi
\nVimala (PW-62) kept quiet.  She read in the papers requiring
\nall Sri Lankan\trefugees  to  get  their  names\t registered.
\nSince Athirai (A-8) was not having any passport or any other
\ndocument P.    Thirumathi  Vimala  (PW-62) sent her daughter
\nManju  along  with  Athirai  (A-8)  to\tget  Athirai   (A-8)
\nregistered as  refugee.\t  They returned and said it had been
\ndone.\tApplication  form   requesting\t for   issuance\t  of
\nidentification\tcard  for Athirai (A-8) is Exh.P-214 and the
\napplication for getting name registered is Exh.P215.   These
\nwere  filled  and  signed  by  Athirai\t(A-8)  and  bear her
\nphotograph fixed on it.\t One day when P.  Thirumathi  Vimala
\n(PW-62)\t returned  from\t her  school  she  was\ttold  by her
\nchildren  that\tuncle  of  Athirai   (A-8)   by\t  the\tname
\nKangasabapathy had come.    At\tthis  P.   Thirumathi Vimala
\n(PW-62) confronted with Athirai (A-8) that  from  where\t her
\nuncle had come when she earlier had told her that she had no
\none to\tgo to.\tShe said that her uncle had come from Trichy
\nand she knew about  that  only\twhen  he  came.\t   Next\t day
\nKanagasabapathy (A-7)  again  came and P.  Thirumathi Vimala
\n(PW-62) accordingly asked him as to why they  were  hatching
\nconspiracy  at\ther  house and that photograph of the person
\nwho  brought  Athirai  (A-8)  had  been\t published  in\t the
\nnewspapers.   She  asked  him  to  take\t away Athirai (A-8).
\nKanagasabapathy (A-7) said that he was going to\t Trichy\t and
\nwould come  back  again\t and  take her away.  After few days
\nSanthan (A-2) came.  P.\t Thirumathi Vimala (PW-62) asked him
\nalso to take away Athirai (A-8).    A  few  days  thereafter
\nSanthan (A-2) had come to the house of P.  Thirumathi Vimala
\n(PW-62)\t and  informed her that CBI had come to the house of
\nShanmugavadivelu (A-15) and conducted search there  and\t had
\ncaught him.    He  said CBI might come to her house also and
\nsince Athirai (A-8) was not holding a passport it would be a
\nproblem for her and therefore he had to take  Athirai  (A-8)
\nas directed  by\t Sivarasan.    Athirai\t(A-8) then went with
\nSanthan (A-2).\n<\/p>\n
\tKanagasabapathy (A-7) is a Sri Lankan national.\t  He
\ndid not\t make  any confession.\tHe came to India in the last
\nweek of April, 1991 along with Athirai (A-8).  He was having
\na genuine passport (MO-558) which was seized from him.\t  He
\ndid  not  come to India through proper channel but landed at
\nKodiakkarai with Athirai (A8).\tJayakumari (PW-109), who  is
\nalso  a\t Sri  Lankan national, came to India in 1986 through
\nproper channel.\t In between she went to Sri Lanka after\t her
\nmarriage and  again  returned  to  India in March, 1988.  At
\nthat time  Kanagasabapathy  (A-7)  who\tis  her\t uncle\t(her
\nmother’s  sister’s  husband)  had  also come along with her.
\nKanagasabapathy (A-7) went back\t to  Sri  Lanka\t in  August,
\n1988.\tIn  September, 1989 he again came to India to attend
\nhis son’s wedding and then returned to Sri Lanka.    On\t the
\nmorning\t of  26.4.1991\the  came  to the house of Jayakumari
\n(PW-109) along with a young girl, Athirai (A-8) and  another
\nperson.\t Kanagasabapathy (A-7) told Jayakumari (PW-109) that
\nAthirai’s (A-8) name was Gowri and she belonged to Sri Lanka
\nand  that her mother had expired in military attack and that
\nshe had come to study computer and journalism at Delhi.\t  He
\nalso  said that Athirai (A-8) would not talk much due to the
\ngrief of her mother’s death.  He did not introduce the other
\nperson but  addressed  him  as\tbrother,  who  left  in\t the
\nafternoon.   Following day Kanagasabapathy (A-7) and Athirai
\n(A-8) went to a book shop at Mount Road to buy\tsome  books.
\nThey purchased\tthere  Delhi  Road  map.    They  were\talso
\nsearching for a book containing addresses of VIPs but it was
\nnot available.\tOn 2.5.1991 that person who  had  come\twith
\nKanagasabapathy\t (A-7)\tand  Athirai (A-8) on 26.4.1991 came
\nwith Sivarasan.\t On 7.5.1991 Sivarasan again came  and\ttook
\nAthirai (A-8)  with  him.  Before leaving Athirai (A-8) told
\nJayakumari  (PW-109)  that  she\t would\tbe  staying  at\t her
\nbrother’s place\t and  later  she  would\t go  to\t Delhi.\t  On
\n10.5.1991 Sivarasan again came on motorcycle and took  along
\nwith him Kanagasabapathy (A-7).\t Later Kanagasabapathy (A-7)
\ncame back  to  the  house and took his brief case, etc.\t and
\ntold Jayakumari (PW-109) that he was leaving for  Delhi\t and
\nwould return  after a week.  On 30\/31.5.1991 Kanagasabapathy
\n(A-7) with two more persons came to the house of  Jayakumari
\n(PW-109) in an auto.  He stayed in the house while other two
\nleft.\tJayakumari  (PW-109)  informed Kanagasabapathy (A-7)
\nthat police was searching houses of Sri Lankans stating that
\nSri Lankans were involved in Rajiv Gandhi  murder  case\t and
\nshe asked  him\tto  register  in  the  police  station.\t  He
\ndeclined and left the house at about  9.00  p.m.    He\tleft
\nbehind\ta  brief  case\twhich Jayakumari (PW-109) opened and
\nfound that  it\tcontained  airlines  tickets  and  a  letter
\nwritten by  a  person  from  Tamil  Nadu House, Delhi.\tThis
\nletter was written to a\t person\t serving  in  Delhi  Airport
\nAuthority to  assist  Kanagasabapathy (A7).  Kanagasabapathy
\n(A-7) kept on coming to the house  of  Jayakumari  (PW-109).
\nHe  asked her to give the telephone number of Athirai (A-8).
\nJayakumari (PW-109) knew earlier that Sivarasan\t was  having
\none  eye  and  when it was published in the newspaper in the
\nsecond week of June, 1991 that a person connected  with\t the
\nmurder of Rajiv Gandhi was having one eye, she inquired from
\nKanagasabapathy\t (A-7)\tabout  Sivarasan  and his connection
\nwith him.  Kanagasabapathy  (A-7)  told\t her  that  she\t was
\nimagining things and if she entertained in her mind anything
\nharmful\t to Kanagasabapathy (A-7) or Athirai (A-8) God would
\npunish her.  Jayakumari (PW-109) did give  telephone  number
\nof  Athirai  (A-8)  to\tKanagasabapathy (A7) and said he was
\nputting them in unnecessary problem.  He said he  would\t not
\ncome if\t she  gave  him\t the  telephone\t number.  It is only
\nthrough newspapers that Jayakumari (PW-109) came to know the
\nname of the person as Sivarasan, who had come to  her  house
\nfor the\t first\ttime  on 2.5.1991.  Athirai (A-8) telephoned
\nJayakumari (PW-109) on 17.6.1991 and gave  telephone  number
\nas   8250228   and   told   her\t  to   give  the  number  to
\nKanagasabapathy (A-7).\tThat number was given by  Jayakumari
\n(PW-109) to    Kanagasabapathy\t  (A-7).      On   29.6.1991
\nKanagasabapathy (A-7) again came to the house of  Jayakumari
\n(PW-109),  took\t his belongings and said that he was leaving
\nfor Delhi and from where he would go to Johannesburg.\tWhen
\non 30\/31.5.1991 Kanagasabapathy (A-7) with two other persons
\ncame  they  told  her  that  they  had\tcome  from  Delhi by
\naeroplane.   Kanagasabapathy  (A-7)  opened  an\t account  in
\nCanara\tBank and he gave the address of Jayakumari (PW-109).
\nThe account opening form is Exh.P-516.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn 20.5.1991 Kanagasabapathy (A-7) went to Delhi  by
\nflight with one Vanan and stayed in Hotel Krishna there.  K.
\nThiagarajan  (PW-57)  helped  Kanagasabapathy (A-7) to get a
\nhouse on rent at Moti Bagh  in\tDelhi  on  monthly  rent  of
\nRs.2,000 and  an advance of Rs.6,000\/-.\t He was also staying
\nin Krishna Hotel, Delhi.   That\t Kanagasabapathy  (A-7)\t and
\nVanan  travelled  by  air  is  evident\tby flight coupons of
\nIndian Airlines (Exh.P-1329 and Exh.P-1330).   In  the\tnote
\nbook (MO-159), diaries (MO-180 and Exh.P-1253), which are of
\nSivarasan,  amounts  have  been\t shown\tto have been paid to
\nKanagasabapathy (A-7) and Athirai (A-8) and also  to  Vanan.
\nIn   the   wireless   message  (Exh.P-407)  dated  14.6.1991
\nSivarasan informed Pottu Amman that there  was\tno  news  of
\nKanagasabapathy (A-7)  who had gone to Delhi.  This wireless
\nmessage had been intercepted by T.P.   Sitther\t(PW-78)\t and
\ndecoded by S.  Mani (PW-84).  On both the occasions at Delhi
\nKanagasabapathy\t (A-7) first time with Vanan and second time
\nwith Athirai (A-8) stayed in the Krishna  Hotel.    Ramkumar
\n(PW-196),  partner  of the Krishna hotel has given statement
\nwith reference to the registers\t of  arrival  and  departure
\n(Exh.P-931) kept   in\tthe   hotel.\t He  had  identified
\nKanagasabapathy (A-7) and Athirai (A-8).  According  to\t his
\nrecord K.   Thiagarajan (PW-57) along with Rajiv Pant stayed
\nin the hotel from 19.5.1991 to 1.6.1991 and  Kanagasabapathy
\n(A-7) and  Vanna  stayed from 20.5.1991 to 29.5.1991.  Entry
\nin  the\t  hotel\t  register   on\t  3.7.1991   was   made\t  by
\nKanagasabapathy (A-7).\t  They declared their nationality as
\nIndian.\t Purpose  of  visit  of\t Kanagasabapathy  (A-7)\t was
\nmentioned  as business and that of Athirai (A-8) studies and
\nplace from where they arrived is mentioned as  Madras.\t  On
\n4.7.1991  both\tKanagasabapathy (A-7) and Athirai (A-8) were
\narrested by the CBI at Krishna Hotel, Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
\tVijayanandan (A-5) is a Sri  Lankan  national.\t  He
\ncame  to India on 1.5.1991 and was one of the members of the
\nnine members group.   He  made\tno  confession.\t   A  forged
\npassport  (MO-559)  was recovered from him and seized during
\ninvestigation.\tP.G.   Abeykoon\t Bandara  (PW-185)  who\t was
\nDeputy Controller,  Deptt.    of Immigration and Emigration,
\nSri Lanka had testified that  the  passport  (MO559)  was  a
\nforged document.    On\tarrival\t from Sri Lanka Vijayanandan
\n(A-5) stayed in Komala Vilas Lodge, Madras.  He\t made  entry
\n(Exh.P-497) in the arrival register of the Lodge (Exh.P496).
\nHe  wrote that he had come from Madurai and was a teacher by
\nprofession.  The reason which he gave for coming  to  Madras
\nwas “wedding”.\t This  had  been  testified  by A.  Ravindra
\nReddy (PW-100) Manager of  Komala  Vilas  Lodge.    Document
\nExh.P-351 is a slip of paper recovered from the residence of
\nN.  Vasantha  Kumar  (PW-75).\t This slip of paper has been
\nmarked as Exh.P-351 in the statement of N.   Vasantha  Kumar
\n(PW-75)\t when  he  said\t that he could identify the document
\nregarding the books, etc.  purchased by\t Vijayanandan  (A-5)
\nwhen he\t was staying in his house.  It is doubtful if such a
\nstatement is enough to prove the document.    This  document
\nwas  put  to  the accused in his statement under Section 313
\nCr.P.C.\t which he denied.  This document shows\tthe  arrival
\nof  Vijayanandan  (A-5)\t at  Kodiakkarai  on  Indian soil on
\n1.5.1991 and then his coming to stay in Komala Vilas  Lodge.
\nIn  diary  (MO-180)  of\t Sivarasan  seized from the house of
\nJayakumar (A-10) it is mentioned that a sum  of\t Rs.50,000\/-
\nwas paid  to  Vijayanandan (A-5) on 8.5.1991.  There is also
\nan entry in this diary which shows  that  Sivarasan  was  to
\nmeet  Vijayanandan  (A-5) on 18.5.1991 in the morning from 9
\nto 12.\tThat he did come to the house of N.  Vasantha  Kumar
\n(PW-75) has been spoken to by N.  Vasantha Kumar (PW-75).\n<\/p>\n
\tShankar (A-4)  is a Sri Lankan national.  He is also
\none of the nine members’ group who came to India in  a\tboat
\non 1.5.1991.\tAt  Kodiakkarai\t where the boat came Shankar
\n(A-4) stayed with one Jagadeesan  till\t15.5.1991  and\tthen
\ncame to Madras and stayed at Easwari Lodge from 16.5.1991 to
\n23.5.1991.   Before  coming over to Madras Shankar (A-4) met
\nMurugan (A-3) at Kodiakkarai when Murugan  (A-3)  was  going
\nfor  Jaffna but could not leave as boat had not arrived from
\nSri Lanka.    Murugan  (A-3)  gave  him\t a  slip  of   paper
\ncontaining (Ext.   1062) his name ‘Thass’ and name of Nalini
\n(A-1) and her telephone number 419493.\t Santhan  (A-2)\t and
\nSivarasan  met\tShankar\t (A-4) at Easwari Lodge and gave him
\nRs.10,000\/-.  Santhan (A-2) and Sivarasan knew the place  of
\nstay of\t Shankar  (A-4).   On 23.5.1991 Shankar (A-4) sought
\nhelp of S.  Kalyan Krishnan (PW-58)  owner  of\tthe  Easwari
\nLodge\tto  contact  Sivarasan\tor  Robert  Payas  (A-9)  on
\ntelephone number 2343402 of Ebenezer Stores.   Shankar\t(A4)
\nwas   arrested\t on   7.6.1991\t at  Thiruthuraipoondi\tnear
\nNagapattinam.\tExh.P-401  is  a   wireless   message\tfrom
\nSivarasan  to  Pottu  Amman  dated  9.6.1991  which reads :-
\n“….There is news that one of my associates was  caught  at
\nNagapattinam  and  he  has  told  all the news, things about
\nme….”.  In letter (Exh.P-129) dated 7.9.1991\tfrom  Trichy
\nSanthan\t (DA)  to  Prabhakaran it was mentioned that CBI had
\ncaught the Shanmugham (DA) only after it  was  disclosed  by
\nShankar\t (A-4) Murugan (A-3), Robert Payas (A-9) and Santhan
\n(A-2) that all had come\t (from\tSri  Lanka)  and  landed  at
\nShanmugham’s place.   In diary (Exh.P-1253) of Sivarasan the
\nfact  that  Rs.10,000\/-\t was  paid  to\tShankar\t (A-4)\t was
\nmentioned.   In\t note  book  (MO-159)  of Sivarasan there is
\nagain a mention of payment of  Rs.5,000\/-  by  Sivarasan  to
\nShankar (A-4) (Exh.P-439).\tCh.\tGandhi\t(PW-267)  is
\nhand-writing expert  and  has  proved  the  hand-writing  of
\nSivarasan.\n<\/p>\n
\tS.   Kalyan  Krishnan  (PW-58)\tis  running  Easwari
\nLodge.\tWith reference to his guest register  maintained  in
\nhis  lodge  he\tsaid  that  on\tthe evening of 16.5.1991 one
\nJagadeesan came to his lodge to take a room.  He said he was
\nregular customer for the past about 20 or 25 years.  He said
\nlater a guest whose name he came to know was  Shankar  (A-4)
\njoined Jagadeesan.    Though  Jagadeesan  left Shankar (A-4)
\ncontinued to stay in the lodge.\t On 23.5.1991 Shankar  (A-4)
\ntold S.\t   Kalyan  Krishnan (PW-58) that he was vacating the
\nroom and was going to his native place.\t He wanted to make a
\nphone call.  He gave a slip of paper on which it was written
\nin ink as “Payas house, Sivarasa,” and\ta  telephone  number
\nwas also mentioned.   S.  Kalyan Krishnan (PW-58) telephoned
\nthat number and was told that Payas house was situated at  a
\ndistance  of  about  11\/2  furlong  and message could not be
\nconveyed.  He, however, got  the  address  of  Robert  Payas
\n(A-9)  and made a note of that on the slip of paper given by
\nShankar (A-4).\tThat slip of paper (Exh.P164) was identified
\nby S.  Kalyan Krishnan (PW-58).\t The address  in  pencil  on
\nthe slip  (Exh.P-164) was in the hand of S.  Kalyan Krishnan
\n(PW-58).  This slip he kept with him and wrote another\tslip
\n(Exh.P-1645)  giving  the  details  of the address of Robert
\nPayas’s (A-9) house to Shankar (A-4).  S.   Kalyan  Krishnan
\n(PW-58)\t also  explained  to  Shankar (A-4) a route to go to
\nRobert Payas (A9) house.  There is, however, nothing in\t the
\nevidence  to  show that Shankar (A-4) did go to the house of
\nRobert Payas (A-9).\n<\/p>\n
\tRobert\tPayas  (A-9),\this   wife   Prema,   sister
\nPremlatha, brother-in-law Jayakumar (A-10), his wife Shanthi
\n(A-11)\tand  some other 30 or 35 Tamils had come to India in
\nSeptember, 1990 from Sri Lanka and got themselves registered
\nas refugees on 20.9.1990.  As noted  above  Prema,  wife  of
\nRobert\tPayas  (A-9)  and  Jayakumar  (A-10) are brother and
\nsister.\t Shanthi (A-11) is Indian national.  Others are\t all
\nSri Lankan  nationals.\t  Shanmughalingam  is  the father of
\nPrema and Jayakumar (A-10).  In his confession Robert  Payas
\n(A-9)  said  that he had been helping LTTE since 1985 during
\nwar first with Sri Lankan army and  thereafter\twith  Indian
\narmy IPKF.  He said a rival organization EPRLF betrayed them
\nto  IPKF  which caught hold of them and kept them in custody
\nfor 15 days.  IPKF also raided their houses and beat up\t the
\nladies severely.   He said at that time due to the action of
\nIPKF his son aged 1-1\/2 months\tdied.\t He  said  they\t had
\ndeveloped hatred  towards IPKF and even EPRLF.\tAccording to
\nhim IPKF was subjecting common people  to  great  sufferings
\nlike   committing   murders,   rape   and   other  kinds  of
\nill-treatments and  harassment.\t   Jayakumar  (A-10)  was  a
\nfrequent visitor  to  Tamil  Nadu.  Porur house of Jayakumar
\n(A-10) was rented through M.  Utham Singh (PW56)  proprietor
\nof Ebenezer  Stores  who  was  paid  commission.   Jayakumar
\n(A-10) also shifted to another house in Kodungaiyur.   These
\ntwo  houses  were  arranged  in such a way as to accommodate
\nLTTE people comfortably.   In  the  Porur  house  many\tLTTE
\npersonnel came to visit or even to stay there.\tRobert Payas
\n(A-9)  opened  a Savings Bank account in the Central Bank of
\nIndia in his name.  He said Kanthan had\t purchased  one\t red
\ncolour\t  Yamaha   motorcycle\tbearing\t  registration\t No.
\nTN-09-A-8213 in\t the  name  Raja.    Nishanthan\t  had\tmade
\narrangement  for  purchase  of\tthe motorcycle while Kanthan
\nmade the payment.  Kanthan, Nishanthan\tand  Sivarasan\twere
\nmaking use  of\tthe motorcycle.\t Robert Payas (A9) said that
\nhe knew that Sivarasan and Kanthan had\tcome  to  India\t for
\nsome  dreaded  jobs  and  it  was  a known fact about LTTE’s
\nactivities and its hand in assassinating Padmanabha and\t his
\nfriends in  Madras.    After  some  time  Sivarasan  started
\nstaying in the house of Jayakumar (A-10).  Sivarasan used to
\ncome over to the residence of Robert Payas (A-9)  frequently
\nand to\tmeet  Kanthan  and Santhan (A-2).  In February, 1991
\nSivarasan had come to Porur house along with Murugan  (A-3),
\nwho   stayed  with  Robert  Payas  (A9)\t for  two  days\t and
\nthereafter went to stay at Royapettah house.  Murugan  (A-3)
\nwas  a\tfrequent visitor to the house of Robert Payas (A-9).
\nHe would come over there along with Sivarasan or of his own.
\nHe would come to take money from  Kanthan  or  even  to\t see
\nSivarasan.   They  used\t to  assemble in the house of Robert
\nPayas (A9) and plan works for their “movement” and then they
\nwould execute those works as per their plans.  LTTE  members
\nwould  have  contacts  with  Sivarasan,\t Kanthan, Nishanthan
\nthrough the telephone number 2343402 installed\tin  Ebenezer
\nStores of M.\tUtham  Singh  (PW56).  Even calls would come
\nfrom Colombo, Canada and England.    T.\t   Soundara  Pandian
\n(PW-54), who was working in Ebenezer Stores, would bring the
\nmessages.    In\t  the  absence\tof  Sivarasan,\tKanthan\t and
\nNishanthan those messages would be received by Robert  Payas
\n(A-9) to  help\tthem.\tKanthan only used to arrange for the
\nmoney and give them to all for the  conspiratorial  work  of
\nLTTE.\tHe  would  bring gold biscuits, encash them and give
\nmoney to Sivarasan, Murugan (A-3) and  other  LTTE  members.
\nIndirankutty,  another LTTE activist, would come from Trichy
\nquite frequently.  He would also help persons like Sivarasan
\nand Kanthan.   In  the\tbeginning  of  May,  1991  Sivarasan
\nbrought\t Santhan  (A-2)\t to the house of Robert Payas (A-9).
\nSanthan\t (A-2)\tstayed\tthere  for  two\t days  and  then  at
\nHaribabu’s house.    On 5.5.1991 Robert Payas (A-9), Santhan
\n(A-2), Murugan (A-3), Haribabu, Arivu (A-18)  and  Sivarasan
\nall met\t at  Marina Beach.  On 9.5.1991 Indirankutty came to
\nRobert Payas (A-9) with Ruban (A-6) who had lost one of\t his
\nlegs in a bomb blast in Sri Lanka and had come to India with
\nSivarasan for  medical treatment.  Robert Payas (A-9) helped
\nSivarasan to get a learning  licence  for  motorcycle.\t  He
\ncould  not  get\t a regular licence as he had lost one of his
\neyes.  A week  before  the  assassination  of  Rajiv  Gandhi
\nSivarasan  and\tKanthan\t had come to the residence of Robert
\nPayas (A-9) and they had a conference.\tKanthan\t gave  money
\nto Sivarasan.\t Robert Payas (A-9) said that that money was
\nused for  their\t conspiracy  work.    Between  15.5.1991  to
\n21.5.1991  Santhan  (A-2)  came\t to  the residence of Robert
\nPayas (A-9) three times, first time  when  he  came  Kanthan
\ngave him Rs.2.00 lacs to hand over the same to Sivarasan who
\nwas  staying  at  the  residence of Jayakumar (A-10), second
\ntime Santhan (A-2) got Rs.5.00 lacs and went away.   One  or
\ntwo  days later Robert Payas (A-9) and Santhan (A-2) went to
\nmarket to make certain purchases for Ruban (A-6) which\twere
\nneeded for  his journey to Jaipur and back.  Ruban (A-6) was
\nstaying with Robert Payas (A-9).  Robert  Payas\t (A-9)\talso
\nmentioned the  name  of Vanan being an LTTE member.  He said
\nin the month of May he had gone to the residence  of  Vanan.
\nThere he met Vijayanandan (A-5) who had come to India in the
\nboat  along  with Sivarasan, Santhan (A-2) and others in the
\nbeginning of May, 1991.\t According  to\tRobert\tPayas  (A-9)
\nSivarasan  and Santhan (A-2) would also be going over to the
\nresidence of  Vanan.\tOn  his\t first\t visit\t to   Delhi,
\nKanagasabapathy (A-7) had gone along with Vanan.  This Vanan
\nhas not\t been  examined.    Robert  Payas  (A-9) said in his
\nconfession that between\t 15.5.1991  and\t 20.5.1991  Ramanan,
\nSanthan\t (A-2), Rangam and Kanthan had come to his residence
\nseveral times in connection with  the  LTTE  conspiracy\t and
\nthey  used  to\treceive\t phone\tcalls from Sivarasan through
\nEbenezer Stores.  On 21.5.1991 Robert Payas (A9) was at\t his
\nresidence.   On\t 22.5.1991  he\tgot the news of Rajiv Gandhi
\nassassination.\tHe did not leave his residence on  23.5.1991
\nexpecting message  from\t Sivarasan.   On 24.5.1991 Sivarasan
\ncame to his house in his Kawasaki Bajaj motorcycle  to\tmeet
\nKanthan but  Kanthan  was  not\tthere.\t  On  25.5.1991 when
\nKanthan came on his red Yamaha motorcycle Robert Payas (A-9)
\ntold him that Sivarasan had come the  previous\tday  looking
\nfor him.    On 27.5.1991 Santhan (A-2) came to the residence
\nof Robert Payas (A-9) and they all decided to  leave  Madras
\nin order  to  escape  from  the\t police.   On 28.5.1991 they
\nbought tickets in assumed names and went to Thiruchendur  by
\nnight bus  on 29.5.1991.  They did not check in any lodge in
\nThiruchendur and on 30.5.1991 again by\tnight  bus  came  to
\nMadurai on  31.5.1991.\t  Robert  Payas (A-9) said they took
\nladies with them to avoid any suspicion.  For  Madurai\talso
\nthey took night bus and reached Madras on 1.6.1991.  Santhan
\n(A-2) went to some other place.\t Robert Payas (A-9) sent his
\nwife and his younger sister to the residence of his uncle in
\nVadapalani  and he himself went to the residence of one Loga
\nin Nasapakkam to hide.\tOn 3.6.1991 he\twent  to  Vadapalani
\nand brought  back his family to the Porur house.  He did not
\nreceive any information either from Sivarasan or Kanthan and
\nin a few days he was arrested by CBI.  According  to  Robert
\nPayas (A-9) all of his expenses were met by Kanthan who also
\npaid  for  the expenses of other LTTE members staying in his
\nhouse<\/p>\n
\tJayakumar (A-10), who is husband of  Shanthi  (A-11)
\ngave a\tconfession.   He also talks of war first between Sri
\nLankan army and LTTE and then LTTE and IPKF.  He  said\tthat
\nRobert Payas (A9), his sister’s husband, was helping LTTE in
\nhis native  village.   In one raid made by IPKF Robert Payas
\n(A-9) and Jayakumar (A-10) were caught and kept in  a  camp.
\nThough\tJayakumar  (A-10)  was released after a few days but
\nnot Robert Payas (A-9).\t Lives had become miserable  because
\nof raids  by IPKF.  They were now having close contacts with
\nLTTE movement who were providing them even  financial  help.
\nIn  September, 1990 Jayakumar (A-10) said LTTE “people” told
\nRobert Payas (A-9) and him to go and  stay  in\tMadras\twith
\ninstructions to\t keep  houses  ready  for their purpose.  He
\nsaid on account of the atrocities committed jointly by\tIPKF
\nand  EPRLF,  the LTTE movement had thought to teach a lesson
\nto the leaders in India and  to\t the  persons  belonging  to
\nEPRLF hiding  in  Madras.    Since  they  were\tsent by LTTE
\nmovement to India they did not give two sovereigns  of\tgold
\nand  pay  Rs.1500\/-  for  each of the person coming to India
\nwhich LTTE  was\t charging.\tAfter\tgetting\t  themselves
\nregistered  at Rameshwaram as refugees they all went to stay
\nat Madras.  Nishanthan, Saravanan,  Raja  @  Kalapathy,\t all
\nLTTE  people,  arranged\t Porur house which was rented out in
\nthe name of Jayakumar (A-10).\t Nishanthan  and  Kumaradoss
\nstayed\tin Porur house with Robert Payas (A-9) and Jayakumar
\n(A-10) families.  After about one  week\t of  stay  in  Porur
\nhouse  another LTTE activist Kanthan also came and stayed in
\nthe house.  Since both Jayakumar  (A-10)  and  Robert  Payas
\n(A-9) were  unemployed\tKanthan\t was  giving them money.  In
\nfact Kanthan was providing money for all the matters of LTTE
\nmovement in Madras.  A wireless set was installed  at  Porur
\nhouse after  Kanthan  had  come\t to  stay  there.    He\t and
\nNishanthan @ Nixon used to talk to the movement at Jaffna by
\nwireless.  Another supporter of LTTE Indirankutty also\tused
\nto   come  to  Porur  house  in\t white\tMaruti\tvan  bearing
\nregistration number TAY-9444 from Trichy.  He would also get
\nmoney from Kanthan.  Jayakumar (A-10) also talks of buying a
\nmotorcycle by Kanthan in the name of Shanmugaraja,  an\tLTTE
\nman through Sarvanan and Kalapathi @ Raja.  Jayakumar (A-10)
\nsaid  that  Robert  Payas  (A-9) and Kanthan told him that a
\nhigh ranking person from the movement would  come  to  India
\nduring\tthe  second  week  of December and that his name was
\nSivarasan and was coming to India with a dangerous plot.  It
\nwas  decided  that  another  house  should  be\tarranged  by
\nJayakumar (A-10) for his stay.\tIt was so thought that since
\nJayakumar  (A-10)  would be staying with family nobody would
\nhave suspicion on Sivarasan.  Kanthan  also  told  Jayakumar
\n(A-10)\tthat Sivarasan would give him the required money for
\nall the expenses.  Accordingly Kodungaiyur house was  rented
\nwith  the  help\t of  Ramaswamy,\t father-in-law\tof Jayakumar
\n(A-10).\t The house was\ttaken  in  the\tname  of  Ramaswamy.
\nJayakumar  (A-10)  moved  with\this  family to that house in
\nDecember, 1990 and after a  fortnight  or  so  Robert  Payas
\n(A-9)  brought\tSivarasan  to  his  house  and told him that
\nSivarasan would stay there.  Jayakumar (A-10) was told\tthat
\nhe  should be helpful to Sivarasan and to all the activities
\nof the movement.  Jayakumar (A-10) said “that Sivarasan\t was
\nsent  to  India by the movement to fulfil a dangerous plot”.
\nSivarasan had brought a suitcase with him in which  he\tkept
\nhis dresses, AK-47 rifle, a diary and a pistol.\t Whenever he
\nwould go out he would take pistol with him kept concealed in
\na thick\t book  where  he had made a cavity.  From January to
\nApril, 1991 Sivarasan went to Sri Lanka two or\tthree  times
\nand returned.\t On 2.5.1991 when he returned from Sri Lanka
\nhe  brought  two  LTTE\tlady  tigresses\t Dhanu\tand   Subha.
\nJayakumar (A10) said it was known to him that “Sivarasan had
\nbrought\t those\ttwo  LTTE movement lady tigers with a murder
\nplan”.\tHe said it was also known to him that Sivarasan\t and
\nlady  tigresses\t had  decided  to  wreak  vengeance  for the
\natrocities committed by IPKF.  After staying in the house of
\nJayakumar (A-10) for a day or so those\ttwo  girls  went  to
\nstay  in  the  house of Vijayan (A-12) and Bhaskaran (A-14),
\nhis father-in-law.  Sivarasan also  bought  one\t red  colour
\nBajaj  Kawasaki\t motorcycle  which  he\tkept in the house of
\nVijayan (A-12).\t Subha and Dhanu would\toften  come  to\t the
\nhouse of  Jayakumar  (A-10).\tShanthi (A-11) would go with
\nthem for shopping.   Sivarasan\twould  visit  the  house  of
\nVijayan (A-12)\tdaily.\t One day when Sivarasan came to stay
\nin the house of Jayakumar (A-10) he brought  Santhan  (A-2),
\nwho was\t his  “partner”.  Jayakumar (A-10) said that he knew
\nthat Santhan (A-2) was in connivance with Sivarasan  in\t all
\nthe   activities   and\tthat  Santhan  (A-2)  was  assisting
\nSivarasan “for the dangerous work which he would carry out”.
\nSince Jayakumar\t (A-10)\t had  no  work\tSivarasan  gave\t him
\nRs.35,000\/-  and  asked\t him to start a business of grinding
\ncoffee seeds.\t  On   19.4.1991   Jayakumar   (A-10)\tpaid
\nRs.20,000\/-  as\t advance and took a shop on rent in the name
\nof his wife Shanthi (A-11) at a monthly\t rent  of  Rs.450\/-.
\nHe   bought   coffee   seeds   grinding\t  machine  also\t for
\nRs.15,000\/-.  Then he applied  for  a  telephone  connection
\npaying Rs.8,000\/-  for\this  shop.  He applied for telephone
\nconnection  in\tthe  name  of  his  wife   Shanthi   (A-11).
\nTelephone  connection  was  applied  for  the convenience of
\nSivarasan and other persons  of\t LTTE  movement\t to  contact
\namong themselves.    Whenever  Subha  and  Dhanu came to the
\nhouse  of  Jayakumar  (A-10)  Sivarasan\t would\t take\tthem
\nseparately and talk to them secretly.  A few days before the
\nassassination  of  Rajiv  Gandhi  Sivarasan  told  Jayakumar
\n(A-10) to stitch a cloth cover for his pistol which  Shanthi
\n(A-11) did.  If the gun was put in the cover it would not be
\nvisible to  others.    Then Sivarasan also got one kurta and
\npyzama.\t The measurements were provided by Jayakumar  (A-10)
\nas  Sivarasan  was  not willing to go to the tailoring shop.
\nOne day Shanthi (A-11) also took Subha to  nearby  tailoring
\nshop and got dresses stitched for her.\tJayakumar (A-10) was
\nquite often  visiting  the  house of Robert Payas (A-9).  In
\nthe month of May,  1991\t he  had  seen\tSivarasan,  Kanthan,
\nSanthan (A-2)  and  Murugan (A-3) in that house.  There they
\nwould confer about the plot.  Then  Jayakumar  (A-10)  added
\n“about\ta  week before the murder of Rajiv Gandhi, Sivarasan
\nhad talked  with  Santhan  (A-2)  about\t his  murder  plan”.
\nSivarasan  left the house of Jayakumar (A-10) on the morning
\nof 21.5.1991 and returned at 1 O’clock and went to his room.
\nHe changed his dress and now he wore kurta-pyzama.  He hid a
\npistol in his dress.  He was supposed to go  to\t the  public
\nmeeting of Rajiv Gandhi at Sriperumbudur.  From the house of
\nJayakumar (A-10) he went to the house of Vijayan (A-12).  He
\nreturned  at 12.30 in the night with Subha and Nalini (A-1).
\nIt was confirmed that Rajiv Gandhi was\tmurdered  by  Dhanu.
\nSivarasan then went upstairs to talk about the incident with
\nSanthan (A-2).\t  In  the morning of 22.5.1991 Santhan (A-2)
\nwent out and bought newspaper.\tAfterwards Subha and  Nalini
\n(A-1) went to watch news on TV to the neigbour’s house (D.J.
\nSwaminathan  (PW-85))  while  Sivarasan went to the house of
\nVijayan (A-12).\t On 23.5.1991 in the morning Sivarasan\twent
\nout  with  Nalini  (A-1) and then took Subha and left her at
\nthe house of Vijayan (A-12).  When he came back in the night
\nhe said that he had decided to leave within a  day  or\ttwo.
\nHe  kept  all  his  things  in a suitcase which included his
\ncloths and that of Subha, two big dictionaries and notebooks
\nwhich Sivarasan was keeping, took the pistol separately\t and
\npacked the  bullets  in a separate parcel.  In the notebooks
\nSivarasan used to write his income and\texpenses.    In\t the
\nsuitcase  he  also kept photos, passports, cassettes and the
\nartificial eye which he used to wear.\t On  his  directions
\nJayakumar  (A-10)  dug\ta  pit\tin the corner of the kitchen
\nwhere he placed the  suitcase  and  parcel  of\tbullets\t and
\ncovered\t the  pit  with\t a concrete slab that he had bought,
\nagain on the instructions of Sivarasan.\t   Jayakumar  (A-10)
\nthen  painted  the area in such a way that nobody could find
\nout.  All these things were seized on 26.6.1991 as disclosed
\nin the confession statement of Jayakumar (A-10).   Sivarasan
\nthen left but Santhan (A-2) kept on staying in the house for
\ntwo or\tthree  days.\tThen  he  also left as Sivarasan had
\ninstructed Jayakumar (A10) to  change  the  house.    Before
\nleaving he gave Rs.5,000\/- to Jayakumar (A-10).\t On the same
\nday  or\t the  following\t day  Nero  (DA)  another partner of
\nSivarasan came and received a bag from Jayakumar  (A-10)  as
\nper instructions  of  Sivarasan.  Earlier also Nero had come
\nto the house of Jayakumar (A-10).  He was connected with the
\nLTTE movement and a helper of Sivarasan.\n<\/p>\n
\tM.  Utham Singh (PW-56) is  the\t owner\tof  Ebenezer
\nStores in Porur\t locality.  T.\tSoundara Pandian (PW-54) was
\nworking as assistant in his shop.  Telephone number  2343402
\nwas installed  in  his\tshop  premises.\t  One person by name
\nShanmugham got acquainted with M.  Utham Singh (PW-56) as he
\nhad been buying provisions from his shop.  Rajakalapathy and
\nhis wife, father-in-law and motherin-law were also  residing
\nwith Shanmugham.      In  September,  1990  two\t Sri  Lankan
\nTamilians came to M.  Utham Singh (PW-56) on  a\t red  colour
\nYamaha\tmotorcycle and asked him whether there was any house
\navailable for rent.  House of Dr.  G.J.\t Srinivasan (PW-252)
\nin the said locality was newly built.  Dr.  G.J.  Srinivasan
\n(PW-252) wanted the house to be let out and for that purpose
\nhe had kept a key with M.  Utham Singh (PW-56)\tfor  him  to
\nshow  the  house  to  any one who wanted to take the same on
\nrent.  When M.\tUtham Singh (PW56) asked those\ttwo  persons
\nif  they would give the name of any acquaintance in the area
\nthey told him about Rajakalapathy.  When  M.\tUtham  Singh
\n(PW-56) asked them to bring Rajakalapathy he came with them.
\nThe  house  in\tquestion  was shown and they liked the same.
\nThose two persons, who came on the motorcycle, were Sarvanan
\nand Nishanthan @ Nixon.\t Rate of rent and the advance amount
\npayable was agreed to  during  discussion  with\t Dr.\tG.J.
\nSrinivasan (PW-252).\tOn   the   request   of\t Dr.\tG.J.
\nSrinivasan (PW252) as to how many members would\t be  staying
\nin  that  house Sarvanan furnished the list of seven members
\non  a  white  piece  of\t paper\t(Exh.P-153),  who  were\t  K.
\nKumaralingam, K.     Kumaradoss,    K.\t    Premalatha,\t  K.
\nNishanthan, S.\tJayakumar,  J.\t  Shanthi  and\tK.    Prema.
\nFamilies  of  Robert  Payas  (A-9) and Jayakumar (A-10) then
\noccupied the house.  They used to  purchase  provision\tfrom
\nthe shop of  M.\t   Utham  Singh (PW-56).  Robert Payas (A-9)
\ntold M.\t Utham Singh (PW56) that his relatives\twere  living
\nabroad\tand  requested\thim  if they made any phone call for
\nRobert Payas (A-9) he might call him.  To  this\t M.    Utham
\nSingh (PW-56) agreed.  Jayakumar (A-10) also used to receive
\ncalls  from  Germany  and  Robert Payas (A-9) from Italy and
\nDenmark.  Robert Payas (A-9) also introduced Kanthan  to  M.
\nUtham  Singh (PW-56), who also requested for the facility of
\nreceiving phone calls.\tM.  Utham Singh\t (PW-56)  said\tthat
\nwhen these persons used to attend the calls they would speak
\nonly  in  cerebral ‘yes’, ‘correct’, ‘O.K.’ and some time ‘I
\nwill come’.  Either M.\tUtham Singh (PW-56) or his assistant
\nT.  Soundara Pandian (PW-54) would go to the house of Robert
\nPayas (A-9) to tell them of the receipt of  the\t call.\t  On
\n22.5.1991 M.\tUtham  Singh  (PW-56)  did not open the shop
\nbecause of some ceremony in his\t house.\t   On  23.5.1991  T.
\nSoundara  Pandian  (PW-54)  came  to  open  the\t shop in the
\nmorning at 7.00 a.m.  M.  Utham Singh  (PW-56)\thimself\t did
\nnot go.\t  At about 12.30 noon M.  Utham Singh (PW-56) made a
\ncall to the shop  and  asked  how  was\tthe  business.\t  T.
\nSoundara Pandian (PW-54) told him that it was on an average.
\nM.  Utham Singh (PW-56) instructed him to close the shop and
\ngo home\t since\triots  had  broken out in certain areas.  At
\nabout 1.30 p.m.\t T.  Soundara Pandian (PW-54)  came  to\t the
\nhouse of  M.\tUtham Singh (PW-56) and told him that he had
\nreceived a call from one Shankar, who was  staying  in\tsome
\nlodging\t house\tand  had  requested him to call Robert Payas
\n(A-9) or Sivarasan to which T.\tSoundara Pandian (PW-54) had
\nreplied that he was the only person in the  shop  and  could
\nnot go\tto  give  the message.\tHe said after two minutes of
\nthat call Shankar again called him and asked him to give the
\naddress of the shop.  According to M.  Utham  Singh  (PW-56)
\nneither\t Robert Payas (A-9) nor Jayakumar (A-10) was engaged
\nin any work.  In December,  1990  Jayakumar  (A-10)  shifted
\nfrom  Porur house though still he would be visiting the shop
\nof M.  Utham Singh (PW-56) to  purchase\t provisions.\tRent
\nagreement was  executed\t bearing  signatures  of  Dr.\tG.J.
\nSrinivasan (PW-252) and M.  Utham Singh (PW-56).    In\tfact
\nthere  were  two agreements one for rent (Exh.P-154) and one
\nfor fitting and fixtures (Exh.P-155).\n<\/p>\n
\tT.  Soundara Pandian (PW-54) employee of M.    Utham
\nSingh  (PW56)  said  that  Robert  Payas (A-9) and Jayakumar
\n(A-10) used to get phone calls from the shop Ebenezer Stores
\nof which M.  Utham Singh (PW56) was  the  proprietor.\t The
\nphone  calls  used  to come from foreign countries and local
\ncalls were also received.  Apart from Robert Payas (A-9) and
\nJayakumar (A-10) Kanthan, Sivarasan and Nixon also  used  to
\ncome to\t the  shop  to\treceive\t phone\tcalls.\tSome time T.
\nSoundara Pandian (PW-54) would go to Porur house to leave  a
\nmessage that  telephone\t had come.  He said on second day of
\nthe death of Rajiv Gandhi he came  to  the  shop  as  usual.
\nThere  was a telephone call and the person who called wanted
\nhim to call either Sivarasan or Robert Payas (A-9).  When T.
\nSoundara Pandian (PW-54) declined because  of  riots  nearby
\nthe phone  was\tdisconnected.\t After\ttwo or three minutes
\nagain phone call  came\tand  caller  identified\t himself  as
\nShankar and he said that he was the person who spoke earlier
\nand  wanted  him  to  call  Sivarasan  or Robert Payas (A-9)
\nurgently.  T.  Soundara Pandian (PW-54) told him that he was
\nalone in the shop and could not\t go  to\t call  them.\tThat
\nperson\t(Shankar)  said\t he was speaking from a lodge and he
\nwanted to have the address of Robert  Payas’s  (A-9)  house.
\nT.   Soundara  Pandian (PW-54) told him that he did not know
\nthe number of the house of Robert Payas (A-9) but that house
\nwas next to  Ebenezer  Stores.\t  He,  therefore,  gave\t the
\naddress of Ebenezer Stores.  He said he told M.\t Utham Singh
\n(PW56) about this call of Shankar.\n<\/p>\n
\tRobert\tPayas (A-9) and Sivarasan had gone to Studio
\nMemory Makers of S.  Raghu (PW-59) on 15.12.1990 for getting
\npassport size  photographs.    They  also  went\t to  Kavitha
\nDriving School of T.  Panneer Selvam (PW-61) on 4.4.1991 and
\n9.5.1991 to  take Driving licence.  Robert Payas (A-9) lived
\nin the neighbourhood of Dr.   Claud  Fernandez\t(PW-197),  a
\nDentist.  Dr.\t Claud\tFernandez  (PW197) knew Robert Payas
\n(A-9) as he was President of the residents’  association  of
\nthat area.    Robert  Payas (A-9) and his friend had come to
\nthe clinic of Dr.  Claud Fernandez (PW-197)  for  treatment.
\nThe name  of  his  friend  was Ramanan.\t Second time he came
\nwith his another friend whose name was Murugan\t(A-3).\t  On
\n23.7.1991  police had come from Malligai CBI headquarters to
\nthe residence  of  Robert  Payas  (A-9)\t and  recovered\t his
\npassport and other  small  items.    Dr.    Claud  Fernandez
\n(PW-197) was witness of the recovery.  He said assassination
\nof Rajiv Gandhi took place on 21.5.1991 and “when  they\t are
\nfeeling sad,  on 22nd evening at about 6 or 7 p.m.  we heard
\na sound of blast from the house of Robert Payas (A-9).\tThat
\nwas the sound of crackers”.  He said he could  not  see\t the
\npersons when he came out but above the house of Robert Payas
\n(A-9) it was filled with smoke.\n<\/p>\n
\tK.   Kottammal\t(PW-63)\t is the owner of Kodungaiyur
\nhouse where Jayakumar  (A-10)  and  Shanthi  (A-11)  started
\nliving from  18.12.1990.  As noted above the house was taken
\non rent in the name of Ramaswamy, father of Shanthi  (A-11).
\nRent  agreement\t is  Exh.P-217,\t which\tbears  the signature
\nRamaswamy and husband  of  K.\t Kottammal  (PW-63).\t  K.
\nKottammal (PW-63) identified the signature of her husband.\n<\/p>\n
D.J.   Swaminathan (PW-85) was living in house number E-152,
\nKodungaiyur.  It was next to the house of  Jayakumar  (A-10)
\nand Shanthi (A-11)  which  is  house  No.    E-153.   He met
\nSivarasan who was staying in that house\t and  who  told\t him
\nthat he lost his left eye in an accident.  In the first week
\nof  May,  1991\the  saw Sivarasan and two girls coming in an
\nauto to the house of Jayakumar (A-10).\t  Their\t names\twere
\nSubha and  Dhanu.    They  stayed  for\tabout  two  days and
\nthereafter D.J.\t Swaminathan (PW-85) said  he  did  not\t see
\nthem while Sivarasan continued to stay in the house.  In the
\nfirst  week  of\t May,  1991 Sivarasan came on a new Kawasaki
\nBajaj bike.  The bike was driven by another  person.\tThat
\nwas without  registration number.  Both these persons stayed
\nin the house of Jayakumar  (A10).    He\t stayed\t there\ttill
\n26.5.1991.    On   the\t morning   of  22.5.1991  when\tD.J.
\nSwaminathan (PW-85) put on the TV to hear the news about the
\nRajiv Gandhi assassination Sivarasan, Nalini (A-1) and Subha
\nalso came to his house.\t After the news was over some one in
\nthe family of D.J.  Swaminathan\t (PW-85)  remarked  that  it
\nwould be  the  work  of\t Liberation  Tigers only.  Sivarasan
\nasked how could they say so.  The reply was given that Tamil
\npeople could not do such kind of job.  Sivarasan  then\tleft
\nthe place  without  saying  anything.  The witness said that
\nthey (presumably Sivarasan, Subha  and\tNalini\t(A-1))\twere
\ntelling that not even rice was available for cooking.  Since
\nall  the  shops\t were  closed on account of assassination of
\nRajiv Gandhi the witness told them that “I will\t give  rice,
\nif wanted”.   They  declined the offer.\t At about 12.00 noon
\nthey distributed sweet mixed with grated coconut which\tmade
\nthe witness  wonder.   On the morning of 23.5.1991 Sivarasan
\ntook Nalini (A-1) on his bike.\tD.J.\tSwaminathan  (PW-85)
\nsaid that he did not see Subha thereafter.  Sivarasan stayed
\nin that\t house\tfor  three  days.  He saw Santhan (A-2) till
\n26.5.1991.  He saw the photograph of Dhanu on television  in
\nthe end of May, 1991.  When he had seen Dhanu first time she
\ndid not wear spectacles.  Initially, therefore, witness said
\nhe could not identify her in the photograph if it was Dhanu.
\nTwo days thereafter Sivarasan’s photograph was shown on T.V.
\nNow D.J.   Swaminathan\t(PW-85) got suspicious.\t On 2.6.1991
\nhe dialed telephone number 100\tand  gave  the\tinformation.
\nWhen  he  told\tthe person receiving the call that Sivarasan
\nand Dhanu stayed in the house of  Jayakumar  (A-10)  no\t one
\nmade any inquiry.    He\t did not give his address.  Again in
\nthe second week of June, 1991 he himself went to the  office
\nof  CBI headquarters, Malligai and stated the facts he knew.
\nHis statement was recorded.  On 26.6.1991 house of Jayakumar
\n(A-10) was searched.  At that time Shanthi  (A-11)  and\t her
\nfather Ramaswamy  were there in the house.  Various articles
\nwere seized.  On 7.7.1991 CBI officers with Jayakumar (A-10)
\ncame to his Kodungaiyur house.\tThey were not having key  of
\nthe house.   Lock was broken open.  Jayakumar (A-10) entered
\nthe house and showed the place in the kitchen  at  the\tleft
\nside.\tA  slab\t at  that place was removed and it was found
\nthat there was\ta  pit\t2-1\/2  fit  deep.    From  that\t pit
\nJayakumar  (A-10)  took\t out  a\t plastic  bag and a suitcase
\n(Aristocrat make).  In that bag one belt and two packets  of
\nbullets containing  25\tand 18 bullets were found.  From the
\nsuit case a dictionary was  taken  out\twhich  was  cut\t out
\ninside so  that a pistol could be kept there.  There was one
\narticle like artificial eye and five  recorded\tsmall  micro
\ncassettes, photographs (MO-163 to MO-166), passport (MO-161)
\nin  the\t name  of  Thillaiambalam  Suthendraraja,  notebooks
\n(MO-158, MO-159 and MO-160) and diaries were also found\t and
\nrecovered.   A list was prepared (Exh.P-437) which bears the
\nsignatures of the witness D.J.\tSwaminathan  (PW85).\tD.J.
\nSwaminathan  (PW-85)  has identified photograph of Sivarasan
\nin colour photographs (MO-163  and  MO-164)  and  black\t and
\nwhite photographs  (MO-165  and\t MO-166).  Colour photograph
\n(MO-169) and black and white photographs (MO-170 and MO-171)
\nare the photographs of Santhan (A-2).\n<\/p>\n
\tS.  Meera (PW-200) was living in  the  neighbourhood
\nof Jayakumar  (A-10)  in the same locality.  She and Shanthi
\n(A-11) became friends and were visiting each other.  When S.
\nMeera (PW200) asked Shanthi (A-11) as to who was the  person
\nwearing\t spectacles,  she  said\t he  was her uncle and had a
\nwelding shop at Kodungaiyur.  Jayakumar (A-10) was not doing
\nany work and was remaining idle at home.  Some time  in\t the
\nfirst  week  of May, 1991 Sivarasan and two women came in an
\nauto at 8.00 p.m.  One day in the first week of\t May  itself
\nSivarasan brought a car battery on his cycle to the house of
\nJayakumar (A-10).   He, however, took away that battery same
\nevening itself.\t The two girls Subha and Dhanu used to\tcome
\nto  the house of Jayakumar (A-10) on ladies’ bicycle now and
\nthen.  S.  Meera (PW-200) said she did not know the names of
\nSivarasan, Subha and Dhanu in the  first  instance  but\t she
\ncame  to  know\tonly  when their names were published in the
\nnewspapers or telecast on T.V.\tShe said many people kept on
\ncoming and going in the month of May, 1991 in the  house  of
\nJayakumar (A-10).      One   such   person  was\t husband  of
\nJayakumar’s (A10) younger  sister  as  told  to\t S.    Meera
\n(PW-200) by Shanthi (A-11).  S.\t Meera (PW-200) said she was
\nnot staying in her house from 7.5.1991 to 23.5.1991 and that
\nshe had gone to her mother-inlaw’s house.\n<\/p>\n
\tM.   Janarthanam  (PW-71)  said\t that he let out his
\nshop  to  Shanthi  (A-11),  wife  of  Jayakumar\t (A-10)\t  in
\nKodungaiyur  and  received  Rs.20,000\/- as advance though he
\nexecuted the agreement for Rs.4,500\/- only in the  month  of
\nApril, 1991.\tThe  purpose  of letting was to run a coffee
\ngrinding shop.\tOn 25.7.1991 M.\t   Janarthanam\t(PW-71)\t was
\ncalled\tto  Malligai  office  of  CBI  headquarters where he
\nhanded over the agreement (Exh.P-338).\tHe had also given  a
\nletter\t of   consent  (Exh.P-339)  to\tShanthi\t (A-11)\t for
\ninstalling the coffee grinding machine in the shop, which he
\nalso handed over to the police.\t  During  his  statement  M.
\nJanarthanam  (PW-71) was asked to identify Jayakumar (A-10),
\nwho had approached him for running out the shop\t along\twith
\nhis brother-in-law Damodaran.\t  M.\tJanarthanam  (PW-71)
\nidentified Bhagyanathan (A-20)\tas  Jayakumar  (A-10).\t  M.
\nJanarthanam (PW-71) said that on 29.1.1992 Ramaswamy, father
\nof  Shanthi (A-11) came to the shop and removed the grinding
\nmachine and other equipments.  He also asked for  refund  of
\nadvance\t of  Rs.20,000\/-  which\t the  witness  did not give.
\nShanthi (A-11) wrote a letter (Exh.P-343) on 13.8.1992 to M.
\nJanarthanam (PW-71) from the prison for the purpose  but  M.
\nJanarthanam  (PW-71)  said that letter from Jayakumar (A-10)
\nshould also come.  Then Shanthi (A-11) and Jayakumar  (A-10)
\nwrote a\t letter\t (Exh.P-344) to M.  Janarthanam (PW-71) from
\nthe prison.   In  his  statement  M.\tJanarthanam  (PW-71)
\nfurther stated that the Judge questioned him in the court to
\nwhich he replied he did receive Rs.20,000\/- advance and said
\nthat he\t had  no  objection  to return that back.  The Judge
\npassed the order on 3.11.1992 that the settlement  might  be
\nmade out of  court.    M.    Janarthanam  (PW-71)  said that
\nafterwards Ramaswamy called  on\t him  and  obtained  receipt
\n(Exh.P-342)  from  him\ton  26.12.1992\tand  he returned the
\namount of Rs.20,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
V.  Kannan (PW-199) sold the  coffee  grinding\tmachine\t for
\nRs.15,000\/-.  Receipt showing the coffee grinding machine is
\nExh.P-971.   Both  Jayakumar  (A-10)  and Shanthi (A-11) had
\ncome to V.  Kannan (PW-199) to buy the machine.\n<\/p>\n
Sowmya Narayanan (PW-70) is one of the\tstaff  members\tfrom
\nTelecom\t Department  and  he  has identified application for
\ntelephone connection (Exh.P-336) by Shanthi  (A-11)  in\t OYT
\nscheme for   the   shop\t  premises.    The  application\t was
\nregistered on 22.4.1991.  A sum of Rs.8,000\/-  is  shown  to
\nhave been paid with the application.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the diary (MO-180) of Sivarasan seized from the house of
\nJayakumar (A-10) there is mention of a sum of Rs.10,000\/- on
\n11.4.1991 for telephone.\n<\/p>\n
\tJayakumar  (A-10)  stated  to  have  made disclosure
\nstatement to the police\t on  9.7.1991  (Exh,P-1436)  on\t the
\nbasis  of  which it is stated that Jayakumar (A-10) took the
\npolice to Kodungaiyur house and recoveries made.  The  trial
\nJudge has strongly commented on the conduct of the police in
\nrecording the disclosure statement to boost its case and has
\ncriticized  the\t investigating\tofficer\t in  adopting such a
\ncourse.\t In the disclosure statement  Jayakumar\t (A10)\tsaid
\nthat on 21.5.1991 Sivarasan had dug a pit in the kitchen and
\nkept a brief suitcase and a plastic bag and then covered the
\nsame with  a cement slab.  He said Sivarasan told him not to
\ndisclose that to any one and not to give the material placed
\nin the pit to any one except to him.\n<\/p>\n
Vijayan (A-12), whose confession was recorded, was  a  lorry
\ndriver in Sri Lanka.  He started his own workshop and during
\nthe period 1987-89 he used to repair vehicles of LTTE.\tWhen
\nIPKF came  to  Sri  Lanka his work was affected.  Selvaluxmi
\n(A-13) is  his\twife.\t She  is  daughter  of\tVelayudam  @
\nBhaskaran (A-14).    Vijayan (A-12) decided to come to India
\nin 1990 as his wife was pregnant  and  he  thought  that  in
\nIndia she  would  get necessary medical facility.  One Kutty
\ntold him that he would make arrangements for him  to  go  to
\nIndia without  making any payment to LTTE.  Kutty introduced
\nVijayan (A-12) to Sivarasan who told him that if  he  worked
\nfor  LTTE  his\texpenses  would be looked after by the LTTE.
\nSivarasan told him to take a house on rent and to stay there
\nand that persons belonging to LTTE would come  and  stay  in
\nthat house  for\t their\twork.\t While staying at Tuticorin,
\nVijayan (A-12) worked in Tuticorin Port Trust and at SPIC as
\ndaily wage earning Rs.20 to Rs.30\/- per day.  His wife\tgave
\nbirth to  a son on 17.10.1990.\tAfter Vijayan (A-12) settled
\nin his house in Madras as described earlier Sivarasan  along
\nwith  Chokkan @ Sabapathi and Munusami, LTTE workers came to
\nhis house.  Sivarasan told Vijayan (A-12) that in the  first
\nweek  of  May,\t1991  he  would\t bring\tsome LTTE men for an
\nimportant  work\t and  he  asked\t him   to   make   necessary
\narrangements for  their\t stay.\tHe was also cautioned by him
\nnot to tell that  to  anybody.\t  Sivarasan  again  came  on
\n2.5.1991 with  Gokul  @\t Nero,\tan LTTE activist.  Both came
\nwith a suitcase containing wireless set\t and  other  things.
\nSivarasan  then\t informed Vijayan (A-12) that he would bring
\ntwo LTTE women to the house.  He gave  him  Rs.10,000\/-\t for
\nhis expenses.\t After three or four days Sivarasan took him
\nto a place nearby and gave him a big car battery  and  asked
\nhim to take that to his house.\tThe battery was for fixing a
\nwireless set.\t Vijayan  (A-12)  gave that battery to Nero.
\nSame day Sivarasan brought a black and white TV and kept the
\nsame in the house.  He said that he had bought this for\t the
\nfamily of  Vijayan  (A-12).   Sivarasan asked Nero to have a
\nlink with Sri Lanka through wireless which Nero was able  to
\nachieve within\ttwo\/three  days.  Whenever Nero spoke on the
\nwireless he would use to say from 910 to 91.  Vijayan (A-12)
\nbought a battery charger from a shop at Mount  Road,  Madras
\nand also  other\t articles  of furniture.  Sivarasan paid for
\nall.  On 6.5.1991  Sivarasan  brought  Dhanu  and  Subha  to
\nVijayan’s (A-12)   house.      That  day  his  father-in-law
\nBhaskaran (A-14) had also come from Tuticorin.\t  These\t two
\nwomen  would  keep their important things in a black bag and
\nwould always carry that whenever they went out.\t   Sivarasan
\ngave  money  to\t Vijayan  (A-12)  to  buy two cycles for the
\nwomen.\tSubha and Dhanu would go out  on  Friday  and  would
\ncome on\t Monday\t morning.    On 16\/17-5-1991 Sivarasan asked
\nVijayan (A-12) to dig a pit  in\t the  kitchen  to  hide\t the
\nwireless set  and  guns.   Vijayan (A12), Sivarasan and Nero
\ndug the pit.  On the morning of 21.5.1991 Sivarasan came  to
\nthe house  of  Vijayan (A-12).\tHe gave some message to Nero
\nto be transmitted on wireless.\tThen he\t said  something  to
\nSubha  and  Dhanu  who\tgot ready by 12 O’clock after having
\ntheir lunch.  Sivarasan again came at 12.30 p.m.  wearing  a
\nKurta-Pyzama with  a camera in his hand.  He asked Dhanu and
\nSubha to get ready.  Vijayan (A-12) said  usually  his\twife
\nwould help Subha to wear saree.\t On that day, however, Subha
\nand  Dhanu  both  closed  the  door  of\t their\troom and got
\ndressed.  They took about half an hour to dress.  Subha\t was
\nwearing\t a  saree; Dhanu was wearing orange colour kurta and
\ngreen colour  dupatta.\t   She\t was   wearing\t spectacles.
\nGenerally she did not wear spectacles in the house.  A photo
\nsession started.  10 photographs were taken among themselves
\nwith the  camera Sivarasan had brought.\t Vijayan (A-12) took
\nphotographs of Subha, Dhanu and Sivarasan together.    Dhanu
\nhad put\t on  over  make-up  on\ther  face.   Sivarasan asked
\nVijayan (A12) and Nero to go and bring an  auto.    He\ttold
\nthem  not  to bring the auto near the house and to stop that
\nnear the bus stand away from the house.\t   This\t arrangement
\nwas  so\t that  auto driver would not be able to identify the
\nhouse.\tThey brought the auto  as  instructed.\t  Sivarasan,
\nSubha and  Dhanu walked up to the auto.\t Nero went with them
\nbut came back and then gave some message  through  wireless.
\nHe  used to speak daily through wireless once in the morning
\nand once in evening.  On the morning of 22.5.1991, Sivarasan
\ncame to the house of Vijayan (A-12) and said that  the\twork
\nwas over  and  that the Rajiv Gandhi was murdered.  He asked
\nNero to send the message to Sri Lanka through  wireless\t and
\nhimself went  to sleep.\t Sivarasan would write on a piece of
\npaper in a language which was not understandable  and  would
\ngive  that  to\tNero  to send that message through wireless.
\nAfter lunch Sivarasan went away.  On 23.5.1991 he came on  a
\ncycle, took  the motorcycle and again went away.  He used to
\nkeep the motorcycle in the house of Vijayan  (A-12).\tFrom
\nthe  evening  of  23.5.1991  Sivarasan,\t Subha and Nero were
\nstaying in the house of Vijayan (A-12).\t Nero used  to\tkeep
\nhis gun (AK-47) always ready.  All these three used to watch
\ncarefully if  police was coming.  This watching started from
\nthe day\t Dhanu’s  photograph  appeared\tin  the\t newspapers.
\nSivarasan used to go out with his pistol.  While sleeping he
\nused to\t keep  it  under  his  pillow.\tHe and Subha went to
\nTirupathi on 25.5.1991 and came back the  next\tday  in\t the
\nnight.\t Vijayan  (A-12)  said that Sivarasan used to say if
\npolice would come to arrest him he would  kill\ta  dozen  of
\npolicemen and then only he would be caught.  On 27.5.1991 he
\ntook out  the  motorcycle and hid somewhere.  Vijayan (A-12)
\ndid not see the motorcycle afterwards.\tIn the end  of\tMay,
\n1991  Sivarasan’s  photo  also\tappeared  in the newspapers.
\nVijayan (A-12) used to buy all\tthe  newspapers\t which\tNero
\nwould  read and tell Sivarasan the progress of investigation
\nmade by the police in the case.\t One day Sivarasan took\t off
\nhis moustache.\tMovements of Sivarasan got limited after his
\nphoto appeared in the newspapers.  He used to go out on foot
\nand would  give\t messages to LTTE men.\tOne day in the first
\nweek of June, 1991, Sivarasan said that Nero had  spoken  to
\nJaffna through wireless and arrangements were made for their
\nescape from  India  by boat.  Sivarasan took Subha somewhere
\nand returned on\t 10.6.1991.    He  said\t they  had  gone  to
\nCoimbatore.   That  day\t Nero  told  Sivarasan that he spoke
\nthrough wireless and that there was some  problem  and\tthat
\nboat won’t  be\tcoming\tfrom  Jaffna.  By this time photo of
\nSubha also appeared in the newspapers  which  scared  Subha.
\nSivarasan  then\t put Subha’s dresses in a black bag and took
\nthat out somewhere and hid it.\tOn  that  day  only  Santhan
\n(A-2), who was a close companion of Vijayan (A-12), came for
\nthe first  time.    On 12.6.1991 Sivarasan came to Vijayan’s
\n(A-12) house and told him that it was very difficult to stay
\nlike that.  They should buy photos of Rajiv  Gandhi,  M.G.R.
\nand  Jayalalitha  and  keep them in front of the room and in
\nthat way nobody would doubt them.  This Vijayan (A-12)\tdid.
\nSivarasan paid\thim  Rs.100\/-  for  that.    After  few days
\nSivarasan asked\t Bhaskaran  (A-14)  to\tget  help  from\t his
\nrelative to  arrange for some other house.  Bhaskaran (A-14)
\nwent to his relative N.\t Chokkanathan  (PW97)  to  look\t for
\nsome other  house but said that N.  Chokkanathan (PW-97) was
\nof no use  and\tit  was\t difficult  to\tget  another  house.
\nSivarasan  said\t he  would seek help of some other person to
\nsee the house.\tOn 23.6.1991 he gave a message to Nero to be
\ntransmitted through wireless.  Nero told Sivarasan that that
\nwas the last message to be given.  After that Sivarasan\t and
\nNero  took  off\t the antenna and wires and kept the wireless
\nset in the pit which had been dug in the kitchen.   After  a
\nday  or\t two  Santhan  (A-2)  brought another person to take
\nSivarasan and Subha with him.  Later, Vijayan (A-12) came to
\nknow that his name was Suresh Master (DA).  In\tthe  evening
\nthey brought  an  auto.\t The plan was that Sivarasan, Subha,
\nNero and Suresh Master would all go  together.\t  Thereafter
\nVijayan (A-12)\tsaid  he  did  not see all of them.  Vijayan
\n(A-12) and family then decided to go to Tuticorin and  after
\nstaying\t for  one  week\t returned to their house to take the
\nthings and to vacate the house but by that time\t the  police
\ncame and arrested Vijayan (A-12).\n<\/p>\n
\tMangaleswaran (PW-234) and Rose D.  Nayagam (PW-235)
\nrespectively  were  in\tcharge\tof Rameshwaram and Tuticorin
\nrefugee camps and they have testified to the registration of
\nstay of Vijayan (A-12), his wife Selvaluxmi (A-13)  and\t his
\nfather-in-law  Bhaskaran  (A-14)  in  the  refugee camps, as
\nrefugees coming from Sri Lanka.\n<\/p>\n
\tJ.  Duraisamy Naidu (PW-82)  is\t the  owner  of\t the
\nhouse which  was  taken\t on  rent by Vijayan (A-12).  Tenant
\nagreement (Exh.P-426) was executed.  The house was  occupied
\non 23.4.1991.\t The  tenant  agreement\t bears\tsignature of
\nVijayan (A-12) for Plot No.  12, Eveready Colony, No.  12 at
\nKodungaiyur.  Rent agreement was taken\tinto  possession  by
\nthe police.\n<\/p>\n
\tEsylen\tMantel\t(PW-99),  who was living in Plot No.
\n14, Eveready Colony, Kodungaiyur, said that Vijayan  (A-12),
\nhis  wife  Selvaluxmi (A-13) and his father-in-law Bhaskaran
\n(A-14) were staying  in\t the  neighbouring  house.    Esylen
\nMantel\t(PW-99) said in the first week of May, 1991 two auto
\nrikshaws had come to the house of Vijayan (A-12).    In\t one
\nauto  there  were two ladies and in the other there were two
\ngents.\tThe girls names came to be known  to  Esylen  Mantel
\n(PW-99)\t as  Subha and Dhanu and the gents’ as Sivarasan and
\nNero.  Esylen Mantel (PW-99) said they also brought a TV  to
\nthe  house  of\tVijayan\t (A-12) and fixed the antenna on the
\nterrace.  They also fixed two casuarina tree  posts  on\t the
\nterrace\t and connected the black wire between posts with the
\nwire connection inside the house  of  Vijayan  (A-12).\t  On
\n21.5.1991 at  about  2.00  p.m.\t   Esylen Mantel (PW-99) saw
\nSivarasan, Subha and Dhanu standing  at\t the  bus  stand  at
\nKodungaiyur.   Next  day  the witness came to know about the
\nassassination of Rajiv Gandhi on TV  news.    Esylen  Mantel
\n(PW-99)\t saw  Sivarasan,  Subha and Nero at Vijayan’s (A-12)
\nhouse on 24.5.1991 but did not see Dhanu.  Same day  Dhanu’s
\nphotograph was\tpublished  in the newspapers.  Esylen Mantel
\n(PW-99) suspected that it was the same girl who was seen  by
\nher at\tthe  bus  stand.  On 29.5.1991 Sivarasan’s photo was
\nalso published.\t Now  it  was  confirmed  to  Esylen  Mantel
\n(PW-99)\t  that\tall  these  persons  were  involved  in\t the
\nassassination of Rajiv Gandhi.\tShe developed fear  on\tthat
\naccount.   Vijayan (A-12) came to the house of Esylen Mantel
\n(PW-99) in the second week of  June,  1991  and\t borrowed  a
\ndriller\t stating  that\the wanted to fix a regulator for the
\nfan.  Since he did not return the driller  same\t day  Esylen
\nMantel (PW-99)\twent  to  the  house  of Vijayan (A-12).  On
\nreaching there she saw Sivarasan standing in the  hall\twith
\none left eye closed.  Earlier Esylen Mantel (PW-99) had seen
\nhim wearing  spectacles.  Now he was not wearing spectacles.
\nWhen she asked Selvaluxmi (A-13) as to what happened to\t the
\neye  of\t Sivarasan  she\t told her that he lost his eye while
\nplaying.   One\tday  Esylen  Mantel  (PW-99)  saw  Sivarasan
\nsitting on  the\t steps\tof the house of Vijayan (A-12).\t She
\nwent near him, wished him and asked him if he  was  employed
\nsomewhere.   Sivarasan said he was unemployed and was trying
\nto get a job in Dubai.\tAt that time she noticed he had\t two
\neyes.  Left  eye  looked like an artificial eye.  Now he did
\nnot have even mustache and did not wear spectacles.   Mother
\nof  Esylen  Mantel (PW-99) went to CBI office at Malligai to
\ngive information.  But because of fear of LTTE she  did\t not
\ndo so.\tShe said they should watch the house to collect more
\nclues and  then to inform CBI.\tThereafter they were keeping
\nwatch on Vijayan’s (A-12) house and noticing  the  movements
\non that house.\t  On  26.6.1991\t at 7.30 a.m.  Esylen Mantel
\n(PW-99) saw Vijayan (A-12)  taking  Bhaskaran  (A-14)  on  a
\ncycle.\tWhile passing in front of her house Bhaskaran (A-14)
\ntold  Esylen  Mantel  (PW-99)  that he was going to Madurai.
\nThat day Sivarasan was not in the house\t of  Vijayan  (A12).
\nVijayan\t (A-12)\t said Sivarasan had gone to Madurai to get a
\njob and would return in a month or so.\tAt that\t time  there
\nwas  a\tblack  boy  in the house who was later identified as
\nSanthan (A-2).\tVijayan (A-12) introduced Santhan  (A-2)  as
\nhis  brother  who  was\ta driver and was trying for a job in
\nDubai.\tOn 1.7.1991  again  at\t7.30  a.m.    Esylen  Mantel
\n(PW-99)\t saw  Vijayan  (A-12)  and  Santhan  (A2) going on a
\ncycle.\tAfter ten minutes Vijayan (A-12) came back alone and
\nnow he had changed his\tdress  too.    Vijayan\t(A-12)\ttold
\nEsylen\tMantel\t(PW-99) while passing through her house that
\nhe was leaving for Madurai since he received a telegram from
\nhis fatherin-law.  Vijayan (A-12) also said  that  he  would
\ncome back  after  one  and  a  half  month  or so.  That day
\nVijayan (A-12) also told her that  Sivarasan  would  not  be
\ncoming back  as\t he  was  the most wanted person by CBI.  On
\n2.7.1991 Esylen Mantel (PW-99) informed the  CBI  about\t the
\nincident.   She\t was  examined\tby the police and identified
\nSanthan\t (A-2),\t Vijayan  (A-12),  Selvaluxmi\t(A-13)\t and
\nBhaskaran  (A-14) in the row of accused and Sivarasan, Subha
\nand Dhanu in photographs.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn diary (MO-180) of Sivarasan it was mentioned against date
\n6.4.1991 “Vijayan (A-12) Veedu (house) – 15,000\/-”  meaning that
\nSivarasan had paid Rs.15,000\/- to Vijayan (A-12) for getting a
\nhouse on rent in Madras.\n<\/p>\n
\tL.D.N.J. Wijesinghe (PW-67), Senior Superintendent of
\nPolice, Sri Lanka has spoken about the wireless network of LTTE.
\nHe intercepted LTTE wireless transmissions.  He said Nero was
\nusing wireless station 910 and 91 while communicating with LTTE
\nleaders in Jaffna.  Wireless station 91 belonged Pottu Amman in
\nSri Lanka and Station 910 is the wireless station belonged to
\nSivarasan in India.\n<\/p>\n
\tT.P.  Sitther (PW-78) is the  wireless\toperator  of
\nGovernment of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs.  He has
\nalso  testified regarding wireless messages monitored during
\nthe period from 1988.\tHe  also  deposed  that\t station  91
\nbelonged  to  Pottu  Amman  and\t station  910  was  used  by
\nSivarasan.\n<\/p>\n
\tHashmuth S.  Setal (PW-98) is the owner\t of  Barathi
\nCycle company  and  Barathi Cycle Agency.  He sold BSA Delux
\ncycle to one P.\t Vijayan of Plot No.  12,  Muthamizh  Nagar,
\nKodungaiyur, Madras as per bill (Exh.P-491).  Cycle was sold
\non 8.5.1991.   He  identified  that cycle (MO-390).  Another
\ncycle BSA SLR was also sold to Vijayan (A-12) on 8.5.1991 as
\nper bill (Exh.P-493) having the same address.\n<\/p>\n
\tMohanraj (PW-254) was working  as  officer-in-charge
\nof  International  Monitoring  Station at Perungudi, Madras.
\nHe has testified  that\twireless  Trans\t receivers  (MO-770)
\ncould be  operated  by\tusing  12  volt\t D.C.\tbattery like
\nMO-209.\n<\/p>\n
\tN.  Chokkanathan (PW-97) is a  distant\trelation  of
\nBhaskaran (A-14).  In his deposition he said that he had met
\nBhaskaran  (A14)  in the year 1952 when he went to Sri Lanka
\nto seek a job.\tThen suddenly on 20.6.1991 Bhaskaran  (A-14)
\ncalled on  him.\t   He  entertained  him\t and discussed about
\nfamily matters.\t They went for an evening movie show.\tThat
\nday Bhaskaran  (A-14) slept in the house of N.\tChokkanathan
\n(PW-97).  After they had supper Bhaskaran  (A-14)  asked  N.
\nChokkanathan (PW-97) to get a big house rented for him in an
\nouter area  at a monthly rent of Rs.2000\/- to Rs.3000\/-.  N.
\nChokkanathan (PW-97) was surprised and said that a house  at
\nthe  rate  of Rs.300\/- per month would be sufficient for his
\nfamily.\t Bhaskaran (A-14) said the house was not for him but
\nwas required  for  some\t important   persons.\t   When\t  N.
\nChokkanathan  (PW-97)  inquired\t who those important persons
\nwere Bhaskaran (A-14) said it would create some\t problem  if
\nhe disclosed him  and their names.  N.\tChokkanathan (PW-97)
\nsaid that unless he revealed  the  names  of  the  important
\npersons\t he  would  not take any step to search for a house.
\nThen Bhaskaran (A-14) told him that the house was meant\t for
\nSivarasan  and\tSubha  who  were  involved  in\tRajiv Gandhi
\nassassination case and whose photographs had been  exhibited
\nin TV and  posters.    N.   Chokkanathan (PW-97) said he was
\nshocked and asked what was  the\t relation  between  him\t and
\nthose persons.\t  Bhaskaran (A-14) said that at that time he
\nwas residing in a house in Kodungaiyur area and\t that  those
\npersons were residing  there.  When N.\tChokkanathan (PW-97)
\nrefused to give any help, Bhaskaran (A-14) then pleaded with
\nN.  Chokkanathan (PW-97) to at least permit Subha to stay in
\nhis house  for\tsome  time  as\ta   family   member.\t  N.
\nChokkanathan (PW-97)  again  refused.\t That made Bhaskaran
\n(A-14) angry.\t He  refused  to  eat  and   threatened\t  N.
\nChokkanathan  (PW-97)  that he would kill him if he gave any
\ninformation to the police about him or Sivarasan  or  Subha.
\nBhaskaran (A-14)  then\tleft  the  house.    Next day, i.e.,
\n22.6.1991  with\t the  assistance   of\this   relative\t one
\nSrinivasan, with whom N.  Chokkanathan (PW-97) discussed the
\nmatter,\t  they\t went\tto   the   office  of  Malligai\t CBI
\nheadquarters.  N.  Chokkanathan (PW-97) gave  his  statement
\nto the\tpolice.\t   They sent him back saying that they would
\ncall him after four days.  He was again called\tby  the\t CBI
\nofficials  on  28.6.1991  when\the  was interrogated and his
\nstatement was recorded.\n<\/p>\n
\tM.  Narayanan (PW-281) is D.S.P., CBI and one of the
\ninvestigating officers.\t As  far  as  Bhaskaran\t (A-14)\t was
\nconcerned  he  said his presence was secured on 7.7.1991 but
\nhow that was done he was unable to say.\t   He  said  he\t was
\nbrought to the office of CBI on that day but who brought him
\nagain he was unable to tell.  When he was taken to the house
\nof  Vijayan  (A-12)  and was about to break open the lock of
\nthe house Vijayan (A-12) and Selvaluxmi\t (A-13)\t with  their
\nchild came there.  They were identified by Bhaskaran (A-14).
\nVijayan\t (A-12)\t had the key with which he opened the house.
\nThereafter seizure was effected.  Vijayan (A-12) voluntarily
\npointed out the space  in  the\tkitchen\t from  which  signal
\nmaking articles were recovered.\t M.  Narayanan (PW-281) said
\nthat  Vijayan (A-12) voluntarily pointed out towards the pit
\notherwise that place could not have been found.\t He said  N.
\nChokkanathan (PW-97) came to his office on 23.6.1991 and was
\naccompanied by Srinivasan.    Statement\t of N.\tChokkanathan
\n(PW-97) was not recorded at that time because  of  immediate
\naction\twas  to\t be  taken  to\tlocate the house and to make
\nattempt to apprehend Bhaskaran\t(A-14).\t   Statement  of  N.
\nChokkanathan (PW-97)  was  recorded  on\t 28.6.1991.   As per
\nwitness M.  Narayanan (PW-281) the recovery was effected  on
\n8.7.1991  on  the  basis of the disclosure statement made by
\nVijayan (A-12) (Exh.P-1358).  It has come on  record  during
\nthe  course  of examination of the witness that recovery had
\nalready been effected on 7.7.1991  (Exh.D-63).\t  The  trial
\ncourt  has accepted Exh.D-63 and has rejected Exh.P-1358 and
\nhad adversely commented to the conduct of the  witness,\t the
\ninvestigating\tofficer,   in\tallegedly  manipulating\t the
\nrecovery.\n<\/p>\n
\tRavi (A-16)  is\t an  Indian  national.\t   He\tmade
\nconfession.  He was attracted towards LTTE.  He got training
\nin military camp run by LTTE on Indian soil.  He joined LTTE
\nmovement and  got  deeply involved in it.  In his confession
\nhe described the details of the training he got and the oath
\nhe took.  Ravi (A-16) also described some of the  activities
\nof LTTE.    He\twent  to Sri Lanka as well where also he got
\nfurther training in military operations.  Ravi\t(A-16)\tthen
\ncame back to Madras before Indo-Sri Lankan Accord was signed
\nin 1987.   In  Madras  he  continued  his operation.  During
\nholidays, however, he would meet various LTTE personnel like
\nKittu, Baby Subramaniam, etc.  in the LTTE office at  Indira
\nNagar in  Madras.  When war started between IPKF and LTTE he
\nsaid he was eager to go to Sri Lanka to take part in the war
\noperations against IPKF.  He was kept under house arrest  in
\nthe month of June-July, 1988.  On 8.8.1988, he along with 89
\nothers,\t belonging  to\tLTTE cadre, was arrested and kept in
\nlock-up in Madras  Central  Jail.    From  there  all  these
\npersons were sent to Sri Lanka by an Indian Air Force plane.
\nRavi  (A-16)  said  he\twas sent to Sri Lanka because it was
\nthought that he was a Sri Lankan national.    In  Sri  Lanka
\nfirstly, they  were  kept  in Indian Army camp.\t They learnt
\nabout the rapes, murders and other atrocities  committed  by
\nIPKF.  They  developed\ta  strong  feeling of revenge.\tRavi
\n(A-16) was released in 1989.  He went to LTTE  camp  in\t Sri
\nLanka where   he   met\t various  leaders.    There  he\t was
\nindoctrinated to start\ta  movement  so\t that  entire  Tamil
\npeople in  the\tworld joined hands.  Ravi (A16) said when he
\nasked his role he was told to go to Tamil Nadu and to select
\nyouths, who had got feeling for Tamil  race  and  tell\tthem
\nabout the struggle of LTTE and the traitorous acts committed
\nby India.    Ravi  (A-16)  said that India thus became their
\nenemy and they were to fight for ‘Tamils’ nation.    He\t was
\nadvocated for armed revolution to establish a separate Tamil
\nnation.\t  Ravi (A16) was given a letter and was told that if
\nhe gave that letter to the seashore  incharge  in  India  he
\nwould be  given\t money\tfor  his  expenses.  After coming to
\nIndia Ravi (A-16)  went\t to  Selam  along  with\t other\tLTTE
\npeople.\t  He  gave  that letter to one Richard in Selam, who
\nafter reading the letter gave him Rs.15,000\/-.\t From  there
\nRavi  (A-16)  went  to\tMadras\tand  was told to go to Subha
\nStudio at Royapettah to meet  Muthuraja.    It\twas  in\t the
\nsecond\tweek of January, 1990 that he came to Madras and met
\nMuthuraja  in  Subha  Studio  and  apprised  him  about\t the
\ninstructions he got in Sri Lanka.  He met Suseendran (A-17),
\nwho was\t a  member  of\tDravida\t Kazhagam.  He was also told
\nabout the need of armed revolutions in Tamil  Nadu  and\t the
\nLTTE support  of  that.\t   Initially  they  were  to collect
\nyouths.\t In his confession Ravi (A-16) further described  as
\nto  how\t ten persons were collected by Suseendran (A-17) and
\narrangements were made for  their  training  in\t Sri  Lanka.
\nRavi (A16) also went to Sri Lanka.  He further described his
\nactivities in  India  for  LTTE.    He met Suseendran (A-17)
\nagain in May, 1990 at Coimbatore and  asked  him  to  enroll
\nmore youths.   By this time war had started between LTTE and
\nSri Lankan Army.  During these training days  in  Sri  Lanka
\nRavi  (A-16)  had met Pottu Amman as well who explained that
\nto carry on the work assigned to Ravi (A-16) and  others  it
\nhad to be done in three phases (1) to arrange houses for the
\nstay  of LTTE cadre personnel, (2) to enroll more people and
\nimpart training to them and (3) to develop seashore  linkage
\nand to\tform  separate\tboat line, if possible.\t Training in
\nwireless operation  was\t also  given.\t In  the  month\t  of
\nDecember, 1990 Ravi (A-16), Suseendran (A-17) and two others
\nwere  brought  to  a  house in Jaffna by Pottu Amman for the
\npurpose of their return\t to  Tamil  Nadu.    In\t this  House
\nSivarasan  was\tintroduced  to\tRavi  (A-16) by Pottu Amman.
\nPottu Amman separately called Ravi (A-16) and told him\tthat
\nSivarasan was also going with them to Tamil Nadu and that he
\nmight  be  contacted  if  there\t was  any need for money for
\nselection of personnel for the\tmovement  and  it  would  be
\nuseful to  get\tsuggestions  from  him.\t   Pottu  Amman also
\nreminded him the incident of Padmanabha case in\t Tamil\tNadu
\nand  said  some\t important  matters  would be going to occur
\nthere and for that his role must be prominent one.  He\twas,
\ntherefore,  told to follow the instructions of Sivarasan and
\nconsult him in case of any doubt.  They all were seen off by
\nPottu Amman.  While they  were\twaiting\t in  the  boat\tRavi
\n(A-16) asked Sivarasan “about this is what work and how many
\npersons”.  He  said “lesser man bigger target”.\t Ravi (A-16)
\nfurther inquired whether it would be a\tbig  shot  in  Tamil
\nNadu  politics\tand  to\t that  Sivarasan replied that it was
\nsomething bigger than that.  Again when\t Ravi  (A-16)  asked
\nwhether\t it could be Rajiv Gandhi but Sivarasan did not give
\nany reply directly and told him\t that  they  were  going  to
\nperform and that “we will see later” and the talk ended.  In
\nthe  training  camp  in\t Sri  Lanka, Ravi (A-16) said people
\nwould often speak about Rajiv Gandhi  and  IPKF\t and  showed
\ntheir  hatred  and  emotion  and  that was the reason why he
\nasked Sivarasan whether it was\tRajiv  Gandhi  to  which  he
\nreplied that  it  was  a big target.  Ravi (A-16) further in
\nhis confession said that there was no  direct  reply  coming
\nout.  Sivarasan, however, spoke his words in such a way that
\nhe confirmed  his  suspicion.\t Ravi (A-16) gave his aunt’s
\nLongamadha (PW-206) address to Sivarasan if  he\t was  to  be
\ncontacted.   They  reached Kodiakkarai on Indian soil in the
\nlast week of December, 1990.  Sivarasan said that  he  would
\ngive  his  address  and telephone number to Ravi (A-16) in a
\nfew days’ time.\t  Firstly,  they  stayed  in  the  house  of
\nShanmugham (DA).  Sivarasan gave him Rs.2,000\/- out of which
\nhe  gave  Rs.500\/- each to Suseendran (A-17) and two others.
\nAfter ten days of their arrival they met again in Madras  as
\narranged earlier.   Sivarasan gave Rs.3 lacs to Ravi (A-16),
\n1.5 lacs each on  two  different  occasions  and  told\tRavi
\n(A-16)\tto  buy\t a  vehicle  if\t required  for the movement.
\nSivarasan gave his contact telephone number 2343402 to\tRavi
\n(A-16)\tto  contact  him if there was any urgent need and in
\ncase he was not there to contact Robert Payas (A-9)  and  to
\ngive him  the message.\tSivarasan again gave him Rs.50,000\/-
\nout of which he gave Rs.5,000\/- each  to  Suseendran  (A-17)
\nand two\t others.    At\tthe  end  of March, 1991 there was a
\nmessage lying in the house of Longamadha (PW-206)  for\tRavi
\n(A-16) to  meet Sivarasan.  There was a wireless set brought
\nby LTTE cadre and Sivarasan asked Ravi (A16)  to  come\twith
\nhim to\treceive\t the  set.    They then went to the house of
\nJayakumar (A-10).  After taking the  food  while  they\twere
\nsleeping on the terrace, Ravi (A-16) said that Sivarasan had
\nonce  told  him\t to find out the airport security when a VIP
\nwould come.  He said he did not remember  the  name  of\t the
\nVIP.   That night Sivarasan asked about the VIP security and
\nRavi (A-16) told him that when\tgreat  leaders\tcome,  first
\ngate  of  the  old airport was used and that it was a narrow
\nroad and that the “place is  advantageous  for\tus”.\tRavi
\n(A-16)\tasked  Sivarasan that three months had elapsed after
\nthey had come to India and that nothing was done  about\t the
\ntarget.\t  Sivarasan  told him that “we must not go in search
\nof target and that target would come  searching\t us  and  we
\nshall see  at  that  time”.  He also said that it might take
\nplace in near future if the election is declared.  Sivarasan
\nsaid that in order  to\tmake  wireless\tset  functioning  to
\ncontact\t Sri  Lanka  two  or three places of shore had to be
\nseparately arranged.  Sivarasan then  told  Ravi  (A-16)  to
\nstart  a  travel  agency in Delhi and then asked him to send
\nsome person to collect the details  to\tDelhi.\t  When\tRavi
\n(A-16)\tsaid  that  that  would\t be an expensive proposition
\nSivarasan replied that expenses need not be bothered.\tRavi
\n(A-16)\treceived  another  sum\tof Rs.2 lacs from Sivarasan.
\nAfter 15 days when Ravi (A-16) again met Sivarasan  he\tgave
\nhim Rs.5 lacs to start travel agency in Delhi.\tHe, however,
\nsaid  travel  agency  need not be started immediately but it
\nwas enough if arrangements are made.  In his confession Ravi
\n(A-16) described the enrollment of some youths for  training
\nand  for  making arrangements for them to go to Sri Lanka by
\nboat for the purpose.  Then he described  about\t attempt  to
\nget wireless  connection with Sri Lanka.  Again on one visit
\nto Kodiakkarai when Ravi (A-16) was  staying  in  the  house
\nShanmugham  (DA),  Murugan  (A-3)  came\t there\twith  a\t big
\nAristocrat suitcase.  It was on 13\/14.5.1991.  Then he\tsaid
\nthat  when  he,\t Murugan  (A-3) and one other person Chokkan
\nwere sitting separately Chokkan asked that work of Sivarasan
\nhad not yet occurred.  Murugan (A-3) said that “where  would
\nit go without occurring and it ought to occur”.\t Nobody then
\ntalked about  it  later.    Since  boat did not come Murugan
\n(A-3) went back to Madras.  Ravi (A-16) was  to\t go  to\t Sri
\nLanka.\t The  boat did come on 20.5.1991 but Chokkan did not
\nallow Ravi (A-16) to go in that boat as\t that  boat  was  to
\ncarry goods for Sri Lanka.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn  the\t night\tof  21.5.1991  while Ravi (A-16) was
\nsleeping in a hut opposite to the house of Shanmugham  (DA),
\nin  the\t mid night servant of Shanmugham told him that Rajiv
\nGandhi had died in a bomb blast in Madras and  with  him  30
\nothers\t also\tdied   including   Moopanar   and  Vazhapadi
\nRamamoorthy.  He said that  message  came  by  telephone  to
\nShanmugham and he advised that Ravi (A-16) should not remain
\nthere.\t Next  day  when  Ravi\t(A-16)\tmet  Chokkan he said
\nassassination of Rajiv\tGandhi\twas  advantageous  to  LTTE.
\nSince it was not certain that boat would come from Sri Lanka
\nfor  Ravi  (A16)  and  others  to return he gave his bag and
\nMurugan’s (A-3) suitcase to Chokkan and asked  him  to\tgive
\nthem to Shanmugham and went to Trichy.\tHe gave a message to
\nSuseendran (A-17)  to  meet  him at Madras on 26.5.1991.  He
\nhimself reached Madras on 24.5.1991.  When he  went  to\t his
\naunt’s\t(Longamadha  (PW-206))\thouse  he was given a letter
\nfrom Sivarasan dated 23.5.1991\taddressed  in  the  name  of
\n‘Prakash’.   One  day  after  Sivarasan\t came  and took Ravi
\n(A-16) out.  He asked Ravi (A-16) why he had not gone to Sri
\nLanka.\tThen Ravi (A-16) gave him the  details.\t   Sivarasan
\nasked  him  if\tthe shore was clear and added that suspicion
\nhad arisen on LTTE and there might be some problems  to\t Sri
\nLankan Tamils.\t  Sivarasan  wondered how the police came in
\npossession of his photograph and that police  was  searching
\nhim in\tconnection  with  the  murder of Rajiv Gandhi.\tThat
\nbeing so he said that there would be problem for  Subha\t and
\nit  would  be  better if she was kept in the custody of Ravi
\n(A-16) in the house of some Indian Tamil family.  When\tRavi
\n(A-16)\tmet  Suseendran\t (A-17)\t on 26.5.1991 he brought the
\nproblem to his notice.\tSuseendran (A-17) said\tthat  if  it
\nwas  for  few  days there was no problem in keeping Subha in
\nhis custody.\tRavi  (A-16)  and  Suseendran\t(A-17)\t met
\nSivarasan in  the  evening.    Then  Ravi (A-16), Suseendran
\n(A-17), Sivarasan and Subha gathered at 9.00 p.m.    at\t the
\nbus stand   from  where\t Ravi  (A-16)  took  leave.    After
\nreturning he informed  Pottu  Amman  through  wireless\tthat
\nSivarasan  had\tleft  Subha  in\t his and Suseendran’s (A-17)
\ncustody.  Ravi (A-16) sent a message to Sivarasan  that\t the
\nshore was  now clear.  Ravi (A-16) along with Sivarasan went
\nto the house of Karpagam (PW-133),  relative  of  Suseendran
\n(A-17) at  Pollachi  where  Subha  had\tbeen  taken.\tBoth
\nSuseendran (A-17)  and\tSubha  were  there.    Ravi  (A-16),
\nSuseendran  (A-17),  Sivarasan, Subha, Kanthan and Murugesan
\ncollected at the seashore to take  a  boat  for\t Sri  Lanka.
\nThat was  10.6.1991.   A message was, however, received that
\nthe boat got hit in the sea near Jaffna and all\t 11  persons
\nwho were coming to India died.\tYet another attempt was made
\nto leave  India\t from  another\tshore.\t Sivarasan said that
\nsecurity would now be tightened.  At this Ravi\t(A-16)\ttold
\nhim  that “we would try, if not ‘consume the capsule’.” Ravi
\n(A-16) said that problem for leaving from Indian shore would
\nget aggravated if there was  any  further  delay.    In\t his
\nconfession  then  Ravi\t(A-16) described the attempts of the
\ngroup to leave India and their interse meetings\t to  achieve
\nthat purpose and the difficulty faced by them because of war
\nin Sri Lanka.  Ravi (A16) thought that their position should
\nbe explained  to  Pottu\t Amman.\t   He,\ttherefore, contacted
\nSuseendran (A-17) for forming a wireless set connection\t and
\nfor that  purpose  to  arrange a house.\t In the last week of
\nJuly, 1991 Suseendran (A-17) arranged a house  at  Dindigul.
\nKanthan\t gave his wireless set to Ravi (A-16) telling him to
\nkeep that safe.\t  Through  wireless  set  they\tcould  reach
\nJaffna\tand  sent  information\tthat  CBI  was searching for
\nKanthan and his picture had been published in newspapers and
\nasked them to arrange for a  boat  urgently.\tLater,\tRavi
\n(A-16)\talong  with Kanthan and another went to the house of
\nRobert Payas (A-9).  While Ravi (A-16) stood outside Kanthan
\nwent inside the house through back entery and  after  a\t few
\nminutes came  out.   He told Ravi (A-16) that inmates of the
\nhouse asked him not to come to their house since police\t was
\nsearching him.\t  Later\t Kanthan  went\tto a lonely house in
\nPorur and when he returned he said that the old man in\tthat
\nhouse had  been\t arrested  by  CBI.    On  20  or  21.7.1991
\nSuseendran (A-17) went to Dindigul and gave  information  to
\nPottu Amman  about  the\t latest position.  In his confession
\nRavi (A-16) had shown  his  various  attempts  for  him\t and
\nothers\tto leave the country and his being in constant touch
\nwith Pottu Amman through wireless set installed at Dindigul.
\nOn 28.7.1991 Ravi (A-16) along with Kanthan and Ramanan went
\nto Sri Lanka and met Pottu Amman.   Ravi  (A-16)  said\twhen
\nPottu  Amman  asked as to the position of Tamil Nadu he told
\nhim that there was no place even to stand  in  the  existing
\ncircumstances.\t Pottu\tAmman  then  asked  him\t as  to\t why
\nSivarasan went to Bangalore.  Ravi (A-16) said\the  did\t not
\nknow  about  Sivarasan’s  going to Bangalore and that he had
\nearlier informed Pottu Amman that he was not in contact with
\nSivarasan.  Ravi (A-16) gave Pottu Amman up-to-date position
\nof the investigation and  the  arrest  of  various  persons.
\nUltimately Ravi (A-16) stated that he returned to India.  He
\nleft  Sri  Lanka  on 10.8.1991 with various weapons, 12 gold
\nbiscuits and 15 code sheets.  The weapons included 2 SMG, 10
\ngrenades, 1350 rounds and 5 pistols.  Pottu Amman told\tRavi
\n(A-16)\tthat  now  weapons had been handed over to him, time
\nhad come for starting the struggle and to  fight  against  a
\nvery big  super\t power and asked him to be careful.  He told
\nRavi (A-16) to decide targets and then suggested many  other
\nthings\tas  to\thow  to\t go  about  and\t use  the  arms\t and
\nammunition.  They  came\t to  India  through  a\tboat.\t  He
\ncontacted Suseendran  (A-17).\t 1350  rounds,\t2  SMG and 5
\ngrenades were dumped in a place\t by  two  LTTE\tmen  on\t the
\ndirection of  Ravi  (A-16).    Next  morning  they  came  to
\nDindigul  with\t2  walkie-talkie,  12  gold  biscuits  (each
\nweighing 120  grams), code sheets and 3 pistols.  Jaffna was
\ninformed through wireless set of Kanthan.  Ravi (A-16)\tgave
\n6  biscuits,  2\t grenades,  one\t pistol\t and  code sheets to
\nSuseendran (A-17) and asked him to keep them.\t One  pistol
\nRavi (A16)  kept with him and one he gave to one Sukumar.  6
\ngold biscuits were given to one Charles.  On 12.8.1991\tRavi
\n(A-16)\tleft  Dindigul\tand  reached Madras on the next day.
\nThere he got the news in papers that weapons hidden  in\t the
\nground at  Nambuthalai had been taken by the customs.  Pottu
\nAmman was informed of  this  seizure.\t On  21.8.1991\tRavi
\n(A-16) was arrested by the police.  He was shown the letters
\nand  other  diaries of Sivarasan to identify the handwriting
\nof Sivarasan.  He identified various persons in LTTE  cadre,
\nthey  being  Chokkan,  Arivu  (A-18),  Yogi  @\tYoga Ratnam,
\nShanmugham,  Haribabu,\tSivarasan,  Aruna,   Suba   Sundaram
\n(A-22),\t  Avadi\t Manoharan,  Robert  Payas  (A-9),  Ramanan,
\nJayakumar (A-10), Kanthan, Murugan (A-3),  Chinna  Shanthan,
\nGundappa, Dixon and Irumborai (A-19).\n<\/p>\n
\tSuseendran  (A-17) is another Indian Tamil living in
\nTamil Nadu.  He also became LTTE sympathizer  and  had\tbeen
\nworking for  LTTE.    He  got  contact\twith Muthuraja, Baby
\nSubramaniam and Kasi Anandhan  (PW-242)\t and  other  persons
\nbelonging to  LTTE.    In  1989\t he  went  to  Sri Lanka and
\norganized there a procession in support of LTTE.  In end  of
\nJanuary, 1990  he  came\t to  know  Ravi\t (A-16).   They both
\ndiscussed the  creation\t of  separate  Tamil  Nadu  and\t its
\nliberation.   Suseendran  (A-17) did not consider this offer
\nseriously.  After a few days Ravi (A-16) again talked to him
\nto which Suseendran  (A-17)  replied  that  though  he\tfelt
\nconfident  but\tasked as to how it was going to be attained.
\nRavi (A-16) said  youths  who  were  interested\t in  getting
\nseparate  Tamil\t Nadu could be organized and involved in the
\nstruggle and that LTTE would help in giving arm training  to
\nthem.\tSuseendran (A-17) said he got interested and decided
\nto collect persons interested in separate Tamil\t Nadu.\t  In
\nhis  confession Suseendran (A-17) then described the attempt
\nto organize youths and then to make arrangement for them  to
\ngo to  Sri  Lanka  for\ttraining.  In Sri Lanka he met Pottu
\nAmman as  well.\t   He  came  to\t the  training\tcamp   where
\nSuseendran (A17)  and others were getting training.  He told
\nthem that they should always  be  ready\t at  right  time  to
\nattack\timportant  places in Tamil Nadu and that weapons and
\nmoney required for the struggle would be given by LTTE.\t  He
\nsaid  that  they  must\tfight as one under the leadership of
\nRavi (A-16).  The movement which was to be started  by\tRavi
\n(A-16)\tand  Suseendran\t (A-17)\t was  called  Tamil National
\nRetrieval Troops (as translated in English).  In the end  of
\nDecember,  1990 Pottu Amman took him, Ravi (A-16) and others
\nto Jaffna.  He took Ravi (A-16) sparately and talked to him.
\nIn the house there was one person whose name was  Sivarasan.
\nThen  Sivarasan, Pottu Amman and Ravi (A-16) talked together
\nfor a while.  They then left for Indian\t soil  on  boat\t and
\nwere seen  off\tby  Pottu  Amman.  In his further confession
\nSuseendran (A-17) described his meeting with various persons
\nconnected with LTTE and the expenses met by Sivarasan.\t  He
\nwas  involved  in  organizing  the youths and went to places
\nlike Pollachi.\tAs  per\t earlier  arrangement  he  met\tRavi
\n(A-16) at  Madras  on 26.5.1991.  Sivarasan also came there.
\nAt that time Ravi (A-16) told him to have a lady tiger\tstay
\nwith  him for one week since the police problem was too much
\nat Madras.  He requested that the girl could stay in a house
\nof a supporter whom he knew.  Sivarasan, Subha, Ravi  (A-16)
\nand Suseendran (A-17) then gathered at bus stop at 9 O’clock
\nwhen Ravi  (A-16)  left\t leaving  them there.  That lady was
\nintroduced to Suseendran  (A-17)  as  Malliga.\t  Suseendran
\n(A-17)\tsaid  that  later  he came to know that her name was
\nSubha.\tHe, Sivarasan and Subha\t left  for  Trichy  reaching
\nthere in the morning.  From there they went to Pollachi.  He
\nsaid there  they stayed in the house of D.  Shanmugasundaram
\n(PW-208).  He introduced Mallika as his wife and  sister  of
\nSivarasan.  Karpagam  (PW-133), wife of D.  Shanmugasundaram
\n(PW-208), was  a  distant  relative  of\t Suseendran  (A-17).
\nSivarasan  then left saying that he would come back and take
\nMallika in  5  days.\tMeanwhile  Sivarasan’s\t photo\t was
\npublished in  the  newspapers.\t  Sivarasan  did  not  come.
\nSuseendran (A-17) thought that it was not right to  stay  in
\nthat  house  any  further  as  that  would  give unnecessary
\ntrouble to D.  Shanmugasundaram (PW-208).    He,  therefore,
\nwith  Mallika  left the place saying that they were going to
\nBangalore.  When they reached Pollachi bus stand  Suseendran
\n(A-17) told  Subha  that  they\twould  go  to  Madras.\t She
\nrefused.  She said  that  Sivarasan  would  definitely\tcome
\nwithin a  day or two.  For the purpose of hiding, Suseendran
\n(A-17) took her to Trichur by bus, from where to a place  at
\nCochin and went to Trivandrum and then came back to Pollachi
\nafter  visiting\t various  places and reaching Pollachi by 10
\nO’clock in   the   night.      They   again   went   to\t  D.\n<\/p>\n
Shanmugasundaram’s  (PW-208)  house  and  told him that they
\nwere unable to go to Bangalore and  returned  after  staying
\nwith another friend’s house.  He was informed that Sivarasan
\nhad come  and  searched\t for him and Subha.  That night they
\nstayed there.  He said Subha would often talk to  him  about
\nlady  tiger  organization  named as ‘freedom birds’ (English
\ntranslation).  He also saw her once writing poem in coloured
\nautograph book (Exh.P-480).  She also read some crime novels
\nwhich were purchased by Suseendran (A-17).   Sivarasan\tcame
\nafter about two days and same night Suseendran (A-17), Subha
\nand Sivarasan  went  to\t Madras\t by  bus.   They got down at
\nSaidapet bus stop.  While Sivarasan  and  Subha\t went  away,
\nSuseendran (A-17)  returned to Pollachi itself.\t After about
\nten days Suseendran (A17) went to Palani where he  met\tRavi
\n(A-16).\t  Suseendran  (A-17) made arrangement for installing
\nwireless set in a place near Coimbatore.   Then\t he  took  a
\nhouse on  rent\tat  Dindigul.\tIn his confession Suseendran
\n(A-17) described further activities connected with LTTE\t and
\nattempt to  go to Sri Lanka.  On 27.8.1991 LTTE boat came by
\nnight in which Ravi (A-16), Ramanan and Kanthan went to\t Sri
\nLanka.\t In  the first week of September, 1991 a message was
\nreceived from Jaffna to identify the coast for the  boat  in
\nwhich Suseendran  (A-17)  was  coming.\t  Suseendran  (A-17)
\nidentified the coast and informed Pottu Amman  by  wireless.
\nOn 10.9.1991 Ravi (A-16) arrived by boat in the night.\tFour
\nmore  persons  also  came  with him, who had completed their
\ntraining.  Ravi (A-16) brought two wooden  boxes  containing
\nweapons.   In the same boat which had come four more persons
\nwere sent  to  Jaffna  for  training.\t Ravi\t(A-16)\t and
\nSuseendran (A-17)  came to Dindigul.  Jaffna was informed by
\nwireless.  Ravi (A-16) gave a walkie talkie, three grenades,
\none nine M.M.  pistol, 6  gold\tbiscuits,  code\t sheets\t and
\neight cyanide capsules to Suseendran (A-17) and asked him to
\nkeep them safely.  Ravi (A-16) also gave him Rs.30,000\/- and
\ntold him  to buy sockets for the wireless.  Ravi (A-16) also
\ntold Suseendran (A-17) to make\tarrangement  for  buying  of
\npetrol and  diesel  and\t to  send  them\t to Jaffna.  He told
\nSuseendran  (A-17)  that  in  future  they   had   to\tmake
\narrangement  for  the petrol needed for the boat to send the
\nweapons and  persons.\t In  the  month\t of  October,\t1991
\nSuseendran (A-17)  went\t to  Pollachi.\tAll the things which
\nRavi (A-16) gave him he kept locked in a suitcase  and\tgave
\nthat to a friend K.  Periasami (PW-213) and told him that he
\nwould come  and\t collect  that\tlater.\t  He  then  went  to
\nKodiakkarai  and  gave\tRs.30,000\/-  to\t his  friend   Jothi
\nVenkatachalam and  asked him to arrange for diesel.  He gave
\nJothi’s mother one walkie talki and two grenades  rapped  in
\nplastic\t paper and told her that he would come and take them
\nafterwards.  When he came back\tto  Dindigul  again,  police
\narrested him.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn  his\t disclosure  statement\t(Exh.P-1323) made on
\n20.1.1992 Suseendran (A-17) with respect to part of  weapons
\nwhich  were  given to him by Ravi (A-16) said that if he was
\ntaken to the place and to the person with whom he  kept\t the
\narticles  he  would be able to identify those persons, their
\nresidences and the articles which he gave them.\n<\/p>\n
\tK.S.  Madhavan (PW-273), Sub-inspector of Police  of
\nTamil\tNadu  State  Police,  testified\t to  the  disclosure
\nstatement made by Suseendran  (A-17)  (Exh.P-1323)  and\t the
\nrecoveries   made   on\tthat  basis  both  at  Pollachi\t and
\nKodiakkarai as aforementioned.\n<\/p>\n
\tK.   Periasami\t(PW-213)  was  involved\t in  Dravida
\nKazhagam (DK)  political  organization.\t   He got acquainted
\nwith Suseendran (A-17).\t That was since 1985.  In the second
\nweek of October, 1991 in the morning Suseendran (A-17)\tcame
\nto his\thouse with one suitcase in his hand.  He said he was
\ngoing out of station and asked him to keep the suitcase with
\nhim carefully.\tThat suitcase was locked.  He, however,\t did
\nnot come  back.\t  He was arrested within two weeks from that
\ntime in connection with LTTE.  After he read the news of his
\narrest in newspapers K.\t  Periasami  (PW-213)  thought\tthat
\nthere\tmight  be  some\t articles  in  the  suitcase,  which
\nSuseendran (A-17) gave, connected with LTTE.  Using a  screw
\ndriver\the  opened the suitcase and found one walkie talkie,
\nthree aerials of walkie talkie, one rifle, 18  bullets,\t one
\nhand  grenade,\tfive  cyanide bottles and six gold biscuits.
\nK.   Periasami\t(PW-213)  after\t seeing\t the  articles\t was
\nterrified.   He\t threw\tall  the  things except the six gold
\nbiscuits inside a well at the back side\t of  his  house\t and
\nalso threw the suitcase in a nearby thorny bush.  Thereafter
\nSuseendran  (A-17)  came  with\tthe  CBI  to  his  house  on
\n22.1.1992 and asked for the box which he had given him.\t  K.
\nPeriasami  (PW-213)  said  he  had  kept  the  gold biscuits
\nconcealed in the  false\t ceiling  of  his  room.    He\ttook
\nSuseendran (A-17) and police officers near the well and gave
\nthem details of the articles which he found in the suitcase.
\nServices of fire brigade were requisitioned and they brought
\nout all\t the articles from the well.  Articles (MOs 582-587)
\nwere seized  by\t Mahazar  Exh.P-1003.\t Six  gold  biscuits
\n(collectively MO 588) were seized as per Mahazar Exh.P-1004.
\nSuitcase, however, could not be found.\n<\/p>\n
\tNagarathinam   (PW-260)\t said  he  was\tresident  of
\nKodiakkarai.  He  is  in  laundry   business.\t   He\tsaid
\nSundaramoorthy\tPillai\tand his wife Valliamai were residing
\nin the house next to his door.\tLater on they got their\t own
\nhouse and shifted.  About four years back five policemen had
\ncome nine  days\t after Pongal festival.\t There were two pits
\nin the western side of the house of Pillai.   In  one  there
\nwere two explosives (MO-754 and MO-755) and in the other one
\nwalkie talkie (MO-777).\t Valliamai was showing those objects
\nto the\tpolice.\t   A  seizure  memo was prepared taking into
\npossession the articles (Exh.P-1172).  Walkie talkie and two
\nexplosives were kept by Suseendran  (A-17)  with  Valliamai,
\nwho is mother of Jothi Venkatachalam, a friend of Suseendran
\n(A-17).\n<\/p>\n
\tM.   Mariappan (PW-86) was working in the house hold
\nof Shanmugham (DA) at Kodiakkarai.  He\twas  living  in\t the
\nelder brother’s\t house\tof Shanmugham (DA).  At that time he
\nsaid that some Sri Lankan  people  were\t coming\t and  going.
\nThere  was  a  tent in front of Shanmugham’s brother’s house
\nwhere they used to stay.  One day  one\tMurugan\t (A-3)\tcame
\nthere from  Madras.  He stayed in the tent for four days and
\nsince no boat came from Sri Lanka he returned to Madras.  He
\ngave M.\t Mariappan (PW-86) six items – two  boxes  and\tfour
\nbags  and  said\t he would take back those on his return from
\nMadras.\t Shanmugham’s brother told M.  Mariappan (PW86)\t and
\nShanmugham to  bury  and  conceal  the\titems.\tThis he did.
\nPolice made inquiry from M.  Mariappan (PW-86) and he  after
\ndigging\t unearthed  the\t hidden\t things\t and  gave  them  to
\nTahsildar of the area.\tM.  Mariappan (PW-86)  said  he\t and
\nhis brother  Govindan buried those six items.  He identified
\nthose two boxes (MO-198 and 199) and four boxes\t (MO-200  to\n<\/p>\n
203), which Murugan (A-3) had given him and he had buried.\n<\/p>\n
\tKarpagam    (PW-133),\t whose\t  husband    is\t  D.\n<\/p>\n
Shanmugasundaram (PW-208), said\t that  she  knew  Suseendran
\n(A-17).\t He was her husband’s senior in college and she came
\nto know him after marriage.  One day on 28.5.1991 Suseendran
\n(A-17) came   to  their\t house.\t   He  introduced  the\tgirl
\naccompanying him as his wife Malliga and said she was a\t Sri
\nLankan refugee and it was a love marriage between them.\t The
\nperson\twith  beard,  who  was\talso  accompanying them, was
\nintroduced as Malliga’s brother.    Suseendran\t(A-17)\tsaid
\nthat  since  it was a love marriage her parents were opposed
\nto it and they would stay for  three  or  four\tdays.\t The
\nperson, who had beard, went away.  When D.  Shanmugasundaram
\n(PW-208)  came home in the evening she gave him the details.
\nKarpagam (PW-133) also bought one HMT watch as gift for\t the
\nnewly weds  with  the  consent of her husband.\tMalliga also
\nbought a chappal.  Karpagam (PW-133) then bought some sarees
\nfor Malliga on the request of Suseendran (A-17).  Suseendran
\n(A-17), however, gave Rs.1,000\/-  to  D.    Shanmugasundaram
\n(PW-208), which\t was  the  cost\t of  the watch.\t He said the
\nwatch was a gift but  Suseendran  (A-17)  said\tit  was\t not
\nnecessary in  the  condition they were.\t They, however, kept
\nthe watch.    On   1.6.1991   Suseendran   (A17)   told\t  D.
\nShanmugasundaram  (PW-208)  that  he  was  taking Malliga to
\nBangalore where he had got a house to  live.\tOn  2.6.1991
\nthey left the house.  Next day Malliga’s brother (Sivarasan)
\ncame  to  the  house  of Karpagam (PW-133) whom she informed
\nthat Suseendran\t (A-17)\t had  taken  Malliga  to  Bangalore.
\nKarpagam (PW-133) identified the photo of Sivarasan (MO-470)
\nas  the\t person\t who was introduced as brother of Malliga by
\nSuseendran (A-17).  There was another person  who  had\tcome
\nwith Sivarasan.\t   Karpagam  (PW-133) identified him as Ravi
\n(A-16).\t On 3.6.1991 Suseendran (A-17) and Malliga came back
\nand when D.  Shanmugasundaram (PW-208)\tasked  them  whether
\nthey  had  gone to Bangalore, Suseendran (A-17) replied that
\nthey could not get the tickets and had stayed in a  friend’s
\nhouse.\t Malliga was told that her brother had come on a day
\nbefore.\t Suseendran (A-17) left the house  on  4.6.1991\t and
\ncame back  the next day.  After some time Sivarasan came and
\nthen all three left.  They did not tell Karpagam (PW-133) as
\nto where they were going.  After about ten  days  Suseendran
\n(A-17)\tcame  to the house of Karpagam (PW-133) and when she
\ninquired about Malliga’s health he said\t she  was  fine\t and
\nasked  her to come to Bangalore where they were staying in a
\nseparate rented house.\tAfter  one  month  suddenly  on\t one
\nnight\tSuseendran   (A-17)   came   again   and   told\t  D.
\nShanmugasundaram (PW-208) that the woman who had  stayed  in
\ntheir  house  was Subha and if they disclose that to anybody
\nthey would be put in trouble and also said that he would not
\nbe responsible\tfor  that.    Saying  that  he\twent   away.
\nKarpagam  (PW133)  said\t that  they  were afraid and did not
\ndivulge about their stay to anybody.  When Malliga  @  Subha
\nwas  presented\twith  a\t new  watch  the  old  citizen watch
\n(MO-471), which she was wearing, she left in  the  house  of
\nKarpagam (PW-133).    Suseendran  (A-17)  had left a Philips
\nradio (MO-472).\t Police took these articles into  possession
\nby seizure memo Exh.P-635.  Police also took into possession
\nbill for  the  purchase of the HMT watch (Exh.P-636).  There
\nwas  also  a  guarantee\t card  of  the\twatch\t(Exh.P-637).
\nKarpagam (PW-133) identified both Sivarasan and Subha in the
\nphotograph   and   she\t also  identified  Ravi\t (A-16)\t and
\nSuseendran (A17).  D.  Shanmugasundaram (PW-208), husband of
\nKarpagam (PW-133), corroborated the statement of his wife in
\nall respects.\n<\/p>\n
\tIrumborai (A-19) is Indian national.   He  developed
\ninterest  in  the  party  Dravida  Kazhagam  (DK) and became
\nSecretary of Pudukottai District Youth Forum of the party in
\n1978.  In a conference of  DK  held  at\t Trichy\t in  1985  a
\nresolution  was passed to give full support to LTTE in their
\nstruggle.  Public meetings were arranged in support of\tLTTE
\nand funds   collected.\t   Irumborai  (A-19)  took  part  in
\narranging the meetings.\t He met many persons of LTTE  cadre.
\nOne of\twhom  was  Kasi Anandhan (PW-242).  For two years in
\n1986-87 nobody came to collect the  funds  from\t Sri  Lanka.
\nThen  one  Ramesh  of LTTE cadre was introduced to Irumborai
\n(A-19).\t He was organizing providing  medical  treatment  to
\nthe injured LTTE cadre, who were injured in war in Sri Lanka
\nand had\t come  to  India  for  treatment.  He took Irumborai
\n(A-19) to hospital  to\tassist\thim  in\t looking  after\t the
\npatients who  were  getting  treatment\tthere.\t  During the
\nmeeting organized by  DK  Irumborai  (A-19)  also  met\tBaby
\nSubramaniam.   In  the\tend  of\t 1989  or  beginning of 1990
\nIrumborai (A-19) and Ramesh went  to  LTTE  headquarters  at
\nIndira\tNagar,\tMadras\twhere  they  met  Baby\tSubramaniam.
\nIrumborai (A-19) was meeting Baby Subramaniam quite often in
\npublic meetings and also at his press at  Madras.    In\t his
\nconfession  Irumborai  (A-19)  said  he also used to cut the
\nnews relating to LTTE published in newspapers and paste them
\nin a notebook which he would hand over to  Baby\t Subramaniam
\nwho in\tturn  would  send  that to Jaffna.  Irumborai (A-19)
\nsaid that he also used to go to photo  studio  run  by\tSuba
\nSundaram (A-22)\t  along\t  with\t Baby\tSubramaniam.\tBaby
\nSubramaniam would bring copies of video and audio  cassettes
\nrelating  to  LTTE  to\tthe  studio of Suba Sundaram (A-22),
\nwhich related to LTTE camps in Sri Lanka  and  the  affected
\nplaces and  persons.  At the studio of Suba Sundaram (A-22),
\nIrumborai (A-19) also  said  that  he  got  acquainted\twith
\nBhagyanathan  (A-20) but he did not see either his sister or
\nhis mother.  Whenever Irumborai (A-19)\tcame  to  Madras  he
\nwould stay in a room near water tank, rent of which was paid
\nby Baby\t Subramaniam.\tIrumborai (A-19) had also seen Arivu
\n(A-18) in DK conferences.    He\t also  got  acquainted\twith
\nMuthuraja through Baby Subramaniam, who was strong supporter
\nof LTTE.    Muthuraja and Arivu (A-18) had also been staying
\nin the room near water tank  in\t Indira\t Nagar.\t   Irumborai
\n(A-19)\tsaid  he  and  others  did  not accept the policy of
\nIndian Government and specially the action of the IPKF.\t  In
\nJune,\t1990   Irumborai   (A19),   Arivu  (A-18)  and\tBaby
\nSubramaniam went to Trichy.  When they\twere  staying  in  a
\nhouse, Trichy Santhan (DA) came there in a Maruti van.\tThey
\nalong  with some other LTTE persons went to a place near the
\ncoast by van and from there to Jaffna  in  Sri\tLanka  by  a
\nboat.\tAfter  spending some days there Irumborai (A-19) and
\nothers decided to return to India but by that time there was
\na conflict started between LTTE and Sri Lankan army with the
\nresult that they could not return.  Irumborai (A-19) did the
\nsame work there in the press of Baby Subramaniam.    He\t met
\nsenior members\t of   LTTE.    He  was\talso  introduced  to
\nPrabhakaran.  For five months Irumborai (A-19)\twas  in\t Sri
\nLanka  and  he met many women and children who were affected
\nby the conflict with IPKF.  That moved Irumborai (A-19).  In
\nNovember, 1990, Irumborai (A-19), Arivu (A18), Suresh Master
\nand two injured ladies came to India by boat.\tHe  met\t one
\nKripan\twho  was  also the organizer for giving treatment to
\nthe injured boys.  In March Irumborai (A-19) came to  Madras
\nand  he\t met  one Kumar, who was the organizer for political
\nwing of LTTE.  Irumborai (A-19) went with Suresh Master (DA)
\nto  see\t the  boys  who\t were  under  treatment\t in  various
\nhospitals.   During  February,\t1991  police  arrested those
\npersons who were in the house at Adayar.   Kripan  was\talso
\narrested.    Irumborai\t(A-19)\tsaid  he  stayed  in  Y.V.K.
\nHospital and Vijaya Hospital and one day  in  the  month  of
\nMarch, 1991 he and Suresh Master (DA) went to Trichy and met
\nTrichy Santhan (DA), who had just then returned from Jaffna.
\nThey  discussed\t about\tthe arrest of Kripan and the problem
\nthat was being faced in raising funds.\tTrichy Santhan\t(DA)
\nsaid that  he would provide the necessary funds.  After that
\nthey returned to Madras.  Suresh Master (DA) hired  a  house
\nin Alwar  Thirunagar  in Madras.  The house had already been
\nhired by Amman, who was staying there.\tOther  injured\tLTTE
\nboys were   also  there.    Irumborai  (A-19)  said  he\t was
\ncontinuously doing the hospital work and apart from that  he
\nalso met the LTTE persons who were in prisons at Tiruchy and
\nVellore and helped them in getting necessary things.  As per
\ninstructions  of  Suresh  Master  (DA) one day in the second
\nweek of May, 1991, Irumborai (A-19) said, he went to Tiruchy
\nand told Trichy Santhan (DA) that Suresh Master\t (DA)  asked
\nfor money   for\t  his\texpenses.      Trichy  Santhan\tgave
\nRs.15,000\/to Irumborai (A-19).\tAt that time Trichy  Santhan
\n(DA)   told   Irumborai\t  (A-19)   that\t  LTTE\twere  making
\narrangements to kill an important leader shortly,  and\tthat
\nSuresh\tMaster (DA), the injured boys and others be asked to
\nbe careful.  At this Irumborai (A-19) asked  Trichy  Santhan
\n(DA)  whether  they  were  going  to  kill  “(Vazhapadi)  K.
\nRamamurthi” (PW-258)  of  Rajiv\t Congress  to  which  Trichy
\nSanthan\t said he did not know the details of the persons and
\nplace and alerted all of them  to  be  careful.\t   Irumborai
\n(A-19)\tthen  returned\tto  Madras  and gave money to Suresh
\nMaster and also told him the details told by Trichy Santhan.
\nIrumborai (A-19) said in his confession that after  that  he
\ndid not\t talk  with  any  one  about  that.    On  21.5.1991
\nIrumborai (A-19) said he and Suresh Master went to  a  place
\ncalled Luz Corner.  Arivu (A18) and Bhagyanathan (A-20) were
\nalso there.   They all went to M.  Sankari’s (PW-210) house.
\nThereafter Irumborai (A-19) and Suresh Master went  to\tAnna
\nNagar by an auto.  Suresh Master got down saying that he was
\ngoing to  see Kasi Anandhan (PW-242).  Irumborai (A-19) went
\nhome and took a boy Anand to a dentist.\t He came back by  10
\nO’clock in the night.  Suresh Master also came.\t Next day on
\n22.5.1991  in  the  morning  there  was news of Rajiv Gandhi
\nbeing murdered in bomb blast in Sriperumbudur  as  announced
\non TV  and  in\tnewspapers.  Irumborai (A-19) said everybody
\ngot frightened and did not go out for two days.\t He  thought
\nRajiv  Gandhi’s\t murder\t was  a\t brave\tdeed  and  an act of
\nrevenge.  On third day he and Suresh  Master  went  to\tAnna
\nNagar to  meet\tKasi  Anandhan (PW-242).  Suresh Master told
\nhim that he needed some money.\tNext  day  when\t they  again
\nwent  to  meet Kasi Anandhan (PW-242) as told by him he gave
\nmoney to Suresh Master.\t Irumborai (A-19) then said that  in
\nthe last week of May, 1991 he went to Neyveli to see whether
\nan  artificial\tleg had been fitted to a girl Jamuna who was
\nadmitted by Irumborai (A-19) in\t the  hospital.\t   Irumborai
\n(A-19)\tthen returned to Madras and as told by Suresh Master
\nwent to Salem to get money from Trichy Santhan\tbut  he\t was
\nnot available.\t  In  the first week of June, 1991 Irumborai
\n(A-19) again went to Selam to meet  Trichy  Santhan.\tThat
\nnight he stayed with him and they discussed about the photos
\nof  murderers which were published in the newspapers and who
\nwere involved in the murder of Rajiv Gandhi.  Both  returned
\nto Madras.   Trichy Santhan got down at Saidapet and said he
\nwas going to Adayar and\t told  Irumborai  (A-19)  to  inform
\nSuresh Master  to  come and meet him.  Irumborai (A-19) went
\nto the house at Alwar Thirunagar and conveyed the message to
\nSuresh Master who then went to Adayar and returned  late  in
\nthe night.    Suresh  Master  then  sent the injured boys in
\npairs to Bangalore.  At that  time  a  person  named  Rangam
\n(A-24)\tfrom  Thiruvanmiyur  was  frequently  coming to meet
\nSuresh Master.\tIn the second week of June,  1991  Irumborai
\n(A-19)\tagain  went  to Neyveli to see if the artificial leg
\nwas fitted to Jamuna, a girl of 1617 years of  age  and\t who
\nwas an\tLTTE  woman tiger.  She had lost her leg in war with
\nmilitants in the fort at Jaffna.  He met her this  time\t and
\nhe  found  that\t artificial  leg  had been fitted to Jamuna.
\nNow, when he returned to Madras he was told by Suresh Master
\nthat his photo has been seized by the police and  they\twere
\nin search  of  him.   Suresh Master advised Irumborai (A-19)
\nnot to go any where from the house.  After  about  three  or
\nfour  days  in\tthe  third  week of June, 1991 Suresh Master
\narranged a  Maruti  van\t through  Rangam  (A-24)  and  asked
\nIrumborai (A-19)  to go to Bangalore.  Irumborai (A-19) went
\nto Bangalore with Rangam (A-24) and stayed  in\ta  house  in
\nIndira Nagar.\tIn that house LTTE injured boys were already
\nthere.\tIrumborai (A-19) said he came  to  know\t later\tthat
\nthat house was arranged by K.  Jagannathan (PW-211).  In the
\nend  of\t June,\t1991 Trichy Santhan (DA) came there and told
\nIrumborai (A19) to bring Jamuna to Bangalore.  He also\ttold
\nIrumborai  (A-19) to have contacts with Andhra Naxalites and
\nalso to find out if boat transport  could  be  available  at
\nplace Malliapattinam near Pudukottai.  Irumborai (A-19) then
\nwent to\t Neyveli  and  told  Jamuna  to\t be  ready.  He also
\ninquired about the boat transport to Sri Lanka and was\ttold
\nbecause\t  of   security\t being\ttightened  and\tthere  being
\npatrolling by Navy it was not possible.\t   Irumborai  (A-19)
\nthen accompanied  with\tJamuna\treturned  to Bangalore.\t Two
\ndays later Trichy Santhan also came to Bangalore.   He\tsaid
\nSivarasan  and\tSubha were not able to go to Jaffna and that
\nhe had received an order to look after them and he  said  he
\nwould accompany them to Bangalore within two days.  Then one
\nday  in\t the  end of June, 1991 at about 6.30 in the morning
\nSivarasan, Subha and Nero came to the house at Indira  Nagar
\nwhere Irumborai\t (A-19)\t was staying.  Along with them Vicky
\n(A-25), Rangam (A-24)  and  Dhanasekaran  (A23)\t also  came.
\nIrumborai  (A-19) asked Trichy Santhan how they had come and
\nwas told that they had come  to\t Bangalore  from  Madras  by
\nhiding in a tanker lorry of Dhanasekaran (A-23).  After four
\ndays  of  their\t arrival  Vikky\t and Dixon also came to that
\nhouse in Indira Nagar.\tTrichy Santhan (DA) and\t Dixon\twere
\ndiscussing  as to how to send Sivarasan and Subha to Jaffna.
\nThey were looking for a safe place to leave Indian soil.  In
\nthe house at Indira Nagar, Sivarasan told  Irumborai  (A-19)
\nthat  police were informed about their identity only because
\nthe photo taken by Haribabu and the affairs between  Murugan
\n(A-3) and Nalini (A-1).\t A week or 10 days thereafter Subha,
\nNero and Sivarasan shifted to another house.  Then news came
\nthat  in  the last week of July, 1991 Vicky (A-25) and Raghu
\nwere caught in Coimbatore by police and Dixon (DA) had died.
\nSince Vicky  (A-25)  knew  the\tplace  in  Indira  Nagar  at
\nBangalore it  was decided to shift from that place.  All the
\ninjured LTTE boys in the first house at\t Indira\t Nagar\twere
\nshifted to  the\t second house.\tThere were about 20 to 30 of
\nthem.  Suresh Master suggested that a separate house  should
\nbe arranged  for  Sivarasan, Subha and Nero.  Then Irumborai
\n(A-19) in his confession described as to how he moved about,
\nshifting some of the injured LTTE cadre to other places\t and
\ngetting\t news  of  suicide  committed  by some of LTTE cadre
\nwhile consuming cyanide.  Both Irumborai (A-19)\t and  Trichy
\nSanthan themselves went in hiding from one place to another.
\nThey  then  heard  the\tnews  of 12 LTTE boys having died by
\nconsuming cyanide in Indira Nagar.  Trichy Santhan (DA) then
\ndirected Irumborai (A-19) to go to his native place.  Within
\ntwo or three days news came that  Sivarasan,  Subha,  Suresh
\nMaster (DA),  Nero  and\t Jamnua\t died  in Bangalore.  In the
\nfirst week of September, 1991  Irumborai  (A-19)  again\t met
\nTrichy\tSanthan\t who told him that he was short of funds and
\nsince police was making efforts to search him he  could\t not
\ngo to  Jaffna.\t  He asked Irumborai (A-19) to some how make
\narrangement to go to Jaffna to\tmeet  Baby  Subramaniam\t and
\nthen  to  meet\tPrabhakaran directly and to inform him about
\npolitical situation in India at that time and other  things.
\nUltimately  arrangement\t for  Irumborai\t (A-19) to go to Sri
\nLanka were made and he was told to be  ready  on  29.9.1991,
\nSunday night at a particular place.  He conveyed the news to
\nTrichy Santhan\t(DA).\t Trichy\t Santhan sent a cover with a
\nletter written by him  to  Prabhakaran\tand  also  a  letter
\nwritten\t by  him  to Irumborai (A-19) and some other letters
\nwritten by other LTTE persons for being taken to Sri  Lanka.
\nIn the cover addressed to Prabhakaran it was superscribed as
\n“very important\t to  the  leader”.  There was another letter
\nwhich Trichy Santhan (DA) wrote to Irumborai (A-19).  It was
\ndated 7.9.1991 and was in two pages.  A boat  which  was  to
\ntake  Irumborai\t (A-19)\t and  other  LTTE  persons came from
\nRameshwaram near a place ‘Vil Oondi Theertham’ near seashore
\nas arranged earlier.  They got into the boat.  When the boat
\nwas moving in the sea at about 1.30 in the  night  Navy\t men
\nwho were   patrolling  surrounded  the\tboat.\t Three\tLTTE
\npersons, who were in the boat, took cyanide.  Two  died\t and
\none in\tserious condition was taken to the hospital.  On the
\nmorning of 3.10.1991 Irumborai (A-19) and others,  who\twere
\nalso  in  the  boat  were  handed  over\t to  the  police  at
\nRameshwaram.  The  letters  which  were\t written  by  Trichy
\nSanthan\t (DA) to Prabhakaran and Irumborai (A-19) (Exh.P-128
\nand 129) and other letters were also seized from him.\tP.V.
\nFrancis\t (PW-172),  Commander  in  Indian  Navy,  and P.P.S.
\nDhillon (PW-239), Flight Commander of the Helicoptor Unit of
\nPortblair, both testified to the capturing  of\tboat  taking
\nLTTE personnel and seizure of letters Exh.P-128 and 129.\n<\/p>\n
\tDhanasekaran (A-23) is in lorry\t business  with\t his
\nbrother.   They\t had  been taking loan from Sundaram Finance
\nLtd.  for purchase of lorries.\tTwo buses were bought in his
\nname which were plying on  two\tdifferent  routes  in  Tamil
\nNadu.\tThere  was  separation in the family business and to
\nhis and elder brother Krishnamurthi share one  bus  and\t six
\nlorries were  allotted.\t They named the bus service allotted
\nto them as D.K.\t Transporters (D.  for Dhanasekaran  and  K.
\nfor Krishnamurthi).    In  the year 1985 through an advocate
\nfriend Dhanasekaran (A-23) visited LTTE camp situated in the
\ngarden of Kollathur Mani in Tamil Nadu.\t Dhanasekaran (A-23)
\ngot attracted to LTTE movement and used to  visit  the\tLTTE
\ncamp quite often.  He came in contact with various important
\npersons of  LTTE.  He would go and look after the LTTE boys,
\nwho got injured in the struggle with Sri Lankan army and had
\ncome to India for treatment.  By  the  passage\tof  time  he
\ndeveloped strong  connections  with  LTTE  persons.   In his
\nconfession Dhanasekaran (A-23) said that of the LTTE boys he
\nwas looking after two of them, namely, Murthy  and  Vardhan,
\ndied after taking cyanide at Bangalore.\t One Kruppan of LTTE
\nasked  him once if he knew anyone to purchase a Maruti Gypsy
\nvehicle.  For this purpose Dhanasekaran (A-23) and two other
\nLTTE persons went to Union Motors, Selam.    They  met\tV.P.
\nRaghunathan (PW-153),  Manager of the Union Motors.  He told
\nthem that the vehicle would be delivered within three months
\nif full amount was paid in cash.  That money was provided by
\nLTTE people.  Dhanasekaran  (A-23)  along  with\t two  others
\nagain\tvisited\t Union\tMotors\tto  make  payment  but\tV.P.
\nRaghunathan (PW-153) said that he would not accept cash\t and
\nthat   payment\tmight  be  made\t by  a\tbank  Demand  Draft.
\nAccordingly a Demand Draft was obtained\t from  Indian  Bank.
\nSimilarly  Dhanasekaran\t (A-23)\t was  again  approached\t for
\npurchase of two more Maruti Gypsy vehicles.   He  again\t got
\ntwo  Demand  Drafts  through  his  account from Vijaya Bank,
\nMettur and got the vehicles booked at Union  Motors,  Salem.
\nIn  November,  1990,  he  received  a  phone call from Union
\nMotors that all the Gypsy vehicles were ready  for  delivery
\nand that  delivery  would  be made at Tiruchy.\tDhanasekaran
\n(A-23) said that he would  have\t the  vehicle  delivered  at
\nSalem itself.  He got one Maruti Gypsy delivered in the name
\nof K.  Prakash\tby  signing  as\t K.  Prakash.  Similarly two
\nother vehicles were delivered.\t  Dhanasekaran\t(A-23)\tsaid
\nthis  way  he booked six Maruti Gypsy vehicles under various
\nnames for LTTE.\t During December, 1990 he took two seriously
\ninjured persons in Maruti van from Mettur to  Bangalore\t for
\ntreatment.  K.\t  Jagannathan  (PW-211)\t and  another person
\nbelonging to LTTE helped him and also came with them  up  to
\nBangalore  and\ta house was arranged in Bangalore through K.
\nJagannathan (PW-211).  Of the injured persons so transferred
\none died.  His body was brought and buried at  the  side  of
\nthe LTTE  camp.\t   In April, 1991 Trichy Santhan (DA) and an
\nimportant member of LTTE came along with Rangam (A-24)\twhom
\nDhanasekaran (A-23)  already  knew  as\tdriver.\t He was also
\nknown to Trichy Santhan as he met him in Gokulam Hospital at
\nSalem where LTTE persons were  getting\ttreatment.    Trichy
\nSanthan\t told  Dhanasekaran  (A-23)  that  more boys of LTTE
\nmovement were in prison in Tamil Nadu and  he  had  come  to
\nTamil  Nadu  to\t look  after them and wanted to see Kolathur
\nMani where  LTTE  camp\twas  situated.\t  After\t some\tdays
\nDhanasekaran  (A-23) got a message to meet Trichy Santhan at
\nSalem.\tHe went there.\tTrichy Santhan\tasked  him  to\tmeet
\nKolathur   Mani\t and  to  remind  him  to  send\t him  money.
\nDhanasekaran (A-23) said that on 21.5.1991  he\twas  in\t his
\nhouse  at  Mettur  when\t he heard the news of Rajiv Gandhi’s
\ndeath due to bomb explosion at Sriperumbudur.\tHe  got\t the
\nnews through  newspapers  and  television.  He said later he
\ncame to know that it was  the  LTTE  cadre  who\t was  mainly
\nresponsible  for  the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi and that
\nSivarasan, Subha and Dhanu were involved in the\t same.\t  He
\nsaw   their   photographs   in\tthe  magazine  and  on\tT.V.
\nDhanasekaran (A-23) then said that on 23.6.1991 when he went
\nto attend a marriage he again got a  message  from  Kolathur
\nMani  to  meet\tTrichy\tSanthan\t at Salem and to help him to
\ntransfer two persons to another place.\tDhanasekaran  (A-23)
\nalong with K.\t Jagannathan (PW-211) went to Salem.  He met
\nTrichy Santhan separately.  There he instructed him to\ttake
\nSivarasan, Subha and Nero from Madras to Bangalore.  He gave
\nthe  idea  that they could be taken in an empty tanker lorry
\nby hiding them in the tanker after cleaning it.\t  That\tidea
\nhe  gave  as  nobody  would  search  the  empty tanker lorry
\nusually.  He said that tanker lorry be arranged\t in  two  or
\nthree  days  itself  otherwise\tthose three persons would be
\narrested by  the  police.    Dhanasekaran  (A-23)  said\t  he
\nselected   a   tanker\tlorry\tbearing\t  registration\t No.
\nTN-27-Y-0808, which he had bought after obtaining loan\tfrom
\nSundaran Finance  Ltd.\tThe loan had not been discharged and
\nto avoid seizure by  Sundaram  Finance\tDhanasekaran  (A-23)
\nchanged the  lorry  number  as\tTAM-8998.   The lorry having
\nregistration No.  TAM-8998 was kept in garrage as it had met
\nwith  an  accident  and\t Dhanasekaran  (A-23)  had   already
\nreceived   the\t insurance   amount   after  completing\t the
\nformalities.  After changing the registration plate  of\t the
\ntanker\tlorry  as  TAM-8998,  Dhanasekaran (A-23) along with
\ndriver R.  Selvaraj (PW-230) and cleaner Vijayan left Mettur
\non 27.6.1991 at 1.00 p.m.  and reached Salem.\t From  Salem
\nDhanasekaran (A-23) left for Madras along with Vicky (A-25),
\nAmman (DA),   driver  R.    Selvaraj  (PW-230)\tand  cleaner
\nVijayan.  The lorry was driven by  R.\t Selvaraj  (PW-230).
\nThe tanker  was filled with water on the way.  Fuel (Diesel)
\nwas taken for Rs.1,000\/- from an  Indian  Oil  petrol  pump.
\nWater was   released   near  Sriperumbudur.    Next  day  on
\n28.6.1991 They arrived at 6 O’clock at Poonamallee.    Amman
\n(DA) alighted  near  Iyyappan Thangal.\tThey further stopped
\nthe lorry near Poonamallee by-pass road.    They  sent\taway
\ndriver R.   Selvaraj  (PW-230)\tand cleaner Vijayan.  In the
\nnight  Amman  (DA)  came  with\tRangam\t(A-24)\t and   asked
\nDhanasekaran (A-23) and Vicky (A-25) to go with them.  Vicky
\n(A-25),\t Amman\t(DA),  Rangam (A-24) and Dhanasekaran (A-23)
\ntook the tanker and halted  it\tat  a  certain\tplace  after
\ncrossing Porur.\t  Vicky (A-25), Amman (DA) and Rangam (A-24)
\nwent out and returned along with Suresh Master (DA) who\t was
\nintroduced to  Dhanasekaran  (A-23).\tBy  that  time three
\npersons, namely, Sivarasan, Subha and Nero came\t there\twith
\nthree bags  with them.\tThey entered inside the tanker after
\nVicky (A-25) opened the cap of the container.  Vicky (A-25),
\nAmman  (DA)  and  Rangam  (A-24)  were\tseated\talong\twith
\nDhanasekaran (A-23)  in\t lorry\tcabin.\t  It  was  driven by
\nDhanasekaran (A-23).   Driver  R.    Selvaraj  (PW-230)\t and
\ncleaner Vijayan\t boarded  the  lorry  at  Poonamallee.\tThey
\ndrove the vehicle straight on the Bangalore Road.    At\t two
\nplaces\tmessages  were\tsent  to  Bangalore  that  they were
\nreaching there.\t They reached Bangalore in  the\t morning  at
\nabout 7\t O’clock  on  29.6.1991.  Tanker lorry was stopped a
\nlittle away from Indira Nagar.\tDriver R.  Selvaraj (PW-230)
\nand cleaner Vijayan were again sent away to have tea.  Vicky
\n(A-25) was left in the vehicle and Dhanasekaran\t (A-23)\t and
\nRangam (A-24) went to the house at Indira Nagar.  There they
\nsaw Trichy  Santhan  and  Irumborai  (A-19).\tMore injured
\npersons of LTTE cadre were also there.\t Dhanasekaran  (A23)
\nfurther\t said  that  he\t took  the Fiat car to a place where
\ntanker lorry was parked as directed by Trichy Santhan  (DA).
\nSivarasan,  Subha  and\tNero exited from the tanker and were
\nbrought to Indira Nagar house in the Fiat car.\t  Confession
\nof  Dhanasekaran  (A-23)  is  silent  about Amman (DA) after
\ntanker reached Bangalore.  Dhanasekaran (A-23) then went  to
\nthe  tanker  again  by an auto and drove the tanker lorry to
\nMadras along with driver R.  Selvaraj (PW-230)\tand  cleaner
\nVijayan.   Tanker  lorry  was loaded from SPIC Chemicals and
\nreached Mettur.\t This tanker lorry was\tseized\tby  Sundaram
\nFinance Ltd.   after a month.  Dhanasekaran (A-23) then said
\nthat he again went to the house at Indira Nagar on 24.7.1991
\nand saw Sivarasan.  He had conversation with him for  nearly
\nhalf an\t hour.\tWhen Dhanasekaran (A-23) asked him as to why
\ndid he murder Rajiv Gandhi, his answer was that “he  did  it
\nin accordance  with the instructions by their leader”.\tThen
\nDhanasekaran (A-23) asked why Subha accompanied him and\t his
\nanswer\twas  that  she\twas  for an alternative arrangement.
\nAfter he learnt that police was looking for him he  went  in
\nhiding\tfor  some time and consulted his advocate in Madras.
\nHe was advised to  return  to  his  house.    Later  he\t was
\narrested at Mettur on 13.10.1991.\n<\/p>\n
\tRangam (A-24)  is a Sri Lankan national.  In 1983 he
\njoined LTTE movement.  He got military training.    He\ttook
\npart in\t the  war  with\t Sri  Lankan  army  in 1984.  He was
\ninjured and after he got the treatment he  did\tnot  go\t for
\nmilitary   duty\t and  instead  he  was\tgiven  the  work  of
\ntransport.  In\tJaffna\the  met\t various  important  persons
\nbelonging to LTTE.   He came to know Sivarasan.\t He also met
\nPrabhakaran.  In 1989 he came to India where,  he  said,  he
\nwas running   a\t travel\t agency\t without  permit.    In\t his
\nconfession he said he prepared passports and other documents
\nfor Sri Lankans, who wanted to go abroad.  He said  he\tused
\nto  prepare fake documents through a travel agency in Adayar
\nin Madras and made good income.\t In December,  1990  he\t got
\nlinks with  LTTE  movement in India.  He also got acquainted
\nwith Amman (DA) who was\t a  driver  and\t was  working  under
\nTrichy\tSanthan\t (DA)  and his assistant Suresh Master (DA),
\nwho belonged to political wing of LTTE.\t Rangam (A-24)\tsaid
\nhe  helped  Amman and sent Sri Lankan Tamilians to go abroad
\nduring December, 1990 and January, 1991.    He\tbrought\t one
\nMaruti\tvan  TN04A-0337\t in  the  name\tof  Ramesh  who also
\narranged a house for him.  He said he came  to\tknow  Trichy
\nSanthan(DA), Suresh Master (DA) and Irumborai (A-19) through
\nAmman (DA).\tRangam\t(A-24)\tsaid  that  Prabhakaran\t had
\nentrusted Trichy Santhan the responsibility of looking after
\nthe work such as political  activities\tof  LTTE  in  India,
\nnecessary  supplies to Sri Lanka, arranging for treatment of
\ninjured “tigers”, arranging houses for the persons  in\tLTTE
\nmovement and  to  take them from place to place.  A house at
\nAlwarthirunagar was arranged by Amman (DA) for the  stay  of
\nLTTE persons.\tThat house was independent and situated in a
\nremote place and was convenient for LTTE men to come and  go
\nwithout being  noticed.\t   Rangam  (A-24)  said\t that Suresh
\nMaster (DA) told him in the  beginning\tof  May,  1991\tthat
\npolice\twould take action very soon and that LTTE men should
\nbe shifted to some other place.\t Rangam (A-24) said that  he
\nwas  taking  LTTE men, who were injured, continuously in his
\nMaruti van.  Some of them  stayed  in  the  house  at  Alwar
\nThirunagar, some in Vijaya Nursing home and some were taking
\ntreatment in  Asian  Hospital.\t  He  removed  those injured
\npersons from those places in his van  and  dropped  them  in
\nplaces like Thiruvalluvar bus stand and Parrys corner.\tFrom
\nthere  Trichy  Santhan,\t Suresh Master, and Irumborai (A-19)
\nwould take  them  to  different\t places\t by  bus.    In\t his
\nconfession Rangam (A-24) further said that during May 18-21,
\n1991 he was busy in sending the Sri Lankan Tamilians abroad.
\nBut  after  assassination  of  Rajiv Gandhi situation became
\nbad.   Photograph  of  Sivarasan  was\tpublished   in\t the
\nnewspapers and so Rangam (A-24) said he was actively working
\nat that time to send LTTE men out of Madras with the help of
\nSuresh Master  and  Irumborai  (A-19).\tIn June, 1991 Rangam
\n(A-24) went to Bengalore to the house  of  K.\t Jagannathan
\n(PW-211) at  Indira  Nagar.  His address was given to him by
\none Balaguru in Madras whom he met in Vijaya  Nursing  Home.
\nWhile  going to Bangalore Sudha, an LTTE activist and mother
\nof Balagur, and one Ravi went in his van to Bangalore.\t  K.
\nJagannathan  (PW-211)  arranged\t to  get  treatment  to\t the
\ninjured LTTE persons.  Rangam (A24) said that  he  also\t met
\none  Vasanthan,\t who  was  a  partner  of Trichy Santhan and
\nworking under the leadership of\t Trichy\t Santhan.    He\t was
\nactively  doing\t the work in LTTE like arranging safe houses
\nfor their mission.  In the end of June, 1991  Suresh  Master
\n(DA) told Rangam (A-24) that he was being given an important
\nwork.\tAt  that time Dixon (DA), another LTTE man, was also
\npresent.  Suresh Master (DA) told Rangam (A-24) to wait in a
\nremote place at Alwar Thirunagar at 7.30 in the\t evening  on
\nthe following  day.   At about 8 O’clock in the night Suresh
\nMaster (DA) along with Sivarasan, Subha and Nero came in  an
\nauto.\tThey  all  stayed  in  the house at Alwar Thirunagar
\nwhile Rangam (A-24) went  to  his  house  in  Thiruvanmiyur.
\nSivarasan,  Subha  and\tNero  stayed there for about four or
\nfive days.  Suresh Master then told Rangam (A-24) that\tthey
\nshould be  taken  to  place outside Madras.  Amman (DA) took
\nhim to a place at Porur-Poonamallee Road where a tanker\t was
\nparked.\t  Amman\t (DA) told Rangam (A-24) that Trichy Santhan
\nhad arranged that tanker to take  Sivarasan  and  others  to
\nBangalore.   One  person  by  name  Dhanasekaran (A-23) with
\nanother small boy to assist him by the name Vicky (A-25) was
\nwith him.  While Dhanasekaran (A-23) stayed  in\t the  tanker
\nRangam\t(A-24)\ttook  Sivarasan,  Subha\t and Nero from their
\nplace of stay and made them get into the tanker through\t the
\nhole at\t the  back of the tanker.  Sivarasan and others were
\nhaving AK-47 gun and  also  a  pistol  with  them.    Rangam
\n(A-24),\t Vicky (A-25) and Amman (DA) sat in front portion of
\nthe tanker and they left for Bangalore by 9 O’clock  in\t the
\nnight.\t Two  more  boys, who were working with Dhanasekaran
\n(A-23) were also taken in the tanker on their  way.    Vicky
\n(A-25)\ttelephoned  Bangalore from PCO while they were going
\nto  Bangalore  and  informed  Trichy  Santhan  about   their
\narrival.  They reached Bangalore early in the morning.\tThen
\nRangam\t (A-24)\t  in   his   confession\t  corroborates\twhat
\nDhanasekaran (A-23) said.  On the  same\t day  Rangam  (A-24)
\nsaid,  he  returned  to\t Madras\t and  shifted  the remaining
\ninjured LTTE persons to some other places like lodges,\tetc.
\nHe vacated his house at Thiruvanmiyur.\tHe went to stay with
\nSuresh Master  (DA)  in\t Vijaya\t Nursing Home.\tIn the third
\nweek of July, 1991 Rangam (A-24) again went to Bangalore  on
\nthe instructions  of  Suresh  Master.  He went by night bus.
\nSuresh Master also reached Bangalore by that  time.    There
\nthey  went  to the house at Indira Nagar where Sivarasan and
\nothers were hiding.  Rangam (A-24) met some other  LTTE\t men
\nin that\t house.\t   After  hearing that Vicky (A-25) had been
\narrested in Coimbatore the house at Indira Nagar was vacated
\nand they all moved to  another\thouse  nearby.\t  Some\tLTTE
\npersons were  already staying in that house.  Trichy Santhan
\ngave Rangam (A-24) a Maruti Gypsy which\t Rangam\t (A-24)\t was
\ndriving.   Rangam  (A-24) then said that when CBI raided the
\nhouse at Indira Nagar, two of  the  LTTE  persons  committed
\nsuicide\t and other injured persons went to different places.
\nHe said, in the meanwhile Suresh Master\t (DA)  arranged\t the
\nhouse  of Ranganath (A-26) for Sivarasan and others to stay.
\nThat house  was\t in  Puthien  Halli.\tRangam\t(A-24)\ttook
\nSivarasan, Subha, Nero, Suresh Master (DA) and Amman (DA) to
\nthat house.    They  moved to that house in the beginning of
\nAugust, 1991.  After some  days\t Ranganath  (A-26)  arranged
\nanother\t house\tin  Anaikal  for  treatment of LTTE persons.
\nRangam (A-24) and Ranganath (A-26) shifted LTTE\t persons  in
\nMaruti Gypsy to that house in Anaikkal.\t In the meanwhile an
\nLTTE person was arrested by local police.  After that it was
\ndecided\t to  change  the  colour  of the Fiat car and Maruti
\nGypsy.\tRangam (A-24) with the help of a mechanic,  who\t war
\narranged  by  Ranganath\t (A-26)\t went  and got repainted the
\ncolour of the vehicles.\t Gypsy from green to white and\tFiat
\ncar from  sky  blue to white.  Ranganath (A-26) arranged two
\nhouses outside Bangalore in two villages called Beroota\t and
\nMuthathi  where\t injured persons from Anaikkal were shifted.
\nYet another  house  was\t arranged  by  Ranganath  (A-26)  in
\nKonanakunta for\t Sivarasan,  Subha and Nero to hide.  Around
\n16.8.1991 Rangam (A24) said they moved their residence\tfrom
\nPuthan Halli  to  Konanakunta.\tRangam (A-24) took Sivarasan
\nSubha and Nero in the Maruti van.  Ranganath (A-26) and\t his
\nwife also went to that house.  Thereafter Rangam (A-24) said
\nhe  went  to  look  after  the\tinjured LTTE persons in G.G.
\nHospital.  From there he took one injured LTTE woman  Jamuna
\n(DA) to\t the  house  at\t Konanakunta.\t In  that house only
\nSivarasan, Subha, Nero, Amman, Suresh  Master,\tDriver\tAnna
\nand Keerthi  were staying.  On the evening of 18.8.1991 when
\nRangam (A-24) came to the house in Konanakunta he found that
\npolice had surrounded that house from all sides.  He  turned
\nback.\tNext  day he took Gypsy van and arrived at Madras on
\nthe morning of 20.8.1991.  He went to  Balaguru\t and  handed
\nover  the  key of the vehicle to him after parking the Gypsy
\nin Vijaya Nursing Home.\t Since police was looking for him he
\nasked Balaguru to arrange a house for him at Avadi.  One day
\nwhen he went to Adayar Travel Agency, police caught him.\n<\/p>\n
\tVicky (A-25) is a Sri Lankan national.\t His  father
\nwas having  a  shop selling cloths.  That shop was destroyed
\nin a raid by Sri Lankan Air Force in the year 1985.    Vicky
\n(A-25)\tthereafter  came to India illegally by boat carrying
\nwith him video cassettes, audio cassettes,  sarees,  V.C.P.,
\netc.  which he sold in India.  Instead he carried lungis and
\nfood articles and returned back to Sri Lanka and earned some
\nmoney by way of selling those articles in Sri Lanka.  By Sri
\nLankan\tmilitary  one of their houses was completely damaged
\nby bomb blast in the year  1987.    His\t family\t resided  at
\ncertain places\tas refugees.  In 1990 he again came to India
\nto start some business here.  Then he met an  LTTE  activist
\nwho  said  he  had come to India for treatment of his wounds
\nand now he was looking those wounded in Sri  Lanka  and\t had
\ncome to\t India\tfor  treatment.\t  Vicky (A-25) also met LTTE
\nboys who had been injured and were getting treatment in\t the
\nhospitals in   India.\t Vicky\t(A-25)\tassisted  that\tLTTE
\nactivist in getting medicines and acted as his helper.\t  In
\nthe middle of 1990, Vicky (A-25) said in his confession that
\nhe was\tintroduced  to Trichy Santhan.\tHe further said that
\nin the month of ‘Panguni’, 1991 Trichy Santhan met  him\t and
\ntold  him  that\t he  was in need of medicines and that those
\nshould be purchased urgently and were  to  be  sent  to\t Sri
\nLanka.\t Trichy\t Santhan  gave\thim Rs.2.00 lacs and list of
\nmedicines to be purchased.  Trichy Santhan  also  introduced
\nVicky  (A-25)  to  Dixon (DA), who was also a member of LTTE
\nmovement.  Vicky (A-25)\t then  described  his  meeting\twith
\nvarious LTTE  activists.    The\t medicines  which  had\tbeen
\npurchased were given to LTTE activist Bharatham who left for
\nSri Lanka with the medicines.\t In  a\trented\thouse  Vicky
\n(A-25)\twas  stocking  the medicines in bundles which he had
\npurchased.  He said two\t days  after  the  assassination  of
\nRajiv Gandhi Trichy Santhan met him and told that it was now
\nimpossible  to\tstay  in  Tiruchy  and\tsaid  he would go to
\nCoimbatore  and\t again\tasked  him  to\tpurchase  all  those
\nmedicines ordered by him.  He further told Vicky (A-25) that
\nif any one of Sivarasan’s man wanted to go to home town they
\nshould be  told to go to Indiran Kutty’s house.\t It was only
\nafter Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination, Vicky (A-25) said in his
\nconfession,  that  he  came  to\t know  that  his  name\t was
\nSivarasan.   Vicky  (A-25)  then in his confession described
\nhis instructions from  Trichy  Santhan\tand  his  coming  to
\nMadras\tand  ultimately\t his  going in the tanker lorry with
\nothers to Bangalore.  He also described his helping  injured
\nLTTE personnel.\t   After leaving Bangalore Vicky (A-25) went
\nto Coimbatore where he was arrested by the police.\n<\/p>\n
\tV.P.  Raghunathan (PW-153) was manager of the  Union
\nMotors, Salem.\t He has testified about the four Gypsy being
\npurchased by  Dhanasekaran  (A-23)  in\tdifferent  names  on
\n14.11.1990.   He  produced  delivery  receipts and documents
\nconnected with the sale\t of  these  four  Gypsies.    Maruti
\nGypsy, which  was  purchased  in  the name of R.  Mohan, was
\nsubsequently used by Rangam (A-24) to  transport  Sivarasan,
\nSubha, Nero  and  other\t activists to Bangalore.  This Gypsy
\n(MO-540) was seized during investigation.\n<\/p>\n
\tS.  Syed Ibrahim (PW-232) is Insurance Surveyor, who
\nsurveyed  the  damaged\ttanker\tbearing\t  registration\t No.
\nTAM-8998.\n<\/p>\n
\tS.V.   Krishnan\t (PW-168)  is  from Sundaram Finance
\nLtd., who had financed the lorry tanker bearing registration
\nnumber TN-27-Y0808 and which was used with fake registration
\nplate (TAM-8998) to transport  Sivarasan,  Subha,  Nero\t and
\nothers from  Madras  to\t Bangalore.    Since the vehicle was
\nunder hire purchase agreement with Sundaram Finance Ltd.  it
\nwas taken  into\t possession  by\t S.V.\t Krishnan  (PW-168).
\nSubsequently during investigation this tanker lorry (MO-543)
\nwas seized by the police.\n<\/p>\n
\tR.   Selvaraj  (PW-230) was the driver of the tanker
\nlorry (MP-540)\tand  Vijayan  was  the\tcleaner.    In\t his
\nstatement R.\tSelvaraj  (PW-230)  said  that\the drove the
\ntanker lorry on 27.6.1991 from Mettur to Madras.  On the way
\nit was filled with water.  The\tpurpose\t was  to  clean\t the
\ntanker.\t  Tanker  was  also  filled  with  diesel  for fuel.
\nProsecution has produced S.  Vasudevan (PW-245)\t to  testify
\nthat  238  litres  of  diesel  was  put\t in the tanker lorry
\n(MO543) on 27.6.1991.  R.  Selvaraj (PW-230) then said\tthat
\nat  Sriperumbudur  tanker  was\temptied of water and cleaned
\nfrom inside.  They reached Poonamallee on 28.6.1991  in\t the
\nmorning where\the  and\t Vijayan  got  down.\tNow  it\t was
\nDhanasekaran (A-23) who drove the vehicle  with\t Amman\t(DA)
\nand Vicky  (A-25)  sitting  in\tthe  tanker lorry.  When the
\ntanker came back to Poonamallee R.    Selvaraj\t(PW230)\t and
\nVijayan\t got  into  the\t vehicle  and  the vehicle proceeded
\ntoward Bangalore.   It\twas  being  driven  by\tDhanasekaran
\n(A-23).\t  On  the  way\tVicky  (A-25)  got  down  and made a
\ntelephone call on STD.\tThat a call was made has been proved
\nby A.  Selvaraj (PW-256).  Call was made to telephone number
\n541824 of Bangalore.  In  further  statement  R.    Selvaraj
\n(PW-230)  said\tthat when the tanker lorry reached Bangalore
\nagain he and cleaner Vijayan went away\tfor  tea  but  Vicky
\n(A-25)\tremained in the tanker, while Dhanasekaran (A23) and
\nRangam (A-24)  went  by\t an  auto   rikshaw.\t  Afterwards
\nDhanasekaran  (A-23) came back in an auto where tanker lorry
\nwas parked.  Tanker lorry now proceeded towards Madras\twith
\nDhanasekaran (A-23),  R.    Selvaraj (PW-230) and Vijayan in
\nthe vehicle.\tIn  the\t notebook  (Exh.P-1012),   regularly
\nmaintained by  R.    Selvaraj (PW-230) there were entries of
\nthe trips   and\t  other\t  expenses   incurred.\t    Notebook
\n(Exh.P-1012) showed  that R.  Selvaraj (PW-230) drove tanker
\nlorry (MO-543) from Mettur to Salem where a new mattress was
\npurchased and kept on the top of the cabin of  the  vehicle.
\nThe  vehicle  left  for\t Madras\t and  at Poonamallee both R.
\nSelvaraj (PW-230) and Vijayan got  out.\t   When\t they  again
\nbrought in  the vehicle at Poonamallee R.  Selvaraj (PW-230)
\ndid not find the mattress.  At Bangalore similarly  when  R.
\nSelvaraj  (PW-230)  and\t cleaner  Vijayan  came\t back to the
\nvehicle the mattress was again found in\t the  cabin.\tThis
\nmattress  was  thrown  in  the\triver near Hosur when tanker
\nlorry was going back to Madras.\t Prosecution seeks  to\tdraw
\ninference from this that mattress was kept inside the tanker
\nlorry  for  the\t comfortable sitting of Sivarasan, Subha and
\nNero and when its use was over it was  thrown  away  in\t the
\nriver.\n<\/p>\n
\tRangam\t(A-24)\thad purchased Maruti van in the name
\nof his\tfriend\tV.    Ramesh,  bearing\tregistration  number
\nTN-4A-0037 (MO950).  A.\t Nageswara Rao (PW-178) is the owner
\nof the\thouse  No.   13, Park Avenue, Velan Nagar Extension,
\nAlwarthirunagar, Madras which was taken on  rent  by  Rangam
\n(A-24) in  March,  1991.  Lease documents were also executed
\n(Exh.P-895-897).  Rangam (A-24) vacated\t the  house  in\t the
\nfirst week  of July, 1991.  Before their escape to Bangalore
\nSivarasan, Subha, Nero\tand  others  were  staying  in\tthis
\nhouse.\t That  Maruti  Gypsy  (MO-540)\twas  being driven by
\nRangam (A-24)  in  Bangalore  has  also\t been  testified  by
\nMrudulla (PW-65), wife\tof  Ranganath  (A-26).\t K.N.  Mohan
\n(PW-222) is the owner of the workshop where Maruti Gypsy was
\nrepainted from green to white.\n<\/p>\n
\tRanganath (A-26) is an Indian  national\t settled  in
\nBangalore.  Mrudulla  (PW-65)  is his wife.  At the relevant
\ntime he was without any job.  In March, 1991 he was  staying
\nwith  his wife at a house in Puttan Halli which was owned by
\nE.  Aanjanappa (PW-218).\n<\/p>\n
\tR.  Rajan (PW-223) in his deposition  said  that  he
\nwas  friendly  to  one\tVasanthan who was Tamilian and whose
\nnative place was in Jaffna, Sri Lanka.\tBoth knew each other
\nfrom Tamil Association in Bangalore.  On 29.7.1991 Vasanthan
\nasked R.  Rajan (PW-223) that a house was required for\tstay
\nof four\t or five persons urgently.  After two days Vasanthan
\nagain met R.  Rajan (PW-223) for the purpose.  He  told\t him
\nthat no house was available.  On 1.8.1991 Jagadish, a friend
\nof R.  Rajan (PW-223) met him and told him that he wanted to
\nbuy a lathe machine.  A lathe machine was owned by Ranganath
\n(A-26) who  wanted  to sell the same.  In that connection R.
\nRajan (PW-223) met Ranganath (A-26) in his house.  R.  Rajan
\n(PW-223) introduced Ranganath (A-26)  to  Vasanthan  telling
\nhim  that he was an LTTE activist and asked Ranganath (A-26)
\nto arrange a house for him.  R.\t Rajan (PW-223) said that he
\nknew Ranganath\t(A-26)\tsince  1990  as\t he  was  friend  of
\nJagadish.  R.\t Rajan\t(PW-223) said on 2.8.1991 that about
\n5.30 or 6.30 p.m.  he and Vasanthan met near Sivaji  Circle,
\nBangalore.   At\t that  time  two  more persons had come with
\nVasanthan and those two\t persons  and  Vasanthan  talked  to
\nRanganath (A-26)  privately  and  left.\t  On 2.8.1991 in the
\nnight at 10  O’clock  Ranganath\t (A-26)\t brought  Sivarasan,
\nRangam\t(A-24),\t Amman, Suresh Master, Driver Anna and Amman
\nto his house through front door and then brought  Subha\t and
\nNero through  back  door.  All these seven persons continued
\nto stay in the house at Puttan Halli  with  Ranganath  (A26)
\ntill 16.8.1991.\t  They would remain confined themselves in a
\nroom and would not come out.  While  staying  in  the  house
\nonly  Rangam  (A-24)  was  driving Maruti Gypsy (MO-540) for
\nbuying vegetables and taking Mrudulla (PW-65) and  Ranganath
\n(A-26) for outside work.\n<\/p>\n
\tK.N.   Mohan  (PW-222)\twas  a\tcar mechanic and was
\nrunning garrage in Bangalore.  He said he did  the  painting
\nwork of\t green\tGypsy  of  Ranganath (A-26).  He painted the
\nGypsy white.  Ranganath (A-26) had brought the Maruti  Gypsy
\nto  the\t garrage  on  8.8.1991\tand got its delivery back on
\n10.8.1991 after paying total  charges  of  Rs.2,200\/-.\t  On
\n16.9.1991  Ranganath  (A-26)  again came to the garrage with
\nPremier Fiat car bearing registration number CAU 6492.\tThat
\nFiat car was also painted white though its  original  colour
\nwas sky blue.  For the work done on the Fiat car K.N.  Mohan
\n(PW-222) charged  Rs.2,500\/-.\t That car was still lying in
\nthe garrage when K.N.  Mohan (PW-222), said that, on 28.8.91
\nRanganath (A-26) came to the garrage with  4  CBI  officers.
\nRanganath  (A-26)  had\tpointed\t the  Fiat  car\t to  the CBI
\nofficers.  The car was taken into possession by the CBI.\n<\/p>\n
\tMrudulla (PW-65), wife of  Ranganath  (A-26),  is  a
\nteacher.  She was married to Ranganath (A-26) in June, 1986.
\nShe  said  on  2.8.1991\t around\t 10  O’clock  in  the  night
\nRanganath (A-26) came with a person who said there were more
\npersons with him and they would stay in the house  for\tfour
\ndays.\tThe  person,  who  came\t with  Ranganath (A-26), was
\nSuresh Master (DA).  Ranganath (A-26) and Suresh Master both
\nwent out and  brought  four  persons  with  them,  who\twere
\nSivarasan, Rangam  (A-24),  Driver Anna and Amman (DA).\t Two
\npersons entered the house from the back door and  they\twere
\nSubha and  Nero.  Next morning Mrudulla (PW-65) said she saw
\ngreen Maruti Gypsy van in  front  of  the  house  which\t was
\ncovered with  tarpaulin.  She could not see the number plate
\nof the vehicle.\t Ranganath (A-26), Suresh Master and  Rangam
\n(A-24) went  out  on  the  morning of 3.8.1991.\t When Suresh
\nMaster and Rangam (A-24) returned it  was  about  2.30\tp.m.
\nThey had  brought  provisions.\t Her husband did not come at
\nthat time.  Mrudulla (PW-65)  said  that  when\ther  husband
\nreturned  in  the  night  she told him that the persons, who
\nwere staying, were hesitating to go out and  she  said\tsome
\nthing was fishy.  He replied that they would stay for two or
\nthree days  and\t would\tleave.\t  Fifth day Mrudulla (PW-65)
\nwatched the news on the TV and saw the pictures of Subha and
\nSivarasan.  Mrudulla (PW-65) identified Subha.\t Subha\talso
\nknew that  she\thad been identified by Mrudulla (PW-65).  In
\nthe evening Mrudulla (PW65) told her husband about this fact
\nwho said not to ask any question.  Subha  afterwards  became
\nfamiliar with  Mrudulla\t (PW-65).  She told Mrudulla (PW-65)
\nshe was eager  to  return  to  Jaffna  to  meet\t her  leader
\nPrabhakaran.   Once  Mrudulla (PW-65) saw Sivarasan fixing a
\nlens on his left eye.  Mrudulla (PW-65) asked  Subha  as  to
\nwhy did they kill Rajiv Gandhi, and her reply was that Rajiv
\nGandhi\twas responsible in sending the IPKF to Sri Lanka and
\nthey had ‘spoiled’ many women and children.  She was wearing
\na cyanide capsule in a thread  around  her  neck.    Persons
\nstaying\t in  the house were having arms as well and Mrudulla
\n(PW-65) said that they used to threaten them that  “if\tthis
\nwas reported  to  somebody  they  will\tkill  us”.  Mrudulla
\n(PW-65) then described the stay\t of  those  persons  in\t her
\nhouse  and  some  time\ttheir moving out and meeting certain
\npeople.\t Those persons stayed in the house uptil  16.8.1991.
\nOn  16.8.1991 Ranganath (A-26) told Mrudulla (PW-65) that he
\nhad fixed a house in Konanakunta at a rent of  Rs.800\/-\t per
\nmonth and  advance  of Rs.10,000\/- was to be paid.  They all
\nwent to Konankunte house with provisions.  After  performing
\npooja they  returned.\t Mrudulla (PW-65) said that while in
\nher house at Puttanhalli she noticed Ak-47 rifle  in  Nero’s
\nhand and  a  pistol  in\t Subha’s hand.\tAgain when she asked
\nabout that they said if she  told  anything  about  that  to
\nanybody they would  not spare her.  At 10.30 p.m.  Ranganath
\n(A-26), Mrudulla (PW-65), Suresh Master (DA),  Nero,  Subha,
\nAmman,\tDriver\tAnna,  Sivarasan  left for Konankunte house.
\nThey went by Gypsy van.\t They also  carried  gas  stove\t and
\nother articles\twith  them  to\tthat house.  Mrudulla (PW65)
\nsaid she refused to accompany them but\tshe  was  forcefully
\ntaken.\tThey  all  spent  that\tnight  there.  In Konankunte
\nhouse  Mrudulla\t (PW-65)  saw  some  papers  which  had\t the
\nsketches of K.R.S.    Dam and Vidhan Soudha.  They were also
\nhaving pictures of  the\t blast\tthat  killed  Rajiv  Gandhi.
\nAgain  when she asked those persons reason for killing Rajiv
\nGandhi they said that they had to kill him because  he\tsent
\nIPKF to Sri Lanka and was responsible for several atrocities
\ncommitted on   women  and  children.\tOn  the\t morning  of
\n18.8.1991 there was a news item that 12 LTTE cadres had been
\nkilled in  Muthathi  which  is\tin  suburban  of  Bangalore.
\nMrudulla  (PW-65)  told\t her husband that it was not safe to
\nstay any longer with those people.  When she and her husband
\ntried to go out\t of  the  house\t Sivarasan  confronted\tthem
\nsuddenly and  asked where they were going.  Ranganath (A-26)
\ntold Sivarasan that Mrudulla (PW-65) was not well  and\tthey
\nwould  consult\ta  doctor  and\tthat  they decided to vacate
\nPuttanhalli house.  While returning to Puttanhalli they\t saw
\nSuresh Master and Rangam (A-24).  They also questioned as to
\nwhere  Ranganath  (A-26)  and  Mrudulla\t (PW-65) were going.
\nAgain reply was that to consult a doctor.    At\t Puttanhalli
\nthey loaded  all  their\t household  goods  in  a  van.\t  R.
\nJayasankar (PW-229), a friend of  Ranganath  (A-26),  helped
\nthem in\t this  process.\t   From\t Puttanhalli  they  went  to
\nMrudulla’s (PW-65) brother’s house in Vijayanagar.   On\t the
\nway both  Ranganath  (A-26)  and R.  Jayasankar (PW-229) got
\nout of the van saying that they had to make  a\tphone  call.
\nAt about  4.30\tP.M.\tMrudulla  (PW-65)  said\t that  after
\nunloading the articles she left the house to give sarees for
\ndry wash but while going to the shop four or five people  in
\ncivil  dress  approached  her  and  told her that she should
\naccompany them to Jayanagar police station.   She  said\t she
\nwould talk only\t to  Asstt.  Commissioner, Dy.\tCommissioner
\nor Commissioner of Police.  She told them that\tthe  persons
\nwhom they  were searching for were in Konunkunte house.\t She
\nasked if full security would be provided to  her  she  would
\nshow the  persons  whom they searching for.  That time there
\nwere Deputy Commissioner of Police,  Assistant\tCommissioner
\nof Police  and\ta  lady\t constable with her.  She pointed to
\nKonankunte house from a distance.  Then they all returned to
\nJayanagar police station.  Security was provided to Mrudulla
\n(PW-65) and she was taken to her parents house.\t Officers of
\nCBI examined her.  She said they were talking in Tamil among
\nthemselves and to  her.\t   She\tknew  little  Tamil.\t Her
\nstatement  was\trecorded by the Magistrate under Section 164
\nCr.P.C.\t (Exh.P-220).  She identified all  the\tpersons\t who
\nstayed\tin her house and at Konankunte either in photographs
\nor their being present in the Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tK.  Premkumar (PW-227)\tis  a  friend  of  Ranganath
\n(A-26).\t  He said he met Ranganath (A-26) near Nanda Theatre
\nin Jayanagar on 18.8.1991.    From  there  he  took  him  to
\nVijayanagar.  That  was\t his  wife’s house.  From there they
\nwent to another place called ‘West of Guard’.  No one was in
\nthe house.  He and Ranganath (A-26) went to  that  house  in
\nsearch of Mrudulla (PW-65).  She was not there.\t They took a
\nlodge at  about\t 10 or 11 O’clock in the night.\t They stayed
\nin the lodge on the night of 18\/19.8.1991.   K.\t   Premkumar
\n(PW-227)  said\ton  the\t morning  of  19.8.1991 at 7 O’clock
\nRanganath (A-26) took him to Konankunte.  They\twent  in  an
\nauto.\tRanganath  (A-26) made him stand in a place and then
\nhimself went in the auto.    Somebody  in  the\tpublic\tcame
\nsaying “this is\t a  man,  this\tis  a  man”.   K.  Premkumar
\n(PW-227) said they were caught at Konankunte.  He was put in
\njail and interrogated by CBI.\n<\/p>\n
\tSuba Sundaram (A-22) is the proprietor of Subha News
\nPhoto Services at a place in Royapettah.  He is a free lance
\nphotographer.  He was associated with D.K.    and  a  strong
\nsupporter of  LTTE.    Arivu (A-18), Bhagyanathan (A-20), K.
\nRavi Shankar (PW151) and  Haribabu  (DA)  took\ttraining  in
\nphotography from   him.\t   At  his  studio  various  persons
\nbelonging to LTTE cadre used to meet.\tSome  of  them\twere
\nBaby Subramaniam, Irumborai (A-19), Muthuraja, Arivu (A-18),
\nBhagyanathan (A-20),  Haribabu\t(DA) and others.  During the
\nperiod 1989-90 Haribabu was working for Subha  Studio  at  a
\nmonthly salary\tof  Rs.350\/-.\t For  short  while he joined
\nVignesh Video studio  but  he  kept  on\t visiting  to  Subha
\nStudio.\t On  21.5.1991\tHaribabu  went to Studio of K.\tRavi
\nShankar (PW-151) with a packet containing sandalwood garland
\nwhich he had purchased from  Poompuhar\tHandicrafts  in\t the
\nmorning of  that  day.\t Haribabu borrowed a camera (Chinon)
\n(MO-1) from K.\tRavi Shankar (PW-151) tellimg  him  that  he
\nwas  going  to\tattend the public meeting of Rajiv Gandhi at
\nSriperumbudur.\tThereafter Haribabu went to Subha Studio and
\nmet Suba Sundaram (A-22).  On 22.5.1991 after the bomb blast
\nat Sriperumbudur  in  which  Haribabu  died  S.\t    Santhana
\nKrishnan (PW-108),  a  friend of Haribabu, V.T.\t Sundaramani
\n(PW-120), his father and K.  Ravi Shankar (PW-151),  another
\nfriend, went  to  the studio of Suba Sundaram (A-22).  It is
\nstated that Suba Sundaram (A-22)  exclaimed  that  only\t the
\nprevious day  he  had  seen  Haribabu.\t  Two  letters,\t one
\n(Exh.P-548) dated 18.1.1991 written by Suba Sundaram  (A-22)
\nto LTTE leader Kittu and other (Exh.P-544) addressed by Suba
\nSundaram  (A-22)  to  Prabhakaran  as  younger brother, were
\nseized\tfrom  his  studio  contents  of\t which\tshowed\tdeep
\ninvolvement  of\t Suba  Sundaram (A-22) with LTTE activities.
\nIn one of the letters he had criticized\t the  activities  of
\nIPKF.\n<\/p>\n
\tT.   Ramamurthy\t (PW-72),  a  journalist,  had\talso
\nattended the public meeting at Sriperumbudur  on  21.5.1991.
\nAt  mid\t night\the was returning home and as there was chaos
\nand confusion  he  stayed  that\t night\tat  police  station,
\nPoonamallee.   At  mid\tnight Suba Sundaram (A-22) contacted
\nMeena (PW-74), wife of T.  Ramamurthy (PW-72) and asked\t her
\nwhether her  husband  returned\thome.\t She  replied in the
\nnegative.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn her statement Meena (PW-74) said that at the\t mid
\nnight  on 21.5.1991 one Anand Viswanathan rang her up to say
\nthat Rajiv Gandhi and some others had died due to bomb blast
\nat Sriperumbudur.  K.  Ravi Shankar (PW-151) then  rang\t her
\nup and\tasked  her  whether T.\tRamamurthy (PW-72) had come.
\nAfter a few minutes Suba Sundaram (A-22)  rang\ther  up\t and
\ninquired about T.  Ramamurthy (PW-72).\tSuba Sundaram (A-22)
\nalso told Meena (PW-74) that photographer Babu, who was sent
\nby him\thad also not yet come.\tAt about 1.00 O’clock in the
\nnight T.  Ramamurthy (PW-72) rang up his wife Meena  (PW-74)
\nand  said that he was in Poonamallee police station and gave
\nher phone number of  the  police  station.    She  told\t her
\nhusband about the phone calls received from various persons.
\nShe  told him that Suba Sundaram (A-22) was asking about his
\nphotographer on which T.  Ramamurthy (PW-72) said  that\t one
\nphotographer sent  by  Suba Sundaram (A-22) had died.  After
\nten or fifteen minutes later Suba Sundaram (A-22) again rang
\nher up and asked her whether  T.    Ramamurthy\t(PW-72)\t had
\ncome.\tShe  told  him\tthat  he  was  in Poonamallee police
\nstation and gave him the telephone number.\n<\/p>\n
\tT.   Ramamurthy\t (PW-72)  described  the  scene\t  at
\nSriperumbudur public meeting when bomb blast took place.  He
\nsaid  while  he\t was  at  Poonamallee  police  station\tSuba
\nSundaram (A-22)\t rang  him  up.\t    He\t asked\t him   “what
\nRamamoorthy, Have you taken the photographs?” T.  Ramamurthy
\n(PW-72)\t replied  that\the did take some photographs and had
\ngiven those to magazine the ‘Dhinamalar’ and that  he  would
\ngive photographs to  him  in  the  morning.   T.  Ramamurthy
\n(PW72) said he stayed in the police station  as\t there\twere
\nriots on the  way.    T.   Ramamurthy (PW-72) also told Suba
\nSundaram (A-22) “what, Sundaram, your photographer  died  in
\nthe bomb-blast”.     Then  Suba\t Sundaram  (A-22)  asked  T.
\nRamamurthy (PW-72) who it was.\tT.  Ramamurthy (PW-72)\tsaid
\nthat  since he did not know the name of the photographer who
\ndied at the place of the occurrence he\tgave  Suba  Sundaram
\n(A-22)\t  the\tidentification\t marks\t of   the   deceased
\nphotographer.  He then asked whether  it  was  Haribabu\t and
\nwanted to be certain if he had died.  T.  Ramamurthy (PW-72)
\ntold him that the photographer was lying on his back and the
\ncamera was lying on his chest and on that account he said he
\nmust have  died.  Suba Sundaram (A-22) persisted and told T.
\nRamamurthy (PW-72)  over  the  phone  that  he\tshould\thave
\nbrought the camera.    T.  Ramamurthy (PW72) said he replied
\nhim that a great VVIP had been assassinated and things which
\nwere there might be important material objects\tand  it\t was
\nwrong to  touch them.  Suba Sundaram (A-22) then told him to
\ncontact him the next day on his reaching  Madras.    In\t the
\nmorning Suba  Sundaram\t(A-22)\tagain rang up T.  Ramamurthy
\n(PW-72) and asked him to give him some photographs and\tsaid
\nhe would send  his  son\t for  the  purpose.   T.  Ramamurthy
\n(PW-72) first went to ‘Dhinamalar’, from there to the studio
\nof Suba Sundaram (A-22), who again asked the details of\t the
\noccurrence.  Again  he\ttold  T.  Ramamurthy (PW-72) that he
\nshould have brought the camera and “we could have  used\t the
\nphotographs in it”.    When T.\tRamamurthy (PW72) again said
\nthat it was wrong to remove the\t evidence  from\t that  place
\nSuba  Sundaram\t(A-22)\tsaid that they could have managed by
\nstating anything and that it was not wrong to have done like
\nthat between photographers.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn 22.5.1991 when V.T.\tSundaramani (PW-120), father
\nof Haribabu (DA) and K.\t Ravi Shankar (PW-151) went to Subha
\nStudio\tafter  making  inquiries  about\t the   place   where
\nHaribabu’s  dead  body\twas  kept, Suba Sundaram (A-22) told
\nV.T.   Sundaramani  (PW-120)  to  remove  all\tthe   papers
\nconnected with Haribabu\t from  the house.  V.T.\t Sundaramani
\n(PW-120) on reaching home removed all the papers of Haribabu
\nfrom his house and kept them in his daughter’s\thouse  which
\nwas close-by.\tP.  Ramalingam (PW-198) is the son-in-law of
\nV.T.  Sundaramani (PW-120) and brother-in-law of Haribabu.\n<\/p>\n
\tArulmani  (PW-128)   knew   the\t  family   of\tV.T.\n<\/p>\n
Sundaramani  (PW120)  as  his house was situated opposite to
\nhis house.  When death of Rajiv Gandhi took  place  Arulmani
\n(PW-128) was  in Madurai and was on a bus to Madras.  Due to
\ndisturbance he\tcould  reach  Madras  at  4.30\ta.m.\t  on
\n23.5.1991.   When  he reached home he was told that Haribabu
\nwas dead at the Rajiv Gandhi’s function.  He went  to  their
\nhouse with  his\t father.   Mother of Haribabu was crying and
\nArulmani (PW-128) thought of extending some help.  He  asked
\nHaribabu’s  mother  to\tshow  him  papers connected with LIC
\nagency as in April Haribabu had told him that he had  joined
\nan agent  in  LIC.   Haribabu’s mother told him that all the
\npapers were kept in a box and placed  at  the  house  of  P.
\nRamalingam  (PW-198),  husband\tof  Haribabu’s elder sister.
\nArulmani (PW-128) went\tto  the\t house\tof  P.\t  Ramalingam
\n(PW-198) and wanted to see the box.  It was concealed in the
\nloft under  the\t roof.\t In the box there were many letters,
\nPrabhakaran’s photo, negatives, love letters  written  by  a
\ngirl S.\t Sundari  (PW-171).    P.   Ramalingam (PW-198) told
\nArulmani (PW-128) that he was asked to\tburn  those  things.
\nSince  Arulmani\t (PW-128) suspected that there was something
\nwrong as  V.T.\t  Sundaramani  (PW-120)\t had  instructed  P.
\nRamalingam (PW-198)  to\t burn  the  papers.    He thought of
\ngiving those to the police  as\tnational  leader  had  died.
\nThere  was  also  news in the papers that LTTE had a hand in
\nthe assassination of Rajiv Gandhi.  Arulmani (PW-128)  asked
\nthe  mother  of Haribabu if Haribabu was connected with LTTE
\nand she stated that it was because of those  ‘sinners’\tthat
\nhis son\t  was  like  that.    Ultimately  police  took\tinto
\npossession all those papers.\n<\/p>\n
\tSuba Sundaram (A-22) again  tried  to  retrieve\t the
\ncamera through K.    Ramamurthi\t (PW-258).   On 22.5.1991 at
\nabout 9 or 10 p.m.  he contacted K.    Ramamurthi  (PW-258),
\nwho  was  in  Delhi  on\t phone and told him that “my boy one
\nHaribabu had been to Sriperumbudur  for\t taking\t photographs
\nand he\thad  not  returned.    It  was\tnot known as to what
\nhappened to my camera” and he asked K.\tRamamurthi  (PW-258)
\nwhether he could inquire about that.  Yet again on 23.5.1991
\nat 10\tor  11.00  a.m.\t   Suba\t Sundaram  (A-22)  asked  K.
\nRamamurthi (PW-258),  who  was\tstill  in  Delhi  about\t the
\ncamera.\t   At\tthat  time  Suba  Sundaram  (A-22)  told  K.
\nRamamurthi (PW-258) that Haribabu  was\tdead  and  that\t his
\ncamera\thad  been seized by the police and asked him whether
\nthe said camera could be got back by talking to someone.  On
\n25.5.1991 Hindu newspaper (Exh.P-550) published a news\titem
\nconnecting Haribabu   with   LTTE.    Suba  Sundaram  (A-22)
\nimmediately asked V.T.\t  Sundaramani  (PW-120),  father  of
\nHaribabu to come to his studio and asked him to stoutly deny
\nthe  news  item\t connecting  Haribabu with LTTE by issuing a
\ndenial statement to the press.\tSuba Sundaram (A-22) himself
\ndictated the denial statement which was\t taken\tdown  by  M.
\nGirija Vallaban\t (PW-116).    The  original denial statement
\nprepared by Suba Sundaram (A-22) was seized (Exh.P-543).   A
\ncopy  of  Exh.P-543  –\tdenial statement – was seized by the
\npolice from Subha studio of  Suba  Sundaram  (A-22).\tSuba
\nSundaram (A-22)\t thereafter asked V.T.\tSundaramani (PW-120)
\nto take 12 or 13 copies of the denial statement and to\tgive
\nthat to\t all  the  newspapers.\t  On  26.5.1991\t the  denial
\nstatement was published in Hindu  (Exh.P-551).\t  When\tV.T.
\nSundaramani   (PW-120)\t told  Suba  Sundaram  (A-22)  about
\ncassette ‘Pasarai Padalgal’, which contained LTTE propaganda
\nSuba Sundaram (A-22) told him to destroy that immediately.\n<\/p>\n
\tA.    Parimalam\t  (PW-205)   said    Haribabu\t was
\nbrother-in-law of   her\t  brother-in-law   P.\t  Ramalingam
\n(PW-198).  She said on 25th morning they came to  the  house
\nof Haribabu  to\t inquire about his death.  There was no male
\nmember.\t A boy came there  with\t a  chit  containing  number
\n867229 and said that Haribabu’s father had asked his younger
\nbrother Kalyankumar  to\t contact  him at that number.  Since
\nKalyankumar was not at home  mother  of\t Haribabu  asked  A.
\nParimalam (PW-205)  to\ttelephone  to that number.  When the
\nphone was picked up on the other side A.  Parimalam (PW-205)
\nasked if Haribabu’s father was there.\tThe  person  on\t the
\nother side asked  who  was speaking.  A.  Parimalam (PW-205)
\nsaid she was Haribabu’s elder sister.  On the other side the
\nperson said that he was Suba Sundaram  (A-22)  speaking\t and
\nsaid  that there would be an audio cassette in the house and
\nif there are any papers connected with Haribabu those may be
\ntaken away and destroyed.   Saying  that  he  put  down\t the
\nreceiver abruptly.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn  letter  (Exh.P-128)\t dated\t7.9.1991  written by
\nTrichy Santhan (DA) to Irumborai (A-19) there is mention  of
\nSuba  Sundaram\t(A-22) relevant portion of which has already
\nbeen quoted above.\n<\/p>\n
\tV.T.  Sundaramani (PW-120), father of Haribabu\tsaid
\nthat  Santhan  (A-2)  stayed  in  his  house  for some time.
\nHaribabu had told that he  was\this  friend.\tHe  said  on
\n20.5.1991 Murugan (A-3) came to his house.  Haribabu was not
\npresent at that time.  Murugan (A-3) had earlier been coming
\nto his house.\tV.T.  Sundaramani (PW-120) in his deposition
\nsaid Murugan (A-3) told them to inform Haribabu to  call  on
\nhim at Royapettah.    He asked V.T.  Sundaramani (PW-120) to
\nsend Haribabu as  soon\tas  he\tcame.\t V.T.\t Sundaramani
\n(PW-120)  said that Haribabu came and was given the message.
\nHe went out that evening.  V.T.\t Sundaramani  (PW-120)\tsaid
\nHaribabu told  his  mother  at about 2.30 p.m.\ton 21.5.1991
\nthat he was going out to take photographs and  would  return
\nby night itself.    He\tdid  not  return that night.  In the
\nmorning newspapers V.T.\t Sundaramani (PW-120) read about the
\nassassination of Rajiv Gandhi.\tIn the afternoon he came  to
\nknow  through  a  newspaper that Haribabu, photographer, was
\ndead.  He immediately left his house.\t V.T.\t Sundaramani
\n(PW-120) said\tafter\tsome  time  S.\t  Santhana  Krishnan
\n(PW-108), a friend of Haribabu and also one Veeraraman\tcame
\nto his\thouse.\t  They\ttold  that  Haribabu  was  dead and,
\ntherefore, they had  to\t find  him  out\t as  whereabouts  of
\nHaribabu were not  known  by  that  time.  V.T.\t Sundaramani
\n(PW-120) said that then Suba Sundaram  (A-22)  came  to\t his
\nmind and  he  sent  S.\tSanthana Krishnan (PW-108) and other
\nman to Subha Studio to find out the actual position.  Kanan,
\na photographer, told V.T.  Sundaramani (PW-120) that he\t had
\nseen  Haribabu\twith Sandalwood garland at Sundaram’s (A-22)
\noffice at 3.00 O’clock at Royapettah.\t V.T.\t Sundaramani
\n(PW-120)  also came to know that Haribabu had taken a camera
\nfrom K.\t Ravi Shankar (PW-151).\t V.T.  Sundaramani  (PW-120)
\nwent  to the studio of Suba Sundaram (A-22) and asked how it
\nhad  happened  and  also  asked\t him  whether  he  had\tsent
\nHaribabu.   Suba  Sundaram  (A-22)  replied in the negative.
\nThis part of the statement of V.T.  Sundaramani (PW-120) may
\nbe quoted :-\n<\/p>\n
\t“When I\t reached  there\t I  asked  him\thow  it\t had
\n\thappened  and  I also asked him whether he sent him,
\n\the said no.  Yesterday he came to his  photo  studio
\n\tat 3 O’clock.  He also invited us for taking photos.
\n\tHaribabu  had  asked  Subha Sundaram whether anybody
\n\telse was coming from his studio for  taking  photos.
\n\tFor  that  he  has replied that nobody is coming and
\n\tthat he has sent  him  for  taking  photos.    Subha
\n\tSundaram  told me that he did not know who has taken
\n\tHaribabu.”\n<\/p>\n
\tV.T.  Sundaramani (PW-120) told Suba Sundaram (A-22)
\nthat  Haribabu\twas  dead and asked him in which hospital he
\nwas kept  and  requested  him  to  do  the  needful.\tV.T.
\nSundaramani  (PW-120)  said that he met Suba Sundaram (A-22)
\non 22.5.1991 in his office.  He talked to him separately  in
\nhis  office  and when asked him with whom Haribabu had gone;
\nwho had taken him; and whether there might be any link\twith
\nLTTE;  and  whether  he\t had  gone alone since Suba Sundaram
\n(A-22) told him that he had seen Haribabu.    Suba  Sundaram
\n(A-22) told  V.T.  Sundaramani (PW-120) not to worry himself
\nand said that Haribabu might have gone alone.  Suba Sundaram
\n(A-22) asked V.T.  Sundaramani (PW-120) to discard  all\t the
\npapers\tin  the house relating to Haribabu on reaching home.
\nV.T.  Sundaramani (PW-120) asked his wife to remove all\t the
\npapers\tconnected  with\t Haribabu to their daughter’s house.
\nV.T.  Sundaramani (PW-120) said on 23.5.1991  early  in\t the
\nmorning at 5.00 a.m.  Arulmani (PW-128) with his father came
\nto his\thouse.\tHe corroborated as to what Arulmani (PW-128)
\nsaid about the box kept in  the\t house\tof  P.\t  Ramalingam
\n(PW-198).  V.T.\t Sundaramani (PW-120) also said on 23.5.1991
\nat 3.00 p.m.  one person calling himself Bhagyanathan (A-20)
\ncame  to  his  house  and  introduced himself as a friend of
\nHaribabu and told wife of V.T.\t Sundaramani  (PW-120)\tthat
\nnothing\t had  happened\tto  Haribabu  and that he would have
\nsustained injuries and gave Rs.1000\/- to her towards medical
\nexpenses of Haribabu.\tSince  wife  of\t V.T.\t Sundaramani
\n(PW-120)  refused  to  receive\tthe  amount  he gave that to
\nVijayarevathi, their daughter.\tWhen there was news item  in
\nHindu connecting  Haribabu  with  LTTE and V.T.\t Sundaramani
\n(PW120) was called to the studio of  Suba  Sundaram  (A-22).
\nV.T.   Sundaramani  (PW-120)  said Suba Sundaram (A-22) told
\nhim   that   he\t  was\tthinking   of\tarranging   monetary
\nhelp\/assistance from  K.    Ramamurthi\t(PW-258) and at that
\njuncture he must issue a counterstatement.    He  said\tthat
\ncounter-statement  must be issued in the newspapers since he
\nwas making arrangements to help V.T.   Sundaramani  (PW-120)
\nmonetarily for his  son’s  loss.    Since  V.T.\t Sundaramani
\n(PW-120) said he did not know how to give counter  statement
\nand  to\t whom  to  give\t Suba  Sundaram (A-22) helped him in
\nwriting the same and asked V.T.\t Sundaramani (PW-120) to put
\nhis signature.\tThat counter statement is Exh.P-543.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe  have  set  out   in\t  sufficient   details\t the
\nconfessions  and  the evidence linking the accused with each
\nother as projected by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.  Natarajan at  the\toutset\tsubmitted  that\t the
\ncharges\t of  conspiracy and other charges framed against the
\naccused were highly defective  and  did\t not  show  in\twhat
\nmanner the  accused  had  to  answer these charges.  He said
\nthat it was not enough if a statutory  provision  is  merely
\nincorporatively charged.    He\tsaid prosecution may rely on
\nSections 464 and 465 of the Code to overcome his  objections
\nto  the charge but these two sections did not completely bar
\nthe argument that charge is  defective\tand  had  prejudiced
\naccused in their  defence.    He  said\tcharge No.  1 was so
\ncomplicated and conspiracy spread over a number of years and
\nthe accused who allegedly joined the  conspiracy  after\t the
\nobject\tof  conspiracy\thad  been  achieved,  were all tried
\ntogether, which in itself caused great prejudice to them  in
\ntheir defence.\t  Mr.\t   Altaf   Ahmad,  however,  quickly
\ninterposed to say that Section 215 of the Code would protect
\nany error in the charge and that the finding arrived  at  by
\nthe  Designated\t Court\tcould  not  be\treversed  in view of
\nSection 465 of the Code even if argument of Mr.\t   Natarajan
\nis accepted.\tWe,  however,  do  not\tthink that we should
\ndilate on this objection by Mr.\t   Natarajan  as  powers  of
\nReference  Court  are  quite wide and we have to examine the
\nevidence regarding conspiracy and to see  if  there  is\t any
\nirregularity   in  the\tcharge,\t which\thas  prejudiced\t the
\naccused.  Mr.  Natarajan also said that there has  not\tbeen
\nproper\texamination  of the accused under Section 313 of the
\nCode inasmuch as long and complex questions have been put to
\nthem and not much thought has been given by  the  Designated
\nCourt in properly examining the accused under Section 313 of
\nthe Code.   Mr.\t Natarajan appears to be right to an extent.
\nWe have, however, again to consider this from the  angle  of
\nprejudice to the accused.  But then if there is any error on
\nthis  account  that  can  also be corrected by the Reference
\nCourt by again examining the accused.  Apart  from  alleging
\nprejudice  to  the accused, no instance has been pointed out
\nto show if any prejudice has, in fact, been  caused  to\t the
\naccused\t in  either  understanding  the\t charge\t or in their
\ndefence.  We find that the accused had been well represented
\nand they extensively cross-examined the witnesses.    At  no
\nstage during the trial they complained of any prejudice.  We
\nare,  therefore,  unable  to  agree to the submission of Mr.
\nNatrajan that any prejudice has been caused to\tthe  accused
\nin  their defence during the conduct of the trial before the
\nDesignated Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.  Natarajan\tsaid  that  there  was\tno  evidence
\nagainst any of the accused to bring home charge either under
\nSection\t 3 or Section 4 of TADA, yet the prosecution wrongly
\nalleged\t that  there  was  conspiracy  to  commit  acts\t  of
\nterrorism  and\tdisruptive activities under TADA and in that
\nprocess Rajiv Gandhi was killed.  He  said  apart  from\t the
\nkilling\t of  Rajiv  Gandhi  no\tother terrorist act had been
\nshown to have been committed or disruptive activity shown to
\nhave been committed.  There is no such act  till  May,\t1991
\nthough\tthe prosecution has alleged the period of conspiracy
\nbeing 1987 to 1992.  Killing of Rajiv Gandhi could not be  a
\nterrorist act  under  Section  3  of TADA.  Also there is no
\ndisruptive activity falling under Section 4 of TADA.\tOnly
\nNalini\t(A-1) and Arivu (A-18) have been charged for offence
\nunder Section 4 of TADA.  Charge No.  121 is against  Nalini
\n(A-1)  and  it\tsays  that  in\tpursuance  of  the  criminal
\nconspiracy referred to in charge No.  1 and  in\t furtherance
\nof the common intention of Nalini (A-1) and deceased accused
\nSivarasan,  Dhanu,  Subha  and Haribabu to commit disruptive
\nactivity at a public meeting at Sriperumbudur, where  Nalini
\n(A-1)  was  physically\tpresent\t at  the  scene of crime and
\nprovided assassin  Dhanu  (since  deceased)  with  necessary
\ncover  from being detected as a foreigner, which enabled the
\nassassin to move freely in the scene  of  crime\t and  gained
\naccess\tnearer\tto  Rajiv Gandhi where she (Dhanu) detonated
\nthe improvised explosive device concealed in her waist\tbelt
\nresulting  in  the  bomb  blast\t and  killing of nine police
\nofficials who were public servants and who were at that time
\nwith Rajiv Gandhi on duty and Nalini (A-1) thereby committed
\nan offence under  Section  4(3)\t of  TADA  punishable  under
\nSection 4 (1) of TADA read with Section 34, IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\tCharge No.    228  is against Arivu (A-18) and it is
\nalleged against\t him  that  in\tpursuance  to  the  criminal
\nconspiracy  and in course of the same transaction he abetted
\nthe commission of  disruptive  activity\t by  purchasing\t two
\ngolden\tpower  battery\tcells  during the first week of May,
\n1991, which were used by Dhanu (since deceased) to  detonate
\nimprovised  explosive  device  at Sriperumbudur on 21.5.1991
\nresulting  in  bomb  blast  and\t killing  of   nine   police
\nofficials, who were public servants and were on duty at that
\ntime with Rajiv Gandhi and Arivu (A-18) committed an offence
\nunder  Section 4(3) of TADA punishable under Section 4(1) of
\nTADA and Section 109, IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.  Natarajan said these two charges  121  and\t 228
\nshowed\tas  to\thow  the  court\t considered  the  disruptive
\nactivity and there is no mention in these charges if it\t was
\nthe  killing  of  Rajiv\t Gandhi\t which\tcould  be  termed as
\ndisruptive activity.  Charges referred\tto  the\t killing  of
\npolice officers\t on  duty.    He said there is no discussion
\nwhatsoever in the judgment of the Designated Court as to how
\nit considered that the case fell under Section 4(3) of TADA.
\nThere is no evidence to\t show  propagation  of\tanything  as
\nmentioned in  Section  4(3)  of TADA.  Under Section 4(3) of
\nTADA an accused can be said  to\t have  committed  disruptive
\nactivity if  he\t in  any  way  (a)  advocates,\tetc.  or (b)
\npredicts, etc.\tthe killing or\tdestruction  of\t any  person
\nbound\tby   oath  under  the  Constitution  to\t uphold\t the
\nsovereignty and integrity of India or  any  public  servant.
\nThe  charges  do not name Rajiv Gandhi as at the time he was
\nkilled he was not bound by any oath under the  Constitution.
\nHe was not  the\t Prime\tMinister.    He\t was not an M.P.  as
\nParliament stood dissolved  and\t general  elections  in\t the
\ncountry were  in process.  There is no evidence on record to
\nshow that Rajiv Gandhi was  bound  by  any  oath  under\t the
\nConstitution in\t any  capacity\twhatsoever.  As regards nine
\npolice officers who were killed\t they  were  not  killed  on
\naccount\t of  any  of the grounds mentioned in clauses (a) or\n<\/p>\n
(b) of sub-section (3) of Section 4 of TADA.  Subsection (2)
\nof Section 4 of TADA defines disruptive activity and, in  so
\nfar  as\t it is relevant to sub-section (1), means any action
\ntaken whether by act or by speech or through any other media
\nor in any other manner whatsoever which questions,  disrupts
\nor   intended\tto   disrupt   directly\t or  indirectly\t the
\nsovereignty and territorial integrity of India.\t Mr.   Altaf
\nAhmad said that the accused did question the sovereignty and
\nintegrity   of\t India\tinasmuch  as  they  expressed  their
\nresentment to the Indo-Sri  Lankan  Accord  which  had\tbeen
\napproved by   the  Parliament.\t  But  then  questioning  or
\ndisapproving the Indo-Sri Lankan Accord would not mean\tthat
\nthat  would  be questioning the sovereignty and integrity of
\nIndia.\t When  a  member  of  the  Opposition\twhether\t  in
\nParliament  or\toutside\t criticizes  the Accord in public it
\ncould not be said that he is questioning the sovereignty and
\nintegrity of India.  According\tto  Mr.\t   Altaf  Ahmad\t the
\naccused\t had chosen the target being Rajiv Gandhi and struck
\nthe target thus questioning the very ability of the  country
\nto take sovereign decisions.  Mr.  Natarajan said that death
\nof Rajiv Gandhi as target did not find mention in any charge
\nunder  Section 4 of TADA and no such question was put to any
\naccused under Section 313 of the Code.\tDeath of nine police
\nofficers though public servants was not on account of any of
\nthe grounds mentioned in sub-sections (2) or (3) of  Section
\n4  of  TADA  but  since\t target\t was  Rajiv  Gandhi  and the
\nintensity of the blast was so vast that the police  officers
\ndied  and  so  also  the  assassin  Dhanu  and\tphotographer
\nHaribabu.  Mr.\tNatarajan, in our  view,  is  right  in\t his
\nsubmission  that  no  case  under Section 4 of TADA has been
\nmade out in the case.\n<\/p>\n
\tUnder  Section\t3  of  TADA  in\t order\tthere  is  a
\nterrorist act three essential conditions must be present and
\nthese are contained in sub-section (1) of Section  3  –\t (1)
\ncriminal  activity  must  me  committed\t with  the requisite
\nintention or motive, (2) weapons must have  been  used,\t and
\n(3) consequence\t must  have ensued.  It was contended by Mr.
\nNatarajan that in the present case though the  evidence\t may
\nshow that weapons and consequence as contemplated by Section
\n3(1)  is  there\t it  is\t lacking  so far as the intention is
\nconcerned.  Prosecution had to prove that the act  was\tdone
\nwith  the  intention to over-awe the Government or to strike
\nterror in people or any section of people  or  to  adversely
\naffect\tthe  harmony  amongst  different sections of people.
\nThere is no evidence that any of the  accused  had  such  an
\nintention.\n<\/p>\n
As  to\twhat  is  a  terrorist act and what is the intention
\ncontemplated under Section 3 of TADA reference may  be\tmade
\nto  a  decision\t of this Court in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and
\nothers vs.  State of Maharashtra and others<\/a>  (1994  (4)\t SCC\n<\/p>\n
602).\tIn  this  judgment  Section  3(1)  of  TADA has been
\nanalyzed.  It would be useful to quote from the judgment  in
\nextenso:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“‘Terrorism’   is   one\t of  the  manifestations  of
\n\tincreased  lawlessness\t and   cult   of   violence.
\n\tViolence   and\tcrime  constitute  a  threat  to  an
\n\testablished  order  and\t are  a\t revolt\t against   a
\n\tcivilized society.  ‘Terrorism’ has not been defined
\n\tunder  TADA  nor  is  it  possible to give a precise
\n\tdefinition  of\t‘terrorism’   or   lay\t down\twhat
\n\tconstitutes ‘terrorism’.    It\tmay  be\t possible to
\n\tdescribe  it  as  use  of  violence  when  its\tmost
\n\timportant  result  is  not  merely  the physical and
\n\tmental\tdamage\tof  the\t victim\t but  the  prolonged
\n\tpsychological\teffect\t it   produces\tor  has\t the
\n\tpotential of producing on the society  as  a  whole.
\n\tThere  may  be\tdeath,\tinjury,\t or  destruction  of
\n\tproperty or even deprivation of\t individual  liberty
\n\tin  the\t process  but  the  extent  and reach of the
\n\tintended  terrorist  activity  travels\tbeyond\t the
\n\teffect\t of  an\t ordinary  crime  capable  of  being
\n\tpunished under the ordinary penal law  of  the\tland
\n\tand  its main objective is to overawe the Government
\n\tor disturb harmony of  the  society  or\t “terrorise”
\n\tpeople\tand  the society and not only those directly
\n\tassaulted, with a view to disturb even tempo,  peace
\n\tand  tranquillity  of the society and create a sense
\n\tof fear and insecurity.\t A ‘terrorist’ activity does
\n\tnot merely arise by causing disturbance of  law\t and
\n\torder or  of  public  order.\tThe  fall out of the
\n\tintended activity  must\t be  such  that\t it  travels
\n\tbeyond\tthe capacity of the ordinary law enforcement
\n\tagencies to tackle it under the ordinary penal\tlaw.
\n\tExperience   has   shown   us  that  ‘terrorism’  is
\n\tgenerally an attempt to acquire or maintain power or
\n\tcontrol\t by  intimidation  and\tcausing\t  fear\t and
\n\thelplessness  in the minds of the people at large or
\n\tany  section  thereof  and  is\ta  totally  abnormal
\n\tphenomenon.   What  distinguishes  ‘terrorism’\tfrom
\n\tother forms of violence, therefore,  appears  to  be
\n\tthe   deliberate  and  systematic  use\tof  coercive
\n\tintimidation.\tMore  often  than  not,\t a  hardened
\n\tcriminal  today takes advantage of the situation and
\n\tby wearing the cloak of ‘terrorism’, aims to achieve
\n\tfor himself acceptability and respectability in\t the
\n\tsociety because unfortunately in the States affected
\n\tby  militancy,\ta ‘terrorist’ is projected as a hero
\n\tby his group and often even by the misguided  youth.
\n\tIt is, therefore, essential to treat such a criminal
\n\tand  deal  with\t him  differently  than\t an ordinary
\n\tcriminal capable of  being  tried  by  the  ordinary
\n\tcourts under the penal law of the land.\t Even though
\n\tthe crime committed by a ‘terrorist’ and an ordinary
\n\tcriminal  would be overlapping to an extent but then
\n\tit is not the  intention  of  the  Legislature\tthat
\n\tevery criminal should be tried under TADA, where the
\n\tfall  out of his activity does not extent beyond the
\n\tnormal frontiers of the ordinary criminal  activity.
\n\tEvery  ‘terrorist’  may\t be  a\tcriminal  but  every
\n\tcriminal cannot be given the label of a\t ‘terrorist’
\n\tonly  to set in motion the more stringent provisions
\n\tof TADA.  The criminal activity in order  to  invoke
\n\tTADA  must be committed with the requisite intention
\n\tas contemplated by Section 3(1) of the Act by use of
\n\tsuch weapons as have been enumerated in Section 3(1)
\n\tand which cause or  are\t likely\t to  result  in\t the
\n\toffences as mentioned in the said section.”\n<\/p>\n
\t“Thus, unless the Act complained of  falls  strictly
\n\twithin the letter and spirit of Section 3(1) of TADA
\n\tand  is committed with the intention as envisaged by
\n\tthat section by means of the weapons etc.    as\t are
\n\tenumerated  therein  with  the\tmotive as postulated
\n\tthereby, an accused cannot be tried or convicted for
\n\tan offence under Section 3(1) of  TADA.\t   When\t the
\n\textent\tand  reach  of\tthe crime committed with the
\n\tintention as envisaged by Section  3(1),  transcends
\n\tthe  local  barriers  and the effect of the criminal
\n\tact can be felt in other States or areas or has\t the
\n\tpotential  of  that  result  being  felt  there, the
\n\tprovisions  of\tSection\t 3(1)  would  certainly\t  be
\n\tattracted.  Likewise, if it is only as a consequence
\n\tof  the\t criminal act that fear, terror or\/and panic
\n\tis  caused  but\t the  intention\t of  committing\t the
\n\tparticular  crime  cannot  be  said  to\t be  the one
\n\tstrictly envisaged by  Section\t3(1),  it  would  be
\n\timpermissible  to  try\tor  convict  and  punish  an
\n\taccused under TADA.  The  commission  of  the  crime
\n\twith   the   intention\tto  achieve  the  result  as
\n\tenvisaged by the section and not  merely  where\t the
\n\tconsequence  of\t the  crime committed by the accused
\n\tcreate that result, would attract the provisions  of
\n\tSection 3(1) of TADA.  Thus, if for example a person
\n\tgoes  on  a  shooting  spree  and  kills a number of
\n\tpersons, it is bound to create terror and  panic  in
\n\tthe  locality  but  if it was not committed with the
\n\trequisite intention as contemplated by the  section,
\n\tthe  offence would not attract Section 3(1) of TADA.
\n\tOn the other hand, if a crime was committed with the
\n\tintention to cause terror or panic or to alienate  a
\n\tsection of the people or to disturb the harmony etc.
\n\tit would be punishable under TADA, even if no one is
\n\tkilled\tand  there has been only some person who has
\n\tbeen injured or some damage etc.  has been caused to
\n\tthe property, the provisions of Section 3(1) of TADA
\n\twould be squarely attracted.   Where  the  crime  is
\n\tcommitted  with\t a view to overawe the Government as
\n\tby law established or is intended  to  alienate\t any
\n\tsection\t of  the  people  or  adversely\t affect\t the
\n\tharmony amongst different sections of the people and
\n\tis committed in the manner specified in Section 3(1)
\n\tof TADA, no difficulty would arise to hold that such
\n\tan offence falls within the ambit and scope  of\t the
\n\tsaid provision.\t   Some\t difficulty, however, arises
\n\twhere the intended activity of the offender  results
\n\tin  striking  terror  or  creating  fear  and  panic
\n\tamongst the people in general or a section  thereof.
\n\tIt  is\tin this situation that the courts have to be
\n\tcautious to draw a line between the crime punishable
\n\tunder the ordinary criminal law and the\t ones  which
\n\tare punishable under Section 3(1) of TADA.  It is of
\n\tcourse\tneither\t desirable nor possible to catalogue
\n\tthe activities which would strictly bring  the\tcase
\n\tof an accused under Section 3(1) of TADA.  Each case
\n\twill have to be decided on its own facts and no rule
\n\tof thumb can be applied.”\n<\/p>\n
\tSub-section  (1)  of  Section  3  can be analyzed as
\nunder :-\n<\/p>\n
(1)  Whoever
\n     with intent<\/p>\n
(i) to overawe the Government as by law established; or<\/p>\n
(ii)\tto strike terror in the people\tor  any\t section  of
\npeople;\t or<\/p>\n
(iii) to alienate any section of the people; or<\/p>\n
(iv)\tto adversely affect the\t harmony  amongst  different
\nsections of the people<\/p>\n
does any act or thing
\nby using<\/p>\n
(a)\tbombs, dynamite, or<\/p>\n
(b)\tother explosive substances, or<\/p>\n
(c)\tinflammable substances, or<\/p>\n
(d)\tfire-arms, or<\/p>\n
(e)\tother lethal weapons, or<\/p>\n
(f)\tpoisons or noxious gases or other chemicals, or<\/p>\n
(g)\tby  any\t other\tsubstances  (whether  biological  or
\n       otherwise) of a hazardous nature<\/p>\n
in such a manner as to cause<\/p>\n
(i)\tdeath of, or<\/p>\n
(ii)\tinjuries to any person or persons, or<\/p>\n
(iii)  loss  of, or damage to or destruction of property, or<\/p>\n
(iv)\tdisruption of any supplies, or<\/p>\n
(v)\tservices  essential to the life of the community, or<\/p>\n
detains\t any  person  and  threatens  to kill or injure such
\nperson<\/p>\n
in order to compel the Government or any other person to  do
\nor abstain from doing any act commits a terrorist act.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn  the present case applying the principles set out
\nabove on the interpretation of Section 3(1) and analyses  of
\nthis subsection of the TADA we do not find any difficulty in
\nconcluding  that  evidence  does not reflect that any of the
\naccused entertained any such intention or  had\tany  of\t the
\nmotive\tto  overawe the Government or to strike terror among
\npeople.\t No doubt evidence  is\tthere  that  the  absconding
\naccused\t Prabhakaran,  supreme\tleader\tof LTTE had personal
\nanimosity against Rajiv\t Gandhi\t and  LTTE  cadre  developed
\nhatred\ttowards\t Rajiv\tGandhi,\t who was identified with the
\natrocities allegedly committed by IPKF in Sri Lanka.   There
\nwas  no conspiracy to the indiscriminate killing of persons.
\nThere is no evidence directly or circumstantially that Rajiv
\nGandhi was killed  with\t the  intention\t contemplated  under
\nSection 3(1)  of  TADA.\t   State  of Tamil Nadu was notified
\nunder TADA on 23.6.1991 and LTTE were declared\tan  unlawful
\nassociation   on  14.5.1992  under  the\t provisions  of\t the
\nUnlawful Activity  (Prevention)\t Act,  1957.\tApart\tfrom
\nkilling\t of  Rajiv  Gandhi  no\tother terrorist act has been
\nalleged in the State of Tamil Nadu.  Charge may be there but
\nthere is no evidence to support the charge.  Mr.   Natarajan
\nsaid   that  prosecution  might\t refer\tto  the\t killing  of
\nPadmanabhan in Tamil Nadu, leader of EPRLF, which fact finds
\nmention in the confession statement of Santhan (A-2).\t But
\nthen he\t said it was not a terrorist act.  It was killing of
\na rival Sri Lankan and in any case killing of Padmanabhan is
\nnot a charge in the case before this  Court.\tMr.    Altaf
\nAhmad  said  that  when\t he earlier mentioned the killing of
\nPadmanabhan,  it  was  only  to\t show  that  LTTE   was\t  an
\norganization  which  brook no opposition and anyone opposing
\nits objective was eliminated.  Mr.  Natarajan  said  it\t was
\nthe  case  of  the  prosecution\t itself that Prabhakaran had
\npersonal animosity against Rajiv  Gandhi  developed  over  a
\nperiod of time and had motive to kill him.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.   Altaf  Ahmad realised the difficulty he had to
\nface to show that any offence under Sections 3 and\/or  4  of
\nTADA had  been\tcommitted.  He submitted that charges in the
\npresent case showed the dimension of the conspiracy and\t the
\nnature of  the\tcrime  committed  on 21.5.1991.\t He said the
\nobject of the conspiracy was to commit terrorist act and use
\nof bomb, etc.  was the means to achieve that object and that
\nthe consequence was to overawe the Government and to  create
\nterror\tin  the\t minds\tof  the\t public and it was with that
\nobject that Rajiv Gandhi and others were killed.    He\tsaid
\nobject of the conspiracy was not accomplished on the killing
\nof  Rajiv  Gandhi  but\tit continued even after his death as
\nLTTE targetted places and persons spread across the country.
\nThere is no evidence that blasting  of\tthe  buildings\tlike
\nVellore\t  Fort,\t police\t headquarters,\twas  the  object  of
\nconspiracy or that was to be done with intention to  overawe
\nthe Government or to create terror among the public.  Charge
\ndoes not  specify any such intention or the places.  Similar
\nis the position\t regarding  unspecified\t targets  in  Delhi.
\nAccording  to  him  conspiracy was not abandoned and did not
\nculminate with the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi though\t the
\nassassination\t of   Rajiv   Gandhi   over-shadowed   other
\nactivities.   He  said\tto  continue  with  the\t object\t  of
\nconspiracy the accused had to retain their identity in order
\nto   commit  further  acts  and\t thus  for  the\t purpose  of
\nself-preservation  they\t had  to  live\tand  for  that\tthey
\ncommitted  acts\t of  escapades,\t screening,  destruction  of
\nevidence, etc.\tCharge framed against the accused  described
\ntheir various  roles  and the offence committed by them.  He
\nsaid ingredients of Sections 3, 4 and 5 of TADA are part  of
\nthe charge and there is evidence to prove these charges.  He
\nsaid  it may be that particulars of all the sections had not
\nmentioned in the charge but that was a curable\tirregularity
\nand  no\t prejudice has been shown to have been caused to the
\naccused.  It would appear that the argument of\tMr.    Altaf
\nAhmad  is  based  on  the submission that under Section 3 of
\nTADA  conspiracy  was  also  to\t overawe   the\t Government.
\nReference was made to the definition of ‘overawe’ in Black’s
\nLaw Dictionary to mean “to subjudicate or restrain by and or
\nprofound reference”.\tRealising  the difficulty that there
\nwas no charge of conspiracy to overawe\tthe  Government\t Mr.
\nAltaf  Ahmad said that since it was a case of reference this
\nCourt could return the finding\tas  there  was\tevidence  to
\noverawe\t the  Government  and  it could not be said that the
\naccused would be prejudiced by adopting such a course.\t  He
\nsaid  it  was  enough  if  section describing the offence is
\nmentioned in the charges and  all  the\tingredients  of\t the
\noffence need  not be in the charge.  According to him charge
\nthus gives notice of  accusation  to  the  accused  and\t the
\nrequirement of\tlaw  is\t fulfilled.  But then in the present
\ncase when some particulars of a charge have been  given\t the
\naccused can certainly assume that they are not being charged
\nwith  other ingredients of the offence given in a particular
\nsection.   If  we  now\t take\tinto   consideration   those
\ningredients  as\t well prejudice would certainly be caused to
\nthe accused.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.   Altaf  Ahmad  said  that\tRajiv\tGandhi\t was
\ntargetted  as  he  was\tthe Prime Minister when the Indo-Sri
\nLankan Accord was entered into and his name  was  synonymous
\nwith the  Accord.    LTTE  took\t it that it was entered into
\ncontrary to their aspirations.\tIn an interview\t before\t the
\ngeneral\t elections Rajiv Gandhi did support his stand on the
\nAccord which had been ratified by the Parliament.   He\tsaid
\nthat action of the accused in killing Rajiv Gandhi struck at
\nthe sovereign powers of the country and it was to intimidate
\nthe Government.\t   That\t the  country  was  in\tthe midst of
\nelection and on account of the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi
\nelections were postponed and formation of the Government was
\ndelayed.  A notification dated 22.5.1991 was issued  by\t the
\nElection Commission  of\t India postponing the elections.  It
\nwas mentioned in  the  Notification  that  the\tcountry\t had
\nsuffered a great tragedy in the death of Sri Rajiv Gandhi at
\nthe assassins hands.  Country was thus in trauma.  Intention
\nof  the\t accused  in  killing Rajiv Gandhi was that India as
\nsovereign country could not take sovereign decisions.  Prime
\nMinister is the pivot of the Parliamentary system and if  he
\nis  killed because he was party to an Accord entered into in
\nexercise of sovereign powers of the country and even  though
\nhe  may\t not  be the Prime Minister at the relevant time his
\nkilling would send shock waves all over the country  and  to
\nthe Government\tin  power and the Government to be.  He said
\nconspiracy to kill Rajiv Gandhi\t was  thus  with  intent  to
\noverawe the  Government\t as by law established.\t Since there
\nwas no such charge, no finding, and no question put  to\t the
\naccused under Section 313 of the Code, it was pointed out to
\nMr.   Altaf  Ahmad  that  unless he referred to any relevant
\nprovision of law or any decision of this Court on the powers
\nof this Court in Reference, his argument could not be  taken
\nnote of.   Mr.\t  Altaf\t Ahmad said that powers of the Court
\nwhile considering the Reference are wider than that  of\t the
\nappellate court.    Under  sub-section (1) of Section 366 of
\nthe Code it is for the Supreme Court to\t confirm  the  death
\nsentence  and  under  sub-section  (1) of Section 367 of the
\nCode, the Supreme Court, if it thinks that a further inquiry
\nshould be made into or additional evidence  taken  upon\t any
\npoint  bearing on the killing or innocence of the accused it
\nmay make such inquiry or such trial itself or direct  it  to
\nbe made or taken by the Designated Court.  With these powers
\nbeing there  Mr.   Altaf Ahmad said that though the approach
\nof  the\t Designated  Court  may\t have  been   different\t  in
\nconstruing  the\t charge\t and  it  may  not  accord  with the
\nsubmissions made now before us and if we construe the charge
\nof our own it is that the accused had committed a  terrorist
\nact  on\t the  soil of India and in the course of that killed
\nRajiv Gandhi in order to overawe the Government\t established
\nby law\tnot  to\t pursue the Indo-Sri Lankan Accord.  It was,
\nhowever, not suggested as  to  what  inquiry  or  additional
\nevidence is  contemplated  by  the  prosecution.    From the
\narguments of Mr.  Altaf Ahmad it would\tappear\tthat  he  is
\nseeking amendment of the charge and if that is done it would
\nrequire\t additional  evidence or even retrial may have to be
\nordered.  We do not think we should adopt any  such  course.
\nThe  question  before  us  is  to consider the charge in its
\nproper way and to examine the  evidence\t with  reference  to
\nthat.\tQuite a number of judgments on the question of power
\nof Reference Court were cited, principal of these being\t two
\njudgments in Jumman and others vs.  The State of Punjab (AIR
\n1957 SC\t 469) and Ram Shankar Singh and others vs.  State of
\nWest Bengal (1962 Suppl.  (1) SCR 49).\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Jumman and others vs.  State of Punjab (AIR\t1957
\nSC  469)  this court considered scope of the reference under
\nSection 374 and 375 of the old Code (Section 366 and 367  of
\nthe  new Code) and powers of the High Court in its disposal.
\nStatement of law has been laid in paras 11  and\t 12  of\t the
\njudgment which is as under :-\n<\/p>\n
\t“(11)\tBefore we propose to discuss the evidence on
\n\twhich reliance has been placed\tby  the\t counsel  in
\n\tthis   Court,\tit  is\tnecessary  to  advert  to  a
\n\tcircumstance which calls for some  comment.    Along
\n\twith  the  appeals  filed  by the accused, there was
\n\tbefore the High Court, a reference under  s.\t374,
\n\tCriminal  P.C., by the Sessions Judge, submitting to
\n\tthe  High  Court  the  proceedings  before  him\t for
\n\tconfirmation  of  the  sentences  of death passed by
\n\thim.  Under s.\t375, Criminal P.C., the\t High  Court
\n\thas  power  to\tdirect further inquiry to be made or
\n\tadditional evidence to be taken in such matters\t and
\n\taccording to  s.  376, Criminal P.C., the High Court
\n\thas to confirm\tthe  sentence,\tor  pass  any  other
\n\tsentence  warranted  by law, or alternatively it may
\n\tannul the conviction and convict the accused of\t any
\n\toffence\t of  which  the\t Sessions  Court  might have
\n\tconvicted him, or order a new trial on the  same  or
\n\tan  amended  charge or the High Court may acquit the
\n\taccused person.\t   Section   377,   Criminal   P.C.,
\n\tprovides  that\tthe  confirmation of the sentence or
\n\torder passed by the High  Court,  shall,  when\tsuch
\n\tCourt  consists\t of  two  or  more  Judges, be made,
\n\tpassed and signed by at least two of them.\n<\/p>\n
\t(12)\tIt   is\t  clear\t from  a  perusal  of  these
\n\tprovisions that in  such  circumstances\t the  entire
\n\tcase  is  before  the High Court and in fact it is a
\n\tcontinuation of the trial of the accused on the same
\n\tevidence and any additional evidence and that is why
\n\tthe High Court is given power to take fresh evidence
\n\tif it so desires.  In an appeal\t under\to.41,  Civil
\n\tP.C.,  an  appellate  Court  has to find whether the
\n\tdecision arrived at by the Court of  first  instance
\n\tis  correct  or not on facts and law; but there is a
\n\tdifference when a reference is made under s.\t374,
\n\tCriminal P.C., and when disposing of an appeal under
\n\ts.423,\tCriminal  P.C.,\t and  that  is that the High
\n\tCourt has to satisfy itself as\tto  whether  a\tcase
\n\tbeyond\treasonable  doubt  has been made out against
\n\tthe  accused  persons  for  the\t infliction  of\t the
\n\tpenalty of  death.    In fact the proceedings before
\n\tthe  High  Court   are\t a   reappraisal   and\t the
\n\treassessment  of  the  entire facts and law in order
\n\tthat the High  Court  should  be  satisfied  on\t the
\n\tmaterials  about  the  guilt  or  innocence  of\t the
\n\taccused persons.  Such being the  case,\t it  is\t the
\n\tduty  of  the High Court to consider the proceedings
\n\tin all their aspects  and  come\t to  an\t independent
\n\tconclusion  on\tthe  materials,\t apart from the view
\n\texpressed by the Sessions Judge.  In so\t doing,\t the
\n\tHigh Court will be assisted by the opinion expressed
\n\tby  the\t Sessions Judge, but under the provisions of
\n\tthe law abovementioned it is for the High  Court  to
\n\tcome to an independent conclusion of its own.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Ram\tShankar\t Singh and others vs.  State of West
\nBengal (1962 Suppl.  (1) SCR 49) this Court held that powers
\nunder Section 374 (1) and Section 376 of the Old  Code\twere
\nmanifestly  of\twide amplitude and exercised thereof was not
\nrestricted by the provisions of Section 418(1)\tand  Section
\n423 of\tthe  old Code.\tIrrespective of whether the accused,
\nwho is sentenced to death prefers an appeal, High  Court  is
\nbound  to consider the evidence and arrive at an independent
\nconclusion as to the guilt or innocence of the\taccused\t and
\nthis the High Court must do even if the trial of the accused
\nwas held  by  jury.    Indeed, duty is imposed upon the High
\nCourt to satisfy itself that the conviction of\tthe  accused
\nis justified on the evidence, and that the sentence of death
\nin  the\t circumstances\tof the case, is the only appropriate
\nsentence.\n<\/p>\n
\tThese are  the\tbasic  judgments  on  the  scope  of
\nreference  and\tthe powers of the High Court while disposing
\nof the same.  Other judgments of this Court on\tthis  aspect
\nreiterate the principles laid in these two judgment.  It is,
\ntherefore,  not\t necessary  for\t us  to\t refer\tto all those
\njudgments.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe  have  certainly  kept in view principles laid in
\nthese judgments.\n<\/p>\n
\tProsecution case now made out before us is that\t the
\nobject of conspiracy was to commit terrorist acts during the
\nperiod\t1987 to 1992; that the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi
\nwas one of such acts  with  the\t intention  to\toverawe\t the
\nGovernment  and\t to strike terror; and the assassination was
\nan act\twhich  struck  terror  and  was\t also  a  disruptive
\nactivity.   As\tto  how\t it  was  intended  to\toverawe\t the
\nGovernment it was  submitted  that  it\twas  on\t account  of
\nIndo-Sri Lankan Accord, which the Government of India was to
\nhonour\tand  that  did\tnot suit the aspirations of LTTE and
\nthus the conspiracy was hatched to eliminate the person\t who
\nwas  the author of the Accord and to threaten the successive
\nGovernments  not  to  follow  the  Accord,  otherwise\tthat
\nGovernment would  also\tmeet  the  same\t fate.\tBut then, as
\nnoted above that there\twas  a\tconspiracy  to\toverawe\t the
\nGovernment is  nowhere\tin  the\t charge.  Though it could be
\nsaid that terror was struck by assassination of Rajiv Gandhi
\nbut the question is if striking of terror was  intended\t and
\nfor that  again\t there\tis  no\tevidence.    Apart  from the
\nassassination of Rajiv Gandhi no other act  which  could  be
\ntermed as  terrorist act has been suggested.  The Designated
\nCourt in its impugned judgment\tdoes  not  record  any\tsuch
\nargument now  advanced before us.  There is no discussion in
\nthe judgment and there is  no  evidence\t to  which  judgment
\nrefers\tto hold that there was any terrorist act intended to
\noverawe the Government or to strike terror.  The  Designated
\nCourt  has  clearly  held that on the assassination of Rajiv
\nGandhi object of conspiracy was\t successfully  accomplished.
\nEven  if  thus\texamining  the\tproceedings in reference our
\ndecision has to be made on the\tbasis  of  the\tevidence  on
\nrecord.\t When there is no evidence inference cannot be drawn
\nthat  act  of  killing\tof  Rajiv  Gandhi was to overawe the
\nGovernment.  Even though there is no bar to the\t examination
\nof  the\t accused under Section 313 of the Code by this Court
\nin these proceedings but then what is required to be put  to
\nthe  accused  is  to  enable  him  to personally explain any
\ncircumstance appearing in the evidence against him and\twhen
\nthere  is  no evidence, there is no necessity to examine the
\naccused at this stage as that would be\ta  futile  exercise.
\nWhen  the  prosecution during the course of the trial, which
\nlasted over a number of years,\thad  taken  the\t stand\tthat
\nkilling\t of  Rajiv Gandhi was a terrorist act, it cannot now
\nturn about and say that killing itself was not\ta  terrorist
\nact  but  was  committed to achieve the object of conspiracy
\nwhich was to overawe the Government.  As a matter of fact in
\nthe statement of Kasi Anandhan (PW-242), who was a member of
\nthe Central Committee of LTTE, it has come on record that he
\nmet Rajiv Gandhi in March, 1991 when Rajiv Gandhi  supported
\nthe  stand  of LTTE and had admitted that it was his mistake
\nin sending IPKF to Sri Lanka and wanted\t LTTE  to  go  ahead
\nwith its  agitation.\tThat  being  the evidence brought on
\nrecord by the prosecution there is no  question\t of  it\t now
\ncontending   that   there  was\tconspiracy  to\toverawe\t the
\nGovernment.  Its stand throughout has been that it  was\t the
\npersonal   motive   of\tPrabhakaran  and  others  to  commit
\nterrorist act by killing Rajiv Gandhi.\tUnder  Section\t3(1)
\nof  TADA  overawing the Government cannot be the consequence
\nbut it has to be the primary object.  There  is\t nothing  on
\nrecord\tto  show that the intention to kill Rajiv Gandhi was
\nto overawe the Government.  Reference to the Indo-Sri Lankan
\nAccord is merely by way of narration.\n<\/p>\n
\tSupport to the struggle of LTTE\t in  Sri  Lanka\t was
\nfrom  Tamil  Nadu and it does not appeal to reason that LTTE
\nwould commit any act to\t overawe  the  Government.    It  is
\nmatter\tof  common  knowledge  that  all  terrorist acts are
\npublicized  and\t highlighted   which   is   fundamental\t  to
\nterrorism.   Whenever  a  terrorist  act  is  committed some
\norganisation  or  the\tother\tcomes\tforward\t  to   claim
\nresponsibility for  that.  In the present case LTTE tried to
\nconceal the fact that it was  behind  the  murder  of  Rajiv
\nGandhi.\t  The  object to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi was kept a
\nclosely guarded secret.\t   In  the  wireless  message  dated
\n7.5.1991 (Exh.\t  P-392)  from\tSivarasan  to Pottu Amman he
\nconveyed that “our intention is not known to anybody  except
\nwe three”  meaning  thereby himself, Subha and Dhanu.  There
\nis another wireless message dated 22.5.1991  (Exh.    P-396)
\nfrom  Pottu  Amman  to Sivarasan that “even to our people in
\nhigher places we informed that we have\tno  connection\twith
\nthis” meaning thereby that the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi
\na day  before  was  not\t carried  out by LTTE.\tLTTE was not
\nowning the assassination of  Rajiv  Gandhi  and\t it  cannot,
\ntherefore,   be\t said  that  it\t was  done  to\toverawe\t the
\nGovernment.  LTTE did not want publicity and wanted to\tkeep
\nfriendly  relations  with  India  and  the  people of India.
\nPottu Amman even cautioned Sivarasan in his wireless message
\ndated dated  22.5.1991\t(Exh.\t P-396)\t not  to  send\tlong
\nmessages  as “it will create suspicion” meaning thereby that
\nLTTE might be suspected to be behind the assassination.\t Two
\nletters of Subha and Dhanu to Akila and\t Pottu\tAmman  dated
\n9.5.1991  which\t were carried by Murugan (A-3) did not spell
\nout their mission.  Trichy Santhan (deceased accused) in his
\nletter dated 7.9.1991 (Exh.P-129) to Prabhakaran, which\t was
\nrecovered   from   Irumburai  (A-19)  complained  about\t the
\noperation of Sivarasan which led to the name of\t LTTE  being
\npublicized  as\tbehind the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi and
\nfurther\t about\tthe  illicit  relationship  that   developed
\nbetween Murugan (A-3) and Nalini (A1).\tHe wrote that due to
\nMurugan\t (A-3)\tincident  the press was writing ridiculously
\nabout the movement and the newspapers were  magnifying\tthat
\nMurugan\t (A-3)\tand Nalini (A-1) were lovers and that Nalini
\n(A-1) was pregnant of five months.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe accept  the\targument  of  Mr.    Natarajan\tthat
\nterrorism is synonymous with  publicity\t and  it  was  sheer
\npersonal  animosity  of\t Prabhakaran  and  other  LTTE cadre
\ndeveloped  against  Rajiv  Gandhi  which  resulted  in\t his
\nassassination.\t LTTE  would  not  do any act to overawe the
\nGovernment in Tamil Nadu or in the Centre as otherwise their
\nactivities in this country in support of their\tstruggle  in
\nSri Lanka would have been seriously hampered.\n<\/p>\n
\tCharge of disruptive activities under  Section\t4(3)
\nof TADA\t is against Nalini (A-1) and Arivu (A-18).  There is
\nno charge under Section 3(3) of TADA against Rangam  (A-24),
\nVicky (A-25)  and  Ranganath (A-26).  They are charged under
\nSection 3(4) of TADA.  Charge under Section 3(3) is  against
\nA-1 to\tA-23.  If we examine one such charge, say charge No.
\n235 against A-21 which says that she  in  pursuance  to\t the
\ncriminal conspiracy  referred  to  in  charge  No.  1 and in
\ncourse of same transaction during the period between January
\n91 and June, 1991 at Madras and other place  in\t Tamil\tNadu
\nshe   had   actively  associated  with\tand  assisted  other
\nconspirators  for  carrying  out  the  object  of   criminal
\nconspiracy and thus she knowingly facilitated the commission
\nof terrorist act or any act preparatory to terrorist act and
\nwhich  was  committing\tthe  terrorist act by detonating the
\nimprovised explosive device concealed in waist belt of Dhanu
\nand thereby  A-21  committed  an  offence  punishable  under
\nSection 3(3) of TADA.\n<\/p>\n
\tDesignated Court held that hatred which developed in
\nthe  minds  of Prabhakaran, further developed into animosity
\nagainst Rajiv Gandhi in view of the events which took  place
\nafter IPKF was inducted in Sri Lanka.\n<\/p>\n
\tThus examining the whole aspect of the matter we are
\nof  the opinion that no offence either under Sections 3 or 4
\nof TADA has been committed.  Since we hold that there is  no
\nterrorist  act\tand  no disruptive activity under Sections 3
\nand 4 of TADA, charges under Section 3(3), 3(4) and 4(3)  of
\nTADA must also fail against all the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\tArguments  were\t then addressed as to what is nature
\nof conspiracy made out from the evidence on record  and\t the
\napplicability of  Section  10  of the Evidence Act.  Various
\njudgments of this Court were cited on the nature, scope\t and
\nexistence  of  criminal\t conspiracy  under  Section 120A and
\n120B, IPC.  We may refer to some of them.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Major E.G.  Barsay vs.  The State of Bombay<\/a> (1962
\n(2) SCR 195 at 228) this Court said :-\n<\/p>\n
\t“The  gist  of\tthe  offence  of criminal conspiracy
\n\tunder Section 120A IPC is an agreement to break\t the
\n\tlaw.   The  parties  to\t such  an  agreement will be
\n\tguilty of criminal conspiracy,\tthough\tthe  illegal
\n\tact agreed to be done has not been done.  So too, it
\n\tis  not\t an  ingredient\t of the offence that all the
\n\tparties should agree to do a single illegal act.  It
\n\tmay comprise the commission of\ta  number  of  acts.
\n\tUnder  Section\t43  of the Indian Penal Code, an act
\n\twould be illegal if it is an offence  or  if  it  is
\n\tprohibited by  law.    Under  the  first  charge the
\n\taccused are charged  with  having  conspired  to  do
\n\tthree  categories if illegal acts, and the mere fact
\n\tthat all of them could not be  convicted  separately
\n\tin  respect of each of the offences has no relevancy
\n\tin considering the question whether the\t offence  of
\n\tconspiracy has\tbeen committed.\t They are all guilty
\n\tof the offence of conspiracy  to  do  illegal  acts,
\n\tthough\tfor  individual offences all of them may not
\n\tbe liable.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Sardar  Sardul  Singh  Caveeshar  vs.    State of
\nMaharashtra<\/a> (1964 (2) SCR 378) reference of which  was\tmade
\nwhile  considering  the impact of Section 10 of the Evidence
\nAct, the Court said that the essence of conspiracy was\tthat
\nthere  should  be  an agreement between persons to do one or
\nother of the other of the acts\tdescribed  in  Section\t120A
\nIPC.  The said agreement may be proved by direct evidence or
\nmay be inferred from acts and conduct of the parties.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Noor Mohammad  Mohd.\t   Yusuf  Momin v.  State of
\nMaharashtra<\/a> [(1970) 1 SCC 696 ] it  was\t held  that  Section
\n120-B  IPC  makes  the\tcriminal conspiracy as a substantive
\noffence which offence postulates an agreement between two or
\nmore persons to do or cause to be done\tan  act\t by  illegal
\nmeans.\t It differs from other offences where mere agreement
\nis made an offence even if no steps are taken to  carry\t out
\nthat agreement.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Yash Pal Mittal v.  State of Punjab<\/a> {(1977) 4 SCC
\n540] the Court said as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t“9.\tThe  offence  of  criminal  conspiracy under
\n\tSection 120A is a distinct  offence  introduced\t for
\n\tthe  first  time in 1913 in Chapter V-A of the Penal
\n\tCode.  The very agreement, concert or league is\t the
\n\tingredient of the offence.  It is not necessary that
\n\tall the conspirators must know each and every detail
\n\tof    the   conspiracy\t as   long   as\t  they\t are
\n\tco-participators  in  the   main   object   of\t the
\n\tconspiracy.   There  may  be  so  many\tdevices\t and
\n\ttechniques adopted to achieve the common goal of the
\n\tconspiracy and there may be division of performances
\n\tin the chain of actions with one object\t to  achieve
\n\tthe  real  end\tof  which every collaborator must be
\n\taware  and  in\twhich  each  one  of  them  must  be
\n\tinterested.   There  must  be  unity  of  object  or
\n\tpurpose\t but  there  may  be  plurality\t  of   means
\n\tsometimes  even\t unknown to one another, amongst the
\n\tconspirators.\tIn  achieving\tthe   goal   several
\n\toffences   may\t be   committed\t  by   some  of\t the
\n\tconspirators even unknown to the others.   The\tonly
\n\trelevant  factor  is  that  all\t means\tadopted\t and
\n\tillegal acts done must be and  purported  to  be  in
\n\tfurtherance  of\t the  object  of the conspiracy even
\n\tthough\tthere\tmay   be   sometimes   mis-fire\t  or
\n\tovershooting by\t some  of the conspirators.  Even if
\n\tsome steps are resorted to by  one  or\ttwo  of\t the
\n\tconspirators  without the knowledge of the others it
\n\twill not affect the culpability of those others when
\n\tthey  are  associated  with  the   object   of\t the
\n\tconspiracy.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Shivnarayan Laxminarayan  Joshi  and\t others\t vs.
\nState  of  Marashtra (1980 (2) SCC 465) this Court said that
\nit was manifest “that a\t conspiracy  is\t always\t hatched  in
\nsecrecy\t and  it  is impossible to adduce direct evidence of
\nthe same.  The offence can be only proved largely  from\t the
\ninference  drawn  from acts or illegal omission committed by
\nthe conspirators in pursuance of a common design.”\n<\/p>\n
\tMohammad  Usman\t Mohammad Hussain Maniyar and others
\nvs.  State of Maharashtra<\/a> (1981\t (2)  SCC  443)\t this  Court
\nagain asserted :-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“It is true that there is no evidence of any
\n\texpress agreement between the appellants  to  do  or
\n\tcause to  be  done  the illegal act.  For an offence
\n\tunder  Section\t120-B,\tthe  prosecution  need\t not
\n\tnecessarily  prove  that  the perpetrators expressly
\n\tagreed to do or cause to be done  the  illegal\tact;
\n\tthe   agreement\t  may\tbe   proved   by   necessary
\n\timplication.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn State of Himachal Pradesh vs.  Kishan Lal Pardhan
\nand others<\/a> (1987 (2) SCC 17) the Court said that everyone of
\nthe  conspirators  need\t not  have  taken active part in the
\ncommission of each and every one of the conspiratorial\tacts
\nfor the offence of conspiracy to be made out.  It added that
\n:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“The  offence  of  criminal conspiracy consists in a
\n\tmeeting of minds of two or more persons for agreeing
\n\tto do or causing to be done an illegal act or an act
\n\tby illegal means, and the performance of an  act  in
\n\tterms thereof.\t    If\t pursuant  to  the  criminal
\n\tconspiracy the conspirators commit several offences,
\n\tthen all of them will be  liable  for  the  offences
\n\teven  if  some of them had not actively participated
\n\tin the commission of the offences.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Kehar  Singh\t and  others  vs.     State   (Delhi
\nAdministration)<\/a>\t (1988\t(3) SCC 609) the Court said that the
\nmost important ingredient of the offence  of  conspiracy  is
\nagreement  between two or more persons to do an illegal act.
\nThe illegal act may or may  not\t be  done  in  pursuance  of
\nagreement,  but\t the  very  agreement  is  an offence and is
\npunishable.  It further added as under :-\n<\/p>\n
\t“Generally,  a\tconspiracy is hatched in secrecy and
\n\tit may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of the
\n\tsame.  The prosecution will often rely\ton  evidence
\n\tof  acts  of various parties to infer that they were
\n\tdone in reference to their common  intention.\t The
\n\tprosecution   will   also   more   often  rely\tupon
\n\tcircumstantial evidence.    The\t conspiracy  can  be
\n\tundoubtedly   proved  by  such\tevidence  direct  or
\n\tcircumstantial.\t But the court must inquire  whether
\n\tthe  two persons are independently pursuing the same
\n\tend or they have come together in the pursuit of the
\n\tunlawful object.  The former does  not\trender\tthem
\n\tconspirators, but  the latter does.  It is, however,
\n\tessential that the offence  of\tconspiracy  requires
\n\tsome  kind  of\tphysical manifestation of agreement.
\n\tThe express agreement, however, need not be  proved.
\n\tNor actual meeting of two persons is necessary.\t Nor
\n\tit  is\tnecessary  to  prove  the  actual  words  of
\n\tcommunication.\tThe evidence as to  transmission  of
\n\tthoughts   sharing   the   unlawful  design  may  be
\n\tsufficient.   Gerald  Orchard\tof   University\t  of
\n\tCanterbury,  New Zealand explains the limited nature
\n\tof this proposition :\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“Although  it  is  not\tin  doubt  that\t the
\n\toffence\t requires  some\t physical  manifestation  of
\n\tagreement.   It\t is  important\tto  note the limited
\n\tnature of  this\t proposition.\t The  law  does\t not
\n\trequire\t  that\t the   act  of\tagreement  take\t any
\n\tparticular form and the fact  of  agreement  may  be
\n\tcommunicated by words or conduct.  Thus, it has been
\n\tsaid  that  it\tis  unnecessary\t to  prove  that the
\n\tparties “actually came together and agreed in terms”
\n\tto pursue the unlawful object :\t  there\t need  never
\n\thave  been  an\texpress\t verbal\t agreement, it being
\n\tsufficient that there  was  “a\ttacit  understanding
\n\tbetween conspirators as to what should be done”.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Ajay Aggarwal vs.   Union  of  India\t and  others
\n(1993 (3) SCC 609) this Court considering the ingredients of
\nthe offence of conspiracy said :-\n<\/p>\n
\t“Section  120-A\t of  the IPC defines ‘conspiracy’ to
\n\tmean that when two or more persons agree to  do,  or
\n\tcause  to be done an illegal act, or an act which is
\n\tnot illegal by illegal means, such an  agreement  is
\n\tdesignated as  “criminal  conspiracy”.\tNo agreement
\n\texcept an  agreement  to  commit  an  offence  shall
\n\tamount\tto  a  criminal\t conspiracy, unless some act
\n\tbesides the agreement is done by one or more parties
\n\tto such agreement in furtherance thereof.    Section
\n\t120-B  of the IPC prescribes punishment for criminal
\n\tconspiracy.   It  is   not   necessary\t that\teach
\n\tconspirator  must know all the details of the scheme
\n\tnor be\ta  participant\tat  every  stage.    It\t  is
\n\tnecessary  that\t they  should  agree  for  design or
\n\tobject of the conspiracy.  Conspiracy  is  conceived
\n\tas having  three  elements  :\t (1)  agreement\t (2)
\n\tbetween two or more persons by whom the agreement is
\n\teffected; and (3) a criminal object,  which  may  be
\n\teither\tthe  ultimate  aim  of the agreement, or may
\n\tconstitute the means, or one of the means  by  which
\n\tthat aim  is  to  be accomplished.  It is immaterial
\n\twhether this is found in the ultimate objects.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Court then considered the common law  definition
\nof  ‘criminal conspiracy’ and for that referred to statement
\nof law by Lord Denman in King v.  Jones (1832 B\t &  AD\t345)
\nthat  an indictment for conspiracy must “charge a conspiracy
\nto do an unlawful act by unlawful means” and was  elaborated
\nby Willies,  J.\t on behalf of the judges while referring the
\nquestion to the House of Lords in Mulcahy v.  Reg [(1868) LR
\n3 HL 306] and the  House  of  Lords  in\t unanimous  decision
\nreiterated in Quinn v.\tLeathem (1901 AC 495, 528):\n<\/p>\n
\t“A  conspiracy\tconsists not merely in the intention
\n\tof two or more, but in the agreement of two or more,
\n\tto do an unlawful act, or to  do  a  lawful  act  by
\n\tunlawful means.\t   So long as such a design rests in
\n\tintention only, it is  not  indictable.\t   When\t two
\n\tagree  to  carry it into effect, the very plot is an
\n\tact in itself, and the act of each of  the  parties,
\n\tpromise against promise, actus contra actum, capable
\n\tof  being enforced, if lawful; and punishable if for
\n\ta criminal  object,  or\t for  the  use\tof  criminal
\n\tmeans.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Court  also\t referred  to  another\tdecision  of
\nEnglish House of Lords in Director of Public Prosecutions v.
\nDoot (1973 AC 807) where Lord Pearson held that :-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(A) conspiracy involved an agreement express
\n\tor implied.    A  conspiratorial  agreement is not a
\n\tcontract,  not\tlegally\t binding   because   it\t  is
\n\tunlawful.   But\t as  an\t agreement  it has its three
\n\tstages,\t namely,  (1)  making  or   formation;\t (2)
\n\tperformance  or\t implementation;  (3)  discharge  or
\n\ttermination.  When the conspiratorial agreement\t has
\n\tbeen made, the offence of conspiracy is complete, it
\n\thas  been  committed,  and  the\t conspirator  can be
\n\tprosecuted even\t though\t no  performance  had  taken
\n\tplace.\t  But  the  fact  that\tof  the\t offence  of
\n\tconspiracy is complete at that stage does  not\tmean
\n\tthat  the conspiratorial agreement is finished with.
\n\tIt is not dead.\t If it is  being  performed,  it  is
\n\tvery much   alive.    So  long\tas  the\t performance
\n\tcontinues, it is operating, it is being carried\t out
\n\tby  the\t conspirators, and it is governing or at any
\n\trate influencing their conduct.\t The  conspiratorial
\n\tagreement  continues  in  operation and therefore in
\n\texistence until it  is\tdischarged  (terminated)  by
\n\tcompletion  of\tits performance or by abandonment or
\n\tfrustration or, however, it may be.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe  Court  then  considered  the  question  whether
\nconspiracy is a continuing offence and said as under:-
\n\t“Conspiracy  to\t commit a crime itself is punishable
\n\tas  a  substantive  offence  and  every\t  individual
\n\toffence\t committed  pursuant  to  the  conspiracy is
\n\tseparate and distinct offence  to  which  individual
\n\toffenders  are\tliable to punishment, independent of
\n\tthe conspiracy.\t Yet, in our  considered  view,\t the
\n\tagreement  does\t not come to an end with its making,
\n\tbut  would  endure  till  it  is   accomplished\t  or
\n\tabandoned or  proved  abortive.\t  Being a continuing
\n\toffence, if any acts or omissions  which  constitute
\n\tan   offence  are  done\t in  India  or\toutside\t its
\n\tterritory the conspirators continuing to be  parties
\n\tto  the\t conspiracy  and since part of the acts were
\n\tdone in India, they would obviate the need to obtain
\n\tsanction of the Central Government.    All  of\tthem
\n\tneed  not be present in India nor continue to remain
\n\tin India.”\n<\/p>\n
\tFinally the Court said as under :-\n<\/p>\n
\t“Thus,\tan  agreement between two or more persons to
\n\tdo an illegal act or legal acts by illegal means  is
\n\tcriminal conspiracy.\tIf  the\t agreement is not an
\n\tagreement to commit an offence, it does\t not  amount
\n\tto  conspiracy\tunless it is followed up by an overt
\n\tact done by one or more persons\t in  furtherance  of
\n\tthe agreement.\t  The offence is complete as soon as
\n\tthere is meeting  of  minds  and  unity\t of  purpose
\n\tbetween\t the  conspirators to do that illegal act or
\n\tlegal act by illegal means.  Conspiracy itself is  a
\n\tsubstantive offence and is distinct from the offence
\n\tto commit  which the conspiracy is entered into.  It
\n\tis undoubted that the general conspiracy is distinct
\n\tfrom number of\tseparate  offences  committed  while
\n\texecuting the  offence\tof  conspiracy.\t   Each\t act
\n\tconstitutes separate offence punishable, independent
\n\tof the conspiracy.  The law had developed several or
\n\tdifferent models or technics to broach the scope  of
\n\tconspiracy.   One  such\t model\tis  that of a chain,
\n\twhere each party performs even without knowledge  of
\n\tthe  other  a  role  that aids succeeding parties in
\n\taccomplishing  the  criminal   objectives   of\t the
\n\tconspiracy.  An illustration of a single conspiracy,
\n\tits parts bound together as links in a chain, is the
\n\tprocess\t of  procuring and distributing narcotics or
\n\tan illegal foreign drug for sale in different  parts
\n\tof the\tglobe.\tIn such a case, smugglers, middlemen
\n\tand retailers are privies to a single conspiracy  to
\n\tsmuggle and  distribute\t narcotics.    The smugglers
\n\tknew that the middlemen must sell to retailers;\t and
\n\tthe  retailers\tknew  that the middlemen must buy of
\n\timporters of  someone  or   another.\t  Thus\t the
\n\tconspirators  at  one end of the chain knew that the
\n\tunlawful business would not,  and  could  not,\tstop
\n\twith  their  buyers; and those at the other end knew
\n\tthat it had not begun  with  their  settlers.\t The
\n\taccused\t embarked  upon\t a  venture  in all parts of
\n\twhich each was a participant and an abettor  in\t the
\n\tsense  that,  the  success of the part with which he
\n\twas immediately concerned, was\tdependent  upon\t the
\n\tsuccess of  the whole.\tIt should also be considered
\n\tas a spoke in the hub.\tThere is a rim to  bind\t all
\n\tthe spokes  together  in a single conspiracy.  It is
\n\tnot material that a rim is found only when there  is
\n\tproof  that  each  spoke  was aware of one another’s
\n\texistence but that all promoted\t in  furtherance  of
\n\tsome single  illegal  objective.    The\t traditional
\n\tconcept of single agreement can also accommodate the
\n\tsituation where a well-defined\tgroup  conspires  to
\n\tcommit\tmultiple crimes; so long as all these crimes
\n\tare the objects of the same agreement or  continuous
\n\tconspiratorial\t relationship,\tand  the  conspiracy
\n\tcontinues to subsist though it was  entered  in\t the
\n\tfirst instance.\t    Take  for  instance\t that  three
\n\tpersons hatched a conspiracy in country A to kill  D
\n\tin country  B  with  explosive substance.  As far as
\n\tconspiracy is concerned, it is complete\t in  country
\n\tA.    One  of  them  pursuant  thereto\tcarried\t the
\n\texplosive  substance  and  hands  it  over  to\tthem
\n\tpursuant thereto carried the explosive substance and
\n\thands  it  over\t to  third  one in the country B who
\n\timplants at  a\tplace  where  D\t frequents  and\t got
\n\texploded with  remote  control.\t  D may be killed or
\n\tescape or may be got exploded with  remote  control.
\n\tD may  be  killed or escape or may be diffused.\t The
\n\tconspiracy continues till it is executed in  country
\n\tB or  frustrated.  Therefore, it is a continuing act
\n\tand all are  liable  for  conspiracy  in  country  B
\n\tthough\tfirst  two  are liable to murder with aid of
\n\tSection 120-B and  the\tlast  one  is  liable  under
\n\tSection\t 302  or  307  IPC,  as\t the  case  may\t be.\n<\/p>\n
\tConspiracy may be considered to be a march  under  a
\n\tbanner\tand  a\tperson\tmay  join or drop out in the
\n\tmarch without the necessity of\tthe  change  in\t the
\n\ttext on\t the banner.  In the comity of International
\n\tLaw,  in  these\t  days,\t  committing   offences\t  on
\n\tinternational scale   is  a  common  feature.\t The
\n\toffence of conspiracy would be a useful\t weapon\t and
\n\tthere  would exist no conflict in municipal laws and
\n\tthe doctrine of autrefois convict  or  acquit  would
\n\textend to  such offences.  The comity of nations are
\n\tduty-bound to apprehend the conspirators as soon  as
\n\tthey  set  their  feet\ton the country’s territorial
\n\tlimits and nip the offence in the bud.\n<\/p>\n
\t25.\tA conspiracy thus, is a\t continuing  offence
\n\tand  continues to subsist and committed wherever one
\n\tof the conspirators does an act or series  of  acts.
\n\tSo  long  as  its  performance\tcontinues,  it\tis a
\n\tcontinuing offence till it is executed or  rescinded
\n\tor frustrated  by  choice  or necessity.  A crime is
\n\tcomplete as soon as the agreement is made, but it is
\n\tnot a thing of the moment.  It does not end with the
\n\tmaking of the agreement.  It will continue  so\tlong
\n\tas  there are two or more parties to it intending to
\n\tcarry into effect the design.  Its continuance is  a
\n\tthreat\tto the society against which it was aimed at
\n\tand would be dealt with as soon as that jurisdiction
\n\tcan properly  claim  the  power\t to  do\t so.\t The
\n\tconspiracy  designed  or agreed abroad will have the
\n\tsame effect as in India,  when\tpart  of  the  acts,
\n\tpursuant to the agreement are agreed to be finalised
\n\tor  done,  attempted  or  even\tfrustrated  and vice
\n\tversa.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn State of Maharashtra and others  vs.\t   Som\tNath
\nThapa  and  others<\/a>  (1996  (4)\tSCC  659  at 668) this Court
\nreferred to its earlier decision in Ajay Aggarwal case (1993
\n(3) SCC 609) and said :-\n<\/p>\n
\t“The aforesaid decisions, weighty as they are,\tlead
\n\tus  to\tconclude  that\tto  establish  a  charge  of
\n\tconspiracy knowledge about indulgence in  either  an
\n\tillegal\t act  or  a  legal  act\t by illegal means is
\n\tnecessary.  In some cases, intent  of  unlawful\t use
\n\tbeing  made of the goods or services in question may
\n\tbe inferred from the knowledge itself.\tThis  apart,
\n\tthe   prosecution   has\t not  to  establish  that  a
\n\tparticular unlawful use was intended, so long as the
\n\tgoods or service in question could not be put to any
\n\tlawful use.   Finally,\twhen  the  ultimate  offence
\n\tconsists  of  a\t chain\tof  actions, it would not be
\n\tnecessary for the prosecution to establish, to bring
\n\thome the charge of  conspiracy,\t that  each  of\t the
\n\tconspirators   had   the   knowledge   of  what\t the
\n\tcollaborator would do, so long as it is\t known\tthat
\n\tthe  collaborator  would put the goods or service to
\n\tan unlawful use.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Regina vs.  Ardalan & Ors.\t[(1972)\t 1  WLR\t 463
\n(CA)]  the  appellants\twere  charged  and convicted for the
\noffence of conspiracy.\tOn appeal, reference  of  the  Trial
\nJudge\tto   “the   cartwheel  type  of\t conspiracy”;  about
\n“sub-conspiracies”  and\t also  about  “the  chain  type\t  of
\nconspiracy” was criticised.  The Appeal Court said that care
\nmust  be  taken\t that  words  and  phrases such as “wheels”,
\n“cartwheels”, “chain”, “sub-conspiracies” and so on are used
\nonly to illustrate and to clarify the principle and  for  no
\nother purpose.\tIt said:\n<\/p>\n
\t“It  is right to say that these epithets, or labels,
\n\tsuch as “cartwheels”  (or  wheel  without  rim)\t and
\n\t“chains”  have\ta  certain  respectable ancestry and
\n\thave been used in a number of conspiracy cases\tthat
\n\tfrom  time  to\ttime  have  come  before the courts.
\n\tMetaphors  are\tinvaluable  for\t  the\tpurpose\t  of
\n\tillustrating  a\t particular  point  or\ta particular
\n\tconcept to a jury, but\tthere  is  a  limit  to\t the
\n\tutility\t of  a\tmetaphor  and  there  is sometimes a
\n\tdanger, if metaphors are used  excessively,  that  a
\n\tpoint  of time arises at which the metaphor tends to
\n\tobscure rather than to clarify.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn United States vs.  Falcone et al.   [109  Federal
\nReporter  (2d  Series)\t579  (Circuit Court of Appeals – the
\nSecond\tCircuit)],  the\t appellants  were  convicted  for  a
\nconspiracy to  operate\tillicit\t stills.    Case against the
\nappellant and others who constituted one set of conspirators
\nwas that they supplied sugar etc.  to  the  other  group  of
\nconspirators who   were\t  operating  illicit  stills.\t The
\nquestion before the court was whether the sellers of  goods,
\nin  themselves\tinnocent, became conspirators with the buyer
\nbecause they knew that the buyer meant to use the  goods  to
\ncommit a  crime.   Judge Learned Hand speaking for the Court
\nsaid:\n<\/p>\n
\t“There are indeed instances of criminal liability of
\n\tthe same kind,\twhere  the  law\t imposes  punishment
\n\tmerely\tbecause\t the  accused  did not forbear to do
\n\tthat from which the wrong was likely to follow;\t but
\n\tin  prosecutions  for  conspiracy  or  abetting, his
\n\tattitude towards the forbidden undertaking  must  be
\n\tmore positive.\t  It  is not enough that he does not
\n\tforego a normally lawful activity, of the fruits  of
\n\twhich  he  knows  that\tothers will make an unlawful
\n\tuse; he must in some  sense  promote  their  venture
\n\thimself,  make\tit  his\t own,  have  a\tstake in its
\n\toutcome.  The distinction  is  especially  important
\n\ttoday  when so many prosecutors seek to sweep within
\n\tthe drag-net of conspiracy all those who  have\tbeen
\n\tassociated  in\tany  degree  whatever  with the main
\n\toffenders.  That there are  opportunities  of  great
\n\toppression  in such a doctrine is very plain, and it
\n\tis only by circumscribing  the\tscope  of  such\t all
\n\tcomprehensive  indictments that they can be avoided.
\n\tWe may agree that  morally  the\t defendants  at\t bar
\n\tshould\thave  refused to sell to illicit distillers;
\n\tbut, both morally and legally, to  do  so  was\ttoto
\n\tcoelo  different  from\tjoining with them in running
\n\tthe stills.”\n<\/p>\n
\tFalcon\tand  similarly\tsituated   appellants\twere
\nacquitted of the charge of conspiracy.\n<\/p>\n
\tUnited\tStates\tthen  moved  the Supreme Court for a
\nwrit of certiorari to review the aforesaid judgment  of\t the
\nCircuit\t  Court\t  setting   aside   the\t conviction  of\t the
\nrespondents Felcon and others.\tThe Government, however, did
\nnot argue that the conviction of conspiracy  could  rest  on
\nproof  alone of knowingly supplied an illicit distillers who
\nare not conspiring with others.\t It was\t conceded  that\t the
\nact  of\t supplying  or\tsome  other  proof  must  import  an
\nagreement or concert of\t action\t between  buyer\t and  seller
\nwhich admittedly  was  not  present  in\t the  case.  {United
\nStates of America vs.\t Salvatore  Falcone,  &\t Ors.\t [85
\nLawyers Ed.  (311 US) 205]}.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the present case, there is no evidence to support
\nthe charge  as\tregards\t the period of conspiracy.  It is as
\nimportant to know the period as to ascertain the  object  of
\nconspiracy.   It  appears  that\t period of conspiracy in the
\ncharge from July 1987 to May 1992 has been mentioned as\t the
\nIndo-Sri  Lankan  Accord  was  entered into in July 1987 and
\nLTTE was declared an unlawful  association  by\tnotification
\ndated  May  14,\t 1992  issued  under the Unlawful Activities
\n(Prevention) Act, 1987.\t There is, however, no evidence that
\nthe conspiracy was hatched immediately on entering into\t the
\naccord\t and  was  terminated  only  on\t the  issue  of\t the
\nnotification.  A statement made by a conspirator before\t the
\ncommencement of the conspiracy is not admissible against the
\ncoconspirator\tunder\tSection\t 10  of\t the  Evidence\tAct.
\nSimilarly, a statement made after the  conspiracy  has\tbeen
\nterminated  on achieving its object or it is abandoned or it
\nis frustrated or the conspirator leaves\t the  conspiracy  in
\nbetween,  is  not  admissible  against\tthe  co-conspirator.
\nFixing the period  of  conspiracy  is,\tthus,  important  as
\nprovisions  of\tSection\t 10  would  apply  only\t during\t the
\nexistence of the conspiracy.  We have held  that  object  of
\nthe conspiracy\twas  the killing of Rajiv Gandhi.  It is not
\nthat immediately  the  object  of  conspiracy  is  achieved,
\nSection 10 becomes inapplicable.  For example principle like
\nthat of res gestae as contained in Section 6 of the Evidence
\nAct will continue to apply.\n<\/p>\n
\tPrinciple  of  law  governing  Section\t10  has been
\nsuccinctly stated in a decision\t of  this  Court  in  Sardar
\nSardul Singh  Caveeshar\t vs.  State of Maharashtra<\/a> [(1964) 2
\nSCR 378] where this Court said:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“Before dealing with the  individual  cases,
\n\tas some argument was made in regard to the nature of
\n\tthe  evidence  that should be adduced to sustain the
\n\tcase of conspiracy, it will be convenient to make at
\n\tthis stage some observations thereon.  Section 120-A
\n\tof the Indian Penal  Code  defines  the\t offence  of
\n\tcriminal conspiracy thus :\n<\/p>\n
\t“When  two  or more persons agree to do, or cause to
\n\tbe done an illegal act,\t or  an\t act  which  is\t not
\n\tillegal\t by  illegal  means,  such  an\tagreement is
\n\tdesignated a criminal conspiracy.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe essence of conspiracy is, therefore, that  there
\n\tshould\tbe an agreement between persons to do one or
\n\tother of the acts described in\tthe  section.\t The
\n\tsaid  agreement\t may be proved by direct evidence or
\n\tmay  be\t inferred  from\t acts  and  conduct  of\t the
\n\tparties.  There is no difference between the mode of
\n\tproof  of  the offence of conspiracy and that of any
\n\tother offence :\t it can\t be  established  by  direct
\n\tevidence or by circumstantial evidence.\t But s.10 of
\n\tthe  Evidence  Act introduces the doctrine of agency
\n\tand  if\t the  conditions  laid\tdown   therein\t are
\n\tsatisfied,  the\t acts  done  by\t one  are admissible
\n\tagainst the coconspirators.  The said section reads:\n<\/p>\n
\t“Where there is reasonable ground  to  believe\tthat
\n\ttwo  or\t more  persons\thave  conspired\t together to
\n\tcommit an offence or an actionable  wrong,  anything
\n\tsaid,  done or written by any one of such persons in
\n\treference to their common intention, after the\ttime
\n\twhen such intention was first entertained by any one
\n\tof  them,  is a relevant fact as against each of the
\n\tpersons believed to be so conspiring as well for the
\n\tpurpose of proving the existence of  the  conspiracy
\n\tas  for\t the purpose of showing that any such person
\n\twas a party to it.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThis section, as the opening  words  indicate,\twill
\n\tcome into play only when the Court is satisfied that
\n\tthere  is  reasonable  ground to believe that two or
\n\tmore persons have conspired together  to  commit  an
\n\toffence\t or  an\t actionable  wrong,  that is to say,
\n\tthere should be a prima facie evidence that a person
\n\twas a party to the conspiracy before his acts can be
\n\tused against  his  co-conspirators.    Once  such  a
\n\treasonable  ground  exists,  anything  said, done or
\n\twritten by one of the conspirators in  reference  to
\n\tthe  common  intention, after the said intention was
\n\tentertained, is relevant  against  the\tothers,\t not
\n\tonly for the purpose of proving the existence of the
\n\tconspiracy  but\t also  for  proving  that  the other
\n\tperson was a party to it.  The evidentiary value  of
\n\tthe  said  acts\t is  limited  by  two circumstances,
\n\tnamely, that the acts shall be in reference to their
\n\tcommon intention and in respect of  a  period  after
\n\tsuch  intention\t was entertained by any one of them.
\n\tThe  expression\t “in  reference\t to   their   common
\n\tintention”  is\tvery comprehensive and it appears to
\n\thave been designedly used to give it a\twider  scope
\n\tthan  the  words  “in furtherance of” in the English
\n\tlaw; with the result, anything said, done or written
\n\tby  a  co-conspirator,\tafter  the  conspiracy\t was
\n\tformed, will be evidence against the other before he
\n\tentered the field of conspiracy or after he left it.
\n\tAnother\t  important   limitation   implicit  in\t the
\n\tlanguage is indicated by the expressed scope of\t its
\n\trelevancy.   Anything  so said, done or written is a
\n\trelevant fact only “as against each of\tthe  persons
\n\tbelieved to be so conspiring as well for the purpose
\n\tof  proving  the  existence of the conspiracy as for
\n\tthe purpose of showing that any such  person  was  a
\n\tparty to  it”.\t It can only be used for the purpose
\n\tof proving the existence of the conspiracy  or\tthat
\n\tthe other  person  was\ta party to it.\tIt cannot be
\n\tused in favour of the other party or for the purpose
\n\tof showing that such a person was not a party to the
\n\tconspiracy.  In short, the section can\tbe  analysed
\n\tas follows:    (1)  There  shall  be  a\t prima facie
\n\tevidence affording a reasonable ground for  a  Court
\n\tto believe that two or more persons are members of a
\n\tconspiracy;  (2) if the said condition is fulfilled,
\n\tanything said, done or written by any one of them in
\n\treference to their common intention will be evidence
\n\tagainst\t the  other;  (3)  anything  said,  done  or
\n\twritten\t by  him  should  have\tbeen  said,  done or
\n\twritten by him after the intention was formed by any
\n\tone of them; (4) it would also be relevant  for\t the
\n\tsaid   purpose\t against  another  who\tentered\t the
\n\tconspiracy whether it  was  said,  done\t or  written
\n\tbefore\the  entered  the conspiracy or after he left
\n\tit;  and  (5)  it  can\tonly  be  used\t against   a
\n\tcoconspirator and not in his favour.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThen in\t State\tof Gujarat vs.\tMohammed Atik & Ors.<\/a>
\n[(1998) 4 SCC 351] this Court said as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t“It is well-nigh settled  that\tSection\t 10  of\t the
\n\tEvidence  Act  is founded on the principle of law of
\n\tagency by rendering the\t statement  or\tact  of\t one
\n\tconspirator  binding  on  the  other  if it was said
\n\tduring\tsubsistence  of\t the  common  intention\t  as
\n\tbetween the  conspirators.    If so, once the common
\n\tintention ceased to exist any statement\t made  by  a
\n\tformer\tconspirator thereafter cannot be regarded as
\n\tone made “in reference to their\t common\t intention”.
\n\tIn  other  words,  a post-arrest statement made to a
\n\tpolice\tofficer,  whether  it  is  a  confession  or
\n\totherwise,   touching\this   involvement   in\t the
\n\tconspiracy, would  not\tfall  within  the  ambit  of
\n\tSection 10 of the Evidence Act.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Mirza  Akbar\t vs.  King Emperor (AIR 1940 PC 176)
\nthe Privy Council said the following on the scope of Section
\n10 :\n<\/p>\n
\t“This being the principle, their Lordships think the
\n\twords of S.10 must be construed in  accordance\twith
\n\tit  and are not capable of being widely construed so
\n\tas to include a statement made by one conspirator in
\n\tthe absence of the other with reference to past acts
\n\tdone in\t the  actual  course  of  carrying  out\t the
\n\tconspiracy, after it has been completed.  The common
\n\tintention is  in  the  past.\tIn  their Lordships’
\n\tjudgment, the words  “common  intention”  signify  a
\n\tcommon intention existing at the time when the thing
\n\twas  said,  done  or  written  by  the\tone of them.
\n\tThings said, done or written  while  the  conspiracy
\n\twas  on\t foot are relevant as evidence of the common
\n\tintention, once reasonable ground has been shown  to
\n\tbelieve in  its\t existence.   But it would be a very
\n\tdifferent matter  to  hold  that  any  narrative  or
\n\tstatement  or confession made to a third party after
\n\tthe common intention or\t conspiracy  was  no  longer
\n\toperating  and\thad  ceased  to\t exist is admissible
\n\tagainst the other party.  There is  then  no  common
\n\tintention of the conspirators to which the statement
\n\tcan have  reference.\tIn their Lordships’ judgment
\n\tS.10 embodies  this  principle.\t     That   is\t the
\n\tconstruction  which has been rightly applied to S.10
\n\tin decisions in India, for instance, in 55  Bom\t 839
\n\tand 38\tCal 169.  In these cases the distinction was
\n\trightly\t  drawn\t  between   communications   between
\n\tconspirators  while the conspiracy was going on with
\n\treference to the  carrying  out\t of  conspiracy\t and
\n\tstatements   made,   after   arrest   or  after\t the
\n\tconspiracy has\tended,\tby  way\t of  description  of
\n\tevents then past.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIt was submitted that once the conspirator is nabbed
\nthat  would be an end to the conspiracy and Section 10 would
\nbe inapplicable.  That may be so in a given case but is\t not
\nof universal  application.   If the object of conspiracy has
\nnot been achieved and there is still  agreement\t to  do\t the
\nillegal act, the offence of criminal conspiracy is there and
\nSection 10  of the Evidence Act applies.  Prosecution in the
\npresent case has not led  any  evidence\t to  show  that\t any
\nparticular   accused   continued  to  be  a  member  of\t the
\nconspiracy after his arrest.\n<\/p>\n
\tThough\twe  have  held that confession of an accused
\nrecorded under Section 15 of TADA  is  substantive  evidence
\nagainst\t coaccused  we\tmay  take  note\t of  an\t alternative
\nargument of Mr.\t Altaf Ahmad.  He said even if\tit  is\theld
\nthat  the  confession  under Section 15 TADA can be admitted
\nonly if there is corroboration,\t under\tSection\t 10  of\t the
\nEvidence  Act  the confession of an accused can nevertheless
\nbe a substantive evidence against co-accused if it satisfies
\nthe requirement of that Section.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is true that provision as contained in Section 10
\nis a departure from the rule of hearsay evidence.  There can
\nbe two objections to the  admissibility\t of  evidence  under
\nSection\t 10  and they are (1) the conspirator whose evidence
\nis sought to  be  admitted  against  co-conspirator  is\t not
\nconfronted  or\tcrossexamined in Court by the co-conspirator
\nand  (2)  prosecution  merely  proves\tthe   existence\t  of
\nreasonable  ground  to believe that two or more persons have
\nconspired  to  commit  an  offence  and\t that  brings\tinto
\noperation  the existence of agency relationship to implicate
\nco-conspirator.\t  But  then  precisely\tunder\tSection\t  10
\nEvidence  Act  statement  of  a\t conspirator  is  admissible
\nagainst co-conspirator on the premise that this relationship
\nexists.\t Prosecution, no doubt, has to\tproduce\t independent
\nevidence  as  to the existence of the conspiracy for Section
\n10 to operate but it  need  not\t prove\tthe  same  beyond  a
\nreasonable doubt.    Criminal conspiracy is a partnership in
\nagreement and there is in each conspiracy a joint or  mutual
\nagency\tfor  the  execution  of\t a common object which is an
\noffence or an actionable wrong.\t When two  or  more  persons
\nenter  into  a\tconspiracy  any\t act done by any one of them
\npursuant to the agreement is, in contemplation of  law,\t the
\nact  of\t each  of  them\t and  they  are\t jointly responsible
\ntherefor.  This means that everything said, written or\tdone
\nby  any\t of the conspirators in execution of or in reference
\nto their common intention is deemed to have been said,\tdone
\nor written  by each of them.  A conspirator is not, however,
\nresponsible  for  acts\tdone  by  a  conspirator  after\t the
\ntermination of\tthe  conspiracy as aforesaid.  The Court is,
\nhowever, to  guard  itself  against  readily  accepting\t the
\nstatement  of  a  conspirator  against\tthe  co-conspirator.
\nSection 10 is a special provision  in  order  to  deal\twith
\ndangerous criminal  combinations.    Normal rule of evidence
\nthat prevents the statement of\tone  co-accused\t being\tused
\nagainst\t another  under\t Section 30 of the Evidence Act does
\nnot apply in the trial of conspiracy in view of\t Section  10
\nof that\t Act.\t When  we say that court has to guard itself
\nagainst readily accepting the  statement  of  a\t conspirator
\nagainst\t co-conspirator what we mean is that court looks for
\nsome corroboration to be on the safe side.  It is not a rule
\nof law but a rule of prudence bordering on law.\t   All\tsaid
\nand  done  ultimately  it is the appreciation of evidence on
\nwhich the court has to embark.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Bhagwandas Keshwani and another  vs.\t   State  of
\nRajasthan (1974 (4) SCC 611 at 613), this Court said that in
\ncases of conspiracy better evidence than acts and statements
\nof  coconspirators  in pursuance of the conspiracy is hardly
\never available.\n<\/p>\n
\tSome of the broad principles governing\tthe  law  of
\nconspiracy  may be summarized though, as the name implies, a
\nsummary cannot be exhaustive of the principles.\n<\/p>\n
\t1.  Under  Section  120A  IPC  offence\tof  criminal
\n\tconspiracy  is\tcommitted  when\t two or more persons
\n\tagree to do or cause to be done an  illegal  act  or
\n\tlegal act by illegal means.  When it is legal act by
\n\tillegal means  overt  act  is necessary.  Offence of
\n\tcriminal conspiracy is exception to the general\t law
\n\twhere intent alone does not constitute crime.  It is
\n\tintention  to  commit  crime  and joining hands with
\n\tpersons having the same intention.    Not  only\t the
\n\tintention but there has to be agreement to carry out
\n\tthe  object  of\t the intention, which is an offence.
\n\tThe question for consideration in a case is did\t all
\n\tthe  accused  had  the\tintention and did they agree
\n\tthat the crime be committed.  It would not be enough
\n\tfor the offence\t of  conspiracy\t when  some  of\t the
\n\taccused\t  merely   entertained\ta  wish,  howsoever,
\n\thorrendous it may be, that offence be committed.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.  Acts subsequent to the achieving  of  object  of
\n\tconspiracy  may\t tend  to  prove  that\ta particular
\n\taccused was party  to  the  conspiracy.\t   Once\t the
\n\tobject\t of   conspiracy   has\tbeen  achieved,\t any
\n\tsubsequent act, which may  be  unlawful,  would\t not
\n\tmake  the  accused  a  part  of\t the conspiracy like
\n\tgiving shelter to an absconder.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.  Conspiracy is hatched in private or in  secrecy.
\n\tIt  is\trarely possible to establish a conspiracy by
\n\tdirect evidence.  Usually, both the existence of the
\n\tconspiracy and its objects have to be inferred\tfrom
\n\tthe circumstances and the conduct of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.   Conspirators may, for example, be enrolled in a
\n\tchain  A enrolling B, B enrolling C, and so on; and
\n\tall will be members of a single conspiracy  if\tthey
\n\tso  intend  and agree, even though each member knows
\n\tonly the person who enrolled him and the person whom
\n\the enrolls.  There may be a kind  of  umbrella-spoke
\n\tenrollment,  where  a  single  person  at the centre
\n\tdoing the enrolling and all the other members  being
\n\tunknown\t to  each other, though they know that there
\n\tare to be other members.  These are theories and  in
\n\tpractice  it  may  be  difficult to tell whether the
\n\tconspiracy in a particular  case  falls\t into  which
\n\tcategory.  It  may, however, even overlap.  But then
\n\tthere has to be present mutual\tinterest.    Persons
\n\tmay be members of single conspiracy even though each
\n\tis  ignorant  of the identity of many others who may
\n\thave diverse role to play.  It is not a part of\t the
\n\tcrime  of  conspiracy that all the conspirators need
\n\tto agree to play the same or an active role.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.  When two or more persons agree to commit a crime
\n\tof  conspiracy,\t then  regardless   of\t making\t  or
\n\tconsidering   any  plans  for  its  commission,\t and
\n\tdespite the fact that no step is taken by  any\tsuch
\n\tperson to carry out their common purpose, a crime is
\n\tcommitted  by  each  and  every one who joins in the
\n\tagreement.  There has thus to  be  two\tconspirators
\n\tand there  may\tbe  more  than\tthat.\tTo prove the
\n\tcharge\tof  conspiracy\tit  is\tnot  necessary\tthat
\n\tintended crime\twas  committed or not.\tIf committed
\n\tit may further help prosecution to prove the  charge
\n\tof conspiracy.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.  It is not necessary that all conspirators should
\n\tagree to  the common purpose at the same time.\tThey
\n\tmay join with other conspirators at any time  before
\n\tthe  consummation of the intended objective, and all
\n\tare equally responsible.  What part each conspirator
\n\tis to play may not be known to everyone or the\tfact
\n\tas  to\twhen a conspirator joined the conspiracy and
\n\twhen he left.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.  A charge of conspiracy may prejudice the accused
\n\tbecause it is forced them into a joint trial and the
\n\tcourt may  consider  the  entire  mass\tof  evidence
\n\tagainst every  accused.\t  Prosecution has to produce
\n\tevidence not only to show that each of\tthe  accused
\n\thas  knowledge\tof  object of conspiracy but also of
\n\tthe agreement.\tIn the charge  of  conspiracy  court
\n\thas to guard itself against the danger of unfairness
\n\tto the\taccused.    Introduction of evidence against
\n\tsome may result in the conviction of all,  which  is
\n\tto be  avoided.\t By means of evidence in conspiracy,
\n\twhich is otherwise inadmissible in the trial of\t any
\n\tother\tsubstantive  offence  prosecution  tries  to
\n\timplicate the accused not  only\t in  the  conspiracy
\n\titself\tbut  also  in  the  substantive crime of the
\n\talleged conspirators.  There is always difficulty in
\n\ttracing the precise contribution of each  member  of
\n\tthe  conspiracy\t but then there has to be cogent and
\n\tconvincing evidence against each one of the  accused
\n\tcharged with the offence of conspiracy.\t As observed
\n\tby  Judge  Learned  Hand  that\t“this distinction is
\n\timportant today when many prosecutors seek to  sweep
\n\twithin\tthe dragnet of conspiracy all those who have
\n\tbeen associated in any degree whatever with the main
\n\toffenders”.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.  As stated above it is the unlawful agreement and
\n\tnot its accomplishment, which is the gist or essence
\n\tof the crime of conspiracy.    Offence\tof  criminal
\n\tconspiracy  is\tcomplete  even\tthough\tthere  is no
\n\tagreement as to the means by which the purpose is to
\n\tbe accomplished.   It  is  the\tunlawful  agreement,
\n\twhich  is  the\tgravaman of the crime of conspiracy.
\n\tThe unlawful agreement which amounts to a conspiracy
\n\tneed not be formal or express, but may\tbe  inherent
\n\tin  and\t inferred from the circumstances, especially
\n\tdeclarations, acts, and conduct of the conspirators.
\n\tThe agreement need not be entered into\tby  all\t the
\n\tparties\t to  it at the same time, but may be reached
\n\tby successive actions evidencing  their\t joining  of
\n\tthe conspiracy.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.  It has been said that a criminal conspiracy is a
\n\tpartnership  in\t crime,\t and  that  there is in each
\n\tconspiracy  a  joint  or  mutual  agency   for\t the
\n\tprosecution of\ta common plan.\tThus, if two or more
\n\tpersons enter into a conspiracy, any act done by any
\n\tof  them  pursuant   to\t  the\tagreement   is,\t  in
\n\tcontemplation  of  law,\t the act of each of them and
\n\tthey are jointly responsible therefor.\t This  means
\n\tthat  everything said, written or done by any of the
\n\tconspirators in\t execution  or\tfurtherance  of\t the
\n\tcommon purpose is deemed to have been said, done, or
\n\twritten by   each   of\t them.\t    And\t this  joint
\n\tresponsibility extends not only to what is  done  by
\n\tany  of\t the  conspirators  pursuant to the original
\n\tagreement but also to collateral  acts\tincident  to
\n\tand growing   out   of\tthe  original  purpose.\t   A
\n\tconspirator is not responsible,\t however,  for\tacts
\n\tdone  by  a  co-conspirator after termination of the
\n\tconspiracy.  The joinder of a conspiracy  by  a\t new
\n\tmember\tdoes not create a new conspiracy nor does it
\n\tchange the status of the other conspirators, and the
\n\tmere  fact  that  conspirators\tindividually  or  in
\n\tgroups\tperform different tasks to a common end does
\n\tnot split up a\tconspiracy  into  several  different
\n\tconspiracies.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.  A man may join a conspiracy by word or by deed.
\n\tHowever,  criminal  responsibility  for a conspiracy
\n\trequires more than a merely passive attitude towards
\n\tan existing conspiracy.\t One who  commits  an  overt
\n\tact with knowledge of the conspiracy is guilty.\t And
\n\tone   who  tacitly  consents  to  the  object  of  a
\n\tconspiracy and goes along with\tother  conspirators,
\n\tactually  standing  by\twhile  the  others  put\t the
\n\tconspiracy into effect, is guilty though he  intends
\n\tto take no active part in the crime.\n<\/p>\n
\tHaving thus held that the object of  the  conspiracy
\nwas  to\t kill Rajiv Gandhi; that no offence under Sections 3
\nor 4 of TADA had been committed and after having  considered
\nthe   principles   regarding  the  ingredients\tof  criminal
\nconspiracy;  appreciation  of  evidence\t  in   a   case\t  of
\nconspiracy; submissions\t of  Mr.    Natarajan that he is not
\nchallenging the\t convictions  and  sentence  passed  on\t the
\naccused\t under\tthe  provisions\t of the Arms Act, Explosives
\nSubstance Act, Indian Wireless and Telegraphy Act,  Passport
\nAct,  Foreigners  Act  and Sections 201, 212 and 216 IPC, we
\nproceed to consider as to whether all  or  any\tone  of\t the
\naccused\t before\t us were members of the criminal conspiracy,
\nstill keeping in view the following aspects:-\n<\/p>\n
\t1.  Presence of LTTE on Indian soil before and after
\n\tIndo-Sri Lankan\t  Accord   is\tundisputed.\t Its
\n\tactivities went\t ostensibly  underground  after\t the
\n\tAccord.\t LTTE was having various activities in India
\n\tand  some  of these were (1) printing and publishing
\n\tof books and  magazines\t for  LTTE  propaganda,\t (2)
\n\tholding\t of  camps  for\t arms  training in India and
\n\tvarious other places in Tamil Nadu  (This  was\tdone
\n\topenly\t till\tthe  Indo-Sri  Lankan  Accord),\t (3)
\n\tcollection and raising of funds for its war  efforts
\n\tin  Sri\t Lanka, (4) treatment of injured LTTE cadres
\n\tin   India,   (5)   medical   assistance   and\t (6)
\n\ttransporting  of goods like petrol, diesel, lungies,
\n\tmedicines, wireless equipments\tand  explosives\t and
\n\teven provisions to Sri Lanka.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.  Hiring of houses in Tamil Nadu was\tfor  various
\n\tactivities  of\tthe  LTTE, which included houses for
\n\tthe treatment of injured LTTE cadres.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.  Sivarasan was having other activities  in  Tamil
\n\tNadu.  He was to make arrangements for Santhan (A-2)
\n\tto  go\tto  Switzerland and for Kangasabapathy (A-7)
\n\tand Athirai (A-8) to go to Delhi and from  there  to
\n\tGermany.   He  was  to\tmake  arrangement to recruit
\n\tpersons to impart arms training in Sri Lanka through
\n\tRavi (A-16) and Suseendran  (A-17)  and\t to  arrange
\n\thouses\t at   Madras  through  Robert  Payas  (A-9),
\n\tJayakumar (A10) and Vijayan (A-12) for the  stay  of
\n\tLTTE cadres  not  necessarily  for conspirators.  He
\n\tfinanced Vijayanandan (A5) in Madras for purchase of
\n\tbooks for LTTE library in Jaffna.   Shanmugham\t(DA)
\n\tin his confession (Exh.P-1300) stated that Sivarasan
\n\twith  others  stayed  in  a house at Kodiakkarai and
\n\tthey were arranging to send petrol and diesel oil by
\n\tboat to LTTE in Sri Lanka.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.   In\t case  of  some\t of  the  accused  including
\n\tdeceased  accused  there  is  no evidence whatsoever
\n\tthat  they   were   members   of   the\t conspiracy.\n<\/p>\n
\tProsecution  has  been\tunfair\tto  charge them with
\n\tconspiracy.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.  There is no evidence that all the nine  persons,
\n\twho  arrived  in  India by boat on 1.5.1991, namely,
\n\tSivarasan, Subha, Dhanu, Nero, Dixon, Santhan (A-2),
\n\tShankar (A-4), Vijayanandan (A-5) and  Ruben  (A-6),
\n\twere members of the conspiracy.\t In this group there
\n\twas  Ruben  (A-6),  who\t came  to  India  to have an
\n\tartificial leg fixed which he had lost in  a  battle
\n\twith Sri Lankan army.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.   Prosecution also named Jamuna @ Jameela (DA) as
\n\ta conspirator, who had also come to India for fixing
\n\tan artificial limb, which she had  also\t lost  in  a
\n\tbattle with  Sri  Lankan  army.\t There is not even a
\n\twhisper in the whole mass of evidence that  she\t had
\n\teven  knowledge\t of  any  conspiracy  to  kill Rajiv
\n\tGandhi.\t Simply because she was\t found\tdead  having
\n\tcommitted  suicide  along  with Sivarasan, Subha and
\n\tothers at Bangalore, could not make her a member  of
\n\tthe conspiracy.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.   From  frequent and unexplained meetings of some
\n\tof the accused with others, who\t have  been  charged
\n\twith  conspiracy, it cannot be assumed that they all
\n\twere members   of   the\t  conspiracy.\t   This\t  is
\n\tparticularly   so   when  LTTE\twas  having  various
\n\tactivities on Indian soil for its war efforts in Sri
\n\tLanka.\tNotebook (Exh.P-1168) seized by\t the  police
\n\tgives  bio-data\t of some LTTE cadre working in India
\n\tthough that list is not extensive.  It also contains
\n\tthe bio-data of Irumborai (A-19).\n<\/p>\n
\t8.  All the persons, who came from Sri Lanka  during
\n\tthe   strife,\tdid   not  come\t through  authorized
\n\tchannels.  It is also to be seen if the accused\t now
\n\tcharged\t with conspiracy and alleged to have come to
\n\tIndia in the guise of  refugees\t were  not  in\tfact
\n\trefugees.   Rather  evidence shows that Robert Payas
\n\t(A9), Jayakumar (A-10) and  Shanthi  (A-11)  as\t one
\n\tgroup  and  Vijayan  (A-12),  Selvaluxmi  (A-13) and
\n\tBhaskaran (A-14) as the second group, were  in\tfact
\n\twanting\t  to   come   to  India\t due  to  conditions
\n\tprevailing in Sri Lanka.  They had no money  to\t pay
\n\tto LTTE.  They were exempted from paying any toll to
\n\tLTTE  on their agreeing to hire houses in Tamil Nadu
\n\tfor stay of LTTE cadre and on their  being  promised
\n\thelp by\t LTTE.\t  When\tthey so agreed they were not
\n\taware that what was the object behind  their  hiring
\n\tthe houses.  Evidence regarding providing shelter to
\n\tthe  conspirators  either before or after the object
\n\tof  the\t conspiracy  has  been\tachieved,   is\t not
\n\tconclusive  to\tsupport\t the  charge  of  conspiracy
\n\tagainst them.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.  Robert Payas (A-9), Jayakumar (A-10) and Vijayan
\n\t(A-12) were hard-core LTTE  activists.\t  They\twere
\n\tliving in Sri Lanka with their families and suffered
\n\tbecause of   the   turmoil   there.    They  may  be
\n\tsympathizers of LTTE having strong feelings  against
\n\tIPKF.\t Consider   the\t background  in\t which\tthey
\n\taccepted the offer of LTTE to meet their expenses in
\n\tIndia.\tIt could be that they themselves felled into
\n\tthe trap because of the circumstances in which their
\n\tfamilies were placed in Sri Lanka and the conditions
\n\tprevailing there.\n<\/p>\n
\tNow, we proceed to examine individual cases  keeping
\n\tin view the evidence and law on the subject.\n<\/p>\n
\tDhanasekaran   (A-23)\n<\/p>\n
\t——————–\n<\/p>\n
\tRangam\t(A-24)\n<\/p>\n
\t————–\n<\/p>\n
\tVicky (A-25)\n<\/p>\n
\t————\n<\/p>\n
\tRanganath (A-26)\n<\/p>\n
\t—————-\n<\/p>\n
\tThe object of the conspiracy was achieved on May 21,
\n1991.\tThere is no evidence against Dhanasekaran (A-23), an
\nIndian national, Rangam (A-24), Sri Lankan  national,  Vicky
\n(A-25),\t Sri  Lankan  National\tand Ranganath (A-26), Indian
\nnational, that they were members of the\t conspiracy.\tThey
\ncame  in  the picture after the object of the conspiracy had
\nbeen achieved.\tHowever, they knowingly\t that  Sivrasan\t and
\nDhanu  had  committed  the offence of murder of Rajiv Gandhi
\nintentionally screened them from legal punishment.  Evidence
\nagainst Dhanasekaran (A-23) shows that he was fully aware of
\nthe involvement of Sivarasan and  Subha\t in  the  murder  of
\nRajiv  Gandhi  and  with  that full knowledge he transported
\nthem in an oil tanker (MO-543) owned by him from  Madras  to
\nBangalore to   evade   their  arrest.\t In  his  confession
\nDhanasekaran (A-23) described how he was able  to  transport
\nSivarasan, Subha  and Nero, hidden in his tanker lorry.\t His
\nconfession is  corroborated  amongst  others  by  S.\tSyed
\nIbrahim (PW-232),   insurance\tsurveyor,   S.\t   Vasudevan
\n(PW-245), cashier of petrol pump and his driver R.  Selvaraj
\n(PW-230).\n<\/p>\n
\tSimilarly, Rangam (A-24) was having knowledge of the
\noffence\t of  murder  committed by Sivarasan and Subha and he
\nhelped and assisted Dhanasekaran (A-23) and Vicky (A-25)  in
\ntransporting them  from\t Madras\t to Bangalore.\tAt Bangalore
\nalso he transported Sivarasan, Subha and  others  in  Maruti
\nGypsi  (MO-540),  which\t had been purchased with the help of
\nDhanasekaran  (A-23)  and  was\tgiven  by   Trichy   Santhan
\n(deceased accused)  to Rangam (A-24).  This Maruti Gypsy was
\ngreen in colour but then in order to avoid its detection  by
\nthe  police  Rangam  (A-24) gave this vehicle to workshop at
\nBangalore for changing its colour.  Rangam (A-24) thus\talso
\nmade  efforts  to  destroy  evidence  besides harbouring and
\nsheltering Sivarasan, Subha and\t Nero  with  full  knowledge
\nthat  they  were  involved  in\tthe  assassination  of Rajiv
\nGandhi.\t In the last week of June, 1991 he was\tdirected  by
\nTrichy\tSanthan\t (deceased  accused)  to  meet\tDhanasekaran
\n(A-23) for shifting Sivarasan, Subha and Nero from Madras to
\nBangalore.  Confession of Rangam (A-24) is  corroborated  by
\nMrudulla (PW-65),  wife\t of  Ranganath\t(A-26), R.  Selvaraj
\n(PW-230), driver and K.N.  Mohan (PW-222), mechanic  of\t the
\nworkshop, who repainted Maruti Gypsy.\n<\/p>\n
\tVicky (A-25) was also aware that Sivarasan and Dhanu
\nwere involved  in  the\tassassination  of  Rajiv Gandhi.  He
\naccompanied Dhanasekaran (A-23) and Rangam (A-24) in  tanker
\nlorry  (MO-543)\t for shifting Sivarasan, Subha and Nero from
\nMadras to Bangalore.  He had  opened  the  top\tlid  of\t the
\ntanker for Sivarasan, Subha and Nero to get into the tanker.
\nThis  was done with a view to evade the arrest of Sivarasan,
\nSubha and Nero.\t Evidence against Vicky (A-25)\tis  same  as
\nagainst\t Dhanasekaran  (A-23) and Rangam (A-24) and his case
\nis similar to them.  He had come to India for the first time
\nin 1985 and again in 1990.  He was given the task of looking
\nafter wounded LTTE personnel, who  had\tcome  to  India\t for
\ntreatment.\n<\/p>\n
\tRanganath  (A-26)  gave shelter to Sivarasan, Subha,
\nNero and others in his house knowingly that  both  Sivarasan
\nand  Subha  were  involved  in\tthe  assassination  of Rajiv
\nGandhi.\t He  helped  Rangam  (A-24)  to\t take  Maruti  Gypsy
\n(MO-540)  and  Fiat  car  (CAU\t6492)  to  the\tworkshop for
\nchanging colour of the vehicles respectively from  green  to
\nwhite and  sky\tblue to white.\tAfter colour of Maruti Gypsy
\nhad been changed he took delivery of the same.\tHe  got\t the
\nFiat  car  recovered from the workshop during investigation.
\nHis conduct in getting the colour  of  the  vehicle  changed
\nshowed\this  total  involvement\t in harbouring of Sivarasan,
\nSubha and others.  He then helped the accused in  renting  a
\nhouse for  them\t in  a false name.  In the case of Ranganath
\n(A-26), his wife Mrudulla (PW-65) has deposed  against\thim.
\nThere is no evidence to show that Ranganath (A-26) was under
\nany  threat  and  that\ton that account he had harboured the
\naccused Sivarasan, Subha and others.  Other evidence against
\nRanganath (A-26) is that of E.\tAnjanappa (PW218),  landlord
\nof his\thouse,\this  three  friends  R.\t  Rajan (PW-223), R.
\nJayashankar (PW-229) and K.  Premkumar (PW-227) and the\t car
\nmechanic K.N.  Mohan (PW-222).\n<\/p>\n
\tThese four accused Dhanasekaran (A-23), Dhanasekaran
\n(A23),\tVicky  (A-25) and Ranganath (A-26) have been rightly
\nconvicted for that offence  under  Section  212\t IPC.\t The
\nDesignated  Court  sentenced  to  each\tof  them  to undergo
\nrigorous imprisonment for two years.  Ranganath\t (A-26)\t has
\nalso been convicted for an offence under Section 216 IPC and
\nsentenced  to  undergo\trigorous imprisonment for two years.
\nRangam (A-24) and Vicky (A-25) being foreign nationals\thave
\nalso  been  convicted  and  sentenced  for  an offence under
\nSection 14 of Foreigners Act inasmuch as they came to  India
\nthrough\t illicit  channel  without  holding any valid travel
\ndocuments and unauthorizedly stayed in\tIndia.\t  Conviction
\nand   sentence\t under\tall  these  charges  have  not\tbeen
\nchallenged.\n<\/p>\n
Nalini (A-1)\n<\/p>\n
————\n<\/p>\n
\tNalini\t(A-1)  in  her\tconfession  has\t  implicated
\nherself.   We  have rejected any challenge to her confession
\nbeing involuntary.  She linked many others in the  chain  of
\nconspiracy.   Her  confession  gives  her  pivot role in the
\nconspiracy.  She made extra judicial confession to  Sasikala
\n(PW-132) and Ravi (PW-115).  Ravi (PW-115) is not expressive
\nabout the  extra judicial confession given to him.  Sasikala
\n(PW-132) gives details of  the\textra  judicial\t confession.
\nConfession  of\tNalini\t(A-1)  also  stands  corroborated in
\nmaterial particular by other  evidence.\t   Nalini  (A-1)  is
\neducated.  She\tis  post-graduate.   In her association with
\nMurugan (A-3), Sivarasan,  Subha  and  Dhanu  she  developed
\nextreme hatred\tagainst\t IPKF  and  Rajiv  Gandhi.   She got
\nassociated with LTTE activities some time in February, 1991.
\nShe did have a lurking\tfeeling\t that  some  action  was  in
\ncontemplation by  Sivarasan,  Subha  and Dhanu.\t On 7.5.1991
\nshe gets a positive feeling that they were planning to\tkill
\ncertain leaders.    However,  wireless\tmessage (Exh.P-392),
\nwhich was sent on 7.5.1991 by Sivarasan to Pottu  Amman\t and
\nwhich  was  intercepted\t and  decoded, showed that till this
\ndate Nalini (A-1) had no knowledge about any  conspiracy  to
\nkill Rajiv  Gandhi.    Further that till 7.5.1991 only three
\npersons Sivarasan,  Subha  and\tDhanu  knew  the  object  of
\nconspiracy to  kill  Rajiv  Gandhi.   On 19.5.1991 she got a
\nstrong feeling that Rajiv Gandhi  was  the  target  but\t she
\ncontinues to  associate with them.  It was on 21.5.1991 that
\nshe agreed to associate herself with the  killing  of  Rajiv
\nGandhi and became member of the conspiracy.  On that day she
\ngoes  with  the\t group comprising Sivarasan, Subha and Dhanu
\nfrom  her  house  to  achieve  the  object  of\t conspiracy.
\nHaribabu also joins them on way to Sriperumbudur where Rajiv
\nGandhi was  to\taddress\t the  public  meeting.\tShe has been
\ngiven a role.  She has to give cover to Subha and  Dhanu  so
\nthat  they  may\t not  be identified as Sri Lankan Tamils and
\nwhen the explosion occurs she acts as per instructions.\t She
\ntakes Subha with her to a  particular  place,  performs\t the
\nrole assigned  to  her\tand  then  goes into hiding.  She is
\nfully involved in the crime.  When she absconds and goes  to
\nthe  house  of\tRavi  (PW-115)\twith Murugan (A-3) after the
\nassassination of Rajiv Gandhi she introduced Murugan (A3) as
\nher brother-in-law by the name Raju.  To  Sasikala  (PW-132)
\nshe  introduced\t Murugan  (A-3) as her brother-in-law by the
\nname Dass (Thass).  No doubt if she had the knowledge that a
\nconspiracy was afoot to kill Rajiv  Gandhi  that  would\t not
\nmake her  part\tof  the\t conspiracy.   But then she became a
\nconspirator only when she agreed with the group to go  ahead
\nto   kill  Rajiv  Gandhi  and  became  part  of\t the  group.
\nConfession of Nalini  (A-1)  finds  corroboration  from\t the
\nconfession  of\ther co-accused, extra judicial confession of
\nSasikala  (PW-132),   witnesses\t  and\texhibits   including
\nphotographs.   Her  presence at the scene of crime could not
\nbe disputed.  Confessions are of her  mother  Padma  (A-21),
\nbrother\t Bhagyanathan (A-20), Arivu (A-18) and Murugan (A-3)
\nand statements of witnesses (PW-96) N.\t Sujaya\t Narayan,  a
\ncolleague  of  Nalini (A-1) in Anabond Silicons, who deposes
\nto her association with Murugan\t (A-3);\t (PW-233)  Bharathi,
\nfriend\tof Kalyani, a sister of Nalini (A-1), who deposes to
\nNalini’s (A-1) association with LTTE cadre; (PW-210) Sankari
\n(sister of Muthuraja, an LTTE  activist)  who  also  deposes
\nNalini’s   (A-1)  association  with  LTTE;  (PW-90)  Rani  &
\n(PW-189)  Gajalakshim  (neighbours  of\t Nalini\t  (A-1)\t  at
\nVellivakkam)  who  depose  regarding  visits  of  Sivarasan,
\nSubha, Dhanu and Murugan (A-3) to the house of Nalini (A-1);
\n(PW-93) I.  Suyambu (News Correspondent) who identified\t the
\nvideo  cassette\t and  Sivarasan\t in  the  cassette  taken of
\nV.P.Singh’s public meeting held\t on  7.5.1991  at  Nandanam;
\n(PW-77)\t Sankaran  or  Gnani  (Journalist)  who\t talks about
\nSivarasan’s presence at the public meeting of V.P.  Singh on
\n7.5.1991 at Nandanam; (PW-81) Manivannan (Videographer)\t who
\nmade video  coverage  of  public  meeting  of V.P.  Singh on
\n7.5.1991 at Nandanam; (PW-179) Gunanthalalsoni\t(shopkeeper)
\nwho  identified Nalini (A-1) as one of the girls who came to
\nhis shop  with\tassassin  Dhanu;  (PW-94)  A.K.\t   Anbalagan
\n(employees  of Poompuhar, Tamil Nadu Government Sales Store)
\nwho deposes sale of sandelwood garland on 21.5.1991; (PW-27)
\nShanmugam (Congress Partyman) who  is  an  eye\twitness\t and
\nidentifies  Dhanu  in  photograph  (MO-16);  (PW-32) Anusuya
\n(Sub-Inspector of Police, Security) an eye  witness  to\t the
\noccurrence,  who  identifies Sivarasan, Subha, Dhanu, Nalini
\n(A-1) and Haribabu in the photograph; (PW-28) Bhagawan Singh
\n(Journalist) also an eye witness, who  has  seen  Sivarasan,
\nHaribabu   and\t the  girl  (Nalini  (A-1))  and  identified
\nSivarasan in MO-2 and Haribabu in MO-17; (PW-19) D.  Lakshmi
\nAlbert\t(Congress  Party  member)  an\teye   witness,\t who
\nidentified  Nalini  (A-1), Subha in MO-188, Dhanu, Sivarasan
\nin MO-16 and  Haribabu\tin  MO-17;  (PW-20)  Dr.    Ramadevi
\n(another   Congress   Party  member  and  eye  witness)\t who
\nidentified Nalini (A1), and  Subha  in\tMO-18  (photograph),
\nDhanu  &  Sivarasan in MO-16 and Haribabu in MO-17; (PW-215)
\nChamundeeswari (Native of Sriperumbadur,  who  deposes\tthat
\nshe  had  given water to Nalini (A1), Subha and Sivarasan on
\nthe   night   of   21.5.1991;\t(PW-183)   Varadharajan\t  K.
\n(Auto-driver  at  Thiruvellore)\t who  transported Sivarasan,
\nSubha, Nalini (A-1) from Sriperumbudur to Madras and is also
\na spot witness who heard the sound  of\tblast  from  parking
\nlot; (PW-195)  R.    Nagarajan\t(Congress  Party  member  of
\nThrivellore)  who  travelled  in  the  auto  of\t PW-183\t  to
\nSriperumbudur; (PW-85)\t D.J.\t Swaminathan  (Neighbour  of
\nJayakumar (A-10)  at  Kodungaiyur)  who\t deposes  about\t the
\nvisits\tof  Sivarasan,\tSubha,\tDhanu,\tRobert\tPayas (A-9),
\nSanthan (A-2) and about Nalini\t(A-1)  Subha  and  Sivarasan
\nwatching  TV  on  23.5.1991 in his house and distribution of
\nsweets by them; (PW-104) S.  Vaidyanathan (Clerk  of  Sriram
\nTravels) who said regarding hiring of a car for Tirupathi by
\nBhagyanathan (A-20);  (PW-117)\tR.    Shankar (Proprietor of
\nSriram Travels) who also deposes about the trip to Tirupathi
\nby Nalini (A-1), Murugan (A-3), Padma (A-21), Sivarasan\t and
\nSubha;\t(PW-107)  Ramasamy (Car driver, who states regarding
\nthe trip to Tirupathi and about stay  of  Nalini  (A-1)\t and
\nMurugan\t (A-3)\tat  Tirupathi;\t(PW-115)  Ravi Srinivasan (a
\nfriend of Nalini (A-1)) who deposes about the stay of Nalini
\n(A-1) and Murugan (A-3) at his house at\t Madurai  after\t the
\noccurrence; and\t (PW-288) Raghothaman K.  (D.S.P., CBI, SIT,
\nChief Investigating Officer).  These  witnesses\t also  prove
\nvarious\t  documents   and   material   objects\twhich  fully
\ncorroborate the confession made by Nalini (A-1).  Her  being
\na  member  of  the  conspiracy to murder Rajiv Gandhi stands
\nfully proved.\n<\/p>\n
Santhan (A-2)\n<\/p>\n
————-\n<\/p>\n
\tSanthan\t (A-2),\t a  Sri\t Lankan\t national,  in\t his
\nconfession   talks   of\t his  role  in\tthe  elimination  of
\nPadmanabhan, EPRLF leader and others in Madras but  that  is
\nnot  the subject-matter of the charge and it is no terrorist
\nact.  Santhan (A-2) was one of the nine\t persons,  who\tcame
\nfrom  Sri  Lanka on a boat arriving at the shore of India on
\n1.5.1991.  His leader was Sivarasan.  At  the  direction  of
\nSivarasan  he  first  stayed  in  the  house of Robert Payas
\n(A-9), then in the house of Haribabu and then  with  Murugan
\n(A-3) and with Arivu (A-18).\n<\/p>\n
\tEarlier\t he  had  come\tto  India  with Sivarasan on
\n15.2.1990.  They reached Kodiakarai by boat.  They  came  to
\nMadras\ton 16.2.1990 when Sivarasan took him to the house of
\none Nagarajan, a Ceylon Tamilian, who indulged in smuggling.
\nSivarasan took Santhan (A2) to\tMIET  (Madras  Institute  of
\nEngineering  Technology)  along with Shanmugavadivelu (A-15)
\nand Nagarajan and got him admitted there.  He paid a sum  of
\nRs.2300\/-.   Nagarajan\twas  introduced\t as uncle of Santhan
\n(A-2).\tSivarasan got cloths and  other\t material  purchased
\nfor Santhan  (A-2).   He took the responsibility to meet all
\nthe hostel and other expenses of Santhan (A-2).\t  After\t the
\nmurder of Padmanabha in June, 1990 Santhan (A-2) returned to
\nSri Lanka.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn 16.5.1991 Sivarasan had  told  him  that  he\t was
\ngoing to  help\tSubha  and Dhanu to finish Rajiv Gandhi.  He
\nwas also told that Prabhakaran had paid special attention to
\nhim  (Santhan  (A2))after  the\tmurder\tof  Padmanabha\t and
\nimportant  works were allotted to him and the reason for all
\nthat was the cooperation given by him (Santhan (A-2)) in the
\nmatter of killing of Padmanabhan.  Earlier it  was  Kanthan,
\nan LTTE activist, who was handling the finances of Sivarasan
\nand  now it was Santhan (A-2), who had taken the charge from
\nKanthan.  On  15.5.1991\t on  the  strength  of\tletter\tfrom
\nSivarasan,  addressed to Kanthan, he was given a sum of Rs.5
\nlakhs by Kanthan to be handed over to Sivarasan.   Sivarasan
\ntook  Rs.2 lakhs out of that and asked Santhan (A-2) to keep
\nthe balance with  him.\t  On  17.5.1991\t Santhan  (A-2)\t and
\nSivarasan  went\t to Easwari Lodge to meet Shankar (A-4), who
\nhad also come with them in the boat carrying nine persons on
\n1.5.1991.   Out\t of  the  money\t lying\twith  Santhan  (A-2)
\nSivarasan gave\tRs.10,000\/-  to Shankar (A-4).\tOn 18.5.1991
\nSanthan (A-2) gave another sum of Rs.20,000\/- to  Sivarasan.
\nSame  day in the afternoon Santhan (A-2) on the instructions
\nof Sivarasan went to the house of  Robert  Payas  (A-9)\t and
\ngave  Rs.4,000\/-  to Ruben (A6), who was there at that time.
\nAnother sum of Rs.1 lakh was given to Santhan  (A-2)  to  be
\nhanded over  to\t Sivarasan.  Santhan (A-2) in his confession
\nsaid that he in all received Rs.9.50 lakhs  which  money  he
\ngave to\t  Sivarasan.\t Out  of  that\tSivarasan  gave\t him
\nRs.50,000\/- to meet his expenses.  He also gave\t account  to
\nSivarasan.   Santhan  (A-2)  gave  monies  to Murugan (A-3),
\nJayakumar (A-10), and deceased accused Keerthi.\t   That\t was
\nafter the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi.  When Santhan (A-2)
\nwas  in the house of Jayakumar (A-10) on 20.5.1991 Sivarasan
\nwas also there.\t  On  the  following  day,  i.e.,  21.5.1991
\nSanthan (A-2)dd went to see morning show movie in the cinema
\nhall.\tWhen  he  returned home he saw Sivarasan was wearing
\nwhite kurta pyjama.  He\t saw  Sivarasan\t inserting  a  white
\ncloth  bag  containing\ta  pistol  at  his hip and asked him
\nwhether the gun was protruding outside\this  dress  or\tnot.
\nSanthan (A-2)  said  it\t was  not.  Sivarasan went out alone
\nthat day and returned around mid night.\t He woke up  Santhan
\n(A-2)  and told him that Rajiv Gandhi and Dhanu had died and
\nalso told that he had brought Nalini (A-1) with him, who was
\nhelper of LTTE.\t This may show that till that  time  Santhan
\n(A-2) did  not\tknow  Nalini  (A-1).  Thereafter the role of
\nSanthan (A-2) is that of dodging the police  and  harbouring
\nthe fellow  co-accused.\t   Santhan  (A-2) before, during and
\nafter the assassination\t of  Rajiv  Gandhi  consciously\t and
\nwillingly  associated with Sivarasan in achieving the object
\nof conspiracy.\t  He  said  even   after   confirming\tthat
\nSivarasan,  Subha  and Dhanu were going to kill Rajiv Gandhi
\nhe  continued  to  associate  with  them   and\t after\t the
\nassassination  of  Rajiv Gandhi he made strenuous efforts to
\nshift Sivarasan out of Madras with a view to  evade  arrest.
\nSanthan (A-2)  had  a strong association with Sivarasan.  He
\nremained associated with Sivarasan even\t after\the  came  to
\nknow of\t his  plan to murder Rajiv Gandhi.  He paid money to
\nSivarasan to finance his criminal  syndicate.\t It  is\t not
\nnecessary  for\tus  to\tdetermine  how\tmuch  money given by
\nSanthan (A-2) to Sivarasan was utilized by  him\t to  achieve
\nthe  object  of\t conspiracy  but  we can impart knowledge to
\nSanthan (A-2) that some of it was so used and from this\t and
\nother circumstances we can safely infer his participation in
\nthe  crime  and his being a member of the conspiracy to kill
\nRajiv Gandhi.  No doubt as originally planned Santhan  (A-2)
\nwas to go abroad from India and for that purpose attempt was
\nbeing made  to\tget  him  passport,  visa, etc.\t but was not
\nsuccessful, but then in the meanwhile he  became  member  of
\nthe conspiracy\tbeing  a  confidante  of  Sivarasan.   It is
\nagreement,  which  is  sine  qua  non  of  the\toffence\t  of
\nconspiracy which is quite discernible in the case of Santhan
\n(A-2).\n<\/p>\n
Murugan (A-3)\n<\/p>\n
————-\n<\/p>\n
\tMurugan\t (A-3)\tis  a  Sri  Lankan  national  and  a
\nhard-core LTTE activist.  He was member of the suicide squad
\nof LTTE\t which he joined in January, 1991.  In January, 1991
\nitself he came to  India  on  the  direction  of  absconding
\naccused Pottu Amman and was given specific jobs of preparing
\nsketches of the interior of Madras Fort, Police Headquarters
\nat  Madras  and\t various  other\t police\t stations  and their
\nlocations.  He\twas  also  asked  to  take  photographs\t and
\nvideographs of\tthese places.  When he arrived at the Indian
\nshore he was received by Sivarasan.  In the course  of\ttime
\nhe  came  in  contact  with  Bhagyanathan (A-20), his mother
\nPadma (A-21) and then with Nalini (A-1).  He was  introduced
\nto Haribabu  (deceased\taccused) by Bhagyanathan (A-20).  He
\ngave financial help to the family of Padma (A-21).   Murugan
\n(A-3)  in  his\tconfession statement said that earlier there
\nwas a plan to establish a household in Delhi by taking Padma
\n(A-21) there but that plan did not proceed.    Sivarasan  in
\nhis  wireless  message\t(Exh.P-378) dated 22.3.1991 to Pottu
\nAmman said that “if it is Delhi, lot  of  time\tand  lot  of
\nefforts will  be  required”.   In March, 1991 when Sivarasan
\nasked Murugan (A-3) to go to Delhi and also to find  out  if
\nPadma  (A-21)  would  come  with him he felt that plans were
\nbeing made for a serious act like murder.  In Madras Murugan
\n(A-3) joined Vivekananda Kalvi Nilayam Institute in the name
\nof Rajan @ Doss.  After some time he joined Sabari  College.
\nThis was done to show that he was staying in Madras to learn
\nEnglish, etc.\t Murugan (A-3) started visiting Nalini (A-1)
\nat her office and at her house at  Villivakkam.\t   He  fully
\nindoctrinated  her and told her about the activities of LTTE
\nin Sri Lanka and the atrocities committed by IPKF and  their
\nhatred towards\tRajiv  Gandhi.\t When Nalini (A-1) expressed
\nher desire to vacate her house in Villivakkam, Murugan (A-3)
\npersuaded her not to do so.  He told her that Sivarasan\t was
\nbringing   two\tLTTE  tigresses\t from  Sri  Lanka  for\tLTTE
\noperations who would be staying with her and that she should
\naccommodate them in her house.\tNalini (A-1) agreed  to\t the
\npersuasion  of\tMurugan\t (A-3) and did not vacate the house.
\nNalini (A-1) was infatuated towards Murugan (A-3) and wanted
\nto marry him.  He,  however,  did  not\tagree  as  that\t was
\nagainst the  LTTE  code of conduct.  He was, however, having
\nsexual relations with Nalini (A-1) at her house.    In\tthis
\nhouse  Subha and Dhanu also used to visit Nalini (A-1) after
\nthey had come to  India.    Blasting  of  Vellore  Fort\t and
\nreleasing  of the LTTE militants, detained there, was one of
\nthe LTTE works in India as confessed by Murugan (A-3).\t  In
\nthe  end of March, 1991 Sivarasan told Murugan (A-3) that he
\nwould garland Rajiv Gandhi in a\t public\t meeting  and  asked
\nMurugan\t (A-3)\twhether\t he could arrange an Indian girl for
\nthe purpose.  Murugan (A-3) at that time understood that the
\nnext target was Rajiv Gandhi since he  was  responsible\t for
\nthe  atrocities\t committed  by\tIPKF  and  there were lot of
\nfeelings to  wreak  vengeance  on  him.\t     Murugan   (A-3)
\nunderstood  that  Sivarasan  had  come with a plan to murder
\nRajiv Gandhi.  Murugan (A-3) said he would arrange an Indian
\ngirl and introduced Nalini (A-1) to  Sivarasan\ttelling\t her
\nthat he\t was  his  boss.    Murugan  (A-3)  and Nalini (A-1)
\nattended the public  meeting  at  Marina  Beach,  which\t was
\naddressed by Rajiv Gandhi and Jayalalitha.\n<\/p>\n
\tThen  in  April,  1991\tSivarasan told Murugan (A-3)
\nthat he had to bring two girls\tSubha  and  Dhanu  from\t Sri
\nLanka  and  that  in  order to finish the job he required an
\nIndian girl as both Subha and Dhanu would speak Tamil in Sri
\nLankan dialect and in order to mingle in the  group  without
\nanyone\tsuspecting  there  was need of an Indian Tamil girl.
\nSivarasan and Murugan (A-3) then  decided  to  make  use  of
\nNalini (A-1).\t On 7.5.1991 Murugan (A-3) along with Nalini
\n(A-1), Subha, Dhanu, Sivarasan, Haribabu  and  Arivu  (A-18)
\nattended the public meeting addressed by V.P.  Singh, former
\nPrime Minister\t of   India,  at  Nandanam,  Madras.\tThis
\noperation was a ‘dry run’ operation.  Rajiv Gandhi was\talso
\nformer Prime Minister of India.\t Security arrangements would
\nbe same for  both  V.P.\t   Singh  and  Rajiv  Gandhi.  These
\naccused therefore conducted rehearsal at the public  meeting
\nfor the purpose of gaining access to the VIP under the guise
\nof garlanding  him.    Now Murugan (A-3) was sure that Rajiv
\nGandhi would be the target.  In order to gain access to V.P.
\nSingh in the public meeting Press Accreditation\t Cards\twere
\nforged,\t which\twere  prepared by Haribabu for Murugan (A-3)
\nand Sivarasan.\tForged Press  Accreditation  Card  with\t the
\nphotograph  of Murugan (A-3) (Exh.P-521) was seized from the
\nhouse rented  by  Murugan  (A-3)  at  Madipakkam  after\t the
\nassassination of  Rajiv\t Gandhi.    After  this\t dry run was
\ncompleted on 7\/8.5.1991 Subha and Dhanu wrote  two  letters,
\none  addressed\tto absconding accused Pottu Amman (Exh.P-95)
\nand the other to the absconding\t accused  Akila\t (Exh.P-96).
\nBoth  these  letters are dated 9.5.1991 and were handed over
\nto Murugan (A-3) for their being  delivered  in\t Sri  Lanka.
\nAnother letter (Exh.P-453) written by Bhagyanathan (A-20) to
\nBaby Subramaniam  was  also given to Murugan (A-3).  By this
\ntime  Murugan  (A-3)  had  received   instructions   through
\nSivarasan to  go  to  Sri  Lanka.    These letters and other
\nmaterials were carried by Murugan (A-3) to Kodiakarai in the
\nsecond week of May, 1991.  He waited there for the  boat  to
\narrive from  Sri  Lanka.    Since the boat did not arrive he
\nhanded over six baggages (boxes) to M.\t Mariappan  (PW-86),
\nan  employee of the deceased accused Shanmugham and returned
\nto Madras.  These six  baggages\t (boxes)  were\tsubsequently
\nrecovered  on  the information given by Murugan (A-3), which
\nwere kept concealed in a pit near the house of Shanmugham by
\nM.  Mariappan (PW-86).\tThese  were  seized  by\t Velliapandi
\n(PW-282), Inspector,  CBI, on 25.7.1991.  In the articles so
\nrecovered from these baggages (boxes) there  were  also\t two
\nvolumes\t of  the  book\t‘Satanic Force’ (MO-124 and MO-125),
\nvideo cassettes showing various parts of Fort  St.    George
\n(MO-323) and  photographs  of DGP’s office, Fort St.  George
\n(MO-256 to 259), etc.  Murugan\t(A-3)  was  present  in\t the
\nhouse  of  Padma  (A-21)  on  20.5.1991\t when Sivarasan came
\nthere.\tIt was at that time that final\tplan  was  discussed
\nand  worked out for carrying out the object of conspiracy to
\nkill Rajiv Gandhi at the public\t meeting  at  Sriperumbudur.
\nOn  21.5.1991  when  Nalini  (A-1)  came to the house of her
\nmother Padma (A-21) Murugan (A-3) reminded her to go to\t her
\nhouse at  Vellivakkam  before  3.00  p.m.   where Sivarasan,
\nSubha and Dhanu were to meet her as from there they were  to
\nproceed\t towards  Sriperumbudur\t where\tRajiv  Gandhi was to
\naddress the  public  meeting.\t   On\t20.5.1991   on\t the
\ninstructions  of  Sivarasan,  Murugan  (A-3) had gone to the
\nhouse of Haribabu and told the sister of Haribabu to  inform
\nHaribabu to  go\t to  the house of Padma (A-21) that day.  It
\nwas  Murugan  (A-3),  who  at  the  instance  of  Sivarasan,
\narranged Nalini (A-1), an Indian girl for accompanying Subha
\nand  Dhanu  to\tact as their cover so as not to expose their
\nidentity.  Conduct of Murugan (A-3)  before  and  after\t the
\nassassination  of  Rajiv Gandhi leaves no doubt in our minds
\nthat he had agreed to achieve the object of conspiracy which
\nwas to murder Rajiv Gandhi.  On 7.6.1991 Murugan (A-3)\tgave
\ntwo  code sheets (MO107 and MO-108), meant for communicating
\nsecret messages through wireless set, to  Padma\t (A-21)\t and
\nasked her  to keep them in safe custody.  She gave those two
\nsheets to her colleague Devasena  Raj  (PW-73),\t which\twere
\nsubsequently seized  from  her\tby  the\t police.    There is
\nsufficient evidence on record to show as to  how  after\t the
\nassassination of Rajiv Gandhi Murugan (A-3) and Nalini (A-1)
\nabsconded  and\ttook  refuge  at  various  places  including
\nTirupathi, Madurai and Devengere in the State  of  Karnataka
\nand the fact that identity of Murugan (A-3) was concealed by
\nthem.\tConfession of Murugan (A-3) stands corroborated with
\nthe confessions\t of  his  coaccused  Nalini  (A-1),  Santhan
\n(A-2),\tArivu  (A-18),\tBhagyanathan (A-20) and Padma (A-21)
\nand by independent witnesses showing his being a  member  of
\nthe  criminal  conspiracy  with\t the object of killing Rajiv
\nGandhi.\n<\/p>\n
Shankar (A-4)\n<\/p>\n
————-\n<\/p>\n
\tShankar (A-4) is a Sri Lankan national.\t He came  to
\nIndia on  1.5.1991 in the group of nine.  This group of nine
\npersons had come to Kodiakarai on the Indian coast.   Up  to
\n15.5.1991  Shankar  (A-4)  stayed  with\t one  Jagadisan\t and
\nthereafter from 16.5.1991 to  23.5.1991\t at  Easwari  Lodge,
\nMadras.\t  While\t at  Kodiakarai\t he happened to meet Murugan
\n(A-3), who gave him telephone number of Nalini\t(A-1)  on  a
\nslip (Exh.P-1062).  While at Easwari Lodge Santhan (A-2) and
\nSivarasan met  Shankar\t(A-4)  and gave him Rs.10,000\/-.  It
\nwas during his stay at Easwari Lodge that  he  learnt  about
\nthe assassination   of\t Rajiv\tGandhi\ton  21.5.1991.\t  On
\n23.5.1991 he tried to  contact\tSivarasan  or  Robert  Payas
\n(A-9)  on  telephone  number  2343402  installed at Ebenezer
\nStore but was unable to do so.\tShankar (A-4)  was  arrested
\non 7.6.1991 near Nagapatnam.  News of his arrest was flashed
\nin newspapers.\t  Sivarasan sent a wireless message to Pottu
\nAmman on 9.6.1991 (ExhP-401) which reads:   “there  is\tnews
\nthat one  of my associates was caught at Nagapatnam.  He has
\ntold things\/news about\tme”.\tThat  is  all  the  evidence
\nagainst Shankar\t (A-4).\t   Accepting all this evidence to be
\ncorrect it merely shows that Shankar (A-4)  had\t association
\nwith  Sivarasan, Santhan (A-2), Robert Payas (A-9) and other
\nmembers of LTTE.  This is far from showing that Shankar (A4)
\nhad even any knowledge of the plan to murder  Rajiv  Gandhi,
\nthe object  of\tconspiracy.  Simply because he came to India
\non 1.5.1991 in the group of nine along\twith  Sivarasan\t and
\nassassins will not be enough to impart even knowledge to him
\nof  the\t conspiracy  with  the\tobject to kill Rajiv Gandhi.
\nApart from the general charge of  conspiracy  Shankar  (A-4)
\nhas  also  been charged for an offence under Section 3(3) of
\nTADA  and  for\toffence\t punishable  under  Section  14\t  of
\nForeigners Act,\t 1946.\t  Charge  under Section 3(3) of TADA
\nmust fail in view of what  we  have  said  earlier  that  no
\noffence\t under\tTADA  has been made out against the accused.
\nAs regards the offence under Section 14\t of  the  Foreigners
\nAct  he has been convicted and sentenced as he entered India
\nunauthorisedly.\t In fact his conviction and sentence on this
\ncharge have not been challenged.\n<\/p>\n
Vijayanandan (A-5)\n<\/p>\n
——————\n<\/p>\n
\tHe is a Sri Lankan national and\t is  also  a  senior
\nmember of  LTTE.   He was one of the members of the group of
\nnine who arrived in India on 1.5.1991 by the  boat  reaching
\nat Kodiakarai  at  the\tcoast  of  India.    He was found in
\npossession of forged passport  (MO-559),  which\t was  seized
\nduring the  investigation.    In  Madras he stayed at Komala
\nVilas Lodge on 8.5.1991 and 9.5.1991.  In the guest register
\nof the lodge (Exh.P-496) he described himself as  an  Indian
\nhailing from  Madurai in Tamil Nadu.  In the column ‘purpose
\nof visit’ he mentioned the same as “marriage” and profession
\nas “teacher”.  On 9.5.1991 Arivu (A-18) met him in the lodge
\nand took him to the house of  N.    Vasantha  Kumar  (PW-75)
\nwhere he stayed.    In\this  statement\tN.    Vasantha Kumar
\n(PW-75) said that while Vijayanandan (A-5)  was\t staying  in
\nhis house he used to express his hatred towards Rajiv Gandhi
\nand  IPKF and was also narrating the atrocities committed by
\nIPKF in Jaffna.\t N.  Vasantha Kumar (PW-75) also  said\tthat
\nVijayanandan  (A-5)  brought with him a book titled “Alecia”
\nwith Tamil translation (MO-113) for printing.  This book, he
\nsaid, dealt with life of a jewish lady\twho  sacrificed\t her
\nlife for  her  nation.\t  In  his  diary  (MO-180) Sivarasan
\nmentioned on the date 8.5.1991 about payment of Rs.50,000\/to
\nVijayanandan (A-5).   It  has  come  in\t evidence  that\t the
\npurpose\t of  Vijayanandan  (A-5)  coming to India was to buy
\nbooks for LTTE library and in fact books were recovered\t and
\nseized.\t In his confession Arivu (A-18) does state about the
\npurchasing of  books  by  Vijayanandan\t(A-5).\t There is no
\nevidence to show that Vijayanandan (A-5) had even  knowledge
\nof any\tconspiracy to kill Rajiv Gandhi.  Merely association
\nwith Sivarasan or Arivu (A-18) would not  make\tVijayanandan
\n(A-5) a member of the conspiracy alleged against him.  Since
\nhe  came  to  India clandestinely through illicit channel he
\nhas been charged for an offence punishable under Section  14
\nof the\tForeigners  Act, 1946.\tThere is no challenge to his
\nconviction and sentence to this charge.\t  The  other  charge
\nagainst\t him  is  under\t Section  3(3) of TADA, which stands
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Ruben (A-6)\n<\/p>\n
———–\n<\/p>\n
\tRuben (A-6) is a Sri Lankan Tamil  and\tis  an\tLTTE
\nmilitant.   He\twas again one of the members of the group of
\nnine arrived at Kodiakarai on Indian soil on  1.5.1991\tfrom
\nSri Lanka.    He  had lost his one leg during the fight with
\nSri Lankan army.  He went to Jaipur via Delhi from Madras by
\ntrain on 17.5.1991 in the company  of  Vijayendran  (PW-111)
\nand an attendant.  He was seen off at the railway station by
\nSanthan (A-2)  and  Sivarasan.\t  Before  his  departure for
\nJaipur his cloths and other necessities had  been  purchased
\nby Santhan  (A-2) and Robert Payas (A-9).  Both Robert Payas
\n(A-9)  and  Santhan  (A-2)  said   in\ttheir\tconfessional
\nstatements that Ruben (A-6) had come to India for getting an
\nartificial limb\t  fixed.      Vijayendran  (PW-111)  in\t his
\nstatement said in the second week of April,  1991  Sivarasan
\nintroduced   himself  and  helped  Vijayendran\t(PW-111)  in
\ndelivering his letters to his relatives\t in  Sri  Lanka\t and
\nthen getting  back  replies  from them.\t Sivarasan requested
\nVijayendran (PW-111) to accompany Ruben (A-6) to  Jaipur  to
\nfix an\tartificial  limb  as  he  had  no  left\t leg.\tWhen
\nVijayendran (PW-111) said to  Sivarasan\t that  doctors\twere
\navailable  at  Madras itself his reply was that in India Dr.
\nSethi, who was based in Jaipur, was  a\tspecialist  in\tthis
\nfield and  he wanted the treatment from him only.  Sivarasan
\ngave Rs.15,000\/- in cash to Vijayendran (PW-111), which\t was
\nto meet\t the  medical  and conveyance expenses.\t Vijayendran
\n(PW-111) reserved three seats in  G.T.\t  Express  going  to
\nDelhi in his own name that of Suresh Kumar, which was one of
\nthe  alias  of\tRuben  (A-6),  and other attendant Ajas Ali.
\nSivarasan asked Vijayendran (PW-111)  to  use  his  name  as
\nMaharaja which was his pseudo name used by him in his poems.
\nIn Jaipur they stayed in Golden Lodge where they had arrived
\non 19.5.1991.\t On  22.5.1991\tVijayendran (PW-111) said he
\nread  the  news\t  of   Rajiv   Gandhi’s\t  assassination\t  at
\nSriperumbudur.\t He said they were in panic as they could be
\nsuspected being Tamilians and in that situation Ruben  (A-6)
\nsuggested to vacate the lodge.\tOn 23rd evening they shifted
\nto Vikram  Lodge.    Vijayendran (PW-111) said he met Rajan,
\nmanager of the lodge, and asked him to assist him for taking
\ntreatment for Ruben (A-6) as the date of appointment by\t Dr.
\nSethi was  given  for  13th June only.\tHe and Ajas Ali came
\nback  to  Madras  on  27.5.1991,  having  left\t Jaipur\t  on
\n24.5.1991, while  Ruben\t (A-6)\tstayed\tin  Jaipur.   On the
\nmorning of 29.5.1991 Vijayendran (PW-111) saw the picture of
\nSivarasan published in the  English  newspaper\tand  he\t was
\nstunned.   Ruben  (A-6) was arrested at Jaipur on 26.5.1991.
\nOn  account  of\t the  association  with\t Santhan  (A-2)\t and
\nSivarasan  prosecution seeks to draw inference that he was a
\nmember of the conspiracy and that the real  purpose  of\t his
\ngoing  to  Jaipur  was\tto  arrange  a hide out and that the
\nostensible purpose was given as fixing an  artificial  limb.
\nIt  is\tdifficult  to  accept  the  version  advanced by the
\nprosecution as Ruben (A-6) had admittedly lost his one\tleg.
\nVijayendran  (PW-111) supports the case that Ruben (A-6) did
\nin fact go to Jaipur for fixing an  artificial\tleg  and  in
\nparticular for\tthe  treatment\tto be given by Dr.  Sethi, a
\nrenown person in the line.   Simply  because  Sivarasan\t was
\nlooking\t after\tthe  interest of Ruben (A-6) and meeting the
\nexpenses would certainly not impart him with  the  knowledge
\nof the conspiracy and even if he had a knowledge there is no
\nevidence to show that he agreed or was a party to the object
\nof the conspiracy.  Charge against Ruben (A-6) under Section
\n3(3) of\t TADA  has  to\tbe  dismissed.\tThe other individual
\ncharge against him is under Section  14\t of  the  Foreigners
\nAct,  1946  since  he  came  to\t India clandestinely through
\nillicit channel\t and  without  any  valid  document.\t His
\nconviction  and\t sentence  have\t not been challenged on this
\ncharge.\n<\/p>\n
Kangasabapathy (A-7) and Athirai (A-8)\n<\/p>\n
————————————–\n<\/p>\n
\tKangasabapathy (A-7) is a Sri Lankan  Tamil  and  an
\nLTTE helper.\tHis  son Radha, who was LTTE Area Commander,
\nJaffna, died in an encounter with the  Sri  Lankan  army  in
\n1987.\tKangasabapathy\t(A-7)  was  also  thus called Radhya
\nIyyah.\tHe  along  with\t Athirai  (A-8),  a  hard-core\tLTTE
\nmilitant girl, came to India in the last week of April, 1991
\nin an  LTTE  boat  from\t Sri  Lanka.\tAthirai\t (A8) in her
\nconfession said that she got specialised  training  in\tLTTE
\ncamps.\t She was assigned the work of gathering intelligence
\non the operations and movements of Sri Lankan army and other
\nrival organisations like EPRLF, PLOT,  etc.    Reports,\t she
\nprepared,  would  be  handed over by her to Mathiah, another
\nLTTE leader.  Athirai (A-8) was introduced to Kangasabapathy
\n(A-7) by Pottu Amman some time in March, 1991.\tShe was told
\nthat she would go to Delhi  with  Kangasabapathy  (A-7)\t for
\nmaking arrangements for her stay under the guise of learning
\nHindi or  computer.    From  this  she\tunderstood  that the
\npurpose of this arrangement was to collect information about
\nsome targetted places in Delhi relating to the work  of\t the
\norganisation  and  that\t if  LTTE  people came to Delhi they
\ncould stay in  her  house  without  causing  any  suspicion.
\nThere  is  nothing  to show that she even had the inkling of
\nthe object of conspiracy.  Kangasabapathy (A-7) was having a
\npassport (MO-558) issued by Sri Lankan Government but he did
\nnot use the passport to come  to  India\t through  authorised
\nchannel.   After  arriving  at\tKodiakarai  on\tIndian\tsoil
\nKangasabapathy (A-7) and Athirai (A-8)\tcame  to  Madras  to
\nstay  with Jayakumari (PW-109), a relative of Kangasabapathy
\n(A-7).\tSivarasan  met\tthem  in  the  house  of  Jayakumari
\n(PW-109).   From this fact prosecution seeks to contend that
\nonly because Kangasabapathy (A-7) and Athirai (A-8) were  to
\naccomplish  the\t object of conspiracy Sivarasan met them and
\ntook care of them and he was also to meet their expenses  in
\nIndia.\t Simply\t because Sivarasan was looking after them is
\nnot enough to infer their  being  members  of  the  criminal
\nconspiracy.   From  7.5.1991  till  1.7.1991  Athirai  (A-8)
\nstayed with P.\t  Thirumathi  Vimala  (PW-62).\t   She\t was
\npersuaded  by  Sivarasan  to let Athirai (A8) stay with her.
\nSivarasan had brought P.  Thirumathi Vimala (PW62) a  letter
\nfrom her  mother  in Sri Lanka.\t On 16.5.1991 Sivarasan gave
\nRs.10,000\/- to Athirai (A-8) for expenses.    He  also\tgave
\nRs.20,000\/-  to\t Kangasabapathy (A-7) and asked him to go to
\nDelhi to   arrange   an\t  accommodation.      On   20.5.1991
\nKangasabapathy\t(A-7) accompanied by one Vanan went to Delhi
\nand arranged a house.  From this also an inference is sought
\nto be drawn by the prosecution to which also we\t are  unable
\nto  agree,  that  it  was  Sivarasan who sent Kangasabapathy
\n(A-7) to Delhi one day before the object of  the  conspiracy
\nwas  to\t be  accomplished  to fix a house there as otherwise
\nthere was no necessity for Kangasabapathy  (A-7)  to  go  to
\nDelhi.\t From  the  notebook  (MO-159) and diary (MO-180) of
\nSivarasan payments made to Kangasabapathy (A-7) and  Athirai
\n(A-8) are  recorded.\tKangasabapathy\t(A-7) came back from
\nDelhi on 30.5.1991.  In spite of the  advice  of  Jayakumari
\n(PW-109)  he did not get his name registered with the police
\nas refugee from Sri Lanka.  It was said\t that  this  was  on
\naccount of  his\t fear  of  exposure  of\t his identity.\tWhen
\nJayakumari  (PW-109)  asked   Kangasabapathy   (A-7)   about
\nSivarasan   whose  photograph  had  been  published  in\t the
\nnewspapers he told her\tthat  it  was  her  imagination\t and
\nSivarasan was  not  involved.\t He told Jayakumari (PW-109)
\nthat if she betrayed Kangasabapathy (A-7) and Athirai  (A-8)
\nGod will  not  forgive\ther.\tThere  is a wireless message
\n(Exh.P-407) from Sivarasan to Pottu  Amman  dated  14.6.1991
\nwhere  Sivarasan informed Pottu Amman that there was no news
\nof Kangasabapathy (A-7), who had gone to Delhi.\t   Similarly
\nwhen P.\t Thirumathi Vimala (PW-62) asked Athirai (A-8) about
\nSivarasan  whose  photo\t had  been  published, she said that
\nSivarasan was not connected with the assassination of  Rajiv
\nGandhi\tand  that  he  was  a newspaper reporter and that he
\nmight have gone to Sriperumbudur to cover the public meeting
\nand  his  photo\t might\thave  been  published  by   mistake.
\nKangasabapathy\t(A-7) and Athirai (A-8) went to New Delhi by
\ntrain on 1.7.1991.  They were  seen  off  by  Santhan  (A-2)
\nwhere they  were  arrested.    Prosecution  has not examined
\nVanan with whom Vijayanandan (A-5) had also  stayed  and  no
\nexplanation is\tforthcoming as to why it was not done.\tFrom
\nthe facts narrated above prosecution seeks to draw inference
\nthat  both  Kangasabapathy  (A-7)  and\tAthirai\t (A-8)\twere
\nmembers of  the\t conspiracy.\tIt is difficult to reach any
\nsuch conclusion.  The evidence only shows their\t association
\nwith Sivarasan and nothing more.  Charges under Section 3(3)
\nand  3(4)  of  TADA against Kangasabapathy (A-7) and Athirai
\n(A-8) fail and they like other co-accused are  acquitted  of
\nthese charges.\t There is nothing on the record to show that
\nKangasabapathy (A-7) and Athirai  (A-8)\t went  to  Delhi  in
\norder  to  fix a hide out for screening the accused involved
\nin the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi.  Charge under  Section
\n212  against  both  of\tthem  must  also  fail\tand they are
\nacquitted.  However, charge punishable under Section  14  of
\nthe  Foreigners\t Act, 1946 is sustained against both of them
\nas they clandestinely came to India through illicit channels
\nwithout any valid travel document.    Their  conviction\t and
\nsentence under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act is upheld.\n<\/p>\n
Robert Payas (A-9)\n<\/p>\n
——————-\n<\/p>\n
Jayakumar (A-10)\n<\/p>\n
—————-\n<\/p>\n
Shanthi (A-11)\n<\/p>\n
————–\n<\/p>\n
\tRobert Payas (A-9)  and\t Jayakumar  (A-10)  are\t Sri
\nLankan Tamils.\t  Shanthi (A-11) is Indian Tamil, married to
\nJayakumar (A10).  Wife of Robert Payas (A-9) is\t the  sister
\nof Jayakumar  (A10).\tFrom  the confession of Robert Payas
\n(A-9) and other evidence the prosecution  seeks\t to  contend
\nthat :-\n<\/p>\n
\ta)\the had knowledge  about\t the  conspiracy  to
\n\tkill Rajiv Gandhi;\n<\/p>\n
\tb)\tsince  Shanthi\t(A-11)\twas  an Indian Tamil
\n\tthis group was sent by Pottu Amman to  go  to  Tamil
\n\tNadu  to fix a house for Sivarasan and other members
\n\tof  the\t conspiracy  to\t accomplish  the  object  of
\n\tconspiracy  inasmuch as Robert Payas’s (A-9) one and
\n\thalf months son had been killed in an action by IPKF
\n\tand he had developed great hatred towards  IPKF\t and
\n\tRajiv Gandhi.  He viewed Rajiv Gandhi as responsible
\n\tfor his sufferings and of all other Tamilians in Sri
\n\tLanka by IPKF;\n<\/p>\n
\tc)\tthis  group of Robert Payas (A-9), Jayakumar
\n\t(A-10) and Shanthi (A-11) was  allowed\tto  come  to
\n\tIndia  without\tpaying\tany  tax to LTTE as they had
\n\tagreed to take houses at Madras to accommodate\tLTTE
\n\tmilitants to accomplish the object of conspiracy;\n<\/p>\n
\td)\tthey  came to India in the guise of refugees
\n\tbut left the refugee camp and  immediately  came  to
\n\tMadras; e)\tPorur House was taken in the name of
\n\tJayakumar (A-10) where wireless set was installed by
\n\tKanthan\t  and  Nishanthan,  who\t were  communicating
\n\tthrough this wireless set with LTTE headquarters  in
\n\tJaffna;\n<\/p>\n
\tf)\tMurugan\t (A-3)\twas  communicating with LTTE
\n\theadquarters through this wireless set;\n<\/p>\n
\tg)\tRobert\tPayas  (A-9)  was  associated\twith
\n\tSivarasan  closely with a view to achieve the object
\n\tof conspiracy  as  Sivarasan  was  meeting  all\t the
\n\texpenses of Robert Payas (A-9);\n<\/p>\n
\th)\tPorur  House was used for accommodating LTTE
\n\tmilitants, who came to India for  accomplishing\t the
\n\tobject of conspiracy;\n<\/p>\n
\ti)\tRobert\t Payas\t (A-9)\t burst\tcrackers  on
\n\t22.5.1991 after the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi;\n<\/p>\n
\tj)\twhile staying in his house he was  anxiously
\n\twaiting for the news from Sivarasan on 23.5.1991;\n<\/p>\n
\tk)\this association with Sivarasan was continued
\n\teven after assassination of Rajiv Gandhi;\n<\/p>\n
\tl)\tShankar\t (A-4) tried to contact him on phone
\n\ton 23.5.1991 though without success; and<\/p>\n
\tm)\ton 27.5.1991  Robert  Payas’s  (A-9)  family
\n\twith  Santhan  (A-2)  went  to\tTrichendur  to evade
\n\tarrest.\t They took bus tickets in assumed names\t but
\n\tdid not stay there and came back to Madras.\n<\/p>\n
\tFrom  all  these  circumstances\t even if taken to be
\ncorrect it is difficult to conclude that Robert Payas  (A-9)
\nwas member   of\t  the  conspiracy.    His  association\twith
\nSivarasan or even his knowledge about the conspiracy  cannot
\nmake him  a  conspirator.   It is the agreement which is the
\nsine qua non  of  the  offence\tof  conspiracy.\t   Suspicion
\nhowsoever strong does not take the place of proof.  Wireless
\nmessages are transmitted and received in coded language.  It
\nis no body’s case that Robert Payas (A-9) knew the nature or
\nthe contents  of the messages.\tIt must not be lost sight of
\nthat LTTE had various activities and all LTTE men  were\t not
\nnecessarily  involved in achieving the object of conspiracy.
\nEvidence shows that other LTTE activists  who  had  come  to
\nIndia  were  also  engaged  in\tarranging houses for various
\npurposes like housing the injured  LTTE\t cadre,\t storing  of
\nmedicines, etc.<\/p>\n
\tIn  the\t case of Jayakumar (A-10) it is alleged that
\nhe fixed a house in Kodungiyar for his family to stay  which
\nwas  taken  in\tthe  name  of  Ramaswamy,  father of Shanthi
\n(A-11).\t This house was in fact for the stay  of  Sivarasan.
\nIt  is\talleged by the prosecution that it could be inferred
\nthat Jayakumar (A-10) and Shanthi (A-11) were members of the
\nconspiracy having the object to kill Rajiv Gandhi  from\t the
\nfollowing circumstances that:-\n<\/p>\n
\ta)\tthey were selected by Pottu Amman along with
\n\tRobert Payas (A-9) to go to India to hire houses for
\n\tthe  stay of LTTE militants and they did not pay any
\n\ttax to LTTE for coming to India;\n<\/p>\n
\tb)\tafter Jayakumar (A-10) had taken a  separate
\n\thouse  in  fact for the stay of Sivarasan, he in the
\n\tfirst week of May, 1991\t brought  Subha,  Dhanu\t and
\n\tNero to that house;\n<\/p>\n
\tc)\tSivarasan   was\t  meeting  the\texpenses  of
\n\tJayakumar (A-10) since Jayakumar (A-10) and  Shanthi
\n\t(A-11) were not having any income;\n<\/p>\n
\td)\tSivarasan  paid\t Rs.20,000  as\tadvance\t for
\n\trenting a shop in the name of Shanthi (A-11) for her
\n\tto run a coffee grinding  shop.\t   The\tmachine\t was
\n\tpurchased for Rs.15,000\/-, payment of which was also
\n\tmade by\t  Sivarasan.\tHe  also  made\tpayment\t for
\n\tregistration of a telephone under OYT scheme in\t the
\n\tshop  in  the  name of Shanthi (A-11) to be used for
\n\tconspiratorial work; e) Jayakumar (A-10) and Shanthi
\n\t(A-11) were aware of  “the  dangerous  mission”\t for
\n\twhich Sivarasan had come to India;\n<\/p>\n
\tf)\tJayakumar  (A-10) would have definitely told
\n\this wife Shanthi (A-11) about the purpose for  which
\n\tSivarasan, Subha and Dhanu had come to the house;\n<\/p>\n
\tg)\teven  having  the  knowledge  that Subha and
\n\tDhanu  had  been  brought  by  Sivarasan  with\t the
\n\tplanning  of  an  assassination Jayakumar (A-10) and
\n\tShanthi (A-11) still  continued\t to  associate\twith
\n\tSivarasan and accommodated him in their house;\n<\/p>\n
\th)\tit was in the house of Jayakumar (A-10) that
\n\tSivarasan  changed  his\t dress to white kurta-pyjama
\n\tand from where he  went\t to  the  house\t of  Vijayan
\n\t(A-12)\twhich  was nearby to pick up Subha and Dhanu
\n\tbefore going to Sriperumbudur;\n<\/p>\n
\ti)\tbefore that a  day  or\tso  earlier  Shanthi
\n\t(A-11) had stitched a cloth pouch for concealing the
\n\tpistol of Sivarasan;\n<\/p>\n
\tj)\tit  was\t in the house of Jayakumar (A-10) on
\n\t7.5.1991 that Sivarasan informed Santhan (A-2)\tthat
\n\the   was   going  to  help  two\t LTTE  tigresses  at
\n\tSriperumbudur to kill Rajiv Gandhi;\n<\/p>\n
\tk)\twhen Sivarasan left the house  of  Jayakumar
\n\t(A-10)\ton 21.5.1991 for Sriperumbudur Santhan (A-2)
\n\twas present in the house;\n<\/p>\n
\tl)\tJayakumar   (A-10)   and   Shanthi    (A-11)
\n\tcontinued to associate with Sivarasan even after the
\n\tassassination of Rajiv Gandhi;\n<\/p>\n
\tm)\ton  22.5.1991  Sivarasan,  Subha  and Nalini
\n\t(A-1) came to the house of Jayakumar (A-10) when  he
\n\ttold Jayakumar (A-10) that the job was done and that
\n\tRajiv Gandhi was murdered by Dhanu;\n<\/p>\n
\tn)\teven  after  having  come to know that Dhanu
\n\thad killed  Rajiv  Gandhi  by  becoming\t human\tbomb
\n\tJayakumar  (A-10)  and\tShanthi\t (A-11) accommodated
\n\tSivarasan, Subha and Nalini (A-1) in their house;\n<\/p>\n
\to)\tafter  the  assassination  of  Rajiv  Gandhi
\n\tJayakumar  (A-10)  and\tSivarasan  dug\ta pit in the
\n\tkitchen in the house and concealed arms, ammunitions
\n\tand  other  articles   and   things   belonging\t  to
\n\tSivarasan;\n<\/p>\n
\tp)\tit  is\tonly  because  Jayakumar  (A-10) was
\n\tinvolved in the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi  along
\n\twith  Sivarasan,  Subha\t and  Dhanu  that  he helped
\n\tSivarasan in concealing the incriminating  articles;
\n\tand<\/p>\n
\tq)\tShanthi\t (A-11)\t would\tcertainly have known
\n\tall this as the pit was dug in the kitchen where she
\n\tmust have been working all the time.\n<\/p>\n
\tThere is nothing on record to  show  that  Jayakumar
\n(A-10) and Shanthi (A-11) knew of the “dangerous mission” or
\nfor  whose  assassination  Subha  and  Dhanu were brought by
\nSivarasan.  True the couple was in dire financial needs\t and
\nwith  the  promise  of\tfinancial  help\t and  to  start some
\nbusiness in India away from the turmoil in  Sri\t Lanka\tthey
\nagreed\tto  come  to  India  and  to  hire  a house for LTTE
\nmilitants to stay and they did rent a house where  Sivarasan
\ncould stay.  But they did not know what Sivarasan was upto.\n<\/p>\n
\tFrom  all  these  circumstances\t it  is difficult to
\ninfer any agreement to make Robert  Payas  (A-9),  Jayakumar
\n(A-10)\tand  Shanthi  (A-11)  as  members  of the conspiracy
\nhaving the object to kill Rajiv Gandhi.\t As a matter of fact
\nthere is hardly any circumstance against Shanthi  (A-11)  to
\nmake her a member of the conspiracy.  These accused may have
\na  strong  feeling  against  Rajiv  Gandhi and they may have
\nstrong suspicion that Sivarasan, Subha and  Dhanu  had\tcome
\nfor some dangerous mission but there is no evidence to infer
\nthat that  would make them members of the conspiracy.  It is
\ncorrect that Jayakumar (A-10)  harboured  Sivarasan,  Nalini
\n(A-1)  and Subha after having come to know their involvement
\nin the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi but from that again  it
\ncannot\tbe  inferred that he was a member of the conspiracy.
\nNo charge can be levied against Shanthi (A-11) of harbouring
\nmerely because she was living in the house with her  husband
\nJayakumar (A-10).    Charges  under Section 3(3) and Section
\n3(4) of TADA against Robert Payas  (A-9),  Jayakumar  (A-10)
\nand Shanthi (A-11) are not made out and their conviction and
\nsentence under\tthese  charges\tare set aside.\tCharge under
\nSection 212 IPC is,  however,  made  out  against  Jayakumar
\n(A-10) but  not against Shanthi (A-11).\t She is acquitted of
\nthis charge  while  conviction\tand  sentence  of  Jayakumar
\n(A-10) is  maintained.\t Jayakumar (A-10) and Shanthi (A-11)
\nhad also  been\tcharged\t for  an  offence  punishable  under
\nSection\t 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 as they were found
\nin unauthorized possession of arms and ammunition without  a
\nvalid  licence, concealed in a pit dug in the kitchen in the
\nhouse of Shanthi (A-11).  No such charge can be fastened  on
\nShanthi\t (A-11) though it has to be upheld against Jayakumar
\n(A-10).\t  His  conviction  and\tsentence,  therefore,  under
\nSection 25(1-B)(a)  of\tArms  Act  is  maintained.   Shanthi
\n(A-11) is acquitted of the charge of offence  under  Section
\n25(1-B)(a)  of\tthe Arms Act and her conviction and sentence
\nset aside.\n<\/p>\n
Vijayan (A-12)\n<\/p>\n
—————\n<\/p>\n
Selvaluxmi (A-13)\n<\/p>\n
—————–\n<\/p>\n
Bhaskaran (A-14)\n<\/p>\n
—————-\n<\/p>\n
\tVijayan (A-12) is Sri Lankan Tamil and a  helper  of
\nLTTE.  Selvaluxmi (A-13) is his wife and Bhaskaran (A-14) is
\nthe father  of\tSelvaluxmi  (A-13).    Selvaluxmi (A-13) and
\nBhaskaran (A-14) are Indian Tamils.  Vijayan (A-12) has made
\na confession.\t   According   to    prosecution    physical
\nmanifestation  of their being members of criminal conspiracy
\nwas when they came to India on 12.9.1990 and  were  sent  by
\nSivarasan at  the  instance  of\t Pottu\tAmman.\tThey came to
\nIndia without paying any tax to LTTE as they had  agreed  to
\ntake a house on rent to accommodate LTTE militants coming to
\nIndia to  accomplish the object of conspiracy.\tThey came to
\nIndia in the guise of refugees.\t While they were staying  at
\nrefugee camp  at  Tuticorin  Sivarasan\tmet  them there.  In
\nApril, 1991 Vijayan (A12) was directed by Sivarasan to go to
\nMadras and to fix a  house  in\tan  secluded  place  on\t the
\noutskirts of Madras.  As per direction Vijayan (A-12) rented
\na house.    Vijayan  (A-12), Selvaluxmi (A-13) and Bhaskaran
\n(A-14) moved in that house in the last week of April,  1991.
\nAll the\t expenses for paying advance rent, etc.\t were met by
\nSivarasan.  On 2.5.1991 Sivarasan brought  Nero,  Subha\t and
\nDhanu to  this\thouse.\tArivu (A-18) purchased a 12 volt car
\nbattery on 3.5.1991 for operating the wireless set installed
\nin the house.  With this Nero started communicating with the
\nLTTE leaders in Jaffna.\t This wireless station installed  in
\nthe  house  of\tVijayan (A-12) is of Sivarasan being station
\nNo.  910 and was communicating\twith  Station  No.    91  in
\nJaffna of  Pottu  Amman.   Thus the prosecution alleges that
\nthe house of Vijayan (A-12) was used by\t Sivarasan  to\tkeep
\ninformed LTTE leaders in Jaffna through wireless messages as
\nto  the\t progress made by him in the execution of the object
\nof conspiracy.\tPurchase of two cycles by Vijayan (A-12)  is
\nalso  being  taken  as\tpart of the conspiracy as these were
\nused by Subha, Dhanu and others for meeting the\t members  of
\nthe conspiracy.\t   While  Sivarasan  stayed  in the house of
\nJayakumar (A10) Subha and Dhanu were staying in the house of
\nVijayan (A-12).\t As to why Subha and Dhanu were\t staying  in
\nthe  house  of\tVijayan\t (A12)\tit  was\t said that it was on
\naccount\t of  the  fact\tthat  both  Selvaluxmi\t(A-13)\t and
\nBhaskaran  (A-14)  were\t Indian\t Tamils\t and as such stay of
\nSubha and Dhanu would not raise any suspicion in  the  minds
\nof the\t neighbours.\t  On  16\/17.5.1991  Vijayan  (A-12),
\nSivarasan and Nero on the instruction of Sivarasan had dug a
\npit in the kitchen in the house of Vijayan  (A-12)  for\t the
\npurpose\t of concealing the wireless set, its accessories and
\nother materials used by Sivarasan.  This showed according to
\nthe prosecution that Vijayan (A-12), Selvaluxmi\t (A-13)\t and
\nBhaskaran  (A-14)  were not genuine refugees and the conduct
\nof Vijayan (A-12) would show his knowledge of the object  of
\nconspiracy  and\t the  purpose for which Subha and Dhanu were
\nbrought to India by Sivarasan.\tIt is also alleged that\t the
\nfact  of  concealment  of  wireless  set in a pit dug in the
\nkitchen could not have been done without  the  knowledge  of
\nSelvaluxmi  (A-13)  who used to cook food for her family and
\nfor Subha and Dhanu.  On 21.5.1991  Sivarasan  came  to\t the
\nhouse  of Vijayan (A-12) and asked Nero to send the wireless
\nmessage to Jaffna.  He also gave instructions to  Subha\t and
\nDhanu and left\tthe  house.   At about 12.30 p.m.  Sivarasan
\ndressed in a white kurtapyjama came and took Subha and Dhanu
\nwith him.  When Sivarasan asked Vijayan (A-12) to  bring  an
\nauto-rikshaw  for  him,\t Subha and Dhanu to go, he specified
\nA-12 not to bring the auto-rikshaw near the house  and\tthis
\nwas  done  so  that the house where they were staying be not
\nidentified.  Prosecution  then\talleges\t that  on  21.5.1991
\nVijayan\t (A-12), Selvaluxmi (A-13) and Bhaskaran (A-14) were
\naware that Sivarasan, Subha and Dhanu had gone for attending
\nRajiv Gandhi’s\tmeeting\t at  Sriperumbudur.    On  22.5.1991
\nSivarasan  came\t to the house of Vijayan (A-12) and told him
\nthat “the work was finished and that Rajiv Gandhi  had\tbeen
\nkilled”.  This has come in the confession of Vijayan (A-12).
\nProsecution poses a question as to why Sivarasan should tell
\nVijayan\t (A-12)\t that the work was finished and provides the
\nanswer that it could be so only because Vijayan\t (A-12)\t was
\naware  of  the\tobject\tof  conspiracy\tand he was anxiously
\nwaiting for the result from Sivarasan and also that  he\t was
\nfully  aware  that  Rajiv  Gandhi  was\tkilled\tby  Dhanu by
\nbecoming a human  bomb.\t   The\tfact  that  Vijayan  (A-12),
\nSelvaluxmi  (A-13)  and\t Bhaskaran  (A-14)  continued  to be
\nassociated  with  Sivarasan  and  Subha\t  even\t after\t the
\nassassination of Rajiv Gandhi and accommodated them would be
\nanother\t circumstance  to  show\t their\tknowledge  about the
\nobject of conspiracy.\t They  are  also  guilty  of  having
\nharboured  Sivarasan  and Subha knowing fully well that they
\nwere the persons involved in the killing  of  Rajiv  Gandhi.
\nAfter  the  assassination Sivarasan was staying in the house
\nof Vijayan (A-12) along with  Subha  and  regularly  sending
\nmessages  to  Pottu  Amman  through  wireless explaining the
\ndevelopments.\tAssociation  of\t Bhaskaran  (A-14)  is\talso
\nalleged\t but  this  did\t not  end  with\t the  harbouring  of
\nSivarasan and Subha  as\t he  made  efforts  to\tget  another
\naccommodation  for  the\t hiding\t of  Sivarasan and Subha for
\nwhich he sought the help of his relative  N.\tChokkanathan
\n(PW-97).   It  is  also\t the  case  of\tthe prosecution that
\nBhaskaran (A-14), who was all along staying in the house  of
\nVijayan\t (A-12)\t and Selvaluxmi (A-13), was also fully aware
\nthat Sivarasan, Subha and Dhanu had  gone  to  Sriperumbudur
\nand  killed Rajiv Gandhi and when particularly Dhanu did not
\nreturn.\t Relying on the confession of Vijayan (A-12)  lastly
\nthe  prosecution  said\tthat one or two days after 23.6.1991
\nSanthan (A-2) came with deceased accused Suresh\t Master\t and
\ntook Sivarasan\tand  Subha.    On  23.6.1991  Vijayan (A12),
\nSelvaluxmi (A-13) and Bhaskaran (A-14) went to Tuticorin and
\nagain returned to Madras after a week.\tWhile Vijayan (A-12)
\nand Bhaskaran (A-14) were arrested  on\t8.7.1991  Selvaluxmi
\n(A-13) was arrested on 16.5.1992.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe  have carefully gone through the evidence against
\nVijayan (A-12), Selvaluxmi (A-13) and Bhaskaran\t (A-14)\t and
\nthe  submissions  of  the  prosecution\tas  to\thow they are
\nmembers of the conspiracy with\tthe  object  to\t kill  Rajiv
\nGandhi.\t  The  evidence\t at  the most merely shows that they
\nassociated with Sivarasan.    The  evidence  that  they\t had
\nknowledge of  the  conspiracy  is  lacking.  Their knowledge
\nabout the murder of Rajiv Gandhi  by  Sivarasan,  Subha\t and
\nDhanu  was  acquired  by  them\tonly  after Rajiv Gandhi was
\nkilled.\t As  we\t have  repeatedly  said\t in  any  case\tmere
\nknowledge of the existence of conspiracy is not enough.\t One
\nhas to agree to the object of conspiracy to be guilty of the
\noffence under  Section\t120A  IPC.  Vijayan (A-12) would not
\nknow the nature of the messages which  were  transmitted  or
\nreceived from the wireless set installed in his house as all
\nthese were in coded language.  Two code sheets were given by
\nMurugan\t (A-3)\tto  Padma (A-21) to be kept in safe custody.
\nVijayan (A-12), Selvaluxmi (A-13) and Bhaskaran (A-14)\thave
\nbeen charged for offence under Section 3(3) of TADA and have
\nbeen jointly charged for offence under Section 3(4) TADA but
\nthese  charges\tmust  fail  and\t they are acquitted of these
\ncharges.   Then\t Vijayan  (A-12),  Selvaluxmi\t(A-13)\t and
\nBhaskaran  (A-14)  are\tcharged for an offence under Section
\n212 IPC for having harboured Sivarasan\tSubha  and  Nero  in
\norder to screen them from legal punishment knowing that they
\nhad committed  murder  of Rajiv Gandhi and others.  They all
\nhave been convicted  and  sentenced.\tVijayan\t (A-12)\t and
\nSelvaluxmi (A-13) are also charged for offence under Section
\n6(1A)  of  Wireless  Telegraphy\t Act,  1933  for  having  in
\nunauthorised possession of unlicensed  wireless\t transmitter
\nused  for  transmitting messages by Sivarasan and Nero using
\ncode sheets for\t such  transmission  to\t other\tconspirators
\nresiding   in\tSri   Lanka,   namely,\t absconding  accused
\nPrabhakaran and Pottu Amman and they have been convicted and
\nsentenced of this offence.    Though  in  our  view  Vijayan
\n(A-12)\tand Bhaskaran (A-14) have been rightly convicted and
\nsentenced under these charges but these charges cannot stand
\nagainst Selvaluxmi (A-13).  All\t members  of  the  household
\ncannot be  charged  like this without more.  A-13, being the
\nwife of A-12, was living with her husband A-12 and merely on
\nthat account knowledge and intention cannot be atributed  to
\nher, particularly when no overt act is alleged against her.
\nShe is acquitted of all these charges and her conviction and
\nsentence set aside.\n<\/p>\n
Shanmugavadivelu (A-15)\n<\/p>\n
———————–\n<\/p>\n
\tShanmugavadivelu (A-15)\t is  a Sri Lankan Tamil.  He
\nis living in India since 1987.\tAs to how he was a member of
\nthe conspiracy with the object\tto  kill  Rajiv\t Gandhi\t the
\nprosecution relies on the following circumstances:-\n<\/p>\n
1.\tFrom the papers seized from Ruben (A-6) at Jaipur on
\n20.6.1991  in  one  of\tthe folios the name ‘Thambi Anna’ is
\nwritten with telephone number 864249, which in fact  is\t the
\ntelephone number of Shanmugavadivelu (A-15).\n<\/p>\n
2.\tShanmugavadivelu  (A-15)  was known to Santhan (A-2)
\nand Sivarasan in early\t1990  when  Shanmugavadivelu  (A-15)
\nhelped Santhan (A-2) to get admission in Madras Institute of
\nEngineering Technology.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tWhen  Sivarasan\t came to India in a group of nine on
\n1.5.1991 he brought a  letter  dated  27.4.1991\t (Exh.P-209)
\naddressed to  P.  Thirumathi Vimala (PW-62) from her mother.
\nTo locate  the\thouse  of  P.\t Thirumathi  Vimala  (PW-62)
\nShanmugavadivelu  (A15)\t took Santhan (A-2) and Sivarasan to
\nher house in the first week of May, 1991.  In his confession
\nShanmugavadivelu (A-15) said  that  P.\t  Thirumathi  Vimala
\n(PW62)\twas  teacher  of his son in a school and was at that
\ntime living in the same\t colony.    P.\t  Thirumathi  Vimala
\n(PW-62)\t says  that  Shanmugavadivelu (A-15) was her distant
\nrelative and came from the same place in Sri Lanka.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tArrival of Santhan (A-2) to India in May,  1991\t was
\nknown  to  Shanmugavadivelu  (A-15)  even in April, 1991 and
\nthat would be  so  from\t the  statement\t of  P.\t   Veerappan
\n(PW-102) when Shanmugavadivelu (A-15) approached him towards
\nthe  end  of  April,  1991  to\tsend  Santhan  (A-2) abroad.
\nFurther\t that  Shanmugavadivelu\t (A-15)\t  represented\tthat
\nSanthan (A-2) was Indian national when he knew that he was a
\nSri Lankan Tamil.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tBoth P.\t   Veerappan (PW-102) and Vamadevan (PW-114)
\nhave\tstated\t  that\t  they\t  demanded    Rs.80,000\/from
\nShanmugavadivelu (A-15) for sending Santhan (A-2) abroad.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tDuring\tthe  trial  in the Designated Court, Santhan
\n(A-2) filed an application  for\t return\t of  the  amount  of
\nRs.80,000\/-  paid  by him through Shanmugavadivelu (A-15) to
\nP.  Veerappan\t (PW-102).\t  On\tthis\t application
\nShanmugavadivelu  (A-15)  made an endorsement that he had no
\nobjection to the return of said amount to Santhan (A-2).\n<\/p>\n
7.\tShanmugavadivelu (A-15) was keeping money  given  to
\nhim  by\t Santhan  (A-2)\t and  giving  him  back\t as and when
\nrequired by him.  That was before the assassination of Rajiv
\nGandhi.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tEven after the photo of Rajiv Gandhi  was  published
\nin  the\t newspaper  in\tconnection  with the murder of Rajiv
\nGandhi Shanmugavadivelu (A-15) continued to  associate\twith
\nSanthan (A-2)  who  was\t close\tassociate of Sivarasan.\t One
\nweek after the murder of Rajiv Gandhi Santhan (A-2) came  to
\nShanmugavadivelu  (A-15)  and  took  Rs.3,10,000\/- from him.
\nOne day he again came and took Rs.40,000\/leaving the balance
\namount with Shanmugavadivelu (A-15).  By this time photo  of
\nSivarasan   was\t  published   in  the  newspapers  and\twhen
\nShanmugavadivelu (A-15) inquired from  Santhan\t(A-2)  about
\nSivarasan he told him not to worry about Sivarasan and left.
\nOn this count it is alleged that Shanmugavadivelu (A-15) was
\nacting as financier of the LTTE organization.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tAthirai\t    (A-8)     was     regularly\t    visiting
\nShanmugavadivelu (A-15) which proves  her  association\twith
\nShanmugavadivelu (A-15), Santhan (A-2) and Sivarasan.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn  his\t confession Shanmugavadivelu (A-15) does not
\ntalk of the fact that he approached P.\t Veerappan  (PW-102)
\nand Vamadevan (PW-114) for sending Santhan (A-2) abroad.  It
\nis  wrong  on  the  part of the prosecution to allege on the
\nbasis of evidence that\tAthirai\t (A-8)\thad  been  regularly
\nvisiting Shanmugavadivelu   (A-15).\t There\tis  no\tsuch
\nevidence.  There is nothing in the evidence to suggest\teven
\nremotely  that\twhen  Santhan  (A-2)  asked Shanmugavadivelu
\n(A-15) to keep certain amount with him and took that  amount
\nback  on  certain  dates Shanmugavadivelu (A-15) had even an
\ninkling that there was any conspiracy afoot or that  Santhan
\n(A2) and  Sivarasan  were members of that conspiracy.  It is
\ndifficult to accept the prosecution  case  that\t arrival  of
\nSanthan\t (A-2)\twas  known  to\tShanmugavadivelu (A-15) even
\nbefore his arrival in India.  When P.\t Veerappan  (PW-102)
\nsaid   that   it   was\tin  the\t end  of  April,  1991\tthat
\nShanmugavadivelu (A-15) approached him it could be 1st\tweek
\nof May, 1991  as  well.\t   P.\t Veerappan  (PW-102) was not
\nkeeping any record of the visit of  Shanmugavadivelu  (A-15)
\nto  him and his statement in court was recorded years later.
\nIt appears to  us  that\t prosecution  is  looking  at  every
\ncircumstance with  the\tproverbial jaundiced eye.  From what
\nthe   prosecution   alleges   no    case    whatsoever\t  of
\nShanmugavadivelu  (A-15)  being member of the conspiracy has
\nbeen made out.\tWe do not find any basis in the\t prosecution
\nto prosecute Shanmugavadivelu (A-15) for the offence alleged
\nagainst him.\tRather\tevidence  shows\t his  and his wife’s
\nhatred for LTTE and its men.\tApart  from  the  charge  of
\nconspiracy Shanmugavadivelu (A-15) has also been charged for
\noffence under Section 3(3) of TADA which again stands failed
\nagainst him.\tHe  is\tacquitted of all the charges and his
\nconviction and sentence set aside.\n<\/p>\n
Ravi (A-16)\n<\/p>\n
————\n<\/p>\n
Suseendran (A-17)\n<\/p>\n
—————–\n<\/p>\n
\tFollowing circumstances have  been  alleged  by\t the
\nprosecution  to\t make  Ravi  (A-16)  and  Suseendran  (A-17)
\nmembers of the conspiracy :-\n<\/p>\n
\t1.  Both Ravi (A-16) and  Suseendran  (A-17)  though
\n\tIndian Tamils,\tbecame\tstrong LTTE activists.\tRavi
\n\t(A-16) had been a frequent visitor to Sri  Lanka  to
\n\tmeet LTTE  leaders there.  Because of the atrocities
\n\tcommitted by IPKF both developed hatred against it.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.   Ravi  (A-16)  was indoctrinated by Pottu Amman,
\n\twho asked him to go to India and  make\tarrangements
\n\tfor initiating armed revolution in Tamil Nadu.\tRavi
\n\t(A-16)\tinvolved Suseendran (A-17) in his attempt to
\n\tstart armed revolution with the support of LTTE.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.  Suseendran (A-17) started collecting youths\t and
\n\tthey  were  taken to Jaffna for training by LTTE for
\n\tthe  purpose  of  constituting\ta  force  for  armed
\n\trevolution in India.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.    Once  when  in  Sri  Lanka,  Ravi\t (A-16)\t was
\n\tintroduced to Sivarasan by Pottu Amman, who told him
\n\tthat he should keep close contacts  with  Sivarasan.
\n\tPottu  Amman  also  made  reference  to an important
\n\tevent that was going to take place in Tamil Nadu for
\n\twhich he said  role  of\t Ravi  (A-16)  should  be  a
\n\tprominent one.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.    While   Ravi  (A-16),  Suseendran\t (A-17)\t and
\n\tSivarasan were waiting in Sri Lanka for a boat to go
\n\tto India, Ravi (A-16)  pointedly  asked\t if  it\t was
\n\tRajiv  Gandhi,\tSivarasan  did\tnot  give  any reply
\n\tdirectly but Sivarasan had uttered words in  such  a
\n\tfashion\t as  to confirm the suspicion of Ravi (A-16)
\n\tthat target was Rajiv Gandhi.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.  Ravi (A-16) was in\ttouch  with  Sivarasan,\t who
\n\talso provided finance to him.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.   Ravi  (A-16) was also given the task of finding
\n\tairport security by Sivarasan on the  arrival  of  a
\n\tVIP there.     In  March,  1991\t Ravi  (A-16)  asked
\n\tSivarasan that three months had gone  by  when\tthey
\n\tarrived\t from  Sri  Lanka  but nothing has been done
\n\tabout the work mentioned by Pottu Amman.   Reply  of
\n\tSivarasan  was “we should not go in search of target
\n\tand that the target should come to us”\tand  further
\n\t“it  may  take\tplace  in near future if election is
\n\tdeclared”.  8.\tOn  10.5.1991  Ravi  (A-16)  was  at
\n\tKodiakkarai   where  Murugan  (A-3)  also  came\t and
\n\tanother LTTE helper Chokkan was also present.\tWhen
\n\tChokkan\t asked\tMurugan\t (A-3)\tin  presence of Ravi
\n\t(A-16) as to “why the work of Sivarasan has not\t yet
\n\tbeen completed”.    To\tthis  Murugan (A-3) answered
\n\t“how could that not be completed.  It  has  to\ttake
\n\tplace”.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.   On\t the  night  of\t 21.5.1991  Ravi  (A-16) was
\n\tsleeping  in  the  hut\topposite  to  the  house  of
\n\tShanmugham (DA) at Kodiakkarai.\t In the mid night he
\n\twas  told  by  a  servant  of  Shanmugham that Rajiv
\n\tGandhi had died in a bomb blast in Madras  and\twith
\n\thim  30 others also died and that a message has been
\n\treceived  that\tShanmugham  and\t others\t should\t not
\n\tremain there.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.   Ravi  (A-16)  and\t Suseendran (A-17) harboured
\n\tSubha and Sivarasan  after  assassination  of  Rajiv
\n\tGandhi\tknowing\t that they had committed the offence
\n\tof murder.  Ravi (A-16) was making all attempts\t for
\n\tSivarasan  and\tSubha to escape from India after the
\n\tassassination of Rajiv Gandhi.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.  Ravi (A-16) went to  Sri  Lanka  in  September,
\n\t1991  and  came\t back  with  arms and ammunition and
\n\tother articles given to him by Pottu Amman.  Some of
\n\tthe arms and ammunition he handed over to Suseendran
\n\t(A-17).\n<\/p>\n
\tFrom  all  these  factors prosecution seeks to infer
\nthat Ravi (A-16) and Suseendran (A-17) had knowledge of\t the
\nobject\tof  conspiracy, had agreed to the same and were thus
\nmembers of the conspiracy.  At one point of time Ravi (A-16)
\nin his confession did say that he  had\ta  strong  suspicion
\nthat  the  target  was Rajiv Gandhi but that would certainly
\nnot make him a\tmember\tof  the\t conspiracy.\tIn  wireless
\nmessage\t dated\t7.5.1991 sent by Sivarasan to Pottu Amman he
\ncategorically stated that only three  persons,\tnamely,\t he,
\nSubha  and  Dhanu  knew\t about\tthe  object  of\t conspiracy.
\nAssociation, however, strong of Ravi (A-16)  with  Sivarasan
\nand between Ravi (A-16) and Suseendran (A-17) could not make
\nthem members of the conspiracy without more.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs  regards  attempts  of Ravi (A-16) and Suseendran
\n(A-17) for creation of a separate armed force in Tamil\tNadu
\nthey  have  already  been tried in CC 7\/92 in the Designated
\nCourt No.  2 along with others and acquitted of\t the  charge
\nof conspiracy  but  convicted  under Section 5 of TADA.\t The
\nconfession made by Suseendran (A-17) and Ravi (A-16)  in  CC
\n7\/92  and  the\tcharges\t framed\t against  them were produced
\nduring the course of  hearing  of  this\t reference  and\t the
\nposition in  brief  is\tas  under:\n<\/p>\n
\tIn C.C.\t    7\/92  there\t was  a\t general  charge  of
\n\tconspiracy against 32 accused including Ravi  (A-16)
\n\tand Suseendran (A-17), who were arraigned as accused
\n\tNos.  2\t and  3\t in  CC\t 7\/92.\t  The  charge was of
\n\tconspiracy of  doing  illegal  acts,  viz.,  (1)  to
\n\tcreate\ta  force in the name of Tamil Nadu Retrieval
\n\tForce to separate Tamil Nadu from the Union of India
\n\tand to strike terror in the country  by\t threatening
\n\tthe  lawfully  established  Government\tand  to kill
\n\tpeople\twho  had  taken\t oath\tto   safeguard\t the
\n\tsovereignty,  unity  and  integrity of India; (2) to
\n\tinstigate and advise  people  to  go  and  get\tarms
\n\ttraining   in\tSri  Lanka  for\t preparing  plan  of
\n\testablishing the force and building up of  arms\t and
\n\tammunition   having  brought  them  from  Sri  Lanka
\n\twithout licence\t and  in  contravention\t of  various
\n\tenactments in force in India; and (3) to give refuge
\n\tto  terrorist and in this offence of conspiracy they
\n\tdid commit various illegal  acts  under\t TADA,\tArms
\n\tAct,  Explosive Substances Act, Arms Act, Wireless &
\n\tTelegraphy Act, Passport Act and Emigration Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tIndividual  charges against Ravi (A-16) were
\n\tthat (1) he recruited co-accused numbering eight, he
\n\thimself went to Sri  Lanka,  got  training  in\tarms
\n\tthrough Pottu Amman, helped in organizing Tamil Nadu
\n\tRetrieval  Force,  assisted  co-accused by arranging
\n\thouses, setting up wireless sets  at  Dindigul,\t was
\n\tfound  in  possession  of arms and ammunitions, thus
\n\tcommitted various terrorist  acts  punishable  under
\n\tTADA;  (2)  that  he  along  with  other  co-accused
\n\tclandestinely came to India in LTTE boat with  bombs
\n\tand  ammunition;  and  (3)  that  he  went to Jaffna
\n\twithout\t valid\tpassport  for  getting\ttraining  in
\n\twireless there.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tIn the confession made on 12.12.1991 by Ravi
\n\t(A16) in that case, he said as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t\tIn June\t 1986, he went to Sri Lanka.  He was
\n\tgiven  training\t for  3\t 1\/2  months  in  arms\t and
\n\tammunition.   In  August  1987 he is in India in his
\n\tuncle’s house at Madipakkam and had joined a  school
\n\tto continue  his  studies.    He,  however, keeps on
\n\tgoing to LTTE office at Adyar and  helping  Kittu  @
\n\tKrishankumar, an LTTE activist.\t He was put in house
\n\tarrest in 1988 along with Kittu in a lodge in Madras
\n\tCentral Prison.\t   Then he was taken to IPKF camp in
\n\tSri Lanka.  After his release  from  there,  he\t met
\n\tLTTE   leader\t“Santhan”   who\t  was  in-charge  of
\n\tIntelligence Wing who told  him\t that  if  he  could
\n\tbring  young  people  from  Tamil Nadu, they will be
\n\tgiven training in arms.\t   He  gave  him  letter  in
\n\tFebruary 1990.\t He comes back to India to Salem and
\n\tmeets Kiruban,\tanother\t LTTE  activist.    On\tthat
\n\tletter being  given,  he  got  Rs.50,000\/-.   He met
\n\tSuseendran (A-17) and asked him to  recruit  persons
\n\tfor arms training to which Suseendran (A-17) agreed.
\n\tWith  Suseendran  (A-17)  and  eight  (8) others, he
\n\tagain goes to Sri Lanka and they are given  training
\n\tin arms\t and  ammunition.  Since war had started, he
\n\thad to stay in Sri Lanka for 5 months.\t During\t his
\n\ttraining,   he\t met  Pottu  Amman,  Chief  of\tLTTE
\n\tIntelligence  Wing  who\t instigated  him  for  armed
\n\trevolution.   These  10 people, i.e., he, Suseendran
\n\t(A-17) and 8 others resolve to form  Tamil  National
\n\tRetrieval Troops  under\t his  leadership.    He\t and
\n\tSuseendran (A-17) were given training in wireless as
\n\twell.  In December 1990, he returns to India in LTTE
\n\tboat with Suseendran  (A-17)  and  others  including
\n\tSivarasan who told him to meet him near Devi Theatre
\n\tat Madras.    When  he\tmet  Sivarasan,\t he gave him
\n\tRs.50,000\/-.  On various dates Sivarasan gave him  a
\n\ttotal sum  of  Rs.6,00,000\/-.\tHe sent more persons
\n\tfor arms  training  to\tSri  Lanka.\t After\t the
\n\tassassination  of Rajiv Gandhi, Sivarasan met him at
\n\this Aunt’s (Logamatha)\thouse  at  B-72,  MI  Colony
\n\tPhase II,  Agasthiya  Nagar, Villivakkam.  Sivarasan
\n\tasked him to protect Suba and to keep her in a\tsafe
\n\tplace.\t He  sent  both\t of  them through Suseendran
\n\t(A-17) to  Pollachi.\tHe  talks   of\t his   other
\n\tactivities.   Then  he\tagain  went  to Sri Lanka on
\n\t23.8.\t1991   when   boat   arrived   from   there.\n<\/p>\n
\tSuseendran (A-17)  did\tnot  accompany\thim.  He met
\n\tPottu Amman on 28.8.1991.  He gave him further\tarms
\n\tand ammunition and also 12 gold biscuits weighing 10
\n\ttolas each.    He  returned  to\t India on 10.9.1991.
\n\tThese arms and\tammunitions  were  unloaded  in\t two
\n\twooden boxes  and  two\tgunny  bags.   On 12.11.1991
\n\tCustoms, however,  seized  those  wooden  boxes\t and
\n\tgunny bags.    He concealed gold biscuits in the bed
\n\troom of motherin-law of Charles.  six gold  biscuits
\n\the gave\t to  Ganesh,  an  LTTE\tactivist.   He asked
\n\tSuseendran (A-17) to purchase petrol and diesel.  He
\n\tdescribes his further activities in  organising\t the
\n\tForce and  buying  of  a  Motorcycle  etc.    He was
\n\tarrested on 23.10.1991.\t   Police  seized  from\t his
\n\tsuitcase one 9 mm pistol, 2 magzines, 29 cartridges,
\n\tknife and  cyanide capsules.  On his statement, gold
\n\tbiscuits concealed by him were recovered.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn  his\t confession  also  recorded  on\t 12.12.1991,
\n\tSuseendran (A-17) said as under :\n<\/p>\n
\t\tHe  met\t Ravi  (A-16)  in  May 1990 and they
\n\ttalked about LTTE.  Ravi (A-16) asked him if he\t was
\n\tready  to  go  to  Sri Lanka for arms and ammunition
\n\ttraining to which  he  agreed.\t  Suseendran  (A-17)
\n\tcollected  eight  (8)  more  persons and they all 10
\n\twent to Sri Lanka.  They  went\tto  sea-shore  by  a
\n\tMaruti Gypsy and Ambassador car of LTTE.  There LTTE
\n\tboat was  available  to\t go to Sri Lanka.  They were
\n\tgiven training in handling of arms  and\t ammunition.
\n\tSince  war  had\t started,  they\t have to stay in Sri
\n\tLanka for five more months.  Pottu Amman had visited
\n\tthem during  their  training.\t This  group  of  10
\n\tresolved to form Tamil National Retrieval Troops and
\n\tdecided\t to work under the leadership of Ravi (A-16)
\n\tfor the purpose\t of  committing\t terrorist  acts  in
\n\tIndia  and  for separation of Tamil Nadu from Indian
\n\tUnion.\tHe and Ravi (A-16) were\t given\ttraining  in
\n\tWireless operation  also.    In\t December 1990, they
\n\treturned to India along with Sivarasan.\t Ravi (A-16)
\n\ttold him to meet at Madras after three days.\tRavi
\n\t(A-16)\tgave  him  Rs.500\/- and he went to Pollachi.
\n\tWhen he met Ravi (A-16) he told him to collect\tmore
\n\tyoungsters  to\tsend  them  to\tSri  Lanka  for arms
\n\ttraining.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tHe and one Paulraj were at Palani when Rajiv
\n\tGandhi was killed.  After  four\t days,\the  came  to
\n\tMadras and  met\t Ravi  (A-16).\t  Sivarasan was also
\n\tthere.\tSivarasan told Ravi (A-16) and him  to\tkeep
\n\tsafely an  LTTE\t tigress  Subha\t for  some days.  He
\n\tagreed.\t He went to  bus  stop\tand  reserved  three
\n\ttickets for  him,  Sivarasan  and  Subha.  Then they
\n\tleft for Trichy and from there to  Pollachi.\tThey
\n\tstayed\tat  the house of Shanmugasundaram whose wife
\n\tis his\tdistant\t relative.    He  told\t them\tthat
\n\tSivarasan  and Subha were husband and wife and asked
\n\tthem to arrange their stay for three  days.    After
\n\tfive days  Sivarasan  and Subha left for Madras.  He
\n\ttold about his other activities\t and  then  he\tsaid
\n\tRavi (A-16)  and  others  left\tfor  Sri  Lanka.  He
\n\tbought petrol and diesel to be sent  to\t Sri  Lanka.
\n\tRs.60,000\/- were given to him by Paulraj as directed
\n\tby Ravi\t (A-16).   He bought 1,000 litres petrol for
\n\tRs.34,800\/-.  The petrol was to be smuggled  to\t Sri
\n\tLanka.\t Earlier  also,\t petrol and diesel including
\n\texplosives were smuggled to LTTE in Sri Lanka.\t  On
\n\tthe  night  of\t10.9.1991,  Ravi  (A-16)  and others
\n\tarrived in India with two wooden boxes and two gunny
\n\tbags filled with arms and ammunition.\tRavi  (A-16)
\n\tasked  him to conceal wooden boxes and gunny bags in
\n\tthe seashore.  He again bought petrol.\t A  car\t was
\n\tpurchased.    When   he\t  was\tin   the   house  of
\n\tmother-in-law of Theodre Charless  at  Dindigul,  he
\n\twas arrested  by  the  Police.\tFrom him one cyanide
\n\tcapsule, Rs.  30,000\/- and  some  personal  articles
\n\twere seized.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt would be seen that a charge under Section 212 IPC
\nfor harbouring Subha and  Sivarasan  could  also  have\tbeen
\nframed\tagainst\t Ravi  (A-16) and Suseendran (A-17) but that
\nwas not done.  Question arises if provision of\tSection\t 300
\nof  the\t Code  applies\tthat  bars  trial of Ravi (A-16) and
\nSuseendran (A-17) for the same offences in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
\tRavi  (A-16)  and  Suseendran\t(A-17)\t have\tbeen
\nseparately  charged  in\t the  present case for offence under
\nSection 3(3) and Section 3(4) of TADA.\tThese  charges\tfail
\nagainst\t them  like  against  other  co-accused and they are
\nacquitted of the same.\tRavi (A-16)  and  Suseendran  (A-17)
\nhave  also been separately charged for offence under Section
\n212 IPC and have been convicted and  sentenced.\t   Similarly
\nthey  have been separately charged for offence under Section
\n5 of TADA and convicted and sentenced.\tThat certainly could
\nnot have been done as in CC  7\/92  they\t have  already\tbeen
\ntried  for  an offence under Section 5 of TADA and convicted
\nand sentenced.\tFacts constituting the charge under  Section
\n5  of  TADA in CC 7\/92 and in the present case are the same.
\nConviction of Ravi  (A-16)  and\t Suseendran  (A-17)  in\t the
\npresent\t case  under Section 5 of TADA is set aside and they
\nare acquitted  of  this\t charge.    Also  they\t have\tbeen
\nseparately   charged   under  Section  5  of  the  Explosive
\nSubstance Act and similarly convicted and sentenced.\tThey
\nhave  then  been  charged  for\tan  offence punishable under
\nSection 25 of the Arms Act and convicted and sentenced.\t Mr.
\nNatarajan, learned counsel appearing for them, did not press
\nhis argument  on  the  applicability  of  the  provision  of
\nSection 300 of the Code inasmuch as he said that since these
\naccused\t have already undergone the period of their sentence
\nthey will not challenge their conviction under\tthe  charges
\nunder  IPC,  Explosive\tSubstance Act, Section 5 of TADA and
\nArms Act.  In this view of the matter we need  not  go\tinto
\nthe  question if Ravi (A-16) and Suseendran (A17) could have
\nbeen tried again for these charges as they have been  either
\ncharged\t or  could  have  been\tcharged in CC 7\/92 which was
\ndecided on 23.1.1998.  Charges of conspiracy against both of
\nthem and others for constituting a force to  separate  Tamil
\nNadu from  the\tUnion of India as to strike terror etc.\t was
\ndismissed in CC 7\/92.\n<\/p>\n
\tNow, In the cases of Arivu (A-18), Irumborai (A-19),
\nBhagyanathan (A-20), Padma (A-21) and Suba Sundaram  (A-22),
\nfollowing circumstances appear in evidence.\n<\/p>\n
Arivu (A-18)\n<\/p>\n
————\n<\/p>\n
a)\tArivu (A-18),  an  Indian  Tamil,  joined  the\tLTTE
\nmovement  and  started his propaganda work for LTTE in India
\nand was\t on  its  pay-roll.    He  came\t in   contact\twith
\nBhagyanathan  (A-20),  Haribabu (DA) and he took training in
\nSuba Studio of Suba Sundaram (A-22).\n<\/p>\n
b)\tHe went to Sri Lanka along with Irumborai (A-19) and
\nBaby  Subramaniam, an LTTE leader, and while there he learnt
\nabout the atrocities committed by IPKF.\t He developed  great
\nhatred\ttowards Rajiv Gandhi, whom he held to be responsible
\nfor sending IPKF to Sri Lanka.\n<\/p>\n
c)\tIn March, 1991 Arivu (A-18)  went  to  Vellore\twith
\nMurugan\t (A-3)\tfor  LTTE work to see Vellore Fort where Sri
\nLankan Tamils and LTTE personnel were detained.\t   According
\nto  Arivu  (A-18)  blasting  of\t Vellore  Fort\tand jail and
\nreleasing of the militants from there was one  of  the\tLTTE
\nacts in India.\n<\/p>\n
d)\tIn  April, 1991 on one of his visits to the house of
\nPadma (A-21) Sivarasan asked Arivu (A-18) if he was prepared
\nto work for him.  Arivu (A-18) agreed to work for Sivarasan.\n<\/p>\n
e)\tArivu  (A-18)  purchased  a  12\t volt  car   battery
\n(MO-209) for the wireless set which Sivarasan was to install
\nin the\thouse  of  Vijayan (A-12).  Not only the battery but
\nfor installation  of  wireless\tstation\t Arivu\t(A-18)\talso
\nbought wire  and other articles.  While making the purchases
\nArivu (A-18) gave  his\tname  as  Rajan\t and  also  a  false
\naddress.   With\t this  wireless set Sivarasan was contacting
\nLTTE headquarters in Jaffna in Sri Lanka.  This battery\t was
\nsubsequently  recovered\t from  the pit dug in the kitchen of
\nthe house of Vijayan (A-12).\n<\/p>\n
f)\tArivu (A-18) purchased a Kawasaki  Bajaj  Motorcycle
\n(MO-82) for Sivarasan to facilitate his movements.\n<\/p>\n
g)\tOn  18.4.1991  Arivu  (A-18)  attended\tthe election
\nmeeting addressed by Rajiv Gandhi and Jayalalitha at  Marina
\nBeach, Madras.\tNalini (A-1) and Murugan (A-3) also attended
\nthat meeting.\n<\/p>\n
h)\tOn 7.5.1991 Arivu (A-18) attended the public meeting
\nof V.P.\t   Singh  at  Nandanam,\t Madras\t where Nalini (A-1),
\nSubha, Dhanu and Murugan (A-3) were also present.   He\tknew
\nSubha and Dhanu, who were the lady tigresses from Jaffna and
\nhad been brought by Sivarasan for his job.  These two ladies
\nwere moving  about with Nalini (A-1).  Attending the meeting
\nof V.P.\t   Singh   was\t a   dry   run\t for   some   future
\nengagements\/acts.\n<\/p>\n
i)\tAfter  President’s  Rule  was  imposed in Tamil Nadu
\nthere were restrictions placed on the movement of LTTE cadre
\nin Tamil  Nadu.\t   Persons  belonging  to  LTTE\t cadre\twent
\nunderground.\tArivu\t(A-18),\t  however,   continued\t his
\npropaganda work for LTTE with the material that was kept  in
\na  room occupied by Baby Subramaniam in the house of Sankari
\n(PW-210).  These materials were removed by Arivu (A-18) with
\nthe  help  of  Bhagyanathan  (A-20)  and  deceased   accused
\nHaribabu  in  the  month  of  April,  1991  to\tthe house of
\nRadhakrishnan (PW231), a friend of Arivu (A-18).  These were
\nsubsequently recovered\tand  seized  during  the  course  of
\ninvestigation  and among the articles so recovered there was
\none black book (MO-609), which depicted the electric circuit
\nidentical to  the  electric  circuit  in  the  reconstructed
\nexplosive device (IED) (MO-722) used by Dhanu to trigger the
\nblast which killed Rajiv Gandhi and others.  Arivu (A-18) is
\na   diploma  holder  in\t Electronics  and  Telecommunication
\nEngineering.\n<\/p>\n
j)\tDuring the second week of  May,\t 1991  Arivu  (A-18)
\npurchased  two\tnumbers\t of  9\tvolt  golden  power  battery
\n(MO-678) and gave the same to Sivarasan.  This\tbattery\t was
\nused  in  the  belt  bomb by Dhanu and portions thereof were
\nseized at the scene of the  crime.    Arivu  (A-18)  in\t his
\nconfession admitted that 9 volt battery purchased by him was
\nused by\t Sivarasan  to kill Rajiv Gandhi.  It is in evidence
\nthat  components  which\t were  left  after  the\t blast\talso
\ncontained  pieces  of  9 volt cell called golden power which
\nwas the source of power for exploding the device.\n<\/p>\n
k)\tAfter  it  was\tpublished  in  the   newspapers\t  on
\n19.5.1991  about the visit of Rajiv Gandhi to Tamil Nadu for
\n21.5.1991 and 22.5.1991 a meeting was organized on 20.5.1991
\nin the house of A-21 though she was  not  a  party  to\tthat
\nmeeting.   When\t Arivu\t(A-18)\tcame  to  the house of Padma
\n(A-21) he learnt that Sivarasan had come and had a talk with
\nNalini (A-1) and Haribabu.  He also came to know  that\tthat
\ntalk  was regarding the public meeting of Rajiv Gandhi to be
\nheld on the following day at Sriperumbudur.    Arivu  (A-18)
\ngave  a\t Kodak\tcolour film roll to Haribabu in the house of
\nPadma (A-21).\n<\/p>\n
l)\tHaribabu used the Kodak film in his camera  to\ttake
\nphotographs at the scene of crime on 21.5.1991.\t It has come
\nin  evidence  that  it\twas that Kodak colour film which was
\nused in the camera by Haribabu.\n<\/p>\n
m)\tAfter Rajiv Gandhi was\tkilled\ton  21.5.1991  Arivu
\n(A-18)\ton  the\t following  day\t removed his things from the
\nhouse of Padma\t(A-21),\t like  TV,  VCR,  etc.,\t which\twere
\nsubsequently recovered\t and   seized.\t  On  the  night  of
\n21.5.1991  Arivu  (A18)\t had  gone  to\tsee  a\tmovie\twith
\nBhagyanathan (A-20).\n<\/p>\n
n)\tWhen  Sivarasan came to the house of Padma (A-21) on
\n23.5.1991 and narrated the  happening  at  Sriperumbudur  on
\n21.5.1991  he  sent  Arivu  (A-18)  to\tthe  studio  of Suba
\nSundaram (A-22) to check whether arrangements had been\tmade
\nfor getting the dead body of Haribabu.\n<\/p>\n
o)\tIn  his letter (Exh.P-128) written by Trichy Santhan
\nto  Irumborai\t(A-19)\t he   complained   about   Sivarasan
\nassociating with him persons like Arivu (A-18) and others.\n<\/p>\n
\tConduct\t of  Arivu  (A-18)  before  and\t after\t the
\nassassination of Rajiv Gandhi leaves no one in doubt that he
\nwas member  of\tthe  conspiracy.   It is not necessary for a
\nconspirator to be present at the scene of the crime to be  a
\nmember of the  Conspiracy.    Mr.  Natarajan said that Arivu
\n(A-18) was merely  an  errand  boy  and\t was  following\t the
\ninstructions  of Sivarasan and he himself had no active role
\nto play.  He said Arivu (A-18) bought the car battery and  9
\nvolt  golden  power battery at the instance of Sivarasan and
\nso also Kawasaki Bajaj motorcycle.  He further\targued\tthat
\nmerely\ton  these counts it cannot be said that Arivu (A-18)
\nhad knowledge of the conspiracy and that he himself did\t not
\nagree\tto   achieve   the   object   of   the\t conspiracy.
\nCircumstances rather show that Arivu (A-18) was in the thick
\nof conspiracy.\tHe knew that to explode the IED power source
\nwould be 9 volt battery and that is why he purchased battery
\nof that power and which was ultimately used in exploding the
\ndevice killing Rajiv Gandhi and others.\t Mr.  Natarajan also
\nsaid that the version of Arivu (A-18) that this battery\t was
\nused  for  explosion  of  the  IED was his knowledge derived
\nafter the explosion cannot be accepted.\t Arivu\t(A-18)\thas,
\ntherefore,  been  rightly  convicted  for  various  offences
\ncharged against him by the Designated Court.\n<\/p>\n
Irumborai (A-19)\n<\/p>\n
—————-\n<\/p>\n
a)\tIrumborai (A-19)  was  given this name by LTTE.\t His
\noriginal name is Duraisingam.\n<\/p>\n
b)\tIrumborai (A-19) was assisting Suresh Master (DA) in
\nthe treatment of injured LTTE cadres in Tamil Nadu and other
\nplaces.\t  In  his  confession  Irumborai   (A-19)   narrated
\nimportant  incidents which took place between him and Trichy
\nSanthan (DA).\n<\/p>\n
c)\tIrumborai (A-19) had gone to  Jaffna  in  Sri  Lanka
\nalong with  Arivu  (A-18) and Baby Subramaniam.\t He returned
\nin November, 1990 along with Suresh Master and\ttwo  injured
\nladies.\n<\/p>\n
d)\tRangam\t(A-24)\thad  taken a house on rent in March,
\n1991 in Alwarthirunagar which was used for stay\t of  injured
\nLTTE care.\n<\/p>\n
e)\tFrom  the  letter dated 7.9.1991 (Exh.P-128) written
\nby Trichy Santhan to Irumborai (A-19) prosecution  seeks  to
\ndraw  inference\t that  Irumborai  (A-19) had prior knowledge
\nabout the killing of Rajiv Gandhi.  It is difficult to\tdraw
\nany  such  inference  from this letter that Irumborai (A-19)
\nhad knowledge of any conspiracy to kill Rajiv Gandhi.\n<\/p>\n
f)\tIrumborai  (A-19)  was\tpresent\t in  the  house\t  at
\nBangalore  when Sivarasan, Subha and Nero were brought there
\nhidden in a tanker  lorry  by  Dhanasekaran  (A-23),  Rangam
\n(A-24) and  Vicky  (A-25).   Presence of Irumborai (A-19) in
\nthat house was not by any prior arrangement but\t on  account
\nof  his\t job  to  look\tafter  the treatment of injured LTTE
\ncadre, who were there.\tOne of such injured cadre was Jamuna
\n@ Jamila, who had been shifted to Bangalore from Neyveli  by
\nIrumborai  (A19)  where she was getting treatment for fixing
\nof an artificial limb on her leg,  which  she  had  lost  in
\nbattle with  Sri Lankan army.  Irumborai (A-19) had admitted
\nJamuna @ Jameela in Neyveli for the  purpose  of  fixing  an
\nartificial leg.\t Jamuna was about 16\/17 years of age and was
\nan LTTE\t tigress.    It was at the instance of Suresh Master
\n(DA) that Jamuna was brought to Bangalore  and\twas  in\t the
\nhouse  at the time when Sivarasan, Suba and Nero came there.
\nIt was Trichy Santhan (DA) who told Irumborai (A-19)  as  to
\nhow  Sivarasan,\t Suba and Nero came to Bangalore hidden in a
\ntanker lorry of Dhanasekaran (A-23).  g)\tWhen
\nIrumborai (A-19) learnt from Trichi Santhan  in\t the  second
\nweek  of  May,\t1991  about some impending action of LTTE to
\nkill an important leader he told Suresh Master to inform the
\ninjured LTTE boys to be careful.  Vicky (A-25) was  arrested
\nin Coimbatore  and  accused  Dixon died.  Since Vicky (A-25)
\nknew about the\tplace  at  Indira  Nagar,  Bangalore,  where
\nSivarasan,  Suba and Nero and about 20-25 injured LTTE cadre
\nwere staying it was decided to arrange a separate house\t for
\nSivarasan, Suba\t and  Nero.  Irumborai (A19) took three LTTE
\ninjured boys and left them in a particular house.\n<\/p>\n
h)\tWhen Irumborai (A-19) was on his way  to  Jaffna  in
\nSri  Lanka  after arranging a boat he was intercepted by the
\nIndian Navy  and  handed  over\tto  the\t Police.     Letters
\n(Exh.P-128 and P129) were recovered from him.\n<\/p>\n
i)\tIrumborai  (A-19)  learnt  about  the death of Rajiv
\nGandhi on the morning of 22.5.1991.  To\t him  the  death  of
\nRajiv  Gandhi  seemed  to  be  a  brave\t deed  and an act of
\nrevenge.\n<\/p>\n
\tBut then whatever feeling a  person  may  have\tthat
\nwould not  make\t him  a\t member\t of the conspiracy.  Further
\napart from the\tfact  that  Irumborai  (A-19)  knew  certain
\nmembers\t of  the  LTTE\toperating  in  India but there is no
\nevidence  whatsoever  that  he\thad  any  knowledge  of\t the
\nconspiracy with\t the object to kill Rajiv Gandhi.  Documents
\n(Exh.P-128 and P-129) are not admissible in evidence.  There
\nis nothing on record to show that Trichy Santhan (DA) was  a
\nmember of  the\tconspiracy  to\tkill  Rajiv  Gandhi.  Rather
\nevidence shows that he was looking after  the  injured\tLTTE
\ncadre  in India and supplying various medicines to Sri Lanka
\nto support the war efforts of LTTE there.  It also cannot be
\npresumed that since  these  documents  were  recovered\tfrom
\nIrumborai  (A-19)  he  knew the contents thereof or that the
\ncontents were correct.\tThe letters were written much  after
\nthe  object of conspiracy had been achieved and author dead.
\nIrumborai (A-19) has been charged for offence under  Section
\n3(4) of TADA.\t This  charge against him must fail.  He has
\nalso been charged for an offence under Section\t212  IPC  on
\nthe allegation that he assisted Sivarasan, Subha and Nero in
\na house at Indira Nagar to evade their apprehension.  He has
\nthen  been  charged  for  an  offence  under  Section  12 of
\nPassport Act having contravened Section 3 of that Act.\t His
\nconviction  and\t sentence  under these charges have not been
\nchallenged.  Though we acquit him of charge of conspiracy to
\nmurder Rajiv Gandhi we confirm his conviction  and  sentence
\nunder Section 212 IPC and Section 3 of the Passport Act.\n<\/p>\n
Bhagyanathan (A-20)\n<\/p>\n
——————–\n<\/p>\n
Padma (A-21)\n<\/p>\n
————\n<\/p>\n
a)\tBhagyanathan  (A-20)  and  Padma  (A-21),  son\t and
\nmother, are  Indian  Tamils.\tNalini (A-1) and Kalyani are
\ndaughters of Padma (A-21).  Padma (A-21), who  was  employed
\nin  Kalyani Nursing Home, was staying in the quarters of the
\nNursing Home till January, 1991 when shifted  to  Royapettah
\nhouse.\n<\/p>\n
b)\tIn  this  house\t Murugan  (A-3),  a  hard-core\tLTTE
\nmilitant stayed concealing his identity.\n<\/p>\n
c)\tBhagyanathan  (A-20)  purchased LTTE press from Baby
\nSubramaniam at a very nominal cost.  That was in May,  1990.
\nHe had\tpromised  to  go  on printing LTTE publications.  He
\ntook training  in  photography\tfrom  Suba  Studio  of\tSuba
\nSundaram (A-22).    Haribabu and Arivu (A-18) had also taken
\ntraining there.\t Bhagyanathan (A-20) had  been\tworking\t for
\nLTTE in Tamil Nadu.\n<\/p>\n
d)\tBhagyanathan (A-20) and Haribabu helped Arivu (A-18)
\nin  shifting  LTTE material in March, 1991 from the house of
\nSankari (PW-210).  In this material there was one black book
\nin three volumes (MO-609).  There was also a video  cassette
\n(MO-143)  containing the speech of Sivarasan on the occasion
\nof second death anniversary of\tLTTE  leader  Dileepan,\t who
\ndied while  on\tfast  unto  death.   Bhagyanathan (A-20) was
\nhelping\t Arivu\t(A-18)\tfor  recording\tnews,  telecast\t  on
\nDoordarshan  in\t Tamil\tand  English  and  the\trecorded the
\ncassettes were sent to Sri Lanka.\n<\/p>\n
e)\tMurugan\t  (A-3)\t  had\tintroduced   Sivarasan\t  to
\nBhagyanathan (A20).    When Murugan (A-3) wanted the help to
\nengage a photographer and videographer\tfor  covering  DGP’s
\noffice in  Tamil  Nadu,\t Fort  St.   George and other places
\nBhagyanathan (A-20) introduced him to Haribabu.\n<\/p>\n
f)\tBhagyanathan (A-20) was\t aware\tthat  Nalini  (A-1),
\nMurugan\t (A-3),\t Arivu\t(A-18),\t Sivarasan, Subha, Dhanu and
\nHaribabu had attended the meeting of V.P.  Singh on 7.5.1991
\nat Nandanam, Madras.  He himself did not attend the meeting.\n<\/p>\n
g)\tOn 20.5.1991 Sivarasan, Murugan (A-3), Arivu  (A-18)
\nand Haribabu  had  come to the house of Padma (A-21).  There
\nis, however, no evidence as to what  conversation,  if\tany,
\ntook  place  at\t that  time  and whether Bhagyanathan (A-20)
\nhimself attended the meeting and if so what  was  his  part.
\nIt  was on 23.5.1991 when Sivarasan and Nalini (A-1) came to
\nthe house of Padma (A-21) he got narration of  the  incident
\nthat took place at Sriperumbudur on 21.5.1991.\n<\/p>\n
h)\tBhagyanathan (A-20) gave  a  sum  of  Rs.1,000\/-  to
\nHaribabu’s  family  for\t meeting  the expenses on account of
\ndeath of Haribabu, which money was given by  Murugan  (A-3).\n<\/p>\n
i)\tAfter the death of Rajiv Gandhi Bhagyanathan  (A-20)
\nhelped Arivu  (A-18) to removed his TV, VCR, etc.  and other
\nLTTE materials from the house of Padma (A-21) to  the  house
\nof a friend of Arivu (A-18).\n<\/p>\n
j)\tKnowing\t fully\twell  that  Sivarasan, Subha, Dhanu,
\nNalini (A1)  and  Haribabu  had\t gone  to  Sriperumbudur  on
\n21.5.1991  and\tkilled\tRajiv Gandhi yet Bhagyanathan (A-20)
\nengaged a taxi on 25.5.1991 for Nalini (A-1), Murugan (A-3),
\nSivarasan Subha and Padma (A-21) to go to Tirupathi.   Padma
\n(A-21),\t however, was not a willing party initially to go to
\nTirupathi but was persuaded to go.\n<\/p>\n
k)\tWhen  this  group  returned  from  Tirupathi  on the
\nfollowing day Bhagyanathan (A-20) allowed Murugan  (A-3)  to
\nhide himself  in  his  press.  He also brought food from his
\nhouse for Murugan  (A-3).    He\t also  kept  Kawasaki  Bajaj
\nMotorcycle (MO-82), which was used by Sivarasan.\n<\/p>\n
l)\tAfter  the  assassination  of  Rajiv  Gandhi Murugan
\n(A-3) had handed over two code sheets (MO-107  and  108)  to
\nPadma  (A-21)  and  asked  her to keep them in safe custody.
\nPadma (A-21) in turn handed over those two  code  sheets  to
\nher  colleague\tin the nursing home Devasena Raj (PW-73) who
\nin turn kept those in her locker used for  keeping  uniform.
\nProsecution  has  alleged that Padma (A-21) was aware of the
\nimportance of the code sheets  used  by\t Murugan  (A-3)\t for
\ncommunicating with  LTTE  headquarters in Jaffna.  There is,
\nhowever, no evidence if Padma  (A-21)  knew  what  the\tcode
\nsheets\twere  about and how she could know their importance.\n<\/p>\n
m)\tMurugan\t (A-3)\tprovided  financial  help  to  Padma
\n(A-21), who was in debt with which Padma (A-21) was able  to
\npay  off  to her creditors but then that was much before the
\ndate of assassination of Rajiv Gandhi.\n<\/p>\n
n)\tA wireless message was sent by\tSivarasan  to  Pottu
\nAmman  that  Bhagyanathan  (A-20)  and Padma (A-21) had been
\narrested which according to the prosecution would show\tthat
\nboth  Bhagyanathan  (A-20) and Padma (A-21) were part of the
\nconspiracy as otherwise there was no necessity for Sivarasan
\nto send a wireless message.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe do not think all these factors make out any\tcase
\nagainst either Bhagyanathan (A-20) or Padma (A-21) that they
\nwere  having  any knowledge of the conspiracy or knew of the
\nobject of the conspiracy.  Pottu Amman did know about  Padma
\n(A-21)\tand  Bhagyanathan (A-20) because of Nalini (A-1) and
\nthe fact that Murugan (A-3) was staying in their house.\t  No
\ninference  of any conspiracy can be drawn from the mere fact
\nthat Sivarasan sent the wireless message about the arrest of
\nBhagyanathan (A-20)  and  Padma\t (A-21).     Moreover\tmere
\nassociation  with  LTTE hard-core militants or the fact that
\nthose militants turned out to be the persons responsible for
\nthe killing of Rajiv  Gandhi  would  not  make\tBhagyanathan
\n(A-20)\tand  Padma  (A-21) members of any conspiracy to kill
\nRajiv Gandhi.  There is nothing\t unusual  in  Murugan  (A-3)
\nproviding financial help to Padma (A-21) in view of the fact
\nthat  he was staying in her house and also his having affair
\nwith Nalini (A-1).  Charge of any conspiracy  against  Padma
\n(A-21) and  Bhagyanathan  (A-20)  must\tfail.\tCharge under
\nSection 3(3) TADA against both of them also  fails.    They,
\nhowever,  have\trightly\t been  convicted  and  sentenced for
\noffence under Section  212  IPC.    Their  conviction  under
\nSection\t 212  IPC  and\tsentence  was  not challenged by Mr.
\nNatarajan.  Padma  (A-21)  has\talso  been  charged  for  an
\noffence\t under\tSection 6(1A) of Wireless Telegraphy Act and
\nfound guilty and sentenced.  This  charge  against  her\t was
\nthat  she  was\tin  possession\tof  two\t code sheets used by
\nMurugan (A-3) which was material used for communicating from
\nIndia to other conspirators, namely, Prabhakaran  and  Pottu
\nAmman  in  Sri\tLanka  and  those sheets were handed over to
\nPadma (A-21) for safe custody.\tWe do not think\t that  there
\nis  any\t evidence  to  suggest\tthat  Padma  (A-21)  had any
\nknowledge of the code sheets or what the  code\tsheets\twere
\nabout.\t Padma\t(A-21)\twas not aware of the contents of the
\ncode sheets or for what purpose these were  put\t to  use  by
\nMurugan (A-3).\t  Prosecution  also  does  not\ttell  us the
\ncontents of the code sheets  and  how  these  were  used  by
\nMurugan (A3).  Charge under Section 6(1A) of Indian Wireless
\nand Telegraphy\tAct  must,  therefore,\tfail.\n<\/p>\n
Suba Sundaram (A-22)\n<\/p>\n
——————–\n<\/p>\n
\ta)\tSuba Sundaram (A-22) is owner of Subha\tNews
\n\tPhoto Services,\t also  known  as  Suba Studio.\tHere
\n\tArivu  (A-18),\tBhagyanathan  (A-20),  Haribabu\t and
\n\tRavishankar   (PW-151)\t took\ttraining  from\tSuba
\n\tSundaram (A-22).  Suba Studio was  a  meeting  point
\n\tfor LTTE  activists.\tSuba  Sundaram (A-22) was in
\n\tregular\t touch\twith  LTTE  leaders   and   was\t  in
\n\tcorrespondence with  them.  In one of the letters he
\n\tdescribed   the\t  absconding   accused\t Prabhakaran
\n\t“protector  of\tworld Tamils Younger brother General
\n\tPrabhakaran”.  In yet another letter (Exh.P-544)  he
\n\tcriticized the performance of IPKF in Sri Lanka.\n<\/p>\n
\tb)\tHaribabu   worked   in\tSuba  Studio  during
\n\t1988-90 at a monthly salary of Rs.350\/-.  Though  he
\n\tleft  Suba  Studio  he continued visiting the studio
\n\tregularly.\n<\/p>\n
\tc)\tOn  21.5.1991\tHaribabu   first   went\t  to
\n\tRavishankar (PW-151) and borrowed camera (MO-1) from
\n\thim.\tAt  that  time\the  was\t carrying  a  parcel
\n\tcontaining a sandalwood\t garland  purchased  by\t him
\n\tfrom Poompuhar\t Handicrafts  that  morning.\tThis
\n\tgarland was subsequently used by Dhanu\tto  go\tnear
\n\tRajiv Gandhi with the pretext of garlanding him.\n<\/p>\n
\td)\tAfter getting camera (MO-1) Haribabu went to
\n\tSubha  Studio  and  thereafter\tleft  that place for
\n\tgoing to Sriperumbudur.\t  Prosecution  wants  us  to
\n\tinfer\tfrom   this   that   going  of\tHaribabu  to
\n\tSriperumbudur for covering  the\t function  of  Rajiv
\n\tGandhi was known to Suba Sundaram (A-22).\n<\/p>\n
\te)\tOn  the\t night\tof 21.5.1991 after the blast
\n\tSuba Sundaram (A22) was fervently trying to find out
\n\tabout Haribabu.\t He  was  told\tby  T.\t  Ramamurthy
\n\t(PW-72) that  haribabu\thad  died.    Suba  Sundaram
\n\t(A-22) asked T.\t Ramamurthy (PW-72) as to whether he
\n\thad taken  photographs\tof  the\t incident.\tSuba
\n\tSundaram (A-22)\t told T.  Ramamurthy (PW-72) that he
\n\tcould have brought the camera used by Haribabu.\t  To
\n\tthat T.\t  Ramamurthy (PW-72) replied that a VVIP had
\n\tbeen murdered and all  the  articles  at  the  scene
\n\tmight  be important material object and it was wrong
\n\tto touch them.\tSuba Sundaram (A-22) again  told  T.
\n\tRamamurthy (PW-72) that if he could have brought the
\n\tcamera they could have used the photos inside them.\n<\/p>\n
\tf)\tSuba Sundaram (A-22) thereafter contacted K.
\n\tRamamurthy (PW258), President of AICC(I) for seeking
\n\this help to retrieve the camera of Haribabu.\n<\/p>\n
\tg)\tSince\tSuba   Sundaram\t (A-22)\t was  making
\n\tstrenuous efforts for getting the camera prosecution
\n\tsays that the sole purpose was to destroy  any\tclue
\n\tthat  the  investigating  agency  might get from the
\n\tphotographs taken by Haribabu before he\t died  about
\n\tthe role  of LTTE and others in the crime.  But then
\n\tit must not be forgotten that Suba  Sundaram  (A-22)
\n\twas  running a studio and he was keen that he should
\n\tget the photographs taken by Haribabu and  use\tthem
\n\tfor his business.\n<\/p>\n
\th)\tSuba  Sundaram\t(A-22)\tmade all attempts to
\n\tconceal the identity of Haribabu that he was an LTTE
\n\tactivist and that he had been engaged  by  Sivarasan
\n\tand others to take the photographs of the incident.\n<\/p>\n
\ti)\tThough\the  was aware that Haribabu had gone
\n\tto the public meeting of Rajiv Gandhi  and  that  he
\n\twas  working for LTTE he got the statement issued by
\n\tfather of  Haribabu  V.T.     Sundaramani   (PW-120)
\n\tdenying that his son was member of LTTE.\n<\/p>\n
\tj)\tSuba Sundaram (A-22) wanted all the material
\n\trelating  to  LTTE lying in the house of Haribabu to
\n\tbe destroyed so that no one could find the  link  of
\n\tHaribabu with LTTE.\n<\/p>\n
\tAll these factors will not make Suba Sundaram (A-22)
\na member of the conspiracy with the  object  to\t kill  Rajiv
\nGandhi.\t Even his knowledge of conspiracy cannot be inferred
\nfrom  the  circumstances put at highest from the prosecution
\npoint of view.\tSuba Sundaram (A-22) has been charged for an
\noffence under Section 3(3) of TADA which charge\t must  fail.
\nHe  has\t also  been charged for an offence under Section 201
\nIPC for which he has been found\t guilty\t and  convicted\t and
\nsentenced.   There  is\tno challenge to his conviction under
\nthis charge.\n<\/p>\n
\tHaving thus considered the case of each accused\t now
\ncharged\t before us we have to examine what sentence is to be
\nawarded particularly where charge of murder has been  proved
\nagainst some of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn spite of the concession of Mr.  Natarajan we have
\nindependently  examined the evidence with respect to charges
\nagainst each of the accused.\tWe  acquit  Shanthi  (A-11),
\nSelvaluxmi   (A-13)   and  Shanmugavadivelu  (A-15)  of\t all
\ncharges.  Their conviction and sentence are set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\tNone of the accused has committed any offence  under
\nSection 3,  4  or  5 of TADA.  Their conviction and sentence
\nunder these Sections are set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\tConviction  and\t sentence  of  the  accused  except,
\nNalini\t(A1),  Santhan (A-2), Murugan (A-3) and Arivu (A-18)
\nunder all other charges\t are  maintained.    Conviction\t and
\nsentence of all the accused under Section 120B IPC read with
\nall  other  counts  as mentioned in charge No.1 is set aside
\nexcept conviction of Nalini (A-1),  Santhan  (A-2),  Murugan
\n(A-3)  and Arivu (A-18) under Section 120B read with Section
\n302 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\tConviction of Nalini (A-1)  under  Section  302\t IPC
\nread  with Section 34 IPC on various counts is upheld and so
\nalso of\t Arivu\t(A-18)\tunder  Sections\t 109  and  302\tIPC.
\nConviction  and\t sentence  of Nalini (A-1) under Section 326
\nIPC read with Section 34 IPC,  Section\t324  IPC  read\twith
\nSection\t 34  IPC and that of Arivu (A-18) under Sections 109
\nand 326 IPC and Sections 109 and 324 IPC are maintained.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn  view  of  these  discussions   Shanthi   (A-11),
\nSelvaluxmi  (A13)  and\tShanmugavadivelu  (A-15)  are  to be
\nreleased forthwith.  All other accused except Nalini  (A-1),
\nSanthan\t (A-2), Murugan (A-3) and Arivu (A-18) would also be
\nentitled to be released forthwith as it was pointed  out  to
\nus  that  they\thave  already  undergone  imprisonment for a
\nperiod of more than the sentence of imprisonment awarded  to
\nthem.\tIn  case they are not required to be detained in any
\nother case they shall also be released forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe confirm the conviction of Nalini  (A-1),  Santhan
\n(A-2),\tMurugan\t (A-3)\tand  Arivu (A-18) under Section 120B
\nread with Section 302 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe have been addressed arguments on the question  of
\nsentence  to  be  passed  against  the\taccused which is the
\nrequirement of Subsection (2) of Section 235  of  the  Code.
\nSection 354 of the Code deals with the contents of judgment.
\nSub-section (3)\t of Section 354 is relevant.  It is as under
\n:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“(3)\tWhen   the  conviction\tis  for\t an  offence
\n\tpunishable with death or, in the  alternative,\twith
\n\timprisonment  for life or imprisonment for a term of
\n\tyears, the judgment shall state the reasons for\t the
\n\tsentence  awarded,  and,  in the case of sentence of
\n\tdeath, the special reasons for such sentence.”\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.  Natarajan said that in case we hold that Nalini
\n(A-1),\tSanthan\t (A-2),\t Murugan  (A-3) and Arivu (A-18) are
\nguilty they do not deserve the extreme penalty.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Bachan  Singh  vs.  State of Punjab (1980 (2) SCC\n<\/p>\n
684) the Constitution Bench of this  Court  was\t considering
\nthe constitutional  validity  of  Section  302\tIPC.  Though
\nholding that Section 302 IPC and Section 354(3) of the\tCode
\nare  constitutionally  valid  this  Court  referred  to\t the
\ncircumstances both aggravating and mitigating for imposing a
\nsentence of death.  It also made  observations\ton  Sections
\n354(3) and  235(2)  of the Code.  It will be advantageous to
\nquote paras 201, 202 and 209 of the judgment  which  are  as
\nunder :-\n<\/p>\n
\t“201.As we read Sections 354(3) and 235(2) and other
\n\trelated provisions of the Code of 1973, it is  quite
\n\tclear to us that for making the choice of punishment
\n\tor  for\t ascertaining  the  existence  or absence of
\n\t“special reasons” in that context,  the\t court\tmust
\n\tpay  due  regard both to the crime and the criminal.
\n\tWhat is the relative  weight  to  be  given  to\t the
\n\taggravating  and  mitigating factors, depends on the
\n\tfacts and  circumstances  of  the  particular  case.
\n\tMore  often  than  not,\t these\ttwo  aspects  are so
\n\tintertwined that it is difficult to give a  separate
\n\ttreatment to  each  of\tthem.\t This  is so because
\n\t‘style is the man’.  In many  cases,  the  extremely
\n\tcruel  or beastly manner of the commission of murder
\n\tis itself  a  demonstrated  index  of  the  depraved
\n\tcharacter of  the  perpetrator.\t  That is why, it is
\n\tnot desirable to consider the circumstances  of\t the
\n\tcrime  and  the circumstances of the criminal in two
\n\tseparate watertight compartments.  In  a  sense,  to
\n\tkill  is  to  be cruel and therefore all murders are
\n\tcruel.\tBut such cruelty may vary in its  degree  of
\n\tculpability.   And  it\tis only when the culpability
\n\tassumes the proportion\tof  extreme  depravity\tthat
\n\t“special   reasons”  can  legitimately\tbe  said  to
\n\texist.”\n<\/p>\n
\t202.\tDrawing\t upon  the  penal  statutes  of\t the
\n\tStates in U.S.A.    framed  after Furman v.  Georgia
\n\t(33 L Ed 2d 346:  408 US 238  [1972]),\tin  general,
\n\tand  Clauses  2(a),  (b),  (c) and (d) of the Indian
\n\tPenal Code (Amendment) Bill passed in  1978  by\t the
\n\tRajya Sabha,   in   particular,\t Dr.\tChitale\t has
\n\tsuggested these “aggravating circumstances”:\n<\/p>\n
\t\tAggravating circumstances:    A\t court\tmay,
\n\thowever,  in  the following cases impose the penalty
\n\tof death in its discretion :\n<\/p>\n
\t(a)\tif  the\t murder\t has  been  committed  after
\n\tprevious planning and involves extreme brutality; or<\/p>\n
\t(b)\tif    the    murder   involves\t exceptional
\n\tdepravity; or<\/p>\n
\t(c)\tif the murder is of a member of any  of\t the
\n\tarmed  forces  of  the\tUnion  or of a member of any
\n\tpolice force  or  of  any  public  servant  and\t was
\n\tcommitted —\n<\/p>\n
\t(i)\twhile  such  member or public servant was on
\n\tduty; or<\/p>\n
\t(ii)\tin consequence of anything done or attempted
\n\tto be done by such member or public servant  in\t the
\n\tlawful\tdischarge  of  his  duty  as  such member or
\n\tpublic servant whether at the time of murder he\t was
\n\tsuch  member  or public servant, as the case may be,
\n\tor had ceased to be such member of  public  servant;
\n\tor<\/p>\n
\t(d)\tif  the\t murder is of a person who had acted
\n\tin the lawful discharge of his duty under Section 43
\n\tof the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or who\t had
\n\trendered  assistance  to  a  magistrate\t or a police
\n\tofficer\t demanding  his\t  aid\tor   requiring\t his
\n\tassistance  under  Section 37 and Section 129 of the
\n\tsaid Code.”\n<\/p>\n
\t“209.\tThere  are  numerous   other   circumstances
\n\tjustifying  the\t passing of the lighter sentence; as
\n\tthere\tare    countervailing\t circumstances\t  of
\n\taggravation.   “We  cannot  obviously  feed  into  a
\n\tjudicial computer all such situations since they are
\n\tastrological  imponderables  in\t an  imperfect\t and
\n\tundulating   society.”\tNonetheless,  it  cannot  be
\n\tover-emphasised\t that  the  scope  and\tconcept\t  of
\n\tmitigating factors in the area of death penalty must
\n\treceive\t a liberal and expansive construction by the
\n\tcourts in accord with  the  sentencing\tpolicy\twrit
\n\tlarge in  Section  354(3).    Judges should never be
\n\tbloodthirsty.  Hanging of murderers has\t never\tbeen
\n\ttoo good  for  them.\tFacts  and  figures,  albeit
\n\tincomplete, furnished by the Union  of\tIndia,\tshow
\n\tthat  in the past, courts have inflicted the extreme
\n\tpenalty with extreme infrequency  —  a\t fact  which
\n\tattests\t to  the  caution  and compassion which they
\n\thave always brought to bear on the exercise of their
\n\tsentencing discretion in so grave a matter.  It\t is,
\n\ttherefore,  imperative\tto  voice  the\tconcern that
\n\tcourts, aided by the broad illustrative\t guide-lines
\n\tindicated by us, will discharge the onerous function
\n\twith  evermore\tscrupulous  care and humane concern,
\n\tdirected along the highroad  of\t legislative  policy
\n\toutlined  in  Section 354(3), viz., that for persons
\n\tconvicted of murder, life imprisonment is  the\trule
\n\tand death sentence an exception.  A real and abiding
\n\tconcern\t for  the  dignity  of human life postulates
\n\tresistance  to\t taking\t  a   life   through   law’s
\n\tinstrumentality.   That ought not to be done save in
\n\tthe rarest of rare cases when the alternative option
\n\tis unquestionably foreclosed.”\n<\/p>\n
\tJudgment in Masalti  vs.    State of U.P.<\/a>  (1964 (8)
\nSCR 133) was delivered before the new Code,  i.e.,  Criminal
\nProcedure  Code,  1973\t(Act 2 of 1974) came into operation.
\n40 persons were put on trial before the Additional  Sessions
\nJudge  under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian
\nPenal Code and other sections for committing murder of\tfive
\npersons with  guns.    Of  them 35 were found guilty and the
\nAdditional Sessions Judge sentenced ten of them, who carried
\nfire arms, to death and the rest to imprisonment  for  life.
\nOn  a  reference  to the High Court under Section 374 of the
\nold Code and also on appeals filed by the convicted  persons
\nHigh  Court  acquitted\tseven  of the appellants, concurring
\nwith the findings  of  the  Additional\tSessions  Judge\t and
\ndismissed the  appeal  of  the rest.  It confirmed the death
\nsentences passed on the ten accused.  This Court  said\tthat
\nboth  the  trial  court\t and the High Court were agreed that
\nthese  sentences  of  death  imposed  on  ten  persons\twere
\njustified  by  the  circumstances  of  the  case  and by the
\nrequirements of justice.  It said that as a mere proposition
\nof law it should be difficult to accept\t the  argument\tthat
\nthe sentence of death could be ultimately imposed only where
\nan  accused  person  was  found to have committed the murder
\nhimself.  This Court then held as under :-\n<\/p>\n
\t“Whether or not sentences of death should be imposed
\n\ton  persons  who  are found to be guilty not because
\n\tthey themselves committed the  murder,\tbut  because
\n\tthey  were  members  of an unlawful assembly and the
\n\toffence of murder was committed by one\tor  more  of
\n\tthe  members of such an assembly in pursuance of the
\n\tcommon object of that assembly, is  a  matter  which
\n\thad  to be decided on the facts and circumstances of
\n\teach case.  In the present case, it  is\t clear\tthat
\n\tthe   whole  group  of\tpersons\t belonged  to  Laxmi
\n\tPrasad’s faction, joined together armed with  deadly
\n\tweapons\t and they were inspired by the common object
\n\tof exterminating the male members in the  family  of
\n\tGayadin,   10  of  these  persons  were\t armed\twith
\n\tfire-arms and the others with several  other  deadly
\n\tweapons,  and  evidence\t shows\tthat five murders by
\n\tshooting were  committed  by  the  members  of\tthis
\n\tunlawful assembly.    The  conduct of the members of
\n\tthe unlawful assembly  both  before  and  after\t the
\n\tcommission of the offence has been considered by the
\n\tcourts\tbelow  and it has been held that in order to
\n\tsuppress such fantastic criminal conduct on the part
\n\tof villagers it is necessary to impose the sentences
\n\tof death on 10 members of the unlawful assembly\t who
\n\twere armed  with  fire-arms.  It cannot be said that
\n\tdiscretion  in\tthe  matter  has   been\t  improperly
\n\texercised  either  by the trial Court or by the High
\n\tCourt.\tTherefore we see no  reason  to\t accept\t the
\n\targument urged by Mr.  Sawhney that the test adopted
\n\tby  the\t High  Court in dealing with the question of
\n\tsentence is mechanical and unreasonable.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tThere  are, however, three cases in which we
\n\tthink we ought to interfere.  These are the cases of
\n\taccused No.9 Ram Saran who is aged 18;\taccused\t No.
\n\t11 Asha\t Ram  who is aged 23 and accused No.  16 Deo
\n\tPrasad who is aged 24, Ram Saran and  Asha  Ram\t are
\n\tthe sons of Bhagwati who is accused No.\t 2.  Both of
\n\tthem have  been\t sentenced to death.  Similarly, Deo
\n\tPrasad has also been sentenced\tto  death.    Having
\n\tregard to the circumstances under which the unlawful
\n\tassembly  came\tto  be formed, we are satisfied that
\n\tthese  young  men  must\t have  joined  the  unlawful
\n\tassembly  under pressure and influence of the elders
\n\tof their respective families.  The list\t of  accused
\n\tpersons\t  shows\t  that\tthe  unlawful  assembly\t was
\n\tconstituted by members\tof  different  families\t and
\n\thaving\tregard to the manner in which these factions
\n\tordinarily conduct themselves in villages, it  would
\n\tnot  be\t unreasonable to hold that these three young
\n\tmen must have been compelled to\t join  the  unlawful
\n\tassembly  that\tmorning\t by their elders, and so, we
\n\tthink that the ends of justice would be met  if\t the
\n\tsentences of death imposed on them are modified into
\n\tsentences of  life  imprisonment.    Accordingly, we
\n\tconfirm the orders of conviction and sentence passed
\n\tagainst all the appellants except accused Nos.\t  9,
\n\t11  and\t 16 in whose cases the sentences are altered
\n\tto those of imprisonment for life.  In\tthe  result,
\n\tthe  appeals  are  dismissed,  subject\tto  the said
\n\tmodification.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Dhananjoy Chatterjee Alias Dhana vs.\t   State  of
\nWest Bangal<\/a> [(1994) 2 SCC 220] this Court said :\n<\/p>\n
\t“In recent years, the rising crime rate particularly
\n\tviolent\t crime\tagainst\t women has made the criminal
\n\tsentencing by  the  courts  a  subject\tof  concern.
\n\tToday there   are   admitted   disparities.\tSome
\n\tcriminals  get\tvery  harsh  sentences\twhile\tmany
\n\treceive\t   grossly   different\t sentence   for\t  an
\n\tessentially equivalent crime and a shockingly  large
\n\tnumber\teven  go  unpunished thereby encouraging the
\n\tcriminal and in the ultimate making  justice  suffer
\n\tby weakening  the  system’s credibility.  Of course,
\n\tit is not possible to  lay  down  any  cut  and\t dry
\n\tformula\t relating  to imposition of sentence but the
\n\tobject of sentencing should be to see that the crime
\n\tdoes not go unpunished and the victim  of  crime  as
\n\talso  the  society has the satisfaction that justice
\n\thas been done to it.  In imposing sentences  in\t the
\n\tabsence\t  of   specific\t  legislation,\tJudges\tmust
\n\tconsider variety of factors  and  after\t considering
\n\tall  those factors and taking an overall view of the
\n\tsituation, impose sentence which they consider to be
\n\tan appropriate one.  Aggravating factors  cannot  be
\n\tignored\t and similarly mitigating circumstances have
\n\talso to be taken into consideration.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tIn our opinion, the measure of punishment in
\n\ta given case must depend upon the  atrocity  of\t the
\n\tcrime;\t the   conduct\t of  the  criminal  and\t the
\n\tdefenceless and unprotected  state  of\tthe  victim.
\n\tImposition  of\tappropriate punishment is the manner
\n\tin which the courts respond to the society’s cry for
\n\tjustice against the criminals.\tJustice demands that
\n\tcourts should impose punishment befitting the  crime
\n\tso  that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the
\n\tcrime.\tThe courts must not only keep  in  view\t the
\n\trights\tof  the\t criminal but also the rights of the
\n\tvictim of crime\t and  the  society  at\tlarge  while
\n\tconsidering imposition of appropriate punishment.”
\n\tIn Bheru Singh\ts\/o  Kalyan  Singh  vs.\t   State  of
\nRajasthan  [(1994)  2  SCC  467]  this\tCourt  relied on its
\nobservations on the question of sentence made  in  Dhananjoy
\nChatterjee Alias Dhana’s case and then in the case of a writ
\nsaid as under :\n<\/p>\n
((SCO LYRIX 6.1
\n))
\n\t\t“The  barbaric, gruesome and heinous type of
\n\tcrime which the\t appellant  committed  is  a  revolt
\n\tagainst the society and an affront to human dignity.
\n\tThere are no extenuating or mitigating circumstances
\n\twhatsoever  in\tthis  case nor have any been pointed
\n\tout and in our opinion it is a fit case which  calls
\n\tfor  no punishment other than the capital punishment
\n\tand we accordingly confirm  the\t sentence  of  death
\n\timposed upon the appellant.  The plea of his learned
\n\tcounsel\t for mercy is unjustified and the prayer for
\n\tsympathy, in the  facts\t and  circumstances  of\t the
\n\tcase, is  wholly  misplaced.   We, therefore, uphold
\n\tthe conviction and sentence of\tdeath  imposed\tupon
\n\tthe  appellant\tby  the courts below for the offence
\n\tunder Section 302 IPC.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Natwarlal  Sakarlal Mody vs.\t The State of Bombay
\n[(1963) 65 BLR 660 (SC)] this Court said as under :
\n\t“While s.239  of  the  Code  of\t Criminal  Procedure
\n\tallows\ta joint trial of persons and offences within
\n\tdefined limits, it is within the discretion  of\t the
\n\tCourt  to  permit  such a joint trial or not, having
\n\tregard to the circumstances of each case.  It  would
\n\tcertainly  be an irregular exercise of discretion if
\n\ta Court allows an  innumerable\tnumber\tof  offences
\n\tspread over a long period of time and committed by a
\n\tlarge number of persons under the protecting wing of
\n\tall-embracing  conspiracy,  if\teach  or some of the
\n\toffences can  legitimately  and\t properly  form\t the
\n\tsubject-matter\tof  a  separate\t trial; such a joint
\n\ttrial would undoubtedly prolong the trial and  would
\n\tbe  a  cause  of unnecessary waste of judicial time.
\n\tIt would complicate matters which might otherwise be
\n\tsimple; it would confuse accused and cause prejudice
\n\tto them, for more often than not  accused  who\thave
\n\ttaken  part  in one of the minor offences might have
\n\tnot only to undergo the long  strain  of  protracted
\n\ttrial, but there might also be the likelihood of the
\n\timpact\tof  the evidence adduced in respect of other
\n\taccused on the evidence adduced against him  working
\n\tto his\tdetriment.   Nor can it be said that such an
\n\tomnibus charge or charges would always be in  favour
\n\tof  the\t prosecution for the confusion introduced in
\n\tthe charges and consequently  in  the  evidence\t may
\n\tultimately  benefit  some of the accused, as a clear
\n\tcase against one or other  of  the  accused  may  be
\n\tcomplicated  or confused by the attempt to put it in
\n\ta proper place in a larger setting.  A Court  should
\n\tnot  be overzealous to provide a cover of conspiracy
\n\tfor a  number  of  offences  unless  it\t is  clearly
\n\tsatisfied  on  the  material  placed  before it that
\n\tthere is evidence to  prove  prima  facie  that\t the
\n\tpersons who committed separate offences were parties
\n\tto  the\t conspiracy  and they committed the separate
\n\tacts attributed to them pursuant to  the  object  of
\n\tthe said conspiracy.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Payne vs.  Tennessee {111 S.Ct.  2597  (91)}\t the
\nSupreme\t Court of United States overruled by majority of 6:3
\nits earlier two decisions in Booth vs.\tMaryland  (482\tU.S.\n<\/p>\n
496) and South\tCarolina  vs.\t Gathers (490 U.S.  805) and
\nupheld the admission during capital sentencing\tof  evidence
\nrelating  to  the  victim’s personal characteristics and the
\nemotional impact of crime on the victim\t or  his  family  or
\nfriends.   Charisse  Christopher, her two years old daughter
\nLacie, and her three years old son, Nicholas, were  brutally
\nattacked   with\t a  butcher  knife  in\ttheir  apartment  in
\nTennessee.  Only the son  Nicholas  survived.\t The  police
\narrested  Payne and a jury found him guilty of two counts of
\nfirst degree murder and one count of assault with intent  to
\ncommit murder  in the first degree.  At the sentencing phase
\nof trial, the state presented the testimony of the mother of
\nCharisse Christopher, who explained how\t Nicholas  continued
\nto be affected by the murders:\t“He cries for his mom….And
\nhe  cries  for\this  sister  Lacie.” In addition, during his
\nclosing argument  the  prosecutor  depicted  the  continuing
\nimpact on  Nicholas’s life:  “His mother will never kiss him
\ngood night or pat him as he goes off  to  bed….He  doesn’t
\nhave  anybody  to watch cartoons with him….” The jury then
\nsentenced Payne to death.  The Supreme\tCourt  of  Tennessee
\naffirmed the  conviction.    Despite  Booth and Gathers, the
\ncourt  found  the  admission  of  victim   impact   evidence
\n“technically  irrelevant”  but\t“harmless  beyond reasonable
\ndoubt.” The court  even\t applauded  the\t admission  of\tsuch
\nevidence and claimed that “It is an affront to the civilized
\nmembers\t of  the  human\t race to say that at sentencing in a
\ncapital case, a parade of  witnesses  may  praise….\t the
\nDefendant….\tbut  nothing may be said that bears upon the
\ncharacter  of,\tor  the\t harm  imposed\tupon,  the  victims.
\nAlthough  the  Tennessee Supreme Court’s holding rested on a
\nfinding of harmless error, the Supreme Court, upon  granting
\ncertiorari,   specifically  asked  the\tparties\t to  address
\nwhether Booth and Gathers should be overruled,\teven  though
\nthe issue had not been raised in the petition for certiorari
\nor in  its  response.\t In a 6:3 opinion, the Supreme Court
\naffirmed  the  Tennessee  Supreme   Court’s   judgment\t and
\nexplicity overruled  Booth  and\t Gathers.    Writing for the
\nmajority, Chief\t Justice  Rehnquist  noted  that  Booth\t and
\nGathers were premised on the notion that a capital defendant
\nshould\tbe  treated  as a “uniquely individual human being”.
\nThis “individualized consideration,” he argued,\t should\t not
\noccur “wholly apart from the crime” the defendant committed.
\nAccording  to  Chief  Justice  Rehnquist,  Booth and Gathers
\ncreated\t an  unfairly  imbalanced  process  in\t which\t the
\ndefendant  may\tintroduce  all mitigating personal evidence,
\nalthough “the State is barred from…offering ‘a glimpse  of
\nthe  life’  which  the\tdefendant  ‘chose  to  extinguish’.”
\n(Harvard Law Review – Vol.105).\n<\/p>\n
\tIn R  v.    Howells  and others [(1999) 1 All.ER 50]
\nCourt of Appeal, Criminal Division said that  “Court  should
\nalways bear in mind that sentences were in almost every case
\nintended  to  protect  the  public, whether by punishing the
\noffender or reforming him, or deterring him and\t others,  or
\nall of those things.”\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.  Natarajan said that Nalini (A-1)  got  involved
\nin  the\t conspiracy  only  to please Murugan (A-3) and to be
\nclose to him, who was her lover.  It was Murugan (A-3),\t who
\nfirst indoctrinated  her  and  then used her as a cover.  It
\nwas not that  any  idea\t to  assassinate  Rajiv\t Gandhi\t had
\noriginated  with  her and she became party to the conspiracy
\nonly on the day of the incident itself though she might have
\nsuspicion or even knowledge about the same.  Mr.   Natarajan
\nfurther\t said  that  Nalini  (A-1) did not contribute to the
\nconspiracy but merely acted as\ta  cover  as  she  was\tonly
\nobeying\t the  role assigned to her by Sivarasan whom Murugan
\n(A-3) introduced to her as his boss.  It was also  submitted
\nthat  in India no woman had been hanged since India attained
\nindependence.  He said if we look at  the  criminal,  Nalini
\n(A-1)  did  not belong to any criminal tribe and that though
\nthere is no evidence about her\tcharacter  but\tnothing\t has
\nbeen said about her bad antecedents by the Executive Officer
\nfrom her  office, who appeared as a witness.  He said in his
\nconfession Nalini (A-1) had  already  expressed\t regret\t and
\nrepentance and now she is a chastened woman.  She is not any
\nthreat or   menace   to\t  the  society.\t   Lastly,  he\tsaid
\nconsidering the future of the girl child, who is  adolescent
\nand  born  in  unfortunate circumstances Nalini (A-1) may be
\nspared the extreme penalty of death.\tSanthan\t (A-2),\t Mr.
\nNatarajan  said,  came\tto  India  in the group of nine with
\nSivarasan on 1.5.1991 but he had come to India to go abroad.
\nSince arrangements for his passport and visa  could  not  be
\nmade till then he continued to stay in India.  Otherwise, he
\nwould  not  have been here to be a member of the conspiracy.
\nAbout Murugan (A-3) Mr.\t Natarajan said that he was summoned
\nto go to Sri Lanka and was on his way there.  But since boat
\ndid not arrive from there he had to return to Madras.\t Had
\nthe  boat arrived on time from Sri Lanka Murugan (A-3) would
\nnot have been here during the crucial period culminating  in
\nachieving the  object  of conspiracy.  It was submitted that
\nboth Santhan (A-2) and Murugan (A-3) were  not\tinvolved  in
\nany  policy making for LTTE and were not the perpetrators of
\nthe crime.  They acted under the domination of others and do
\nnot deserve the extreme penalty.  About\t Murugan  (A-3)\t Mr.
\nNatarajan  said\t that  he  is also father of the girl child.
\nArivu (A-18), he said, was under the complete domination  of
\nSivarasan  and\tdid  not  understand the implications of the
\nvarious jobs entrusted to him by Sivarasan.  He is  a  youth
\nof  20\tyears  having born on 30.7.1971 and does not deserve
\nextreme penalty for the crime of abetment to  murder,  being
\nalso a paid employee of LTTE.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt  is\tnot that Nalini (A-1) did not understand the
\nnature of the crime  and  her  participation.\t She  was  a
\nwilling party  to  the crime.  We have to see both the crime
\nand the criminal.  Nalini  (A-1)  in  her  association\twith
\nMurugan\t (A-3)\tand  others  developed\tgreat hatred towards
\nRajiv Gandhi and wanted to have a revenge.   Merely  because
\nNalini\t(A-1)  is  a woman and a mother of the child who was
\nborn while she was in custody cannot be the  ground  not  to
\naward the  extreme penalty to her.  She is an educated woman
\nand was working as a stenographer in a private\tfirm.\t She
\nwas  living  alone  away from her mother, sister and brother
\nsince April, 1990 and started living in a  rented  apartment
\nin Villivakkam\tfrom  October, 1990.  She became friendly to
\nMurugan (A-3) when she was introduced to him in\t her  office
\nby her\tsister\tKalyani\t and Bharathi (PW-233).\t Before this
\ndate also she was close to some of the LTTE activists.\t She
\ndeveloped  fondness towards Murugan (A-3) and in fact wanted
\nto marry him.  He, however, declined as he  said  he  was  a
\ncommitted LTTE activist and as per code of LTTE he could not
\nmarry.\tThey were, however, having sexual relations and when
\nthey returned from trip to Tirupathi after the assassination
\nof Rajiv Gandhi it was found that Nalini (A-1) was pregnant.
\nSubsequently  while  both  of them were in custody they were
\nmarried from earlier date.  It was in  July  1991  that\t she
\ngave birth to the girl child.  When we think of the crime we
\nfind  that along with Rajiv Gandhi 15 others also lost their
\nlives.\tMany of\t them  were  policemen\ton  duty.    Fifteen
\npersons who  lost  their  lives in the bomb blast were:\t (1)
\nP.K.  Gupta, Personal Security Officer to Rajiv Gandhi,\t (2)
\nLatha  Kannan,\t(3) Kokilavani, (4) Iqbal, Superintendent of
\nPolice,\t (5)  Rajaguru,\t Inspector  of\tPolice,\t (6)  Edward
\nJoseph,\t Inspector  of Police, (7) Ethiraj, Sub Inspector of
\nPolice, (8) Sundararaju Pillai, Police constable, (9)  Ravi,
\nCommando  Police  constable, (10) Dharman, Police constable,
\n(11) Chandra, woman police constable, (12)  Santhani  Begum,
\n(13)   Darryl  Peter,  (14)  Kumari  Saroja  Devi  and\t(15)
\nMunuswamy.  It is not disputed that these  persons  died  on
\naccount\t of  the bomb blast and others suffered grievous and
\nsimple injuries on that account.  What about their families,
\none may ask.  In the beginning of the judgment we noted that
\none small girl Kokila wanted  to  recite  a  poem  to  Rajiv
\nGandhi.\t  In  one  of  the photographs she is shown standing
\nwith her mother Latha Kannan next to Dhanu.   Both  died  in
\nthe blast.    What about the children, wives and husbands of
\nthose who died?\t Cruelty of the crime committed has known no
\nbounds.\t The crime sent shock waves in the country.  General
\nelections had to be postponed.\tIt was submitted  more\tthan
\nonce  that  principal  perpetrators  in the present case are
\nalready dead but then for the support  which  Nalini  (A-1),
\nSanthan\t (A-2),\t Murugan (A-3) and Arivu (A-18) afforded for
\ncommission of the crime it could not  have  been  committed.
\nEach one  of  these  four accused had a role to play.  Crime
\nwas committed after  previous  planning\t and  executed\twith
\nextreme brutality.  There were as many as two dry runs as to
\nhow  to\t reach\tRajiv  Gandhi after penetrating the security
\ncordon.\t  A  former  Prime  Minister  of  the  country\t was
\ntargetted because this country had entered an agreement with
\na  foreign  country  in\t exercise  of  its sovereign powers.
\nRajiv Gandhi being head of the Government at that  time\t was
\nsignatory to the accord which was also signed by the head of
\nthe Government of Sri Lanka.  The accord had the approval of
\nthe Parliament.\t   It  was not that Rajiv Gandhi had entered
\ninto the accord in his personal\t capacity  or  for  his\t own
\nbenefit.   Though we have held that object of the conspiracy
\nwas not to  commit  any\t terrorist  act\t or  any  disruptive
\nactivity  nevertheless murder of a former Prime Minister for
\nwhat he did in the interest of the country  was\t an  act  of
\nexceptional  depravity\ton  the\t part  of  the\taccused,  an
\nunparallel act in the annals of\t crimes\t committed  in\tthis
\ncountry.   In  a mindless fashion not only that Rajiv Gandhi
\nwas killed along with him  others  died\t and  many  suffered
\ngrievous and  simple  injuries.\t It is not that intensity of
\nthe belt bomb strapped on the waist of Dhanu was  not  known
\nto  the\t conspirators as after switching on the first switch
\non her\tbelt  bomb  Dhanu  asked  Sivarasan  to\t move  away.
\nHaribabu  was  so keen to have close-up picture of the crime
\nthat he met his fate in the blast itself.  We are unable  to
\nfind  any  mitigating circumstance not to upset the award of
\nsentence of death on the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis is a case where all these Nalini (A-1), Santhan
\n(A-2),\tMurugan\t (A-3)\tand  Arivu  (A-18)  deserve  extreme
\npenalty.  We confirm the award of sentence of death on them.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe  record  our appreciation of the assistance given
\nto us by counsel for the parties.  Mr.\t  Natarajan,  senior
\nadvocate, led  the  team for all the accused except one.  He
\nwas ably assisted  by  Mr.     Sunder\tMohan,\t Mr.\t  B.
\nGopikrishnan, Mr.  S.\tDuraisamy,  Mr.\t  V.  Elangovan, Mr.
\nN.  Chandrasekharan, Mr.   T.\t Ramdass   and\t Mr.\t  R.
\nJayseelan.   A<\/a>\theavy  burden  lay  on\tthe shoulders of Mr.
\nNatarajan.  He carried it with aplomb.\tHis presentation  of
\nthe case  showed  his complete mastery on facts and law.  It
\nwas a pleasure to hear him, not losing his  poise  even\t for
\nonce.  He was fair in his submissions conceding where it was
\nunnecessary to contest.\t   Mr.\t  Siva\tSubramanium,  senior
\nadvocate assisted  by  Mr.    Thanan,  who  represented\t the
\nremaining  one\taccused,  rendered  his\t bit  to support Mr.
\nNatarajan.  Mr.\t Altaf Ahmad, Additional Solicitor  General,
\nwas not\t far  behind  in  any way.  He had to face an uphill
\ntask defending the sentence of death imposed on all  the  26
\naccused.   He  in  his\ttask  was  ably assisted by Mr.Jacob
\nBaniel, Mr.  Ranganathan, Mr.  P.  Parmeshwaran, Mr.  A.D.N.
\nRao, Mr.  Romy Chacko, Mr.  T.G.N.   Nair,  Ms.\t   Meenakshi
\nArora, Mr.  S.A.  Matoo and Mr.\t Mariaputam, advocates.\t Mr.
\nAltaf Ahmad was forthright in his submissions.\tHe presented
\nhis case  with learning and assiduity.\tWe express our sense
\nof gratitude to all the counsel and  admire  their  profound
\nlearning and  experience.    They  did\ttheir job remarkably
\nwell.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe would also like to record  our  appreciation\t for
\nthe  Special  Investigation  Team  (SIT)  constituted by the
\nCentral Bureau of Investigation\t to  investigate  the  case.
\nUnder the stewardship  of  Mr.\t  D.R.\tKarthikeyan, SIT did
\nassiduous work and was able to\tsolve  the  crime  within  a
\nshort time.    Investigation was meticulous, loose ends tied
\nto bring out a clear picture  of  conspiracy  and  the\tpart
\nplayed by   each  of  the  conspirators.    Members  of\t SIT
\nperformed their job with dedication and determination.\tThey
\nsucceeded in their mission but their only regret perhaps was
\nthat they could not capture Sivarasan alive.  We have also a
\nword of praise for Mr.\tR.K.\tRaghavan,  who\twas  at\t the
\nrelevant  time\tInspector  General  of\tPolice,\t Forest Cell
\n(CID),\tMadras\tand  was   entrusted   with   the   election
\narrangements in\t Chinglepet  range.    He was on duty at the
\ntime the  crime\t was  committed\t at   Sriperumbudur.\t  He
\nimmediately realised the gravity of situation.\tHe stayed on
\nat  the\t scene\tof  crime, organised relief and ensured that
\nmaterial evidence was not tempered with.    It\twas  he\t who
\nfound  the  camera  (MO-1)  on\tthe  body  of Haribabu which
\nprovided a breakthrough in the case.\n<\/p>\n
\tAppeals filed by  the  accused\tand  the  proceeding
\nsubmitted  by  the  Designated\tCourt  to  this\t Court under
\nSection 366 of the Code read with Sub-section (6) of Section
\n20 of TADA are disposed of in the terms mentioned above.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Tamil Nadu Through … vs Nalini And 25 Others on 11 May, 1999 Author: D Wadhwa Bench: D.P. Wadhwa, J. PETITIONER: STATE OF TAMIL NADU THROUGH SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,CBI\/SIT Vs. RESPONDENT: NALINI AND 25 OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/05\/1999 BENCH: D.P. WADHWA, J. JUDGMENT: ————— D.P. WADHWA, J. I […]<\/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-142075","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Tamil Nadu Through ... vs Nalini And 25 Others on 11 May, 1999 - 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\/state-of-tamil-nadu-through-vs-nalini-and-25-others-on-11-may-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Tamil Nadu Through ... vs Nalini And 25 Others on 11 May, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-through-vs-nalini-and-25-others-on-11-may-1999\" \/>\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=\"1999-05-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-02T12:01:17+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=\"518 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-through-vs-nalini-and-25-others-on-11-may-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-through-vs-nalini-and-25-others-on-11-may-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Tamil Nadu Through … vs Nalini And 25 Others on 11 May, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-05-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-02T12:01:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-through-vs-nalini-and-25-others-on-11-may-1999\"},\"wordCount\":103684,\"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\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-through-vs-nalini-and-25-others-on-11-may-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-through-vs-nalini-and-25-others-on-11-may-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-through-vs-nalini-and-25-others-on-11-may-1999\",\"name\":\"State Of Tamil Nadu Through ... vs Nalini And 25 Others on 11 May, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-05-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-02T12:01:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-through-vs-nalini-and-25-others-on-11-may-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-through-vs-nalini-and-25-others-on-11-may-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-through-vs-nalini-and-25-others-on-11-may-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Tamil Nadu Through … vs Nalini And 25 Others on 11 May, 1999\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Tamil Nadu Through ... vs Nalini And 25 Others on 11 May, 1999 - 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\/state-of-tamil-nadu-through-vs-nalini-and-25-others-on-11-may-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Tamil Nadu Through ... vs Nalini And 25 Others on 11 May, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-through-vs-nalini-and-25-others-on-11-may-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-05-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-02T12:01:17+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":"518 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-through-vs-nalini-and-25-others-on-11-may-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-through-vs-nalini-and-25-others-on-11-may-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Tamil Nadu Through … vs Nalini And 25 Others on 11 May, 1999","datePublished":"1999-05-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-02T12:01:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-through-vs-nalini-and-25-others-on-11-may-1999"},"wordCount":103684,"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\/state-of-tamil-nadu-through-vs-nalini-and-25-others-on-11-may-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-through-vs-nalini-and-25-others-on-11-may-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-through-vs-nalini-and-25-others-on-11-may-1999","name":"State Of Tamil Nadu Through ... vs Nalini And 25 Others on 11 May, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-05-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-02T12:01:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-through-vs-nalini-and-25-others-on-11-may-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-through-vs-nalini-and-25-others-on-11-may-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-through-vs-nalini-and-25-others-on-11-may-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Tamil Nadu Through … vs Nalini And 25 Others on 11 May, 1999"}]},{"@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\/142075","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=142075"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/142075\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=142075"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=142075"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=142075"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}