{"id":9232,"date":"2002-12-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-12-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandradevi-a-3-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2002"},"modified":"2015-05-17T05:04:53","modified_gmt":"2015-05-16T23:34:53","slug":"chandradevi-a-3-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandradevi-a-3-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2002","title":{"rendered":"Chandradevi (A-3) vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 December, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Chandradevi (A-3) vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 December, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDated: 12\/12\/2002\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice P. SHANMUGAM\nand\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice M. CHOCKALINGAM\n\nCriminal Appeal No.895 of 1997 and Criminal Appeal No. 896 of 1997\nand  Criminal Appeal No. 897 of 1997\nand\nCriminal M.P. Nos.780 to 782 of 1998\n\nChandradevi (A-3)                      ..  Appellant in\n                                            C.A. No.895 of 1997\n\n1. Kamalanantha (A-2)\n2. Balan @ Balendran (A-4)\n3. Mayilvaganan (A-5)\n4. Nanda @ Nandakumar (A-6)             ..  Appellants in\n5. Sathish @ Sathiskumar (A-7)      C.A. No.896 of 1997\n\nPremananda @ Premkumar                  ..  Appellant in\n@ Ravi (A-1)                                        C.A. No.897 of 1997\n\n-Vs-\n\nState of Tamil Nadu\nby Inspector of Police,\nC.B., C.I.D., Pudukkottai\n(Crime No.1183 of 1994 of\n Viralimalai Police Station)            ..  Respondents in all\n                                            the three appeals.\n\nPrayer:  Appeals against the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge,\nPudukkottai Division at Pudukkottai dated 20.8.1997 made in Sessions Case No.7\nof 1996.\n\n!For Appellants :  Mr.  U.R.  Lalith,\n                Senior Counsel assisted by\n                Mrs.  D.  Revathi for\n                appellant (A-1) in\n                C.A.  No.897\/97\n\n                Mr.  Shanmuga Velayutham\n                for appellants 1, 2, 4 and 5\n                (A-2, A-4, A-6 & A-7) in\n                C.A.  No.896\/97\n\n                3rd appellant (A-5) in\n                C.A.  No.896\/97 died.\n\n                Mr.  M.G.L.  Sankaran\n                for appellant (A-3) in\n                C.A.  No.895\/97\n\n\n^For Respondents :  Mr.  M.S.  Kandasamy,\n                Special Public Prosecutor.\n\n\n\n\n\n                Mr.  K.G.  Kannabhiraman,\n                Senior Counsel assisted by\n                M\/s.  Sudha Ramalingam\n                for the impleading parties\n                in the Crl.  M.Ps.\n\n\n:J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
P.  SHANMUGAM, J.\n<\/p>\n
                The above appeals arise out of the judgment  of  the  Sessions
\nCourt of Pudukottai  Division  at Pudukottai in S.C.  Nos.7 of 1996, etc.  The
\nSessions Court found the accused\/appellants guilty under various  charges  and
\nconvicted them as follows :\n<\/p>\n
Charge
\nOffence
\nAccused
\nConvicted\/
\nAcquitted
\nSentence<\/p>\n
Charge-1
\nConspiracy S.120-B IPC
\nA1 to A7
\nConviction
\nNo separate Sentence
\nCharge-2
\n376(2)(C) IPC
\n(14 counts)
\nA1
\nConviction for 13 counts
\nP.Ws.3 to 15
\nLife +  Rs.5,10,000\/=  i\/d  2 years, 6 months under each count.  Life sentence
\nfor 13 counts to run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
Charge-3
\nS.376\/109 IPC<\/p>\n
A2 to A7
\nA2 to A7 u\/s.376\/109 IPC
\nLife imprisonment for A2, A4 to A7 – 2 years, 7 months 2D and fine Rs.10,000\/=
\ni\/d 3 months RI for A3.\n<\/p>\n
Charge-4
\nS.354 IPC (4 counts)
\nref:P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W.10, D.W.10
\nA3
\nConviction 354 IPC-(1 count only) with regard to  P.W.10  –  Acquittal  w.r.t.
\nP.W.3, P.W.5, D.W.10.\n<\/p>\n
No Separate Sentence<\/p>\n
Charge-5
\nSec.313 IPC
\n(8 counts) P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.9, P.W.13, P.W.14, P.W.15
\nA3
\nConviction of A3 u\/s.312 IPC
\n(4 counts) w.r.t.    P.W.4,  P.W.5,  P.W.6,  P.W.14 – Acquitted w.r.t.  P.W.7,
\nP.W.9, P.W.13, P.W.15
\n2 years 7 months  2D  +  Fine  Rs.5,000\/-  i\/d  45  days  R.I.    (Total  fine
\nRs.20,000\/-)<\/p>\n
Charge-6
\nS.302 IPC
\nS.302\/34 IPC<\/p>\n
A1
\nA2
\nConviction u\/s 302 IPC – A1<\/p>\n
Conviction u\/s.302\/34 IPC – A2<\/p>\n
Life Impisonment + fine Rs.10,000\/- i\/d R.I.  for 3 months.
\nA2 – Life imprisonment + fine Rs.10,000\/- i\/d.  R.I.  for 3 months
\nCharge-7
\nS.302\/109 IPC
\nA4 to A7
\nA4 to A7 Convicted u\/s.\n<\/p>\n
302\/109 IPC
\nA4 to A7 Life imprisonment + fine Rs.10,000\/- i\/d.  3 months R.I.
\nCharge-8
\nS.343 IPC
\nA1,
\nA2,
\nA4 to A7
\nA1, A2, A4 to A7 – Convicted u\/s.  343 IPC
\nNo separate sentence
\nCharge-9
\nS.201\/302 IPC
\nA5 to A7
\nConvicted – A5 to A7 u\/s.  201\/302 IPC
\nA5 to A7  Sentenced  to R.I.  for One year + fine Rs.2,500\/- i\/d R.I.  for one
\nmonth.\n<\/p>\n
Charge-10
\nS.201\/114 IPC
\nA2
\nA2 is convicted u\/s.201\/114 IPC
\nA2 is sentenced to R.I.  for one year + fine Rs.2,500\/- i\/d.  R.I.    for  one
\nmonth.\n<\/p>\n
Charge-11
\nS.506 II IPC (4 counts) P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.9
\nA1,
\nA2,
\nA4 to A7
\nA1, A2,  A4  to A7 Convicted u\/s.506 II IPC (2 Counts) P.W.4, P.W.6 only.  Not
\nguilty w.r.t.  P.W.6, P.W.9.\n<\/p>\n
No separate sentence
\nCharge-12
\nS.420 IPC
\nA1
\nConvicted u\/s.420 IPC
\nR.I.  for one year.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  Three sets of appeals are before us.  Criminal Appeal No.895 of  1
\n997 is  filed  by the third accused in the case.  Accused Nos.2, 4, 5, 6 and 7
\nhave filed Criminal Appeal No.896 of 1997.  Since the third appellant,  namely
\nthe  fifth  accused  in  the  case,  is reported to have died, Criminal Appeal
\nNo.896 of 1997 abates insofar as the third appellant is concerned.  The  first
\naccused has filed Criminal Appeal No.89 7 of 1997.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  The facts of the case are stated hereunder :-\n<\/p>\n
        A  news  item  in  “The  Indian  Express”  dated  15.11.1994 under the
\ncaption, “Tale of the two who were able to get away” (Ex.D.29), followed by  a
\ncomplaint, Ex.P.25  dated  16.11.1994  given by R.  Sureshkumari @ Baby to the
\nInspector of Police, Viralimalai has laid the foundation for this unparalleled
\nand sensational case of rape of 13 girls and one  murder  in  an  Ashram  near
\nTiruchirappalli.   In  that  brief complaint, Sureshkumari has stated that she
\njoined the Premananda Swami Ashram, Mathalai, Sri Lanka when she was six years
\nof age.  She was taken to India by the Swami along with 12 other girls in  the
\nyear 1984 when the ashram was formed at Tiruchy.  She had alleged that she was
\nsubjected  to  sexual  harassment  by  the  Swami  four  times even before she
\nattained puberty at the age of 13 and that she was raped within a month on her
\nattaining puberty by the Swami by  threat  and  by  beating  her  with  stick.
\nUnable  to  withstand  this  torture, she left the ashram at the age of 14 and
\ncame to Madras, but she was caught by the police and sent back to the  ashram.
\nInspite  of  her complaint to her mother, she did not come forward to help her
\nand she had to suffer the torture in the ashram as she had no other  place  to
\ngo.   She came to know from some inmates of the ashram that Premananda had not
\nonly raped her, but also many other girls in  the  ashram,  and  she  recorded
\ntheir conversation  in a cassette.  In these circumstances, she approached one
\nof her relatives, Ananda Mohan who helped her and Latha,  another  inmate,  to
\ncome   out  of  the  ashram  to  Chennai,  with  the  assistance  of  a  Women
\nOrganisation.  In the ashram, Premananda would not allow them to  talk  freely
\nto others and they were compelled to undergo this ordeal.  Divya Devi knew all
\nthis and  was  abetting the misdeeds of the Swami.  Ultimately, unable to bear
\nthe torture, she left the ashram on 1.11.1  994,  but  could  not  gather  the
\ncourage to  give  a  police  complaint.    However,  with  the  assistance and
\nencouragement given by the All India Women Democratic Association and in order
\nto see that other girls also are not subjected to the same fate, she had  come
\nforward to expose the misdeeds of the Swami and the suffering undergone by her
\neven at  the  cost of her dignity and modesty.  She had stated that many girls
\nhad to undergo abortion because of the rapes committed on them by  the  Swami.
\nShe had  alleged  that  one  Balan had acted as a pimp for the Swami.  She had
\nrequested for an appropriate action against the Swami, Divya Devi  and  Balan.
\nThe   subsequent  news  report  on  these  allegations  was  followed  by  the
\nregistration of a crime,  investigation,  enquiry,  seizure  of  incriminating
\ndocuments, materials, evidence and filing of charge sheet.\n<\/p>\n
I.      Background\n<\/p>\n
        4.  The further facts with a little more background of the case are as
\nfollows :-\n<\/p>\n
        One  Premananda  alias  Prem  Kumar  alias  Ravi,  son of Somasundaram
\nMalavarayar, called Swami Premananda, was running an orphanage in the name  of
\nBoopalakrishna Ashram,  Mathalai  at Sri Lanka.  Due to the ethnic violence in
\nthat region, Swami Premananda came over to India in the year 1984.   About  12
\nyoung  Tamil  girls and a few women, who were in the ashram in Sri Lanka, were
\nalso brought to Tiruchy through Rameswaram and Vedaranyam by boat.  Initially,
\nSwami Premananda set up an ashram in a rented building  at  Tiruchy  and  then
\nshifted and constituted it into a big institution at Fathima Nagar in the year
\n1989 in  a  sprawling  space  spread over nearly 150 acres.  The ashram had in
\nitself, laid out areas  for  residence,  eating  place,  press,  school,  etc.
\nAdmittedly,  about 100 girls and 100 boys, mostly orphans, were staying in the
\nashram.  There are separate hostels for the stay, education and  training  for
\nboys, girls  and  women.  Besides, the devotees as well as the parents of some
\nof the children were also living in the various quarters in the ashram.    The
\nashram  was  obviously  headed  by  Swami  Premananda  (Accused  No.1) for the
\nspiritual upliftment of the devotees and assistance of the inmates.  The Swami
\nclaimed to have mystic powers and perform  miracles  to  materialise  viboothi
\n(sacred ash) and Lingams from stomach (Lingothbhavam).  It is stated that four
\npoojas  were  performed  everyday and the first accused used to give spiritual
\ndiscourses, apart from giving ‘Arulvakku’ (Trance-Interviews) on weekend  days
\nand full  moon  days.  It is claimed that the ashram has branches all over the
\nworld, especially in  England,  Switzerland,  Belgium,  Sri  Lanka  and  other
\ncountries.   A  number of devotees coming from abroad were also staying in the
\nashram.  There were different categories  of  people  in  the  ashram,  namely
\nSanyasins who were called ‘Mathajis’, assistants, devotees, orphans, etc.<\/p>\n
        5.   P.W.3  to P.W.16 (excepting P.W.4 and P.W.6) and P.W.55 are girls
\nwho had joined the ashram in Sri Lanka in their tender ages  and  subsequently
\nshifted  to  India  and  depended  on  the  ashram for their food, shelter and
\nclothing.  Being immigrants from Sri Lanka with no papers and nobody either to
\ntake care of them or make any provision for their future, they were under  the
\ntotal control and mercy of the authority of the ashram.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   During  the  period  between  1990 and October 1994, which is the
\ncharge period, it is alleged that Swami Premananda (A-1) committed rape on  13
\ngirls.   It  is  seen  from  the  allegations  that  A-1  used  to commit rape
\nimmediately some time after the girls attain puberty while they  were  put  on
\nguard duty  during  nights  and  at  other  odd  hours and places.  A-2 to A-7
\nassisted and abetted the acts of A-1.  It is also alleged that one  Ravi,  who
\nhad  tried  to expose the misdeeds of A-1, was done to death and was buried in
\nthe ashram itself.  The allegations that a spiritual guru  misused  the  faith
\nreposed  in  him  by  the  devotees, and a father-like person had raped tender
\ngirls, subjected them to torture and the murder of one Ravi, another inmate of
\nthe ashram, had created a sensational news, resulting  in  the  investigation,
\ncommencing from Ex.P.25, complaint dated 16.11.1994 referred to above.\n<\/p>\n
        7.   On  the basis of the said complaint, a case was registered before
\nthe Viralimalai Police Station in Crime No.1183 of 1994  on  17.11.1994  under
\nSections 142  and  376  of  the Indian Penal Code.  Miss Sureshkumari and Miss
\nLatha were examined by the Inspector of Police, P.W.61.  They  were  medically
\nexamined  in pursuance to the requisition sent by P.W.61 as per the permission
\ngranted by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.  Thereafter,  on  verifying  the
\nstatements on  19.11.1994,  Section 506(2) I.P.C.  was added to the case and a
\nreport, Ex.P.197 was submitted.  A team of  seven  Inspectors  of  Police  was
\nconstituted to  investigate  the case.  In the morning of 19.11.1994, at 9 am,
\nthe ashram was inspected in the presence of P.W.29, the Village Administrative
\nOfficer and other witnesses (Ex.P.68 is the Observation Mahazar and Ex.  P.199
\nis the Rough Sketch) and on the same day, P.Ws.4 to 10 were examined and their
\nstatements were recorded by P.W.62.  P.W.3 was examined by P.W.57 on the  same
\nday.  A-1  was  arrested  at  11.30 am on 19.11.1 994.  The victim girls, viz.
\nP.W.4 to P.W.14, P.W.55, D.W.31, D.W.33 and one Vasantha, Kanchana and  Geetha
\nwere  medically  and radiologically examined by P.W.19, P.W.20, P.W.21, P.W.22
\nand P.W.23 on 19.11.199 4 and on 21.11.1994.  A-1 was also medically  examined
\non 20.11.1994.\n<\/p>\n
        8.   In  the  medical  examination,  the  victim girls namely P.W.4 to
\nP.W.15 and P.W.55 were found to have been accustomed  to  sexual  intercourse.
\nAll  the  victim  girls were sent for radiological examination for determining
\ntheir age.  Their statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C.  were recorded  by  the
\nJudicial Magistrate   No.I,   Pudukkottai.    A-2  to  A-7  were  arrested  on
\n23.11.1994.  On  the  basis  of  the  admissible  portion  of  the  confession
\nstatement  of  A-7,  that  he  was  prepared to identify and show the place of
\nburial of the deceased Ravi, Sections 302 and 2 01 I.P.C.  were added to Crime
\nNo.1183 of 1994 in Ex.P.200, Express Report.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  A requisition was made  for  exhumation  of  the  remains  of  the
\ndeceased Ravi and as per the directions of the Tahsildar, they were exhumed on
\n24.11.1994 at  10  am  in the presence of the Tahsildar, Dr.  Ravi Shankar and
\nother police officials.  Ex.P.62, observation mahazar was prepared.    Inquest
\nwas  conducted  on  the body of the deceased Ravi by P.W.28 and Ex.P.65 is the
\ninquest report.    P.W.46,  who  conducted  the  post-mortem,   found   eleven
\nante-mortem injuries  .   P.M.O.10 is the chemical analysis report of the soil
\ncollected from and around the various bones and human blood  was  detected  on
\nthem.  Ex.P.47 is the report of the Anthropological Division of the Tamil Nadu
\nForensic  Science  Laboratory  in  reference  to  the  Super  Imposition Test.
\nP.W.47, Anthropologist, opined under Ex.P.126, report that the skull-Item No.1
\nin P.M.O.66 belonged to the  individual  seen  in  the  life  size  photograph
\nP.M.O.69, the  enlarged  size  of P.M.O.69.  Various places in the ashram were
\nsearched  and  articles  were  seized  in  the   presence   of   the   Village
\nAdministrative Officer on 25.11.1995, including the letters and correspondence
\nfrom the kudil of A-1 and the absconding accused Divya Devi as well as that of
\nA-2, Kamalananda.\n<\/p>\n
        10.   P.W.1  and P.W.2, who were arrested on 21.12.1994, were examined
\nin the  presence  of  the  witnesses  and  their  confession  statements  were
\nrecorded.   As they were in a remorseful mood, the investigating agency, after
\nremanding  P.W.1  and  P.W.2,  sent  their  requisition  for  recording  their
\nstatements under  Section  164 Cr.P.C., which were recorded on 29.12.1994.  On
\nthe basis of the said confession statement, the investigating agency  proposed
\nto take P.W.1 and P.W.2 as Approvers and thereafter, a requisition was made to
\nthe  Chief  Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai to record the Tender of Pardon in
\nrespect of P.W.1 and P.W.2.  P.W.1 and P.W.2 were summoned  before  the  Chief
\nJudicial  Magistrate,  Pudukkottai  and after being satisfied, he granted them
\nconditional Tender of Pardon.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  One of the victim girls, P.W.14, Aruljothi,  who  was  taken  for
\nmedical  examination  along with the other girls and was entrusted to ‘ Udavum
\nKarangal’ at Madras on 21.11.1994, did not get her menstruation.  On the other
\nhand, in the month of December 1994, she developed  vomitting  and  giddiness.
\nWhile she was examined in the Government Hospital, Kilpauk on 15.1.1995 and on
\n17.1.1995, she  was found to be pregnant.  P.W.14 requested for termination of
\nher pregnancy.  On 21.1.199 5, her statement was recorded by the  Metropolitan
\nMagistrate, P.W.50.    As  per Ex.P.97, a requisition was sent to the Judicial
\nMagistrate, Keeranur to direct the doctors to abort the foetus of  P.W.14  and
\nto  collect  the  products  of  conception  and  her  sample  blood for D.N.A.
\nTesting.  After obtaining the consent of P.W.14, her pregnancy was  terminated
\non 29.2.1995  by  P.W.44,  Dr.    Shantha Gokuldoss with the assistance of Dr.
\nKamala.  Ex.P.100 is the Abortion Certificate issued by  Dr.    Kamala.    The
\nproducts of  conception  and  10 ml.  sample blood of P.W.14 were collected in
\nthe special containers sent by the Centre for Cellular and  Molecular  Biology
\n(C.C.M.B.) Hyderabad by P.W.56, Dr.  Cycillia Cyril.  On the same day, at 4.30
\npm,  P.W.35,  Inspector  of Police collected the sealed parcel from P.W.56 and
\nthe same was handed over  in  C.C.M.B.,  Hyderabad  on  22.2.1995  at  10  am.
\nP.W.59, Dr.  Lalji Singh had issued the acknowledgment.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  After  getting  the  consent of A-1 Premananda, 10 ml.  of sample
\nblood was taken from him by P.W.46, Dr.  Ravi Shankar on 22.2.1995 as per  the
\ndirection  of  the  Judicial  Magistrate,  Keeranur passed in pursuance to the
\nrequisition by the C.B.,C.I.D.  Exhibit (A) Identification Card-1 is the  said
\nproforma.   After  obtaining  the  permission  from  the  Judicial Magistrate,
\nKeeranur, P.W.33 collected the parcel containing the sample blood of A-1  from
\nP.W.46.   He then travelled in an air-conditioned car to Madras and the sample
\nblood was handed over to P.  W.34, Inspector of Police.  The said  parcel  was
\nhanded over  to  C.C.M.    B.,  Hyderabad  by P.W.34, for which Ex.P.95 is the
\nacknowledgment.  As per Ex.P.185,  Dr.    Lalji  Singh  opined  that  A-1  was
\nresponsible  for  the  product  of conception\/aborted foetus beyond reasonable
\ndoubt, whose biological mother is P.W.14.  Exs.P.189 to P.191 are the  further
\nreports of the tests.\n<\/p>\n
        13.   The  sample writings and signatures of A-1 and A-2 were obtained
\nin the presence of P.W.53, Superintendent of Central  Prison,  Tiruchy.    The
\nletters,  Exs.P.8  to  P.19 and P.20 series, along with the sample writings of
\nA-1 and A-2 were sent for hand-writing expert’s opinion.  P.W.54,  the  Finger
\nPrint  Expert,  had  opined  that the disputed signatures in Ex.P.20 must have
\nbeen those of A-1, Kamalananda whose sample writings are found in Ex.P.166 and
\nP.170 series.  Ex.P.171, the hand-writing  expert’s  report,  after  comparing
\nExs.P.8  to  P.19  with  Ex.P.167, states that the disputed writings must have
\nbeen written by A-2, Kamalananda.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  The Inspector of Police, C.B.,C.I.D.  had filed a charge sheet on
\n25.1.1995 on completion of investigation against A-1 to A-7 and the absconding
\naccused Divya Devi as second accused in the original charge  sheet.    Despite
\nthe efforts  by  the  investigating agency, she could not be arrested.  Hence,
\nshe was declared as  a  proclaimed  offender  on  27.4.1995  by  the  Judicial
\nMagistrate, Keeranur.      The  investigating  agency  could  not  arrest  the
\nabsconding  accused  till  7.6.1995  and  thereafter,  the  case  against  the
\nabsconding accused was  split  up  as  P.R.C.  No.9 of 1995.  The case against
\naccused 1 to 7 is P.R.C.  No.1 of 199 5.\n<\/p>\n
        15.  When the accused A-1 to  A-7  were  questioned  at  length  under
\nSection 313  Cr.P.C.    about the evidence and the circumstances incriminating
\nthem, all the accused denied them specifically and also contended that a false
\ncase was foisted against them.  The learned Sessions Judge, after  considering
\nthe  prosecution  witnesses  P.W.1 to P.W.64 and the witnesses for the defence
\nD.W.1 to D.W.49, the exhibits marked on the side of the prosecution Ex.P.1  to
\nEx.P.220  and  those  marked  on the side of the defence Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.109 as
\nwell as the material objects P.M.O.1  to  P.M.O.73  for  the  prosecution  and
\nD.M.O.1 to  D.M.O.  37 for the defence, found the charges levelled against the<\/p>\n
accused as having been established and the accused guilty  of  those  charges,
\nthereby  imposing  a  sentence  of  imprisonment  and fine and compensation as
\ndetailed separately.  The appeals are against this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
II.  Submissions By Counsel\n<\/p>\n
        16.  Mr.  U.R.  Lalith, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf  of
\nA-1 made his submissions under the following heads :\n<\/p>\n
        (1)     Charge of conspiracy is unfounded.\n        (2)     Misjoinder of charges.\n        (3)     Charge of rape on 13 girls.\n        (4)     Ravi's murder.\n        (5)     Charge of cheating.\n\n<\/pre>\n
        16(a) According to the learned senior counsel, the charge does not set
\nout the  particulars  like  the  age, date and the manner of the act etc.  and
\nthat the charge is rolled into one of the rape of all the 13 girls, which  has
\ncaused great  prejudice to the appellants.  This had also caused judicial bias
\nagainst the appellants.  According to him, the mandatory requirements  of  the
\ncharge  as  se  t out under Sections 21 1, 212, 213, 213(b), 218, 219, 220 and
\n223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have not been complied with.    He
\npointed  out  that  even  at the initial stage, the attention of the court was
\ndrawn to this infirmity.  In terms of Section  464,  there  is  a  failure  of
\njustice  because  of  the  legal  bias  and prejudice by allowing inadmissible
\nevidence, for instance, the correspondence by A-2 with Mathaji and the marking
\nof the photographs.  He further submits that the conduct  of  A-1  is  not  an
\nissue  and  that  evidence  has  been permitted to be led in to paint A-1 as a
\nwomanizer and of an immoral character.\n<\/p>\n
        16(b) Learned senior counsel submits that there was  no  predetermined
\nplan,  and  even  P.W.1, the approver, does not give the particulars of such a
\nplan.  It is highly improbable to accept that highly  qualified  persons  like
\nthe  accused  in  this case would stoop to the level of agreeing with the said
\nconspiracy of abetting the commission of rape.\n<\/p>\n
        16(c) The learned senior counsel also submits that the  ashram  is  an
\ninstitution  for  spreading  spirituality and the same cannot be treated as an
\ninstitution for women.  According to him, there were men and women,  boys  and
\ngirls and  it  is  not exclusively meant for women.  Besides, A-1 has no final
\nauthority over the administration of the ashram.  Therefore, the  question  of
\napplying the presumption under Section 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
\ndoes not  arise.    The  ashram is a place of voluntary spiritual activity and
\nthere is no compulsion that anybody should stay in the ashram.    The  inmates
\nwere staying  in the ashram on their own volition.  The trial court did not go
\ninto this question at all.\n<\/p>\n
        16(d) According to the learned senior counsel,  the  court  below  has
\nfailed to  consider that the mandatory requirement of Section 160 Cr.P.C.  was
\nviolated while taking statements from the victim girls and they were illegally
\nsubjected to medical examination.\n<\/p>\n
        16(e) Insofar as the charge of murder is concerned, the learned senior
\ncounsel submits that the defence witnesses, D.Ws.1, 8, 12, 2, 11,  19  and  22
\nhave  all  clearly  spoken  to  the  fact that the deceased Ravi was an insane
\nperson and it is supported by the medical evidence of D.W.46 and Ex.D.66.  The
\ntrial court had accepted the case of the defence that Ravi  suffered  insanity
\nduring lucid  intervals.    According  to  him,  there  is inordinate delay in
\nregistering the complaint of the death of the said Ravi.   In  Ex.P.25,  there
\nwas no mention about the murder of Ravi.  The oral evidence led in on the side
\nof  the  prosecution namely P.Ws.1, 3, 5, 8, 11, 16, 17 and 18 are unreliable.
\nAll the witnesses admit that they did not mention about the  murder  in  their
\nstatements before  the  police  and  in  their Sec.164 Cr.P.C.  statements and
\ntherefore, according to him, it is  clear  that  the  evidence  given  by  the
\nwitnesses before  the  court is tutored.  There is ample evidence to show that
\nthe prosecution witnesses were beaten up, pressurized and offered compensation
\nfor deposing against the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
        16(f)  The  learned  counsel  also  submits  that  there   are   vital
\ncontradictions  in  the evidence of the victim girls, namely that none of them
\nhave spoken to about the alleged rape in their statements under  Sections  161
\nand 164  Cr.P.C.    Their subsequent statements are only out of inducement and
\nunder pressure and therefore, their evidence cannot be worthy of acceptance.\n<\/p>\n
        16(g)  According  to  the  learned  senior  counsel,  in  rape  cases,
\nespecially  in  case  of  a  statutory  rape,  the date and time are important
\nfactors and the longer the time, the more the requirement  for  corroboration.
\nIn  case  of  P.W.14, though the police knew the date of her rape, there is no
\nspecific charge.\n<\/p>\n
        16(h) The learned counsel went on to submit that insofar as  the  case
\nof statutory rapes against P.W.6, P.W.8, P.W.9 and P.W.10 are concerned, their
\nmedical evidence  show  their  age as 16 to 18 years.  In the absence of clear
\nevidence, it is unsafe to rely on the medical evidence in this case.\n<\/p>\n
        16(i) The learned senior counsel submits that  the  evidence  obtained
\nfrom  the  victim  girls, including the medical evidence, is taken contrary to
\nthe mandatory requirement of Section 160 Cr.P.C.  and  that  their  statements
\nwere not voluntary and have to be looked with suspicion.\n<\/p>\n
        16(j)  By  referring to the evidence of the victim girls individually,
\nlearned senior counsel submits that there are contradictions and  improvements
\nin their evidence.    It  is  only during the interregnum, i.e.  between their
\nexamination under Section 164 Cr.P.C.  and their evidence in the  court,  they
\nhave  changed  their stand and that was because of the pressure and inducement
\nand hence, their statements made before the  court  should  not  be  accepted.
\nAccording  to  him,  while  their  initial  statements were spontaneous, their
\nsubsequent statements were cooked up and made up to suit  the  convenience  of
\nthe prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
        16(k)  Though  no  grounds  are raised in the Memorandum on the D.N.A.
\nFingerprinting, it is submitted that D.N.A.  Science itself is not an accepted
\nscience even in the United States of America.    In  any  event,  the  learned
\nsenior  counsel  submits  that  the  prosecution  has not followed the caution
\nrequired before relying on those  reports.    On  the  merits  of  the  D.N.A.
\nresults, it is submitted that the method adopted for D.N.A.  Fingerprinting is
\nnot a  valid and approved one.  According to him, the defence did not have the
\nopportunity of access for inspection and the evidence, which  is  contrary  to
\nthe D.N.A.   test  protocol.   It is further submitted that the doctor who had
\nconducted the test, namely Dr.  Rao, has not given  any  evidence  and  hence,
\nP.W.59 is  not  a competent person to speak on the same.  It is his submission
\nthat the C.C.M.B., Hyderabad has stopped their testing in the  year  1991  and
\ntherefore, they are not competent to conduct the tests.\n<\/p>\n
        16(l)  In  reference  to  the  murder  of Ravi, learned senior counsel
\nassailed the post-mortem certificate and the opinion of the doctor.  According
\nto him, there is inordinate delay in reporting the murder and the  prosecution
\ntheory  is  most  improbable inasmuch as the alleged occurrence of beating and
\nthe consequential death of Ravi was a  daytime  incident  and  admittedly,  no
\nother  independent  witnesses  have  been  examined  to  prove the case of the
\nprosecution.  He further submits that the  open  funeral  procession  of  Ravi
\nshows that  nothing  was  secret.  According to him, P.W.1 had an axe to grind
\nand reasons for speaking against A-1 and the approvers have been won  over  by
\nthe prosecution since the arrest of P.W.1 and P.W.2 was made a month after the
\narrest  of  the  other  accused  and  their  application for bail was also not
\nopposed and hence, their statements and evidence is unreliable.\n<\/p>\n
        16(m) The learned senior counsel alternatively submits  that  assuming
\nthe  injuries  caused to Ravi are established, it could be only categorized as
\nan offence under Section 325 I.P.C.  and that insofar as the offences  against
\nthe girls namely rape is concerned, Section 376(2)( c) is not applicable.  The
\ncourt,  according  to him, ought not have imposed fine and compensation, which
\nare excessive.\n<\/p>\n
        17.  Mr.  Shanmuga Velayutham, learned counsel appearing on behalf  of
\nA-2, A-4,  A-6  and  A-7  made  elaborate submissions.  According to him, even
\nassuming that the case  of  the  prosecution  is  true,  the  overt  acts  are
\nattributed  only as against A-1 and the other accused have not participated in
\nthe commission of the offence with an intention to commit the murder of  Ravi.
\nIn  any event, according to him, they have acted only as per the directions of
\nA-1 and therefore, there is no case of  abetment  in  the  commission  of  the
\noffence.  He submits that the conspiracy on their part cannot be inferred.  By
\nreferring to the various charges and the overt acts attributed to the accused,
\nlearned  counsel  submitted that the charges have not been made out as against
\nthe other accused even as  per  the  evidence  of  the  prosecution  witnesses
\nthemselves.   According  to the learned counsel, the charges of murder as well
\nas abetment for committing the rapes have not been made  out  as  against  the
\nother  accused  and  the  evidence  on  record  does not prove the case of the
\nprosecution beyond  reasonable  doubt.    On  the  question  of  sentence,  he
\nsubmitted  that  the  court  has  no  power  to  impose  a  second sentence of
\nimprisonment for life and there is no scope for such an imposition.\n<\/p>\n
        18.  Learned counsel Mr.  M.G.L.  Sankaran appearing on behalf of  A-3
\nsubmitted  that A-3 is a qualified doctor and the allegations levelled against
\nher that she had caused miscarriage are  not  established.    Admittedly,  the
\nprosecution  witnesses  did not give the details as to how A-3 was responsible
\nfor the miscarriage and according to him,  providing  of  unriped  fruits  and
\ndrugs  are  only to facilitate free flow of menstruation and against any delay
\ncaused due to hormonal imbalances.  He further submits that the ingredients of
\nthe offence have not been attracted in the case of A-3.\n<\/p>\n
        19.  Mr.  M.S.  Kandasamy, learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted
\nthat the prosecution has done their part faithfully in  order  to  expose  the
\nmisdeeds committed  by  the  accused  in  the guise of running an ashram.  The
\nprosecution has meticulously built up and proved the case beyond  doubt.    He
\nhas referred to the history of the establishment of this ashram, as to how the
\ninvestigation  commenced  and  proceeded  without  any  delay  from 19.11.1994
\nonwards.\n<\/p>\n
        19(a) On the misjoinder of charges, learned Special Public  Prosecutor
\nwould  state  that  there  is  no  prejudice  or confusion in reference to the
\ncharges and that the accused did not raise the question of  prejudice  at  the
\nearlier stage.    According  to  him, the arguments regarding the charges were
\nheard on 18.4.1996 and the plea  of  discharge  of  one  of  the  accused  was
\ndismissed  on  26.4.1996  and on the same day, charges were framed and a joint
\nmemo was filed by the accused and the prosecution for a hearing  on  30.4.1996
\nand  it  was  only  thereafter,  arguments  were  made  on  the  misjoinder on
\n14.6.1996, which were found against them and that has become final.   He  also
\nsubmitted  that from the detailed questioning of the accused under Section 313
\nCr.P.C., it is seen that the accused had a fair and complete chance of knowing
\nthe details of the accusation made against them and it is clear that they were
\nunder no illusion of the charges.  According  to  him,  the  accused  had  the
\nadvantage  of  engaging  the  leading  lawyers from the national level and the
\nState level and were defended eminently by them with all the  skill  at  their
\ncommand.   Hence,  according to him, absolutely no prejudice was caused to the
\naccused.\n<\/p>\n
        19(b) Learned Special  Public  Prosecutor  further  submitted  as  all
\noffences  were committed in pursuance to a conspiracy, the letters seized, the
\ncharacter and behaviour of the accused,  the  propensity  of  the  accused  to
\ncommit  the  crime  and  the  torture  meted out to the victim girls, have all
\nbecome relevant as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act.    According
\nto  him,  even  if  the evidence on the character of A-1 is excluded, there is
\nsufficient evidence to establish the charge of  conspiracy,  rape  and  murder
\nagainst the  accused.    He  also  submits  that the provisions of Section 160
\nCr.P.C.  have not been violated in this case,  since  the  victim  girls  were
\ntaken  to the Pudukkottai Hospital and thereafter kept in an institution meant
\nfor women.\n<\/p>\n
        19(c) According to the Special Public Prosecutor, before A-1 was taken
\ninto custody, news had come out of the possibility of the arrest of A-1.   The
\npolice was  already  in  the  ashram  enquiring  about  the complaint.  Taking
\nadvantage of the prior knowledge, A-1 was able to convene  a  meeting  and  in
\nthat  meeting,  he had warned the victim girls of drastic consequences in view
\nof their possibility of giving evidence  against  him.    It  is  specifically
\nalleged  that  A-1  had  emphatically told the girls that even if he was taken
\ninto custody, he would come back within two days and if anybody was  found  to
\nhave  disobeyed his directions, they would meet the same fate as that of Ravi.
\nLearned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the victim girls followed the
\ndirections of A-1 like lambs.\n<\/p>\n
        19(d)  Learned  Special   Public   Prosecutor   submitted   that   the
\ninvestigation  revealed that the ashram was not a residence and was not a safe
\ninstitution to keep the women and therefore, they were shifted to the  Women’s
\nPolice  Station at Pudukkottai and thereafter to the organisation for women at
\nPudukkottai and later to ‘Udavum Karangal’, a recognised service  organisation
\nat Madras.  He submits that there was no tutoring and compulsion on the victim
\ngirls  since  they  were  under  the supervision of D.W.47, a defence witness,
\nunder whose institution they were housed till they had deposed in  the  court.
\nOn  the  other hand, he submits, that it was A-1 who had been trying to tamper
\nthe prosecution witnesses.  According to him, the evidence  of  the  approvers
\nhas  satisfied  the  twin  test  of reliability and the motive alleged against
\nP.W.1 is totally unsupported by any evidence.  He states that P.W.1 and  P.W.2
\ncould  not be apprehended along with the other accused as they were absconding
\nat that time.\n<\/p>\n
        19(e) On  the  charge  of  murder  of  Ravi,  learned  Special  Public
\nProsecutor submitted that the facts that Ravi was confined in a kudil and that
\nthe  key  for  that  kudil  was  kept  by  A-2 and that Ravi was found dead on
\n17.4.1994 and that thereafter he was buried in the ashram are not in  dispute.
\nThe  opinion  of  the  doctor,  P.W.46, who has given an expert opinion on the
\npost-mortem  conducted  on  the  body  of  Ravi,  according  to  him,  clearly
\nestablishes that Ravi died of the ante-mortem injuries.\n<\/p>\n
        19(f) In reference to the rapes, it is submitted that there is no need
\nto have a  separate  F.I.R.    for  each  of  the  victim  girls.    The first
\ninformation given by P.W.3 has set in motion the process of  investigation  of
\nthe  crimes  committed  by the accused wherein dozens of girls were spoiled by
\nA-1 with the active assistance and abetment of the  other  accused.    In  the
\naccident  register,  though  the  victim  girls  did  not  name A-1, they have
\nmentioned that they were subjected to sexual intercourse by a known person and
\nas per the medical code, the accused were not named, but admittedly all the 13
\ngirls were not virgins and in their evidence before the  court,  all  of  them
\nhave  stated  that during the relevant period, they had been tortured and rape
\ncommitted on them forcibly.  Whereas, the case of the accused is total denial.
\nThe victim girls have explained the reasons for their failure to  mention  the
\nname  of A-1 and referring to the consent for the sexual relationship in their
\nstatements under Section 164 Cr.P.C.  All the girls were  under  the  complete
\nmercy and  control of A-1 and the other accused.  They were warned, threatened
\nand therefore, they were not free  to  disclose  completely  as  to  what  had
\nhappened to  them.    At  that time, they should have thought that they had no
\nsafety as they were orphans and hence, the explanation should  be  well  taken
\nfor  their failure to name and implicate the accused in their statements under
\nSection 164 Cr.P.C.  According to the  learned  Special  Publ  ic  Prosecutor,
\nthere  is  no  need  for any corroboration if the evidence is true and nothing
\nmore is required.\n<\/p>\n
        19(g) Learned Special Public Prosecutor also submitted that there  was
\nno  contamination  while  taking  the  sample  blood for conducting the D.N.A.
\ntesting and the testing was done as per the probes evolved by the  laboratory.
\nThe D.N.A.   testing  is universally acceptable as on date.  According to him,
\nthe non-examination of Dr.  Rao who had conducted the tests will not,  in  any
\nway, affect the report or the opinion of P.W.59 since the tests were also done<\/p>\n
by Dr.   Rao  under  the  supervision  of P.W.59.  He submits that the medical
\nevidence corroborates the testimony of P.W.14 and other  medical  evidence  on
\nthe pregnancy of P.W.14.\n<\/p>\n
        20.   We  have  heard  the  counsel  for  the  parties  in extenso and
\nconsidered the  matter  carefully.    For  a  better   appreciation   of   the
\nsubmissions,  it  is  necessary  to understand the location and the occurrence
\nsites.\n<\/p>\n
        21.  The Ashram
\n        An institution  by  name  Boopalakrishna  Ashram  was  functioning  at
\nMathalai, Sri  Lanka.    Premananda  @  Prem Kumar @ Ravi, son of Somasundaram
\nMalavarayar, Accused No.1 in this case, was the head of the said  institution.
\nHe came  over  to  India  in  or  about  1983.  Though the said institution at
\nMathalai was functioning for some time  under  the  head  of  Gnanananda,  the
\nashram was  burnt  down consequent on the civil war in the island nation.  The
\ninmates of the ashram, mostly children, crossed over to  India  through  boats
\nand reached Vedaranyam and Rameswaram.  Premananda took them from these points
\nin a  van  to  Crapatti  at Tiruchy and housed them in a rented building.  The
\npresent ashram is housed in a vast area extending over 150  to  200  acres  of
\nland at  Fathima  Nagar  near Tiruchy.  The ashram was formally inaugurated in
\nthe year 1989.\n<\/p>\n
        21(a) Topography of the Ashram :\n<\/p>\n
        Four exhibits namely Exs.P.63, P.199,  D.2  and  D.11  are  the  rough
\nsketches of  the  ashram.  The ashram is situated on the Tiruchy-Madurai Road,
\n30 kilometers away from Tiruchy.  The ashram has got  the  following  separate
\nsections :\n<\/p>\n
        (i)     Park, Library and Visitors' Room\n        (ii)    Pooja Hall, Nursery and V.I.P.  Section\n        (iii) Premananda's Kudil, Guava Garden\n        (iv)    Shop, Pomegranate Garden\n        (v)     Girls Section, Mango Garden\n        (vi)    Boys Dormitory, Workshop, Clinic\n        (vii) Dharmasala, Kitchen and Cattle Shed\n<\/pre>\n
        (viii) Visitors’ Section and Open Agricultural Lands<\/p>\n
        21(b)  The  main  road inside the ashram has got a width of 17′ x 640′
\nand is connected by side roads of 10′ width.  At the entrance of  the  ashram,
\nthere is a canteen and semi-circle rooms called ‘Kavadi Kudil’.  The ashram is
\nwell laid out with buildings, park, pond, agricultural lands, mango, guava and
\npomegranate gardens.\n<\/p>\n
        21(c)  The  rooms  in  the  ashram are called ‘Kudils’ which literally
\nmeans a small house.  The first accused has got a larger kudil with four rooms
\nbuilt in a circular form.  Similarly, the Mathajis, viz.,  Ordained  Sanyasins
\nare having  separate  kudils  built  in  a  circular form.  There are separate
\nV.I.P.  Rooms and visitors’ room.  There is a big pooja hall with a length  of
\n104′ located centrally.\n<\/p>\n
        21(d) Arulvakku (Trance-Interview) Room :\n<\/p>\n
        It  is  a  semi-circle  room  attached  to  the  pooja  hall  with two
\nentrances, one from the main pooja hall and one from the main  entrance  hall.
\nThere is  an  exit  door  from the Arulvakku Room.  Inside the Arulvakku Room,
\nthere is a partition wall.   It  is  in  this  room  that  A-1  used  to  give
\ninterviews to the devotees during weekend days and on full moon days.\n<\/p>\n
        21(e) School :\n<\/p>\n
There  is a High School upto X Standard, recognised by the Government of Tamil
\nNadu, wherein the inmates of the ashram and dayscholars are studying.   D.W.20
\nis the  Headmaster of the school.  The school imparts education to the inmates
\nas well as day scholars.\n<\/p>\n
        21(f) Girls’ Section :\n<\/p>\n
        In between the guava garden and mango garden, there is a dormitory for
\ngirls, which is a big hall demarcated by small rooms inside.  Two girls are to
\nstay in each divided portion.  There  are  cement  constructions  as  sleeping
\nbenches with common toilet facility.\n<\/p>\n
        21(g)  In  Ex.P.199,  the  guest house, the teachers’ quarters and the
\nschool are shown prominently.  There are four semi-circle kudils  opposite  to
\nPremananda’s kudil.  They are mother Nandakumari kudil, Anandan’s kudil, Divya
\nMathaji kudil and Balan-Indu-Shyam kudil.  Apart from the ladies hostel, there
\nis also  a  girls  home.   Near the entrance, the following kudils are marked,
\nnamely    Lakshmi    Devi-Durga    kudil,    Ambikanandan    kudil,    Nirmala
\nMathaji-Sivanandan kudil, Shantha-Umadevi kudil and Nithya kudil.\n<\/p>\n
        21(h) Boys’ Dormitory :\n<\/p>\n
        The boys’ dormitory is located across the dividing road.\n<\/p>\n
        22.   Though we have got a rough picture of the location of the places
\nreferred to in the case, they are not complete and we have to  look  into  the
\nevidence.\n<\/p>\n
        23.  From the defence evidence, it is gathered that A-1 is a spiritual
\nleader and the head of the ashram.  He used to give discourses in Tamil, which
\nwere translated  by  A-2  Kamalananda.   The essence of the teachings of Swami
\nPremananda is to live according to one’s own religion and that  all  religions
\nultimately lead to one road.  It is stated (by the defence witness D.W.2) that
\nthe  holy  water given at the time of abhishekam is believed to have a healing
\npower and the viboothi ( sacred ash) and manjal (turmeric) were also  used  as
\nsubstances for healing diseases.  Swami Premananda used to produce lingams and
\nviboothi during  the  nights  of Mahasivarathri.  According to D.W.8, A-1 is a
\nperson of the highest morality, humility, simplicity and sincerity.  He  is  a
\nhighly evolved  spiritual master and lives the life of a renunciated monk.  He
\nkeeps celibacy, does not consume alcohol  or  drugs  and  he  would  not  take
\nnon-vegetarian food.    He  is not a smoker and his life of austerity is meant
\nfor the people in the ashram and outsiders  to  follow  this  disciplined  and
\nsimple way  of  life.    According  to the defence witnesses, the Mathajis are
\nordained by Swami Premananda and these Mathajis administer the institution  by
\nd ividing  it  into  various sections.  They also speak of strict rules of the
\nashram.  For instance :\n<\/p>\n
(a) Boys should not go to girls section;\n<\/p>\n
(b) All the inmates should attend poojas regularly;\n<\/p>\n
(c) Girls are kept in separate rooms for a period of 15 days  immediately   on
\ntheir attaining puberty; and,\n<\/p>\n
(d) All the inmates should retire to their beds by 10 pm.<\/p>\n
The  ashram is said to have branches in various countries also and some of the
\nforeigners also have been ordained as Sanyasins.  The outward  appearance  and
\nthe  atmosphere  of the ashram looks serene, peaceful, artistic and as a place
\nmeant for educating the poor and the orphans, helping the boys  and  girls  to
\nlearn  trade,  providing  spiritual  teachings to the devotees and healing the
\ndiseased.\n<\/p>\n
        24.  Though the defence witnesses claim that A-1 is only  a  spiritual
\nleader  and  he had nothing to do with the administration of the ashram, it is
\nvery difficult to accept their case.  By an assessment of the evidence and the
\ncircumstances in the case, it is clear that it was A-1  who  had  formed  this
\nashram,  developed it into a big institution and managed it under his control.
\nThough the defence witnesses claim that there is an  organisational  setup  as
\nalso rules and regulations for the ashram, no records to that effect have been
\nproduced.   It  is  difficult  to  accept  that  such  a big organisation with
\nbranches outside the country could be run without regulations being framed and
\nwithout an organisational setup.  It is in evidence that there were a  hundred
\nboys and  a  hundred  girls,  besides a number of teachers in the school.  The
\nexact number of staff or the employees and  other  such  particulars  are  not
\ngiven.  The  statement  of  A-1  under Section 313 Cr.P.C.  (Question No.1) is
\nthat he is the “Founder and Sakthi” in conducting the Ashram.  After declaring
\nthat he is the founder of the establishment, he  also  says  that  he  is  the
\nspiritual head  only.   To Question No.32, that P.W.32 had stated to have seen
\nA-1 kissing the girls, the reply of A-1 was that kissing the  girls  will  not
\nmean sexual  relationship.    He  further says that he was moving with them as
\ntheir parent.\n<\/p>\n
        25.  From the evidence, it is seen  that  poojas  are  conducted  four
\ntimes a day and trance interviews are given by A-1 during weekends and on full
\nmoon days.    These  programmes  like  poojas and meetings are arranged by the
\ngirls of the ashram.  There are a number of orphan girls who  have  come  from
\nSri Lanka.    The  deceased Ravi, who is said to have been murdered, is also a
\nnative of Sri Lanka.\n<\/p>\n
III.  Conspiracy – Part I :\n<\/p>\n
        26.  The preamble to the charge states that A-1 had misused the belief
\nreposed in him by the disciples and the inmates of the ashram for cheating and
\nfor outraqing the modesty of women and also for committing rape on the inmates
\nwho had taken shelter in the ashram.  Charge No.1 is  that  A-1  to  A-7  have
\nconspired to commit certain illegal acts, and in pursuance of that conspiracy,
\nA-1  committed  rape on 13 girls (hereinafter referred to as the victim girls)
\nand A-2 to A-6, as coconspirators, facilitated and  aided  the  commission  of
\nrape  by  A-1  by  their overt acts and screened the sexual misdeeds of A-1 to
\nachieve the common design.\n<\/p>\n
        27.  The attack by the learned counsel for the appellants  as  against
\nthis charge  is  that  it  is  unfounded.    It  is  their  submission that no
\nparticulars like date, month, year and the place  of  the  commission  of  the
\noffence  are specified and the star witness P.W.1, the coconspirator, does not
\nalso give the details.  The argument further goes on to emphasise that  it  is
\nhighly  improbable to accept that these qualified seven persons would stoop to
\nthe level of agreeing with such kind of a plan.  The court should know that it
\nis not safe to give a finding on the materials furnished.\n<\/p>\n
        28.  Learned  Special  Public  Prosecutor  submitted  that  no  direct
\nevidence can  be  obtained in such cases.  The conspiracy can be inferred from
\nthe facts and circumstances established in this case.  According to  him,  the
\nevidence  of  P.W.1  and P.W.2 who were the co-conspirators is reliable and is
\ncorroborated by other prosecution witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
        29.  The argument on behalf of the counsel that there could not  be  a
\nconspiracy with such a sinister object of committing rape and that there could
\nnot have  been  a  pre-designed  plan  cannot be accepted.  Simply because the
\naccused are qualified and the first accused claims to  be  a  spiritual  head,
\nthere cannot be a presumption in their favour and improbability in the case of
\nthe prosecution.    It depends on the evidence and the facts and circumstances
\nof the case.\n<\/p>\n
        30.  P.W.3, who is the first complainant, who  had  escaped  from  the
\nashram  along  with  P.W.16,  gave  interviews  to  the  newspaper “The Indian
\nExpress” (Ex.P.28 and  Ex.29),  on  the  basis  of  which  two  articles  were
\npublished  in  the  Daily on 14.11.1994 and 15.11.1994 under the headings, “Of
\nspiritualism and the flesh” and “Tale of the two who were able to  get  away”,
\nalleging serious  misdeeds  of A-1 in the ashram.  Probably, coming to know of
\nthis, D.W.32, the mother of P.W.3 gave a  complaint,  Ex.P.192  on  15.11.1994
\nalleging that  her  daughter,  P.W.3  was  missing.  A crime was registered as
\nCrime No.1181 of 1994 under Section 363 I.P.C.  by P.W.60, the  Sub  Inspector
\nof Police.    P.W.61,  Inspector  of  Police  went to Madras on 16.11.1994 for
\ninvestigating the case in Crime No.1181 of 1994 and examined P.W.3, who was at
\nthat time, lodged in a social service institution called ‘Udavum Karangal’.
\nP.W.3 gave Ex.P.25, the complaint to P.W.61, Inspector  of  Police  disclosing
\nthe rape  committed on the ashram girls.  Thereafter, a case was registered as
\nCrime No.1183 of 1994 under Sections 142 and 376 I.P.C.  on 17.11.1994. In the
\ncomplaint Ex.P.25, P.W.3 has clearly alleged that the fourth accused  used  to
\ntake girls  to  the  room  of  the  first  accused.  The statement of P.W.3 is
\nsupported by the evidence of P.Ws.5, 1 2 and 14.   P.W.5  has  clearly  stated
\nthat  A-4  was  directed  to take care as to whether any person is outside the
\nkudil and therefore, A-4 was facilitating and aiding  the  commission  of  the
\nrape by  A-1.    It  is  the  further evidence of the victim girls, especially
\nP.Ws.4, 6 and 16 that A-2 and A-4 to A-7 had been constantly  threatening  the
\nvictim girls  that  they will meet the same fate as that of Ravi.  As a matter
\nof fact, it is in the evidence of P.W.6 that consequent on the rape, when  she
\nbecame pregnant, the responsibility of her pregnancy was shifted to P.W.17 and
\nshe was threatened by A-2 and A-4 to A-7.  It is their evidence that the third
\naccused,   a  qualified  medical  practitioner,  became  a  co-conspirator  by
\nadministering abortion pills to the victim  girls  who  miss  their  menstrual
\nperiods.    She   was   attending  the  periodical  meetings  along  with  the
\nco-conspirators to enquire whether any of the girls had missed  their  regular
\nmenstrual periods.    A-2  to  A-4 were taking active steps for termination of
\npregnancy whenever  their  earlier  efforts  to  terminate  the  pregnancy  by
\nproviding  abortifacient  like  unriped  pine-apple  and  papayya and also the
\nabortion pills had failed.  P.W.4 was taken by P.W.2 and P.W.32 for  abortion.
\nSimilarly,  P.W.13  was  taken  by  A-2 to Thanjavur Hospital for aborting the
\npregnancy.  So also, A-4 took P.W.13 for the same purpose.\n<\/p>\n
        30-A.  Though the appellants have denied their part in the  conspiracy
\nas  such,  the overt acts attributed to them as clearly spoken to by P.Ws.3 to
\n16 of specifically threatening the  victim  girls  of  dire  consequences  and
\nadministration  of  abortion  agents  and taking them to clinics are all clear
\nacts which prove their part in the conspiracy of abetment of rape by the first
\naccused.\n<\/p>\n
        31.  In Mohd.  Usman Mohd.  Hussain Maniyar vs.  State of  Maharashtra
\n[1 981 S.C.C.    Crl.    477],  the Supreme Court has held that for an offence
\nunder Section 120-B I.P.C., the prosecution need not  necessarily  prove  that
\nthe  perpetrators expressly agreed to or cause to be done the illegal act; the
\nagreement may be proved by necessary implication.  In Kehar Singh vs.    State
\n[1989 Crl.   L.J.    1], the Supreme Court has held that the provisions namely
\nSections 120-A and 120-B I.P.C.  have brought the law of conspiracy  of  India
\nin  line  with the law of England by making the overt act unessential when the
\nconspiracy is to  commit  a  punishable  offence.    After  referring  to  the
\nprinciples  laid  down  on  the subject in English Law, the Supreme Court held
\nthat the most  important  ingredient  of  the  offence  of  conspiracy  is  an
\nagreement between  two  or  more  persons  to do an illegal act.  Generally, a
\nconspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may  be  difficult  to  adduce  direct
\nevidence on  the  same.    The prosecution will often rely on the evidence and
\nacts of various parties to infer that they were done  in  reference  to  their
\ncommon intention.      The   prosecution   will  also  more  often  rely  upon
\ncircumstantial evidence.  The conspiracy can be  undoubtedly  proved  by  such
\nevidence, direct  or circumstantial.  It is however essential that the offence
\nof conspiracy requires some kind of physical manifestation of agreement.   The
\nexpress agreement however need not be proved.\n<\/p>\n
        32.  In State  vs.   Nalini [1999 (5) S.C.C.  253], their Lordships of
\nthe Supreme Court have summarised the broad principles governing  the  law  of
\nconspiracy.   It is held that usually both the existence of the conspiracy and
\nits objects have to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of  the
\naccused.   It  was  held  that what part the conspirator is to play may not be
\nknown to every one as also the fact as to when a conspirator  has  joined  the
\nconspiracy and  when he left.  It was further held that a charge of conspiracy
\nmay prejudice the accused because it forces them into a joint trial,  and  the
\ncourt may  consider  the  entire  mass of evidence against every accused.  The
\nprosecution has to produce evidence not only to show that each of the  accused
\nhas knowledge  of  the  object  of  conspiracy, but also of the agreement.  By
\nmeans of evidence in conspiracy, which is otherwise inadmissible in the  trial
\nof  any  other  substantive  offence,  the  prosecution tries to implicate the
\naccused not only in the consp iracy itself, but also in the substantive  crime
\nof the  alleged  conspirators.    There  is  always  difficulty in tracing the
\nprecise contribution of each member of the conspiracy, but then there  has  to
\nbe cogent and convincing evidence against each one of the accused charged with
\nthe offence  of  conspiracy.   It was held that a man may join a conspiracy by
\nword or by deed.  However, criminal responsibility for a  conspiracy  requires
\nmore than  merely  passive  attitude towards an existing conspiracy.  But, one
\nwho commits an overt act with the knowledge of conspiracy is guilty;  and  one
\nwho tacitly consents to the object of conspiracy and goes along with the other
\nconspirators,  actually  standing  by while the others put the conspiracy into
\neffect, is guilty, though he intends to take no active part in the crime.\n<\/p>\n
        33.  By going through the evidence, we find that the accused  A-2  and
\nA-4 to A-7 have threatened the victim girls not to reveal the act of rape, the
\nabortion and  outraging  their  modesty,  with  dire consequences.  P.W.17 was
\ndirected to take up the responsibility for the pregnancy of P.W.6.  P.W.16 was
\nthreatened not to reveal of her taking poison by A-2 and  A-4  to  A-7.    The
\nthird  accused,  a  qualified  medical  practitioner, was participating in the
\nmeetings to verify the missing periods and administer abortion  drugs  to  the
\nvictim girls.   A-2 and A-4 have taken P.W.4 and P.W.13 for abortion purposes.
\nA-4 had been guarding the room of A-1 while he was committing rape  on  P.W.5.
\nThe above evidence and the facts and circumstances clearly go to show that the
\naccused  have  acted  in  pursuance  of  a  criminal  conspiracy to commit and
\nfacilitate the rape by A-1 on the victim girls.\n<\/p>\n
        Conspiracy – Part II :\n<\/p>\n
        34.  The Charge is that in continuation of their  criminal  conspiracy
\nto  commit  rape  on  the  victim  girls,  A-1,  A-2,  A-4 to A-7 and approver
\nAmbikanandan, entered into a criminal conspiracy to annihilate one  Ravi,  one
\nof  the  inmates of the ashram who threatened to expose the sexual misdeeds of
\nA-1.  In furtherance of  the  said  conspiracy,  A-1  and  A-2  caused  bodily
\ninjuries to  the  said Ravi.  A-4 to A-7, by their overt acts, facilitated and
\nintentionally aided the commission of murder and they  have  wrongly  confined
\nthe said Ravi and starved him to death.\n<\/p>\n
        35.   The  argument  of the counsel for the appellants is that all the
\nwitnesses spoke after the issue of post-mortem certificate and that they  were
\ntailor-made.  There was no murmur of the alleged murder for 3 -1\/2 years.  The
\npersons  who are said to have exposed the same have animus against A-1 and the
\nother accused.   It  is  highly  improbable  that  the  incident  of  beating,
\nconfinement and  burial  would have taken place in secrecy in an ashram.  Ravi
\nwas afflicted by a mental disease  and  he  died  out  of  his  self-inflicted
\ninjuries.\n<\/p>\n
        36.   The  case of the prosecution is that the fact that Ravi died and
\nhe was buried within the ashram is not disputed.  The further fact that he was
\nnot treated for his alleged mental  disease  and  that  he  was  confined  for
\nseveral days  before  he  was found dead is also not in disputed.  The case of
\nthe prosecution is that Ravi was murdered only because he was openly  shouting
\nagainst the misdeeds of A-1 and in causing the death of Ravi, the accused have
\nput the  fear  in the minds of the victim girls.  The injuries and the case of
\ndeath of Ravi as per the medical report is homicide and  the  failure  on  the
\npart  of the ashram authorities in not reporting about it to the police or the
\nrevenue authorities and informing the parents of Ravi is also a pointer to the
\nguilt of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
        37.  After considering the evidence of the prosecution  witnesses  and
\nthe defence witnesses, we find that the following facts are not in dispute :\n<\/p>\n
        (1)     that Ravi died of the injuries suffered by him;\n        (2)     that he death of Ravi was not reported either to         the\npolice or to the revenue authorities;\n        (3)     that Ravi was confined in a room after the\ninjuries he sustained without food for several          days; and\n        (4)     that the skeletal remains were found to be that of       the\ndeceased Ravi.\n\n<\/pre>\n
        38.   It  is  the  specific  case  of  the  prosecution  that Ravi was
\noccupying a kudil opposite to the kudil of A-1 and he had the  opportunity  to
\nwatch  the  misdeeds  of  A-1  and  he started openly shouting against A-1 and
\nconsequently, he was done away with.  A-1 and the other accused,  as  per  the
\nevidence  of  P.Ws.3  to  16, were instilling fear in their minds so as not to
\nreveal about the incidents, failing which they  would  reach  the  same  fate.
\nJust  prior  to  the  arrest of A-1, he is said to have convened a meeting and
\nwarned the victim girls that he would come back within two days and that  they
\nshould  not  reveal anything in the enquiry and if anybody disobeys his orders
\nand reports the facts, they will be put to the  same  treatment  as  given  to
\nRavi.   The  medical  evidence clearly show that eleven injuries were found on
\nthe skeletal remains of Ravi and that three of them were fractures  and  could
\nhave been  caused only prior to his death.  After the death, Ravi was taken to
\nthe room and confined and locked, while A-2 took the key and the other inmates
\nwere warned that  nobody  should  provide  water  or  food  to  Ravi,  clearly
\nindicating  the  intention  of the conspiracy of the accused to starve Ravi to
\ndeath and to facilitate the commission of the murder of Ravi.\n<\/p>\n
        39.  Even though evidence was led in on the side of the defence on the
\nmental condition of Ravi and certain other aspects dealing with the murder  of
\nRavi,  we  will  consider  the  same  in  detail while the charge of murder is
\ndiscussed.  Suffice it is to say here that the conspiracy  Part-II  to  commit
\nthe murder of Ravi has been clearly established.\n<\/p>\n
IV.     Misjoinder of Charges :\n<\/p>\n
        40.   According to the learned senior counsel for the accused, several
\ncharges, viz., rape on 13 victim  girls,  are  rolled  into  one.    In  every
\ncriminal  charge, there must necessarily be a formal accusation and the manner
\nof commission of the alleged acts so that the accused is put on notice and the
\nprosecution binds themselves to establish the said accusation.  Every rape  is
\na  separate  incident  committed on different occasions and the allegations in
\nreference to the date, time and the place are not common.  The  charge  framed
\nin reference to rape is therefore violative of the provisions dealing with the
\ncharges under  the  Criminal Procedure Code.  It is submitted that the failure
\nto frame a specific charge, being an  illegality,  the  question  of  invoking
\nSection 464  does  not  arise for consideration.  In this context, a number of
\ndecisions have been referred to in support of these submissions.\n<\/p>\n
        41.  According to the learned  Special  Public  Prosecutor,  each  and
\nevery one of the accused had a complete and fair chance of knowing the various
\nallegations when  being  questioned  under  Section  313 Cr.P.C.  elaborately.
\nThey had the benefit of the assistance of leading  lawyers  from  national  as
\nwell as State level and they were defended ably with all their skills at their
\ncommand  and therefore, it is not correct to say that the accused were not put
\non notice of the specific allegations.  According to  him,  the  accused  have
\nunderstood  the  charges framed against them and have defended their case with
\nvoluminous documentary and oral evidence from their side.    It  is  submitted
\nthat  the  charge  having  been based on conspiracy, all offences committed in
\npursuance to the conspiracy become relevant and the evidence and the  material
\ndocuments  in this case indicate a clear case of conspiracy in relation to the
\noffences.  Learned  Special  Public  Prosecutor  specifically  refers  to  the
\nletters which are not disputed and which indicate that the accused A-1 and A-2
\nare sharing the love of Divya Mathaji, the absconding accused and they clearly
\nshow the character of the accused.  He further submits that even assuming that
\nthe  evidence  on  the  character  of  A-1 is excluded, there are overwhelming
\nmaterials to establish the case of the prosecution.  The prosecution  has  led
\nin evidence that the victim girls were under the absolute mercy and control of
\nthe  accused for their food, clothing and shelter, besides under the threat of
\nthe accused  and  therefore,  their  failure  to  come  out  to  disclose  the
\ncommission  of the offence by the accused at an earlier stage cannot take away
\nthe rigor of the charge.  Considering the charge period, the  prosecution  has
\ngiven the full particulars of the manner of commission of the crime by A-1 and
\nthe participation  by  the  other  accused  in the same.  The charge has to be
\nunderstood, according to him, in the facts and circumstances under  which  the
\nvictim girls were placed.\n<\/p>\n
        42.  In K.T.M.S.   Mohammed vs.  Union of India [1992 S.C.  1831], the
\nSupreme Court held that clubbing  of  all  allegations  levelled  against  all
\naccused  and  considering them as if all offences were committed in the course
\nof the same transaction pursuant to the conspiracy without support by contents
\nof complaint nor evidence is an illegality.  On facts, the  said  judgment  is
\ndistinguishable and cannot be of assistance to the accused in this case.  That
\nwas  a case of seizure of currency notes and the charges were under the Income
\nTax Act as well as Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.  In  the  context  of  the
\nfacts  and circumstances of that case, the Supreme Court held that the charges
\nof perjury, conspiracy and evasion of tax are not supported by  the  complaint
\nor evidence.\n<\/p>\n
        42(a) In Kottayya vs.    Emperor  [A.I.R.  (34) 1947 P.C.  67], it was
\nheld that when a trial is  conducted  in  a  manner  different  from  the  one
\nprescribed by  the court, the trial is bad.  Their lordships also held that if
\nthe trial is conducted  substantially  in  the  manner  prescribed,  but  some
\nirregularity  occurs  in  the  course of such conduct, the irregularity can be
\ncured.  On the facts of that case, their Lordships held that no prejudice  was
\noccasioned  to  the  accused  by  the  failure to produce in proper times, the
\nhandbook of the Police Sub Inspector.\n<\/p>\n
        42(b) In Noor Mohammed vs.  The King [A.I.R.  (36) 1949 P.C.  161], it
\nwas held that an evidence is admissible if it is relevant to the issue and the
\nissue should have been raised in substance.  It was further held that the mere
\nfact that the evidence adduced tends to show the commission  of  other  crimes
\ndoes not render it inadmissible if it was relevant in issue and the said issue
\nshould have been raised in substance.\n<\/p>\n
        42(c) A  Full  Bench  of  the  Bombay High Court, in D.K.  Chandra vs.
\nState [A.I.R.  1952 Bombay 177], has held that it is a  well  known  canon  of
\nconstruction  that  exceptions  must  be  strictly  construed,  and unless the
\nprosecution satisfies the court that the exception has been strictly  complied
\nwith,  the  joinder  of charges in a trial must be held to be contrary to law.
\nIn that case, the  Government  Pleader  conceded  that  the  transactions  are
\nseparate  and  distinct  and  therefore, the court concluded that it cannot be
\nsaid that the offences in that case arise out of the  same  transaction.    In
\nthis case,  the  accused are charged under Section 120-B I.P.C.  And they have
\ncommitted the  offences  against  the  victim  girls  in  the  course  of  the
\nconspiracy to commit the offence.\n<\/p>\n
        42(d) In Ranchhod Lal vs.    State of M.P.  [A.I.R.  1965 S.C.  1248],
\nthe Supreme Court held that the court is authorised to lump up  various  items
\nwith  respect of each criminal breach of trust so committed and to mention the
\ntotal amount misappropriated within a year of the charge.  When so  done,  the
\ncharge is  deemed  to  be  the charge of one offence.  When offences have been
\ncommitted in the course of the same transaction, separate trial of the accused
\nfor certain specific offences is not illegal.\n<\/p>\n
        42(e) In a recent judgment dated 4.10.2002  in  State  of  Punjab  vs.
\nRajesh  Syed  in  Criminal  Appeal No.1037 of 2002, the Supreme Court has held
\nthat when different  people  have  alleged  to  have  been  defrauded  by  the
\nrespondent  company,  each offence is a distinct one and cannot be regarded as
\nconstituting a single series of acts\/transactions.\n<\/p>\n
        43.  In reply to the argument on misjoinder of  charges,  the  learned
\nSpecial  Public  Prosecutor  submitted that the character and behaviour of the
\naccused, including their propensity to  commit  the  crime  of  rape  and  the
\nmethodology  adopted  like torture are relevant in the facts and circumstances
\nof this case.  The tortures meted out to the  victim  girls  like  having  the
\ngirls on night watch, beating them, keeping the girls in the kennel, tying the
\ngirls  to  a  cow  are  sample  events  pointed out, which sufficiently form a
\nreasonable ground relevant to the issue and therefore, the  admission  of  the
\nevidence on  this  aspect  is not illegal, but is necessary.  Evidence on this
\naspect has become all the more relevant especially when the defence has led in
\nevidence to tarnish the image  of  the  victim  girls  and  to  picturise  the
\naccused,  specifically  A-1  as  the  spiritual  guru and an embodiment of all
\nvirtues.  Hence, the prosecution has justifiably attempted  to  demolish  this
\nimage  by  letting  in evidence on the character, the previous conduct and the
\nstate of mind of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
        44.  The prosecution relied on the following judgments in reference to
\nthe joinder of charges.\n<\/p>\n
        44(a) In Willib (William) Slaney vs.  State of M.P.    [A.I.R.    1956
\nMadras  Weekly  Notes  391],  the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held
\nthat in the generality of cases, omission to frame a  charge  is  not  per  se
\nfatal, prejudice or no prejudice.  Their Lordships held that there is no magic
\nor charm  in  the ritual of a charge.  It is the substance of these provisions
\nthat count and not their outward form.  To hold otherwise is only  to  provide
\navenues  to  escape  for  the guilty and afford no protection to the innocent.
\nTheir Lordships held as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
        “We agree that a man must know what offence he is being tried for  and
\nthat  he  must  be  told  in  clear  and unambiguous terms that it must all be
\nexplained to him, so that he really understands (Section  271(1)  in  Sessions
\nCases and Section 255(1) in Warrant Cases), but to say that a technical jargon
\nof  words whose significance no man not trained to the law can grasp or follow
\naffords him greater protection or assistance than the informing and explaining
\nthat are the substance of the matter, is to base  on  fanciful  theory  wholly
\ndiverse from practical reality.”\n<\/p>\n
                …..\n<\/p>\n
        “The  essence  of  the matter is not a technical formula of words, but
\nthe reality.  Was he told?  Was it explained to him?  Did he understand?   Was
\nit done in a fair way?” (emphasis added).\n<\/p>\n
The  Supreme  Court,  in that judgment, further held that the Code is emphatic
\nthat whatever the irregularity, it is not to be regarded as fatal unless there
\nis prejudice.  It is the  substance  that  we  must  seek.    Courts  have  to
\nadminister  justice and justice includes the punishment of guilty just as much
\nas the protection of innocents.  Neither can be done if the shadow is mistaken
\nfor the substance and the goal is  lost  in  the  labyrinth  of  insubstantial
\ntechnicalities.   It was held that except where there is something so vital as
\nto cut at the root of the jurisdiction or so abhorrent to what one might  term
\nnatural justice,  the matter resolves itself to a question of prejudice.  Some
\nviolations of the court will be so obvious that they will speak for themselves
\nas, for example, refusal to give the accused a hearing, refusal to  allow  him
\nto  defend himself, refusal to explain the nature of the charges to him and so
\nforth.  Other violations will not be so obvious and it may not be possible  to
\nsay  that  having  regard to all that occurred, no prejudice was occasioned or
\nthat there was no reasonable probability or prejudice.  In still another class
\nof case, the matter may be so near the border line that very  slight  evidence
\nof  reasonable  possibility  of prejudice would swing the balance in favour of
\nthe accused.   The  real  question  is  not  whether  a  matter  is  expressed
\npositively or is stated in a negative term, but what disregard of a particular
\nterm amounts to substantial denial of a trial as contemplated by the court and
\nunderstood by  the  comprehensive expression of natural justice.  Applying the
\nsaid principle, we do not find that the accused have suffered any prejudice in
\nthe joinder of charges and trial.  As a matter of fact, it has benefited  them
\nwithout there  being  a  separate  trial  for  each  case of rape.  As rightly
\npointed out, the accused was extensively questioned and he had been answering,
\nfiling defence statements and letting in equal number of defence witnesses and
\ndocuments.  It is difficult to accept the case of the accused that  they  were
\nnot  put on notice on each and every individual case of rape committed by A-1.
\nThe Supreme Court, in State vs.  Nalini [1999 (5) S.C.C.   253],  referred  to
\nabove,  has held that a charge of conspiracy may prejudice the accused because
\nit forces them into a joint trial, but the court will  have  to  consider  the
\nentire mass of evidence against every accused.\n<\/p>\n
        44(b) In Major E.G.    Barsay  vs.  State of Bombay<\/a> [A.I.R.  1961 S.C.
\n176 2], the Supreme Court held that where the accused are charged with  having
\nconspired  to  do  three categories of illegal acts, the mere fact that all of
\nthem could not be convicted separately in respect of each of the offences  has
\nno relevance in considering the question whether the offence of conspiracy has
\nbeen committed.    They  can  all  be  held  to  be guilty of conspiracy to do
\nindividual acts, though for individual  offences,  all  of  them  may  not  be
\nliable.  In Om Prakash  vs.    State  of Punjab [A.I.R.  1961 S.C.  1782], the
\nSupreme Court held that different clauses under Section 239 (223) Cr.P.C.  are
\nnot mutually exclusive, but can be availed cumulatively.\n<\/p>\n
        44(c) In State of A.P.  vs.  Ganeshwar Rao [A.I.R.  1963 S.C.   1850],
\nit  was  held  that  on a plain construction of the provisions of Section 2 23
\nCr.P.C.  (new  Section  213),  it  is  open  to  the  court  to  avail  itself
\ncumulatively of all the provisions of the different clauses for the purpose of
\nframing  charges  and the charges so framed by it will not be violation of the
\nlaw.  The object of enacting  Section  239  (new  Section  223)  is  to  avoid
\nmultiplicity  of  trial  and  the only limitation which could be placed on the
\ntrial of several persons for the same kind of different offences would be that
\nwhich consideration of justice and fairness would require.  A conspiracy  must
\nbe  regarded  as  one  transaction and therefore, the single individual charge
\nwith it could be tried for all the acts committed by him in furtherance or  in
\npursuance to the conspiracy with the limitation.  Since all acts are referable
\nto the  same  conspiracy,  their  connection  with one another is obvious.  In
\nBhoor Singh vs.  State of Punjab [1974 S.C.C.  (Crl.) 664], their Lordships of
\nthe Supreme Court held that the Code does  not  use  the  word  illegality  or
\ndefines  irregularity and the illegality can only mean an incurable illegality
\nbecause of prejudice  leading  to  failure  of  justice.    If  therefore  the
\nnecessary  information  is conveyed to the accused in other words, there is no
\nprejudice and the trial is not invalidated with the mere fact that the  charge
\nwas not  formally reduced in writing.  An essential part of the law is not any
\ntechnical formula of words, but the reality, whether the matter was  explained
\nto the  accused  and  whether he understood what he was being tried for.  When
\nthe appellants are fully aware of the matter with which they were charged,  no
\nquestion of prejudice would arise.\n<\/p>\n
        44(d) In Kalpanath  Rai  vs.    State  [1998  S.C.C.  (Crl.) 134], the
\nSupreme Court held that the prosecution is not  vitiated  unless  there  is  a
\nfailure of justice and merely because the defence raised this objection at the
\nearliest opportunity, it is not sufficient to vitiate the trial.\n<\/p>\n
        44(e) In State of  A.P.    vs.    Thakkidiram  Reddy  [1998 Crl.  L.J.
\n4035], the Supreme Court held that the trial is not vitiated by mere errors in
\ncharges, while construing Section 464 Cr.P.C.  It was held that  the  Criminal
\nProcedure  Code,  inter  alia, provides that in determining whether any error,
\nillegality or irregularity in the framing of charge has occasioned failure  of
\njustice,  the  court  shall  have regard to the fact that the objection should
\nhave been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings.  In that case, it was
\nfound that  the  accused  persons  were  specifically  told  of  their  having
\ncommitted  the offence and their contentions rejected at the threshold and the
\naccused were not in any way prejudiced due to the error and  omission  in  the
\ncharges pointed out.\n<\/p>\n
        45.   As  rightly  pointed  out, the prosecution has led in cogent and
\nconvincing evidence against each one of the accused charged with  the  offence
\nof  conspiracy and no prejudice has occasioned while admitting the evidence in
\nimplicating the accused not only in the conspiracy itself,  but  also  in  the
\nsubstantive crime  of  the alleged conspirators.  In the light of the evidence
\nled in by the prosecution in reference to motive, preparation and previous  or
\nsubsequent  conduct,  the facts showing the existence of the state of mind are
\nrelevant as per Section 8 as well as Section 14 of the  Indian  Evidence  Act.
\nThe correspondence A-2 had with Divya Mathaji, the absconding accused show the
\nunholy  sexual relationship that exists between her and A-2 and also indicates
\nthat A-1 and A-2 are rivals in  sharing  the  love  of  Divya  Mathaji.    The
\nprosecution  evidence  would  show  that in order to instill mortal and mental
\nfear in the minds of the victim girls, the accused have subjected the girls to
\ntorture, threat, wrongful confinement and starvation, which are all  relevant.
\nThe  contention  that  by  leading such evidence and combining the trial of 13
\nrapes, there is a legal prejudice and the court has become biased against  the
\naccused has  no  substance.    In  the  light  of  the  evidence led in by the
\nprosecution and the defence witness repudiating each one  of  the  allegations
\nagainst  the  accused,  the  character  of the accused has become an issue and
\ntherefore, the defence cannot contend that they were inadmissible in  evidence
\nand went  beyond the charge.  The charge of rape of 13 girls and the murder of
\nRavi are facilitated and committed in a concerted manner and the evidence  led
\nin by the prosecution has relevance to the charge against the accused.\n<\/p>\n
        46.  In Major E.G.    Barsay  vs.   State of Bombay<\/a> [A.I.R.  1961 S.C.
\n1762] referred earlier, it was held that  it  is  not  an  ingredient  of  the
\noffence under  Section 120-A I.P.C.  that all the parties should agree to do a
\nsingle illegal act.  It may comprise the  commission  of  a  number  of  acts.
\nWhere  the accused are charged with having conspired to do three categories of
\nillegal acts, the mere fact that all of them could not be convicted separately
\nin respect of each of  the  offences  has  no  relevancy  in  considering  the
\nquestion whether  the  offence of conspiracy has been committed.  They can all
\nbe held to be guilty of having committed the offence of conspiracy to  do  the
\nillegal acts, though for individual offences, all of them may not be liable.\n<\/p>\n
        47.   The  Court  of  Appeals,  in  1989 Criminal Appeal Reports 1-131
\nPart-1 at Page 32, has considered the question whether there should have  been
\na  separate  trial  on  a  charge  of sexual offences against girl pupils at a
\nschool when he was the headmaster and which were alleged to have  fallen  into
\nthree separate  categories.    The defence of the accused was that his conduct
\ntowards the girls was affectionate and paternal, but  in  no  sense  indecent.
\nThe  prosecution evidence related to incidents involving four complainants, to
\nother incidents falling within the same three categories as the counts in  the
\nindictment and  to  other incidents of familiarity with pupils.  The appellant
\nwas convicted by the trial court and the appeal was on the ground, inter alia,
\nthat there should have been separate trials of the categories of  offence  and
\nthat in  any  event,  evidence of conduct was :  (a) not strikingly similar or
\nwas a different form of indecency; or (b) was not indecent at all, but  merely
\nfamiliar should  have  been  excluded.  The Court of Appeals, while dismissing
\nthe appeal, held that since the issue  was  whether  or  not  the  appellant’s
\nconduct towards the girl pupils over a number of years was indecent, the trial
\njudge was right in refusing to order separate trials.  The appellant’s conduct
\nin  relation  to  each  of  the  three  categories of offence was relevant for
\nconsideration of his  conduct  in  relation  to  other  categories.    In  the
\ncircumstances  of  the  case,  the evidence could not sensibly be divided into
\ncompartments and the  other  evidence  of  familiarity  was,  therefore,  also
\nadmissible.   Further,  in the particular circumstances of the case, there was
\nno error in law by the judge in admitting the similar fact effect of evidence.
\n(emphasis added)<\/p>\n
        48.  A Division Bench of  the  Nagpur  High  Court,  in  Kashiram  vs.
\nEmperor [1923 Nagpur 248], while considering the provisions of Sections 14 and
\n15  of  the Indian Evidence Act, has held that the evidence of similar acts of
\nthe accused in regard to the other persons is not admissible.    The  Division
\nBench  also held that before the evidence of an accomplice can be accepted, it
\nis necessary to be satisfied that the accomplice  himself  took  part  in  the
\ncrime  to  the  extent  that  he  says  that  he is in a position to give true
\nevidence as to what occurred.  It was held that in that case, there  is  ample
\ncorroboration  on  the story that he was present at the scene of crime and saw
\nexactly what happened and that his story does not read like a concoction,  but
\nlike a  description  of  something that really happened.  In that case, stones
\nbearing traces of silver were found on the spot, rope was also  found  on  the
\nspot  which  corroborated  the story that the boy’s leg had been tied together
\nand the rope was used in pulling apart the kadas that had been  partially  cut
\nthrough with  the  head  of  an  axe.  It is also of course necessary that the
\nevidence of an accomplice should be corroborated to  prove  that  it  was  the
\naccused person  and  no  one  else  who committed the crime.  However, in that
\ncase, it was held that the evidence of the boys is relevant to  prove  another
\npoint  namely  that  Kashiram  and  Mullu were in the habit of frequenting the
\ngrazing ground in company.\n<\/p>\n
        49.  For all these reasons, we do not find any merit in the contention
\nas to the misjoinder of charges.\n<\/p>\n
V.      Rape on 13 Girls :\n<\/p>\n
        50.  The second charge relates  to  the  comission  of  sexual  abuse,
\nthreat  and  deceptive  practice  and thereby committing rape on the 13 victim
\ngirls against their will and consent on 14 counts during the period 1990-1994.
\nThe third charge relates to the intentional aiding and abetting or the rape by
\nA-1 on the victim girls in pursuance to the conspiracy during the said  period
\nand place.\n<\/p>\n
        51.   The  prosecution  has  led  in  direct as well as circumstantial
\nevidence in support of this charge of rape in the form of the evidence of  the
\nvictim girls  as well as other evidence.  Excepting two girls namely P.W.4 and
\nP.W.6, all other girls are of Sri Lankan origin.  They were  admitted  in  the
\nashram  at  their  tender age of 2 or 3 and left in custody of A-1, as most of
\nthem had no families of their own.  The ashram had provided  them  with  food,
\nshelter and  clothing  and other basic necessities.  Having come over to India
\nthrough illegal means by boat without proper travel documents, the girls  were
\nwholly  dependent  on the first accused for their residence within the campus.
\nThe survival and livelihood of the  victim  girls  was  completely  under  the
\ncontrol of  A-1.    It is P.W.3 who, not being able to tolerate the continuous
\nharassment, went out of the ashram earlier in the year 1991, but was sent back
\nwithin two days to the same ashram and she was able to come out again  in  the
\nyear  1994  and  this  time, with a plan to expose the misdeeds of A-1 and the
\nsuffering of other girls to the outside world and  also  to  save  many  other
\ngirls  from  the  continuous  torture at the hands of A-1, and with the timely
\nhelp of “The Indian Express”, for the first time, the other side of the  story
\nwas published.  On the same day, a criminal complaint of missing and abduction
\nof P.W.3  was filed, a crime was registered and P.W.3 was enquired.  The speed
\nwith which the mother of P.W.3, who was residing in  the  ashram,  lodged  the
\ncomplaint  upon receipt of the paper news, shows the anxiety of the accused to
\nsee to it that no more information comes out.  However, P.W.3 was able to give
\na complaint, Ex.P.25 which has sparked the  investigation,  resulting  in  the
\nforming  of  an  investigation  team  and  enquiry of the victim girls and the
\naccused.  It is also in evidence that prior to the arrest of  A-1,  a  meeting
\nwas  convened  by  A-1  in anticipation of a possible enquiry of the girls, in
\nwhich he is specifically said to have warned the girls of dire consequences if
\nthey reveal anything about the acts committed on them and he was confident  to
\ntell  them  that  he will be able to come out of custody in two days and if he
\nfound any leak of information, he would see to it that they receive  the  same
\nfate as  the  deceased  Ravi.    The  prosecution,  without fully knowing this
\nbackground, has been going through the investigation in a  routine  manner  by
\ntaking  the girls to the General Hospital and then to the Women Police Station
\nfor enquiry and thereafter  to  obtain  their  statements  under  Section  164
\nCr.P.C.  before  the  Magistrate.    It is now in evidence that the girls were
\nunder the complete spell of the accused during this relevant period  and  only
\nafter  the  continuous  custody of A-1 without any possibility of tampering of
\nthe victim girls, they  having  been  in  a  safe  custody  at  Madras  in  an
\ninstitution called ‘Udavum Karangal’, they were able to come out with the full
\nevidence of  the  true story.  The apparent ‘conflict or improvement’ in their
\nversion has to be understood in the light of this factual background  and  the
\ncircumstances under which these girls were placed at that time.\n<\/p>\n
        52.  Before elaborating and discussing the evidence of the prosecution
\nas well as the defence, it is necessary for us to consider the evidence of the
\nvictim girls,  their  corresponding Sec.164 Cr.P.C.  statements and the contra
\ndefence witness in reference to them.\n<\/p>\n
        53.  A comparative chart as to the particulars  of  the  victim  girls
\nwill help us to have a better appreciation of their evidence.\n<\/p>\n
[A]     Summary – Table :\n<\/p>\n
========================================================================
\nName,           |Relatives      |Instances of |Instances |Statement made
\nAge &           |in the |rape committed | of    |u\/s.161(3) and
\nRank            |Ashram |and the period |abortion       |164 Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
=============|===========|=================|==========|================
\nSureshkumari |Sister of |1) 1985 before | Nil   |Ex.P25 refers to
\n20\/1994 |PW7-Selva      |attaining puberty|             |the instances of
\nP.W.3           |-kumari @      |at residential |               |rape
\ncommitted
\nSri Lankan |Manjula,    |house at               |               |on her by A1.\n<\/p>\n
                |PW8-Suguna |Crapatti, Tiruchy|         |\n                |-kumari @      |2) July 1987 in |              |\n                |Sudha, |A1's room.  |          |\n                |PW10-Sasi |3) July 1987 in |           |\n                |-kumari @ |A1's room.  |               |\n                |Jaya and       |4) November 1991 |             |\n                |daughter |in A1's bedroom |            |\n                |of DW32- |at 1 pm.             |               |\n                |Deivanai |                     |               |\n<\/pre>\n
————————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
————————————————————————
\nNallammal | – |1) May ’94 at |Abortion |Ex.P27( Accident
\n21\/1994 |       |11.30 am in the |conducted |Register) :\n<\/p>\n
P.W.4           | |Arulvakku Room.  |by Dr.Muth |Contact with\nNative of       | |2) May '94 at        |-lakshmi       |known person\nPallathu-       |               |12.30 pm in |some time |willingly; milk\npatty,  |       |A1's room.  |in Oct.'94 |secretion\nKeeranur, |             |3) May '94 at |PW2-Nesan |present-complete\nTamil Nadu.     |               |2.30 pm at     |was asked      |abortion.\n                |       |Dharmasala.  |to bear |Ex.D1(u\/s.164):\n                |               |4) May '94 at  |respon- |Admits sexual\n                |               |Dharmasala.    |sibility |intercourse\n                |               |                       |for the |with A1 and\n                |               |                       |conception     |money\ngiven by\n                |               |                       |               |A1\nfor abortion\n<\/pre>\n
————-|———–|—————–|———–|—————-
\nPrincy  |Sister of |1) 1986 at lodge |Missed her |Ex.P36(Accident
\n20\/1994 |PW2-Nesan      |in Courtallam at |periods      |Register) :\n<\/p>\n
P.W.5           |and PW18- |1 pm.               |2-3 times; | Coitus with\nSri Lankan      |Dinesh |2) July '90, |aborted by |with working\n                |               |days after Guru|taking the |person willingly\n        |               | Purnima pooja at |abortifac- |-Hymen not\n                |               |11 pm in A1's  |ients given|intact.\n                |               |room.          |by A-3.  |Ex.D2(u\/s.164):\n                |               |3) 1992, a month |             |Refers     to\nA1's\n                |               |after the 3rd  |               |name and four\n                |               |incident at 5 am.|             |instances of\n                |               |4) 1993 in lodge |             |rape\ncommencing\n                |               |at Thanjavur.  |               |from 1992.\n                |               |5) On 17.4.1994.  |            |\n<\/pre>\n
————-|———–|—————–|———–|—————-<\/p>\n
\nMary            | - |1) 1993 in the     |Missed her |Ex.P35(Accident\n16\/1994 |               |Pomegranate    |period |Register) :\nP.W.6           |               |Garden.                |once and       |Shows\nHymen not\nNative of       |               |2) 4 days there- |abortific- |intact; as per\nVenniyaru       |               |after at the |ants given |her statement &\nEstate, |               |Dharmasala.    |by A3 and |physical exami-\nMadurai.        |               |                       |Divya   Devi.|nation,\nage 16\n                |               |                       |\n|years; As per\n                |               |                       |\n|Ex.P46, Age\n                |               |                       |\n|Certificate,\n                |               |                       |\n|completed 16\n                |               |                       |               |years\non 2.11.94\n                |               |                       |\n|Ex.D3(u\/s.164):\n                |               |                       |\n|Refers to sexual\n                |               |                       |\n|intercourse by\n                |               |                       |               |force\nby A1 at\n                |               |                       |               |the\nage of 13 in\n                |               |                       |               |the\nroom near\n                |               |                       |\n|Dharmasala at\n                |               |                       |               |1.30\npm, immed-\n                |               |                       |\n|iately after\n                |               |                       |\n|Christmas.\n<\/pre>\n
————-|—————————–|———–|—————-<\/p>\n
\nSelvakumari |Elder | 1) May '94 in      |       Nil     |Ex.P37 ( Accident\n@ Manjula       |sister of | A1's room. |               |Register) :\n<\/pre>\n
————————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
————————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
22\/1994 |PW3&sister | 2) October '94    | |Hymen-not\nP.W.7           |of PWs.8&10| at 4 pm in        |               |intact.\nSri Lankan      |related to | A1's room.        |\n|Ex.D4(u\/s.164):\n                |A1 as their| 3) Refers to      |               |Refers     to\nsexual\n                |father's | forced perverted |          |intercourse with\n                |brother.       | oral sex by A1.  |            |A1 willingly\n                |               |                       |               |once.\n\n<\/pre>\n
————-|———–|——————-|———|—————-Sugunakumari
\n| –     | 1) In 1993, 2-3 |     Nil     |Ex.P37 ( Accident
\n@ Sudha |               | months after she |            |Register) :\n<\/p>\n
16\/1994 |               | attained puberty |            |Not a virgin-\nP.W.8           |               | A1 had sexual |               |accustomed to\nSri Lankan      |               | intercourse in |              |sexual inter-\n                |               | his room.     |               |course.\n                |               | 2) September '94 |            |As        per\nEx.P48,\n                |               | in the Arulvakku |            |Age\nCertificate,\n                |               | Room.         |               |Completed 18\n                |               | 3) September '94 |            |years as on\n                |               | in the Arulvakku| |           |22.11.94.\n                |               | Room.         |\n|Ex.D5(u\/s.164):\n                |               |                       |\n|Refers to sexual\n                |               |                       |\n|intercourse by\n                |               |                       |               |A1\nforcibly.\n<\/pre>\n
————-|———–|——————-|———|—————-<\/p>\n
\nPushparani      |Sister of      | 1) 1992 at 1.30 am| Nil       |Ex.P33      (\nAccident\n16\/1994 |PW17.  | in the pooja room.|           |Register) :\nP.W.9           |               | 2) 1994 at 11.30am|           |Had    affair\nwith\nSri Lankan      |               | in Dharmasala room|           |a     working\nperson          |               | 3) In 1994, 2 days|   |for 1 year; as\n                |               | prior to Deepavali|           |per her own\n                |               | in A1's room. |               |Statement and\n                |               |                       |\n|physical exami-\n                |               |                       |\n|nation, aged 16.\n                |               |                       |               |As\nper Ex.P49,\n                |               |                       |               |not\ncompleted\n                |               |                       |               |16\nyears.\n                |               |                       | |Statement (u\/s.\n                |               |                       |               |164):\nRefers to\n                |               |                       |\n|forcible sexual                |               |                       |\n|intercourse by\n                |               |                       |               |A1\nwhen she was\n                |               |                       |               |14\nyears old.\n<\/pre>\n
————-|———–|——————-|———|—————-<\/p>\n
\nSasikumari      |Twin sister| 1) In 1993, 15    |       Nil |Ex.P37 ( Accident\n@ Jaya  |of PW8 &       | days after she        |               |Register) :\n16\/1994 |younger        | attained puberty |            |Hymen - not\nP.W.10  |sister of | in A1's room.      |               |intact.  As per\n                |Pws.3 & 7.  |                  |               |her       own\nstate-\n                |               |                       |               |ment\n& physical\n                |               |                       |\n|examination, she\n                |               |                       |               |is 16\nyears old.\n                |               |                       |               |As\nper Ex.P50,\n                |               |                       |               |Age\nCertificate,\n                |               |                       |               |she\nhas not\n                |               |                       |\n|completed 16\n                |               |                       |               |years\nas on\n<\/pre>\n
————————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
————————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
                |               |                       |\n|22.11.94.\n                |               |                       |\n|Ex.D6(u\/s.164):\n                |               |                       |\n|Refers sexual\n                |               |                       |\n|intercourse with\n                |               |                       |               |a\nknown person.\n<\/pre>\n
————-|————|—————-|———–|—————-<\/p>\n
\nShantha |Sister of      |1) November '91,|      Nil     |Ex.P39 (Accident\n34\/1994 |PW13- |first sexual    |               |Register) :\nP.W.11  |Vanitha        |intercourse by |               |Sexual contact\nSri Lankan      |               |A1 who made her |              |with    known\nmale\n                |               |to agree @ 4 pm |              |person.\nHymen-\n                |               |-Arulvakku room |              |not intact.\n                |               |2) Nov.'92 in |\n|Ex.D7(u\/s.164):\n                |               |Visitors' Room |               |Refers     to\nsexual\n                |               |against her wish|              |intercourse\nwith\n                |               |3) November '93 |              |A1 on consent\nin\n                |               |in Divya Devi's |              |1991; without\n                |               |room against her|              |consent    in\n1992;\n                |               |wish.          |               |without\nconsent\n                |               |                       |       |in 1993.\n<\/pre>\n
————-|————|—————-|———–|—————-
\nUdayakumari |Sister of  |May 1993- | Nil        |Ex.P40 ( Accident
\n21\/1994 |PW15-Malliga|forcible inter- | |Register) :\n<\/p>\n
P.W.12  |-devi & |course by A1 in |     |Hymen-not\nSri Lankan      |DW29- |the garden; |           |intact;                 |\nKanthan.  |Refers to the |              |accustomed to\n                |               |torture meted | |sexual inter-\n                |               |out to her by |        |course.\n                |               |confining her |                |No statement\n                |               |in the dog's |         |u\/s.164 Cr.P.C.\n                |               |kennel.  |             |recorded.\n<\/pre>\n
————-|————|—————-|———–|—————-
\nVanitha |Younger        |1) June ’91 |1st one   |Ex.P57 (Accident
\n21\/1994 |sister of |while sleeping |at Dr.  |Register) :
\nP.W.13  |PW11-Shantha|in A1’s   |Gomathi’s |Contact with a
\nSri Lankan      |               |Kudil. |Hospital @ |known person for
\n        |               |2) July ’92    |Thanjavur.  |more than four
\n                |               |Saturday at 3 pm|2nd one at |years.  Last
\n                |               |in A1’s bedroom.|Athi  |abortion 2 years
\n                |               |3) October ’94 |Hospital.      |back       at
\nTanjore.\n<\/p>\n
                |               |at 11 am in A1s |Speaks of |MTP done twice.\n                |               |room.          |2 forcible |Statement\n                |               |                       |sexual       |u\/s.164\nCr.P.C.\n                |               |                       |intercourse|   refers\nsexual\n                |               |                       |even  as  she|contact\nwith\n                |               |                       |informed   |A1  twice\nand\n                |               |                       |A1 that\n|abortion twice.\n                |               |                       |doctor had |\n                |               |                       |told her |\n                |               |                       |that her |\n                |               |                       |uterus was |\n                |               |                       |very weak.  |\n<\/pre>\n
————-|————|—————-|———–|—————-<\/p>\n
\nAruljothi       |       -       |1) 1991 in A1's |1) Aborti- |Ex.D9 (Accident\n21\/1994 |               |room at 1 pm.  |facients |Register) :\nP.W.14  |               |2) One month |given by |Contact with\n<\/pre>\n
————————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
————————————————————————<\/p>\n
\nSri Lankan      |               |thereafter, A1 |Divya Devi |a known person\n                |               |had forcible |& A3 in  |for 5 years.\n                |               |sexual inter- |1991.   |Ex.D10(u\/s.164):  |\n|course in A1's |2) Second |1) Refers to 's\n                |               |room even while |abortion at|forcible sexual\n                |               |she was bleeding|A3's  |intercourse by\n                |               |after taking   |instance       |A1, 2 months\n                |               |abortifacients.  |by taking |after attaining\n                |               |3) On 14.11.94 |tablets.       |puberty.\n                |               |in A1's room.  |               |2)     Second\nsexual\n        |               |                       |               |intercourse\nin\n                |       |               |               |A1's room.\n                |               |                       |\n|Missed her\n                |               |                       |\n|period and took\n                |               |                       |\n|abortifacients.\n                |               |                       |               |Next\nday, after\n                |               |                       |\n|publication of\n                |               |                       |               |news,\nrefers to\n                |               |                       |               |the\nforcible\n                |               |                       |\n|sexual inter-\n                |               |                       |\n|course by A1 and\n                |               |                       |\n|refers to the\n                |               |                       |\n|conception and\n                |               |                       |               |her\nrequest for\n                |               |                       |\n|termination of\n                |               |                       |\n|pregnancy.\n<\/pre>\n
————|————-|—————-|———–|—————-<\/p>\n
\nMalligadevi |Sister of |1) April '92 at |       Nil     |Ex.P32 (Accident\n20\/1994 |PW12-Udaya |2 pm in A1s room|          |Register) :\nP.W.15  |-kumari &      |2) On 18.11.94.  |             |Hymen-not\nSri Lankan      |DW29-Kanthan |                 |               |intact.\n                |               |                       |\n|Ex.P133(u\/s164):               |               |                       |\n|Refers to the\n                |               |                       |\n|forcible sexual\n                |               |                       |\n|intercourse by\n                |               |                       |               |A1\nafter she\n                |               |                       |\n|attained puberty\n                |               |                       |               |by\npersuading\n                |               |                       |               |her\nthat she\n                |               |                       |               |would\nbe cured\n                |               |                       |               |of\nasthma in\n                |               |                       |               |A1's\nroom.\n<\/pre>\n
————|————-|—————-|———–|—————-\n<\/p>\n
Krishnaveni |   -       |1) January '94 |       Nil     |Not included\n23\/1994 |               |at 3 pm in the |               |in the charge.\nP.W.55  |               |room of PW55.  |               |\nSri Lankan      |               |2) August '94 at|              |\n                |               |12 noon in A1's |              |\n                |               |room.          |               |\n                |               |3) September '94|              |\n                |               |at night watch |               |\n                |               |in A1's room.  |               |\n                |               |On her refusal |               |\n                |               |the first time, |              |\n                |               |she was tied to |              |\n                |               |calf made to run|              |\n<\/pre>\n
————————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
————————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
                |               |along with it & |              |\n                |               |tortured for her|              |\n                |               |adamancy.      |               |\n<\/pre>\n
————|————-|———————————————Latha
\n        | –     |Not raped by A1, but speaks about the rape
\n30\/1994 |               |of Sureshkumari, PW3 by A1 1987 and
\nP.W.16  |               |Vanitha, PW13 in June, 1991.\n<\/p>\n
========================================================================<\/p>\n
From the statements  of  the victim girls made under Section 164 Cr.P.  C.  as
\nsummarised above, it is seen that :\n<\/p>\n
(a)     P.Ws.3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14 and 15 have named A-1 and        his
\nforcible rape on them;\n<\/p>\n
(b)     P.Ws.7 and 11 (once) have stated to have consented for  sexual
\nintercourse with A-1; and\n<\/p>\n
(c)     P.W.10 has admitted forcible rape by a known person;
\nIn  their  evidence before the court, all of them, except P.W.13, have deposed
\nclearly as to the rape committed on them by A-1.  The evidence of  the  victim
\ngirls are discussed below.\n<\/p>\n
[B]     Discussion on the evidence of victim girls :\n<\/p>\n
        54.   P.W.3-Sureshkumari;  Age-20\/94; Mother’s Name-Deivanai (D.W.32);
\nDate of Examination-1.7.1996.\n<\/p>\n
        54(a) She was born at Mathalai, Sri Lanka on 20.1.1974.    Her  father
\ndied while  she was six years old in the ethnic conflict.  She, along with her
\nthree sisters namely P.W.7, P.W.8 and P.W.10,  were  left  at  the  ashram  at
\nMathalai conducted  by  A-1  in  the name of Boopalakrishna Ashram.  After A-1
\nleft for India in the year 1983, P.W.3, along with 12 other  girls,  left  Sri
\nLanka through  a  boat  from  Yazhppanam and arrived at Rameswaram.  The first
\naccused took them through a van  from  Rameswaram  to  a  house  at  Crapatti,
\nTiruchy.   At  that  time,  she  was  aged  11 – 12 years and had not attained
\npuberty.  She had deposed that even during that time, A-1 used to call her  to
\nhis  room,  made  her  to  sit on his lap and used to kiss her and give sweets
\nthereafter.  This happened three times during 1985.  On the  fourth  occasion,
\nA-1  called her to a separate room, removed her dress and squeezed her breasts
\nhard, to the pain of P.W.3.  Thereafter, he pushed her on the bed and tried to
\nhave sexual intercourse forcibly.  Inspite of the plea of P.W.3 that  she  was
\nput to  pain,  A-1  did not bother.  They had shifted their residence from the
\nCrapatti house to the present Fathima Nagar Ashram.  She attained  puberty  in
\nthe year  1987.    She was confined to a room for nearly one month during this
\nperiod.  After completion of one month, A-1 called her  to  his  room  on  the
\npretext of giving  viboothi (sacred ash).  That was in July, 1987.  Inside the
\nroom, A-1 made her to sit on his lap, embraced her and  after  kissing,  asked
\nher consent  for  sexual intercourse.  When P.W.3 asked him as to how he could
\ndo that when he was wearing saffron robes, A-1 had  pacified  her  by  stating
\nthat  robe is different and sex is different and further said that since he is
\nlike her father, she would not beget  any  children  even  if  he  had  sexual
\nintercourse with  her.  However, P.W.3 managed to open the doors and came away
\nrunning, haunted by the incident.  At that time, P.W.16 was standing  outside.
\nWhen  A-1  had  asked  P.W.16  whether  she over-heard what they were talking,
\nP.W.16 replied affirmatively.  Then, A-1 went back without saying a word.   In
\nthe  same  month,  three  days  thereafter,  at about 1.30 pm, while P.W.3 was
\nstanding outside, A-1 signed her to come.  When P.W.3 went  inside  his  room,
\nA-1 locked  the  doors.  When P.W.3 asked him why the doors were to be closed,
\nthe reply of A-1 was that he had to discuss something which could be done only
\nafter closing the doors.  Thereafter, P.W.3 was  taken  to  his  bedroom,  and
\ninside  his  bedroom,  inspite of her attempt to escape, A-1 removed her dress
\nand when she resisted, A-1 slapped her and pushed her over the bed.  When  she
\nshouted,  A-1  closed  her  mouth, mounted on her and started squeezing on her
\nbreasts.  However much she shouted till she lasted her energy, A-1 had  sexual
\nintercourse with  her  forcibly.    Consequent on this, P.W.3 had discharge of
\nblood and fever.  According to her, including this incident which occurred  in
\nthe year 1987, A-1 has committed rape on her on three different occasions.\n<\/p>\n
        54(b)  She  was living with her room mate P.W.14, Aruljothi and on one
\noccasion  in  the  year  1988,  when  they  returned  after  Krishna  Jayanthi
\ncelebrations  at  about  5.30  am,  A-1  came  to  their room and even without
\nbothering that she was sleeping nearby, forcibly committed rape of  Aruljothi,
\nP.W.14, inspite of her cries.  According to P.W.3, she saw A-1 committing rape
\nof Aruljothi.    She  also  says  that  in the year 1 989, when the ashram was
\nceremoniously opened, she had informed P.W.1 3 about A-1 and requested her  to
\nleave the  ashram.   However, the information reached A-1, consequent on which
\nP.W.3 was beaten.  Similarly, during the year 1991, when they  were  taken  to
\nCourtallam, A-1 was sleeping along with them.  At about 1 am midnight, A-1 had
\nsexual intercourse with P.W.5 inspite of her crying, even without bothering to
\nsee that others were<\/p>\n
sleeping in  the  same room.  During the year 1991, P.W.13 was kept inside the
\nroom of A-1 for nearly a month on the plea that  she  was  having  problem  of
\nurinating.   P.W.3  also says that when P.W.12, Udayakumari refused to concede
\nto the sexual desire of A-1, she was kept inside the dog kennel for three days
\nwithout food and water.  In the year 1 992, when P.W.5, Krishnaveni refused to
\nconcede to the sexual demand of A-1, she was tied to a calf, beaten and  asked
\nto run  along with the calf.  In the year 1992, at noon, when all of them were
\ntaking food, A-1 came and beat P.W.14 on the allegation that she  was  wasting
\nthe food, consequent on which she suffered eye injuries.  As P.W.3 heard of so
\nmany  tortures  happening  inside  the ashram, she left the ashram in the year
\n1991 to Madras.  However, two police constables caught and sent  her  back  to
\nthe ashram.   Coming to know of this, A-1 beat and tortured her in innumerable
\nways.  She says that A-1 used to convene meetings and used to talk  about  sex
\nand if anybody goes out of the meeting, they would be called and beaten.  Even
\nthough  there  were many boys in the ashram, only girls were asked to do night
\nwatch by A-1.  During this night watch, A-4 would be  sent  by  A-1  to  fetch
\nwhichever girl  he  likes.    According  to her, she had seen P.W.9, P.W.5, P.
\nW.14, P.W.8 and Naveena being taken to the room of A-1.\n<\/p>\n
        54(c) Every girl has to inform Divya Mathaji, the  absconding  accused
\nwhether they were getting their regular<\/p>\n
menstrual periods.    If  the  girls  miss  their  period once or twice, Divya
\nMathaji used to give them unriped pine-apple and papayya and  also  drugs  and
\ntablets for getting the periods.\n<\/p>\n
        54(d)  P.W.3 went on to state that at about 1 pm in November 1991, A-1
\nforced her to have sex with him inspite of  her  refusal  to  concede  to  his
\ndemand.   She says that since they were orphans and that there was nobody else
\nto take care of them, inspite of A-1 committing forcible  sexual  intercourse,
\nshe did  not  disclose  this  to anybody.  Besides, A-1 had warned them not to
\nreveal this to anybody, failing which they will be beaten.  In  October  1994,
\nwhen  P.W.9  refused to concede to the demand of A-1 during night, on the next
\nday, when the meeting was convened, she was denuded and her dress  removed  on
\nthe  allegation  that  she  was  talking  with one boy by name Amara Kumar and
\ntherefore A-1 punished her by pushing his big toe in the vagina of P.W.9.  A-1
\nwas enjoying the cries of P.W.9.  Unable to see this torture,  when  P.    W.3
\nwent  out  of  the  meeting,  she  was  called and slapped in front of others.
\nP.W.3, not able to bear such torturous conduct of A-1, came out of the  ashram
\non 31.10.1994.\n<\/p>\n
        54(e)  P.W.3  was  cross-examined  on  behalf  of the first accused on
\n1.7.1996 and again, she was recalled  and  examined  on  31.7.1996.    It  was
\nsuggested that no such incident as alleged by P.W.3 took place and that out of
\nher enmity<\/p>\n
towards A-1,  P.W.3  was  uttering falsehood.  She has admitted that after the
\nforcible sexual intercourse by A-1 in the year  1991,  there  was  no  further
\nforcible sexual   intercourse   by  A-1.    She  has  admitted  that  she  had
\ntape-recorded the statements of the victim girls so that people  believe  what
\nwas happening  inside  the  ashram.    She withstood her lengthy and strenuous
\ncross-examination.  She had denied the suggestions that she knew  that  P.W.30
\nwas ordered to leave the ashram by A-1 ; that Krishnaveni did not say that she
\nhad  sexual  relationship  with Anandan, the brother of P.W.9; that she sought
\nthe help of A-1 for joining the tenth  standard;  that  A-1  and  Mathaji  had
\noccasions  to  reprimand  her; that P.W.1 and P.W.13 had developed enmity with
\nA-1 and she was  caught  in  their  illegal  scheme;  that  in  order  to  get
\ncompensation  from  the Government, she had been acting at the behest of P.W.1
\nand P.W.30; that they have planned  to  create  a  bad  impression  about  the
\naccused; that she was used as an instrument for advertisement; that A-1 had no
\nconnection  with the assignment of work in the ashram; and that the ashram was
\nunder the supervision of police.  She specifically denied the suggestion  that
\nshe  did  not  know the habit of A-1 to take girls who attain puberty and keep
\nthem in his room for a whole night.\n<\/p>\n
        54(f) P.W.3 had admitted that Divya Mathaji  is  incharge  of  looking
\nafter  the  administration  of  the  ashram;  similarly, A-2, A-4 and A-5 were
\nassigned specific jobs.  P.W.3 had admitted that she gave interviews  to  “The
\nHindu”  newspaper  and  that  she  had  made  a  general  statement  about the
\nillegalities being committed at the ashram.  She  has  not  stated  about  her
\ninterviews in  Ex.P.25,  her  complaint  to  the police.  She had informed her
\nmother about the conditions of other girls, but not about herself.  She states
\nthat she did not disclose the supply of drugs and tablets by A-3  in  Ex.P.25,
\ncomplaint  and that she forgot to mention the same; that she has not mentioned
\nabout the torture of Udayakumari in Ex.P.25, even though  the  people  at  the
\nashram  and  Divya  Mathaji  knew about it; and that she did not mention about
\nKrishnaveni being tied to the calf and made  to  run  in  Ex.P.25.    She  has
\nadmitted  that  after the rape committed by A-1, she went and lied down in her
\nroom without informing about it or even talking to anybody.  She  has  further
\nadmitted  that  when she left the ashram in the year 1991, she was outside for
\n1-1\/2 days, but did not inform anybody about the rape incident  and  that  she
\ndid  not  plan  to meet anybody at that time, though she had an inclination to
\ntell everything to somebody.  She admitted that she had told the  police  that
\nin  the  year 1991, since she did not like to live in the ashram, she left the
\nashram.  But, out of the fear of A-1, she did not disclose the  occurrence  in
\nthe ashram to the police constables who caught her and they threatened her and
\nput her  in  a bus and sent her back to the ashram.  She has admitted that she
\ndid not inform the police that one month after the girls attain puberty,  they
\nwill  be  called  by A-1 in the guise of offering viboothi and kept inside the
\nroom of A-1 for the whole night and they will be sent back only by  4  am  and
\nalso  that she did not see herself of P.W.8 being taken to the room of A-1 and
\nshe was telling about Pushaparani’s incident of the year 1993  to  the  police
\nfor the first time.\n<\/p>\n
        54(g)  In  the  cross-examination,  P.W.3  had reiterated that she had
\nrecorded the statement of five girls namely P.Ws.8, 6, 15 and 9 without  their
\nknowing  about the same, for the purpose of disclosing it to the outside world
\nand to have it as a proof for the same.  She says that Krishnaveni, P.W.55 had
\ntold her that she must say that she was in love with Anandan and that she  had
\ngiven the  recorded  cassette to the police on 17.11.1994.  She had reiterated
\nthe incident of taking her  to  Thanjavur  along  with  Vanitha,  P.W.13,  the
\nconfinement  of  Udayakumari,  P.W.12  in  the  dog  kennel  and  the tying of
\nKrishnaveni to the calf, but admitted that there were not told by  her  before
\nthe police.   She  has  denied the night watch by men.  She had reiterated the
\nsexual intercourse of A-1 with her even before her attaining puberty and  that
\nit  was during a day time and in the room upstairs in that rented building and
\nthat it was in the year 1985 and was in the bedroom of  A-1.    She  has  also
\nstated  that  at that time, there was no bleeding, though she had pain and the
\nforcible sexual intercourse committed by A-1 in the years 1985, 1987 and  1988
\nwere  revealed for the first time in the year 1994 before the Reporter of “The
\nIndian Express” and before P.W.1.   She  had  decided  to  disclose  the  rape
\ncommitted  in  the  ashram while she left the ashram for the first time and on
\nher own and she did  not  plan  it  with  others  and  she  only  wanted  some
\nassistance for the disclosure.  She had stated that P.W.8, her sister had told
\nher that A-1 raped her one month after her attaining puberty.\n<\/p>\n
        54(h)  The  evidence of P.W.3 as to the 1987 incident was corroborated
\nby P.W.16.  P.W.16 had admitted the compulsion made by A-1 against P.W.3.  She
\nadmitted that she had vivid memory of what happened to  P.W.3  while  she  was
\nstanding  outside  the room of A-1 and that she did not reveal these things to
\nthe police because of the warning by A-1.  She says that in the year 1987, she
\nwas doing gardening work when A-1 took P.W.3.   At  that  time,  she  did  not
\nsuspect  A-1,  but  after  the  crying  sound  of  P.W.3,  she  over-heard the
\nconversation between A.1 and P.W.3.  She had  admitted  that  because  of  the
\nforceful  sexual  act  on  P.W.3  by  A-1,  she  lost her respect for A-1, but
\nhowever, she could not tell these things outside because she was an orphan and
\nas she could not go out of the ashram.  She also says that  there  was  nobody
\nelse with  whom  she  could confide in the ashram.  She also says that she had
\nseen the sexual intercourse by A-1 with Divya Mathaji.  The evidence of  P.W.3
\nis natural and trustworthy.\n<\/p>\n
        54(i) Evidence is led in on behalf of the accused in painting P.W.3 as
\nan untrustworthy,  promiscuous girl.  D.W.14 claims to have been in the ashram
\nfrom the age of four.  His evidence is  full  of  stories  which  are  totally
\nimprobable.   According to him, he was having a love affair with P.W.3 and was
\nhaving sexual intercourse contrary to the rules and regulations of the  ashram
\nin his  own  room.  He says that he used to have sexual intercourse with P.W.3
\nten times a month and admits that he would have had  sexual  intercourse  with
\nP.W.3, 200  times.    He  further  says  that after leaving him, P.W.3 started
\nloving one Nesan for the purpose of getting  her  transfer  certificate.    He
\nportrays P.W.3  as  having  a  very bad character.  Acording to him, P.W.3 had
\nasked him to get non-vegetarian food from outside, contrary to the regulations
\nof the ashram and because of that, she left the ashram in the year 1991.  When
\nshe came back after 10 – 15 days, she had informed him that she went to  enjoy
\nthe life  outside like seeing films, etc.  He also says that she ran away from
\nthe ashram once more in the year 199 3.   According  to  him,  since  she  was
\nhaving relationship with Nesan, he consumed poison.  He further admits that he
\nstarted  having sexual intercourse with another girl Pushparani, P.W.9 for the
\npurpose of sex.  According to him, the police compelled him to  say  that  A-1
\nwas  having  sexual intercourse with the lady shown to him and he was tortured
\nand beaten to say so.  He had admitted  that  he  had  sexual  relations  with
\nseveral  girls,  but he says that Sureshkumari was a virgin when he had sexual
\nintercourse with her.  When asked to explaining what  is  virginity,  he  says
\nthat  when  she  had  sexual  intercourse with him without saying that she was
\nhaving any pain, it was virginity.  He says that inspite of the fact  that  he
\nhad sexual  intercourse  with  P.W.3  200  times,  she  did not conceive.  The
\nlearned trial Judge has commented on the evidence of D.W.14 and as to  how  he
\nis unreliable.  The learned Judge says that D.W.14 was very quick in answering
\nin  his chiefexamination, tarnishing the image of P.W.3.; whereas, the witness
\ntook at least 3 to 5 minutes to answer the questions in the  crossexamination.
\nAs  rightly pointed out, a reading of the evidence of D.W.14 shows that he had
\nno regard for truth.  His statement that he  was  having  sexual  relationship
\nwith  P.W.3 ten times a month and inspite of that, she did not become pregnant
\nand that he was not aware of her educational  qualifications  inspite  of  her
\nclose relationship with her, that she demanded non-vegetarian food and because
\nof  that,  she  did  not like him and that she was having love affairs with so
\nmany other persons was nothing but a self-serving statement given  to  support
\nthe case  of the defence in order to tarnish the image of P.W.3.  It is highly
\nimprobable that his promiscuity with P.W.3 and other girls was left  unnoticed
\nby the  ashram  authorities.    Obviously, this witness is led in to show that
\nP.W.3 was having regular sexual intercourse with D.W.14 and with other men  in
\nthe  ashram  liberally  so that her allegation against A-1 cannot be believed.
\nThe evidence of D.W.14 is unreliable because  admittedly  he  had  not  stated
\nthese  facts  in  the  affidavit prepared and he continued to be in the ashram
\ninspite of his alleged admitted misdeeds and having free  sexual  relationship
\nwith many  girls  in the ashram.  According to him, he was in the hospital for
\ntwo months as in-patient for having attempted to commit suicide, but  no  case
\nwas registered  against  him.    Though  he  denied the suggestion that he was
\ndeposing to save A-1, a reading of his evidence is clear to  the  effect  that
\nhis deposition is unreliable, untrustworthy and he is interested in tarnishing
\nthe image of P.W.3 for his own purpose and to save A-1.\n<\/p>\n
        54(j)  The  next  witness led in on the side of the defence is D.W.19,
\nKantha Kumar, who says that he saw P.W.3, Sureshkumari and D.W.14 together  in
\na  room  and that he had advised D.W.14 that their relationship is contrary to
\nthe rules of the ashram, for which D.W.14 had told him that he  was  sincerely
\nin love  with  P.W.3  and  that  he  wanted  to  marry  her.    He says in the
\ncross-examination that he saw the police torturing the inmates of  the  ashram
\nand  that  even  after completion of his course, he was staying in the ashram.
\nHe admits that he is related to Ambikanandan, P.W.1 and that he came to  India
\nwith Ambikanandan  and  his  wife.    He admits that he was in the hospital in
\nKarnataka during 1992 and 1996.  Even though he says that his role was only to
\nwater the trees and plaints, even if there was any illegal sexual relationship
\nbetween the inmates, they would not be sent out of  the  ashram  because  they
\nhave  no  other  place  to  go  out and that only two persons namely P.W.3 and
\nD.W.14 were having unlawful relationship.  However,  he  admits  that  he  was
\nsaying about  this  for the first time in the court.  He says that good habits
\nare being taught in the ashram and that he was staying in the ashram  for  the
\npurpose of  doing  service to the people.  A reading of the evidence of D.W.19
\nshows that he is unreliable and is led in only to show that P.W.3  was  having
\nsexual relationship contrary to the rules of the ashram.\n<\/p>\n
        54(k)  D.W.28 is the person who joined the ashram in the year 1975 and
\nwas taking care of the children.  She says that P.W.3  failed  in  the  eighth
\nstandard  and she was scolded for that reason and therefore, she ran away from
\nthe ashram in the year 1993 and was brought  back  by  the  police  after  two
\nweeks.  She further says that P.W.3 did not like the regulations of the ashram
\nand she  used  to  move socially with the visitors.  She also confirms that on
\nenquiry with D.W.14, Amara Kumar, he informed him that  because  P.W.3  had  a
\nlove affair with somebody else, he had consumed poison.  She has also admitted
\nthat she  had  filed  Writ  Petition No.1010 of 1995.  She says that P.W.3 was
\nmoving with one Nelmi for the purpose of getting an opportunity to go  abroad.
\nIn  her  chief-examination,  she  says  that  she  used  to  watch the regular
\nmenstrual period of P.Ws.5, 14 and 15 and that they have not become  pregnant.
\nShe describes herself in her chief-examination as a warden and states that she
\nhad been  in  the  ashram  from the year 1975 looking after the children.  Her
\nstand that even though the girls were having relationship with boys, no action
\nwas taken against them cannot be believed.  Her evidence is obviously intended
\nto show P.W.3 in a bad light.\n<\/p>\n
        54(l) D.W.32, the mother of P.W.3 is another highly interested witness
\nled in on behalf of the appellants.  She has admitted of her  letter  Ex.P.215
\nwherein  she had written to P.W.3 stating that she met A-1 in jail and that he
\nmade enquiries about all the girls.  According to her, he had  assured  rupees
\ntwo lakhs  to  each  of the girls in order to get them married.  She had filed
\nWrit Petition No.1688 of 1995 wherein she had stated in the affidavit that A-1
\ndid not misbehave with any of her three girls  and  that  she  had  filed  two
\naffidavits in  support of A-1.  According to her, she has been residing in the
\nashram from March, 1990 and she is closely related to A-1 and her  brother  is
\nmarried to  the sister of A-1.  Her evidence is that since A-1 had reprimanded
\nP.W.3 on her playful attitude, she left the ashram in the year  1991  and  she
\nadmits  that  she  did not give any police complaint at that time, because her
\nfuture will be spoiled.  This  contradicts  her  conduct  when  she  gave  the
\ncomplaint immediately  after  the  news appeared in “The Indian Express”.  Her
\nstatement in  the  chief-examination  is  that  the  Inspector  Kuppusamy  had
\npromised  her  to  get  her a separate house and every material for the house,
\nincluding, if she wants, an elephant so that she may come out of  the  ashram.
\nHer evidence  is  unbelievable  and  not  trustworthy.  Her evidence is highly
\ninterested inasmuch as she is closely related to A-1.\n<\/p>\n
        55.  P.W.4-Nallammal; Age-21\/94; Date of Examination-2.7.1996 :\n<\/p>\n
        55(a) Accident Register-Ex.P.27 dated 19.11.1994 :  Before the doctor,
\nshe had stated that she had contact  with  known  persons  for  the  past  six
\nmonths-milk secretion present.  Complete abortion.\n<\/p>\n
        55(b)  Statement  under  Section 164 Cr.P.C.-Ex.D.1 dated 23.11.1994 :
\nShe states that she consented for A-1’s sexual intercourse because  he  was  a
\nspiritual  bhakthiman  and she wept after his sexual intercourse; however, she
\ndid not become pregnant.  A-1,  without  saying  anything,  asked  her  to  go
\nwithout weeping.    Three  months  thereafter, she had sexual intercourse with
\nP.W.2 and she became pregnant.  They went to the  doctor  for  doing  abortion
\nafter getting money from A-1.\n<\/p>\n
        55(c) Relevant Prosecution Witnesses :  P.W.2, Nesan, approver, admits
\nhaving sexual relations with P.W.4 at the instance of A-1 and that he took her
\nfor abortion at the instance of A-1.\n<\/p>\n
        55(d) Relevant  Defence Witnesses :  D.Ws.8, 10, 12, 28, 15, 29, and 3\n<\/p>\n
1.<\/p>\n
        55(e) P.W.4 is not an orphan.  She is the native of a nearby  village,
\nPallathupatti.   Besides  her parents, she has three elder brothers, a younger
\nbrother and a sister.  According to her, she left her house  because  she  was
\nnot permitted  to attend the school after she attained puberty.  She was found
\nby D.W.39 in the bus stand at Tiruchy and was left in the ashram in  the  year
\n1992.   In  the ashram, she was given the jobs of attending pooja room and the
\npress.  About six months prior to the arrest of A-1, that was in or about  May
\n1994,  at  about  10.30  am  on  a Saturday, she was attending the pooja room.
\nAbout 20 to 3 0 persons, who came to get the ‘trance-interview’ with A-1, left
\nthe place.  Thereafter, A-1 called  her  from  the  Arulvakku  room.    P.W.4,
\nthinking  that  he  was  calling  her  to give the viboothi (sacred ash), went
\nthere.  A-1 closed the three doors of the  room  and  thereafter,  lifted  the
\nundergarment of  P.W.4,  pushed  her down and raped her.  Unable to bear this,
\nshe wept uncontrollably.  However, A-1 did not leave her.  He also warned  her
\nthat  if  she  was  going to weep like that and tell that to other inmates, he
\nwill murder  her  just  like  Ravi  was  murdered.    She   repeats   in   her
\nchief-examination  that  inspite of her refusal to have sexual intercourse, he
\nforced her and committed rape on her and that she did not tell  this  incident
\nto anybody.    Thereafter, she adds, in the same month, A-1 raped her three to
\nfour times, twice in the Dharmasala at about 12.30 pm and once in his room  at
\nabout 2.3 0 pm.  She says that there are four rooms in the Dharmasala and that
\non  no occasion, she had consented for the sexual intercourse and that on each
\noccasion, she was forced to undergo sexual intercourse.  Consequent  to  this,
\nshe  became  three  months’  pregnant and informed about her condition to A-1.
\nWhen A-1 enquired who was responsible for that, she told him that  it  was  he
\nwho was  responsible.   Immediately, A-1 called Divya Mathaji and directed her
\nto give pine-apple and papayya, but there was no effect.   The  third  accused
\nwas  then  directed  by  A-1  to  give  drugs  and  injections  to  remove the
\nconception.  Inspite of her giving tablets and injection,  it  did  not  work,
\neven though there was slight bleeding.\n<\/p>\n
        55(f)  P.W.4  further says that P.W.2 is the adopted son of A-1 and at
\nthe request of A-1, P.W.2 started  loving  her  and  started  to  have  sexual
\nintercourse with her.    At  that time, she was four months’ pregnant.  Though
\nA-1 compelled P.W.2 Nesan to marry her, he refused and she also refused to the
\nmarriage, but she wanted an abortion.  P.W.2 is younger than P.W.4.   For  the
\npurpose of  getting  the  abortion done, P.W.2 took her to one Dr.  Chitra and
\nshe refused to help her since it would be dangerous  to  the  life  of  P.W.4.
\nThereafter, P.W.2 took her to one Dr.  Thangamani.  She also refused to do the
\nabortion.  P.W.2  then  took  her to one Dr.  Muthulakshmi after obtaining her
\naddress from Dr.  Thangamani and with the amount of Rs.3,000\/- given  by  A-1,
\nDr.  Muthulakshmi  conducted the abortion.  A-1 had already informed P.W.2 not
\nto give the address of the ashram.  P.W.2 also gave a  different  address  and
\ngave his  name  as  Ramesh and that he is the brother of P.W.4.  She stayed in
\nDr.  Muthulakshmi’s hospital for three days.  In her evidence, P.W.4 has  also<\/p>\n
referred to  the  torture  meted  out to P.W.9 and P.W.14.  She further admits
\nthat because of the warning and fear of A-1, she did not tell the  full  facts
\nin her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
        55(g) P.W.4  was extensively cross-examined.  She admits that she told
\nDr.  Vasuki that P.W.2 was responsible for her pregnancy as she was  asked  to
\nsay  so  by  A-1;  that she did not tell the doctor of her taking the tablets;
\nthat she did not tell about the rape committed by A-1 in the  police  enquiry;
\nthat  she did not tell the police that she was three months’ pregnant when she
\nstarted having relationship with P.W.2; that P.W.2 was directed to  make  love
\nwi  th  her by A-1; and that she did not tell her parents about this when they
\ncame and met her.  She denied the suggestion that A-1 did not give  money  for
\ngetting  the  abortion  done  and  that  it  was  only P.W.2 who had borne the
\nexpenses because it was he who was responsible for her  pregnancy.    She  has
\nalso stated  that  she  wrote the letter Ex.D.14 at the compulsion of A-1.  In
\nher cross-examination dated 1.8.11996, she states that though she was  anxious
\nto  meet  her  parents and sought A-1’s permission four times, she was refused
\npermission.  She denied the suggestion that she did not have a  character  and
\nthat only  because  her  parents’ reprimand, she had left her house.  She also
\ndenied the further suggestion that she had close relationship with the boys in
\nthe ashram.  She says that she never went voluntarily to talk to anybody.  She
\nsays that she got emboldened to say all these  things  because  there  was  no
\nnecessity for her to go back to the ashram hereafter.  Her evidence is natural
\nand acceptable as true.\n<\/p>\n
        55(h)   The   evidence   of  P.W.4  has  not  been  shattered  in  the
\ncrossexamination.  On the contrary,  she  had  reiterated  her  statement  and
\nemphasised  the  rape  committed on her by A-1 and as to how P.W.2 was made to
\ntake over the responsibility for the conception and as to how P.W.2  took  her
\nto do  the  abortion.   She has explained the reason for her inability to come
\nout and say all these things in her statement before the  police  and  in  her
\nstatement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
        55(i)  The defence has led in a number of witnesses to speak about the
\ncharacter of P.W.4 and paint her as a girl having loose character.  P.W.8, one
\nof the Mathajis, in her evidence, says that she was mainly incharge of foreign
\nvisitors.  She says that she knew P.W.2 Nesan and P.W.4 Nallammal  ever  since
\nshe came to the ashram in or about 1993 .  According to her, she saw P.W.2 and
\nP.W.4 together  in  the garden behind the prayer hall hugging each other.  She
\nsays that she talked to P.W.2 about this because she was not happy  of  seeing
\nthat  in  the  ashram  and  warned  both  of  them and she also informed other
\nMathajis about this.  D.W.8 says that she received her spiritual name  Nirmala
\nDevi Mathaji  and  was  ordained  as Sanyasin on 10.3.1994.  She says that she
\nstayed in the ashram from October 1989 to July 1992.  She  further  says  that
\nthere are ashram rules, under which by 10 pm, everybody should retire to their
\nrooms.   According  to  her, “There is a strict code of conduct for the ashram
\ninmates in the ashram.  Morality was considered as the supreme  thing.    Free
\nsex was  never  permitted  in  the  ashram.    Stringent action would be taken
\nagainst the inmates of the ashram if it is known that any of the  inmates  had
\ntransgressed the code of conduct of the ashram.”\n<\/p>\n
        55(j)  A  reading of the evidence of D.W.8 shows that she is obviously
\nmade to speak about the allegations made against the accused and to  deny  and
\noppose each  one  of  the  allegations.  Her evidence looks artificial and has
\nbeen made for the purpose of the case.  When  there  was  a  question  on  the
\ncharacter of A-1, her answer is as follows :\n<\/p>\n
        “In  my  view,  Swamiji  is  a  person  of highest morality, humility,
\nsimplicity and sincerity.  He is a highly evolved spiritual master.  He  lives
\na life of  a  renunciated  monk.  He keeps celibacy.  Swamiji will not consume
\nany alcohol or drugs.  He will not take non-vegetarian food.    He  is  not  a
\nsmoker  and  his  life  of austerity is meant for the people in the ashram and
\noutsiders to follow this disciplined way of life.”\n<\/p>\n
The way she talks about repudiating the allegations  in  the  chiefexamination
\nonly  shows  that  she  is a highly interested witness and is not speaking the
\ntruth.\n<\/p>\n
        55(k) D.W.12, is a Mathaji incharge of the Dharmasala and store.   She
\nsays that  she  was incharge of admission of the children.  She also says that
\nshe was incharge of cleaning the room of A-1.    According  to  her,  she  had
\nadmitted P.W.4  in  the  ashram.   She received information from Mathajis that
\nP.W.4 was friendly with one boy and she also saw P.W.4 talking  to  P.W.2  and
\nshe reprimanded  her.    That  was  some  time  in  the  end of the year 1993.
\nAccording to her, P.W.4 informed her that she  was  in  love  with  Nesan  and
\nwanted to  marry  her.   She asked P.W.4 to write to her parents and it can be
\ndecided after her parents come.  The evidence of D.W.8 is untrustworthy.   Her
\nstatement  that  inspite  of  P.W.4  becoming  pregnant, the said fact was not
\ninformed to her parents and the stand of D.W.8 is that  they  did  not  inform
\nthem because she herself would inform her parents.  Her stand that she did not
\nknow  what  happened  to her pregnancy and though they had taken a decision to
\ninform A-1, whether they actually informed A-1 or  not  is  not  known.    The
\nevidence of D.W.8 is unreliable.\n<\/p>\n
        55(l) D.W.10 is closely related to A-1.  Her parents are living in the
\nashram.   D.W.10,  had  informed  the  learned Judges in Writ Petition (Habeas
\nCorpus Petition) No.803 of 1994 that she would be killed if she  goes  to  the
\nashram  and wanted to be in the institution at Madras and that at the instance
\nof her father, she was permitted to  go  and  live  outside  the  ashram,  but
\nhowever,  she  came  back  to  the  ashram along with her parents and is still
\nliving in the ashram along with her  parents,  her  sister  and  her  brother.
\nD.W.10  and  her parents are totally dependent on the ashram for their living.
\nHer testimony is unreliable.\n<\/p>\n
        55(m) D.W.28 claims to be a warden in the ashram.  She says  that  she
\nis  incharge  of  preparing  for  poojas  and  looking after the health of the
\nchildren.  According to her, P.W.4 left her house because she wanted to  marry
\na  boy from some other case and that she was aged 18 years when she joined the
\nashram.  She further says that P.W.4 was in the habit of going to her parents’
\nhouse and coming back.  From her evidence, it is seen  that  D.W.28  is  close
\nwith  A-1 inasmuch as she knew A-1 from childhood and she joined the ashram in
\nthe year 1975 itself.  She came along with the 20 girls to India.  She  speaks
\nof  the  illegal relationships of the victim girls, which is highly improbable
\ninasmuch as she was a warden and there being strict regulations in the ashram,
\nthey would not have permitted the girls to have such  kind  of  loose  contact
\nwith boys  in  the  ashram, as spoken to by D.W.28.  It is further admitted in
\nher evidence that she had  filed  Writ  Petition  (  Habeas  Corpus  Petition)
\nNo.1010 of 1995, Ex.P.213 for and on behalf of Vasanthi as her legal guardian.
\nThough she was permitted to talk to Vasanthi, Vasanthi refused to go with her,
\nbut wanted to stay in ‘ Udavum Karangal’, an institution looking after persons
\nwho are  unable  to  look after themselves.  The High Court dismissed the writ
\npetition stating that the detenue was not in illegal custody.   Therefore,  no
\ncredibility can be attached to the evidence of D.W.28.\n<\/p>\n
        55(n)  D.W.15  is a citizen of Congo, who claims to have come to India
\nto develop his spirituality and claims to have attended the night  watch  work
\nin March,  1994.    According  to  him, P.W.2 expressed his intention to marry
\nP.W.4 and then to make money and enjoy the life before becoming a sanyasi.  He
\nsays that he found P.W.2 with Mary, P.W.6 in a cow shed.  He also says that he
\nsaw P.W.2 and P.W.4 making love.    The  evidence  of  D.W.15  appears  to  be
\nintended to show the illegal relationship of the prosecution witnesses and his
\nevidence appears to us, artificial and just made to throw mud on the character
\nof the  victim  girls.   Considering the claim of his spirituality, the ashram
\nrules, etc., D.W.15 ought to have reported the matter to the  authorities  and
\naction should have been taken, if really such happenings were taking place, as
\npainted by D.W.15.\n<\/p>\n
        55(o)  D.W.29  is  the  brother of P.W.12 and P.W.15 and who is in the
\nashram from the beginning.  He gives evidence depicting P.W.2 as an embodiment
\nof immorality, as P.W.2 was in the habit of smoking,  reading  sex  books  and
\noffering cosmetics  to  women,  in  order  to attract them.  According to him,
\nP.W.2 and P.W.4 were often meeting in the room belonging to  P.W.4  and  P.W.2
\nhad  informed  him that P.W.4 became pregnant because of his relationship with
\nher.  He also says that P.W.2 had also told him that P.W.4,  being  a  village
\ngirl, he  will  not be able to marry her.  His deposition that he did not tell
\nthe Mathajis about the illegal ways  of  P.W.2  makes  his  statement  totally
\nunreliable.\n<\/p>\n
        55(p)  D.W.31,  Ellis  Mary,  joined  the  ashram  in  the  year 1991.
\nAccording to her, P.W.4 was her room-mate and she had told her that since  her
\nbrother  was a bad man and was beating her, she came to ashram and she used to
\ngo to her parents’ house.  She claims to have read the love letter written  by
\nP.W.2 to P.W.4 and that she saw both of them going out during a night and that
\nP.W.4 became  pregnant  because  of that.  She also claims that P.W.4 had told
\nher that she had become pregnant because of P.W.2.  This  witness,  obviously,
\nis  out  to  help  A-1 as she not only speaks specifically of the relationship
\nbetween P.W.2 and P.W.4, but also claims that the police had tortured  her  to
\nsay ill  of  A-1.  The evidence of D.W.31 that inspite of her reading the love
\nletter of P.W.2 to P.W.4 and also having seen them going out in the night  and
\nP.W.4 having become pregnant, she did not inform the same to the Mathajis or
\nA-1, is very difficult to believe.  Her evidence is totally untrustworthy.\n<\/p>\n
        56.  P.W.5-Princy; Age-20\/94; Date of Examination-2.7.1996 :\n<\/p>\n
        56(a) Accident  Register-Ex.P.36 dated 19.11.1994 :  As per the entry,
\nshe had coitus with a working male person willingly.  Hymen-Not intact.\n<\/p>\n
        56(b) Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.-Ex.D.2  dated  23.11.1994  :
\nAdmits sexual  intercourse with A-1.  She was called by A-1 during the time of
\nnight watch.  Though she refused, A-1 had sexual relationship with her.    She
\nalso says that she wanted to be with A-1 and went whenever he called her.  She
\nfurther admits that A-1 had sexual intercourse with her four times.\n<\/p>\n
        56(c) Relevant Prosecution Witnesses :  P.Ws.3, 16 and 17.
\n        56(d) Relevant Defence Witnesses :  D.Ws.11 and 28.\n<\/p>\n
        56(e) P.W.2,  Nesan and P.W.18, Dinesh are the brothers of P.W.5.  She
\nwas left in the ashram in Sri Lanka by her mother at the age of  three.    She
\nwas  taken  to  Courtallam along with P.W.3 and one Meera and they stayed in a
\nlodge there.  She was forcibly raped by A-1 at about 1 pm in the lodge.    She
\nsays  that  in  July 1990, two days after Guru Poornima pooja, at about 11 pm,
\nduring her night watch, she was called in by  A-1.    A-4  was  asked  to  see
\nwhether anybody  was outside at that time.  As soon as she entered the room of
\nA-1, he closed the door.  She could not try to escape.  He forced her to  have
\nsexual  intercourse  inspite  of  her pleading that she was like his daughter.
\nAgain, in the year 1991, prior to the death of Ravi, A-1 had  forcible  sexual
\nintercourse with  her.    For the third time, in the year 1992, at about 3 pm,
\nA-1 sent for her and when she went to his room, she was forced to have  sexual
\nintercourse.  A month thereafter, at about 5 am, when she went to wake him up,
\nA-1 had  forcible  sexual  intercourse  with her.  In the year 1993, they were
\ntaken to Thanjavur and were staying in a building there.  She was sent for  by
\nA-1  at  about  1  pm and when she went there, inspite of her refusal, A-1 had
\nforcible sexual intercourse with her.  Due to this sexual intercourse, she had
\nmissed her regular menstrual periods  two  to  three  times.    On  all  those
\noccasions,  Divya  Mathaji  used  to  give  abortifacients like pine-apple and
\npapayya and inspite of that, if abortion does not take place, A-3 used to give
\ntablets and medicines.  She says that two days prior to  the  arrest  of  A-1,
\nthat was  on  17.11.1994, A-1 had sexual intercourse with her.  She has denied
\nthe suggestion that she had infiltrated into the ashram  at  the  instance  of
\ncertain Christian  Missionaries in order to spoil the name of the ashram.  She
\nhas specifically stated that she had  told  all  these  facts  in  the  police
\nenquiry.  Her  evidence  remains  unrebutted.   The trial Judge found that the
\nnarration of the various acts of rape committed on her inspires the confidence
\nof the court and  her  brevity  and  simple  way  of  narration,  without  any
\nexaggeration, makes  her statement credible.  It is seen that she had narrated
\nthe whole incident in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.   and  according
\nto her, even before the police.  We find her evidence true and acceptable.\n<\/p>\n
        56(f)  D.W.11, who is a Mathaji in the ashram, says that she saw P.W.5
\ncoming out of a room with a Sri Lankan boy.  According to  her,  the  way  she
\ncame  out  of the room was not proper and therefore, she called P.W.5 and gave
\nher a slap on her face.\n<\/p>\n
        56(g) D.W.28, who is a warden in the ashram, says  that  P.W.5  had  a
\nconnection  with  one  Sri Lankan boy by name Kindakka and that D.W.11 saw the
\nsame and slapped her and that the same was informed to her.  When she went  to
\nenquire  about this, P.W.5 refused to open the door of her room and was inside
\nthe room for the whole day.  The evidence of P.W.5 is  not  shattered  in  the
\ncross-examination  and  nothing has come out from the attempt on behalf of the
\nappella nts to discredit the evidence of P.W.5 by leading evidence in order to
\npaint her with a bad character.\n<\/p>\n
        57.  P.W.6-Rose Mary @ Mary; Age-16\/94; Date of Examination-2.7.199 6.\n<\/p>\n
        57(a) Accident Register-Ex.P.35 dated 19.11.1994 :  Says that her  age
\nwas  fixed at 16 as per her own statement and as per her physical examination.
\nHymen-Not intact.\n<\/p>\n
        57(b) Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.-Ex.D.3  dated  23.11.1994  :
\nShe  admits  forcible sexual intercourse by A-1 at Dharmasala and in his room;
\nthat she became three months’ pregnant and was administered abortifacients  by
\nDivya Mathaji.\n<\/p>\n
        57(c) Relevant Defence Witnesses :  D.Ws.15, 16, 28 and 33.\n<\/p>\n
        57(d) According to P.W.6, she is a native of Venniyaru Estate, Madurai
\nDistrict.  She  left  her  village  in  the year 1990 to her aunt’s house.  By
\nmistake, she got into a wrong bus and got down at Manapparai and was taken  to
\nthe ashram  of  A-1.    At  that  time,  her age was 13 years and she attained
\npuberty in the year 1991.  She  was  called  by  A-1,  10  to  15  days  after
\nChristmas  in the year 1993 to the Pomegranate Thope and was compelled to have
\nsexual intercourse with him inspite her refusal to do so.   Consequently,  she
\nmissed her menstrual periods for three months.  When she informed this fact to
\nA-1, he called Divya Mathaji and A-3 and directed A-3 to give abortion tablets
\nto her.    She  consumed  the  tablets  and other abortifacients given to her.
\nLater, she had an abortion and then she had her menstrual periods.  Four  days
\nafter  the  first  incident,  A-1 called her to the Dharmasala through a small
\ngirl and had compulsory sexual intercourse, even though she did not  agree  to
\nit.   Though  she  tried  to  escape  from  A-1,  he forced her to have sexual
\nintercourse.  She says that A-1 used  to  take  photographs  while  they  were
\ntaking bath  and  used  to enjoy by showing them to foreigners.  She says that
\nwhen she became pregnant, P.W.17 was asked to take over the responsibility  of
\nher pregnancy.    She  did not tell about the incident to anybody since nobody
\ncan do anything overlooking A-1.  A-2 and A-4 to A-7 also told her that if she
\nreveals anything, she will be killed just like Ravi,  without  being  provided
\nwith food  and water.  She further says that in the meetings, A-1 used to talk
\nabout sex.  She says that Pushparani was ill-treated by A-1 by putting his big
\ntoe in her vagina and all the girls were compelled to see that incident.    In
\nthe  year  1992, Aruljothi was ill-treated, her head being smashed against the
\nwall.  She has admitted in the crossexamination that she did not  state  about
\nPushparani’s  incident  and  about the taking of photographs before the police
\nand in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.  She denied the suggestion that
\nher age is less.  She admits that she does not know the name  of  the  tablets
\nadministered to her by A-3.\n<\/p>\n
        57(e)  Insofar  as P.W.6 is concerned, she was below 16 years when A-1
\ncommitted rape on her twice.   She  had  stated  about  the  incident  in  her
\nstatement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.  She had given clear reasons as to how she
\ncould not  reveal  these things to the police.  Nothing had been stated in the
\ncross-examination so as to disbelieve the evidence  of  P.W.6.    The  learned
\ntrial Judge has commented on her evidence as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
                “The manner in which P.W.6 had narrated the              of
\nrape inspires confidence of the court.”\n<\/p>\n
        57(f)  D.W.15,  who claims to be a watchman appointed in the ashram in
\nOctober 1993, says that he  saw  Nesan  giving  one  paper  packet  containing
\nclothes  to P.W.6, Mary and that she was not happy because the clothes were of
\nold model.  He says that P.W.17, Anandan was found with Mary  and  Krishnaveni
\nin a  separate  room.   He also says that Anandan took Krishnaveni and Mary to
\nthe Guava Thope.\n<\/p>\n
        57(g) D.W.28 says that P.W.6 was brought to the ashram  by  a  teacher
\nand  that she was chased out of her house by her aunty and that the teacher is
\nsaid to have told the ashram people that she was standing alone on a road  and
\ntherefore, she had brought her to the ashram.  According to her, P.W.6 was not
\nshowing  much  interest  in  studies, but she wanted to dress up and roam with
\nboys.  During Saturdays and Sundays, she used to put on her make-up  and  walk
\nhere and  there.   In fact, she had reprimanded P.W.6 and thereafter, she left
\nto the railway station with two children, but was brought back  by  P.W.2  and
\nA-2.   P.W.6 is said to have told her that she wanted to leave the ashram, but
\nhad to come back.\n<\/p>\n
        57(h) D.W.33, an inmate of the ashram, claims to  be  a  room-mate  of
\nP.W.6.  According to her, P.W.6 will not be in her room after 11 pm.  She used
\nto put  on  make-up and used to chatter with the boys in the ashram.  She used
\nto adorn herself with ear-rings and wear fashionable clothes.  She used to cut
\nher hair herself and was moving with P.W.1 7 and P.W.2.  According to her, she
\nsaw P.W.17 and Mary moving closely in Dharmasala.  D.W.33 was residing in  the
\nashram during  the  time  of her evidence along with her sister, Priya.  While
\nher sister was studying in the High School at the ashram,  she  was  attending
\nthe Viralimalai Government School and residing in the ashram.\n<\/p>\n
        57(i)  D.W.21  is  the  father of D.W.33 who had filed a Writ Petition
\n(Habeas Corpus Petition) No.1807 of 1994, Ex.P.210.  In Ex.P.210,  a  Division
\nBench  of  this Court has observed in their order dated 17.12.19 94 as follows
\n:-\n<\/p>\n
        “We examined the detenue in our chambers.  According to her, her  date
\nof birth is 9.5.1979.  She has crossed 15 years and she is now a student in IX
\nstandard in  the  ashram school.  She is very specific while stating before us
\nthat she was not coerced or tortured by  the  police  to  give  any  statement
\nagainst  her  will  and  that  she  was  not  wrongfully confined or illegally
\ndetained.  She did not agree of having given a statement  when  questioned  by
\nthe  police  about  her  unawareness of all that had allegedly happened in the
\nashram.  She is now an inmate of an organisation called ‘Udavum  Karangal’  in
\nMadras.  Her father, a fruit-vendor, is a resident of Ezhil Nagar, a hamlet of
\nKeeranur.\n<\/p>\n
        Initially, she was interested in continuing her education in Madras in
\na  school where the authorities of ‘Udavum Karangal’ had promised to send her.
\nBut, however, after a talk with her father, the petitioner herein was  anxious
\nto go  with  him  and make her own arrangements to study in her village.  As a
\nminor, she is definitely entitled to go  with  her  guardian,  the  petitioner
\nherein.” (emphasis added)<\/p>\n
Contrary  to  this specific statement before the court, both D.W.21 and D.W.33
\nhave come forward to give a statement about the beating and the compulsion  by
\nthe police.  The evidence of D.W.33 is untrustworthy.\n<\/p>\n
        57(j) P.W.6 was not cross-examined on her relationship with P.W.17 nor
\nhas she  gone  away  from  the  ashram  after  being reprimanded by D.28.  The
\ndefence witnesses have miserably failed to paint P.W.6, Mary as a  girl  of  a
\nbad character.   On the contrary, it only shows the attempt on the part of the
\ndefence to create a wrong impression and to discredit the evidence  of  P.W.6.
\nAs  per  the  evidence  and her statement before the Division Bench as well as
\naccording to D.W.21, P.W.6 was a minor and in any event, below 18 years at the
\ntime of the occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
        58.  P.W.7-Selvakumari; Age-22\/94; Date of Examination-3.7.1996 :\n<\/p>\n
        58(a) Accident Register-Ex.P.37 dated 19.11.1994:  Hymen-Not intact.\n<\/p>\n
        58(b) Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.-Ex.D.4  dated  23.11.1994  :
\nShe  states  that  she  was  thinking  A-1 as God and that because of her love
\ntowards him, she went to his room and when A-1 asked her whether was wants  to
\nhave  sexual  relationship  with  him,  she  consented and thereafter, A-1 had
\nsexual relationship with her once.\n<\/p>\n
        58(c) Relevant Defence Witness :  D.W.8.\n<\/p>\n
        58(d) P.W.3 Sureshkumari, P.W.8 Sugunakumari and P.W.10 Sasikumari are
\nthe sisters of P.W.7.  A-1 is closely related to them (  relationship  similar
\nto their  father’s  brother).  She had completed VI standard and came to India
\nalong with her three sisters in the  year  1984  from  Sri  Lanka  through  an
\nunauthorised  boat  and  got  down  at Vedaranyam, from where A-1 took them to
\nTiruchy and they were put up initially in a rented house.  A-1 used  to  touch
\nand move  with  her  freely.   When she asked him why he should talk to her in
\nthat manner while he was like her  father’s  brother,  A-1  is  said  to  have
\nreplied  that  the  said  relationship  was  only  in  olden days and not now.
\nAccording to P.W.7, A-1 pressed her breasts and when she questioned  him,  A-1
\nis  said  to  have  replied stating that he liked it and therefore he does it.
\nSix months prior to his arrest, at 3 pm, when she was watering the plants, A-1
\ncame out of his room and called her to his room.  As soon as she  went  inside
\nthe room,  he removed her clothes and forcibly raped her.  When she refused to
\nco-operate, she was slapped.  She did not agree for  the  sexual  intercourse.
\nOn  a  second occasion, just one month prior to his arrest, at about 4 pm, A-1
\ncalled her again to his room and had forcible sexual intercourse with her.  As
\nshe missed her menstrual periods because  of  this  sexual  relationship,  A-1
\nhimself  gave  her certain tablets and threatened her that she should not tell
\nthis to anybody outside.  Because of the fear of ill-treatment at the hands of
\nA-1, she did not tell these facts to outsiders.  She says  that  A-1  gave  an
\ninterview that he would come out of the custody within two days and therefore,
\nfearing that he will do something against her after coming out, she has stated
\nsomething different  in  her  statement  under  Section  164  Cr.P.C.    P.W.7
\nvolunteered to say something more in the chief-examination, wherein  she  says
\nthat  in  the  year  1993,  A-1  compelled  her  to  suck his penis and he had
\nrepeatedly beaten compelling her to do the same.  She further says that he had
\nput his big toe in the vagina of Pushparani and when  Udayakumari  refused  to
\nconcede  to  the  illegal  desires  of  A-1,  she was put inside a dog kennel;
\nAruljothi had also suffered by her head being smashed against  a  wall.    She
\nalso says  that  A-1  used to talk about sex in the meetings.  P.W.7 withstood
\nthe cross-examination and has denied all the suggestions and has explained  as
\nto  why  she  could not say these things stating that because of the fear that
\nshe would be taken back to the ashram and would be subject to the  torture  by
\nA-1.  We find her evidence is true, natural and acceptable.\n<\/p>\n
        58(e)  D.W.8,  Nirmala Mathaji, who had been asked to speak in support
\nof A-1 about his highest morality, humility, etc.  and as to his conduct, says
\nthat she knew all the girls involved in the case.  She does not  say  anything
\nbad about  P.W.7.    On  the contrary, she says that P.W.7 used to help her in
\ncleaning the room for the outsiders and since she was meeting P.W.7  everyday,
\nshe would  have informed her if Swamiji had done anything wrong to her.  D.W.8
\nadmits that P.W.7 is a very open-hearted girl and that she would have  noticed
\nfrom her  behaviour,  if  anything  was  wrong.  Therefore, atleast as against
\nP.W.7, there is no defence witness alleging bad about her character.\n<\/p>\n
        59.  P.W.8-Sugunakumari @ Sudha; Age-16\/94; Date of  Examination-3.7.1
\n996 :\n<\/p>\n
        59(a) Accident Register-Ex.P.30 dated 19.11.1994 :  Not a virgin.  She
\nis accustomed to sexual intercourse.\n<\/p>\n
        59(b)  Statement  under  Section 164 Cr.P.C.-Ex.D.5 dated 23.11.1994 :
\nShe states that A-1 used to have erroneous sexual  relationships  with  girls.
\nTwo  years  earlier,  between 10 and 11 pm during night watch, when she was in<\/p>\n
her bed alone, somebody threw a powder  like  thing  on  her  and  she  became
\nunconscious,  and  after  ten  minutes,  she found herself in the room of A-1.
\nAfter seeing the face of A-1, she came away running from that room.\n<\/p>\n
        59(c) Relevant Defence Witness :  D.W.5.\n<\/p>\n
        59(d) P.W.3 and P.W.7 are the sisters of P.W.8.  She has studied  upto
\nVII standard.   She attained puberty in the year 1992.  Two months thereafter,
\nher sisters and other girls were sent out in a van.  Though she wanted  to  go
\nalong with them, A-1 refused to send her.  At about 10 pm before she could get
\nsleep,  A-1  came  to her room and threw some powder like thing and she became
\nunconscious.  A-1 lifted her and took her to his bedroom.  He  forcibly  raped
\nher and  she  could not even move.  After ten minutes, when she recovered, she
\ngot up and at that time, A-1 warned her that she should not tell this  to  any
\nother  girl, including her sisters and that if she tells the same, she will be
\nmurdered.  She had fever for three days thereafter.  One week thereafter,  A-1
\nsent for her.   She did not go because she was afraid to see A-1.  Thereafter,
\nA-1 came and by threatening her with a stick, took her to his room  and  raped
\nher like  an  animal.  A-1 again warned her that she should not tell this fact
\nto any outsider.  Thereafter, whenever she happened to see A-1,  she  used  to
\nhide herself.   Two months prior to the arrest of A-1, when all the girls went
\nto the trance interview room, P.W.8 was taken alone and raped before she tried
\nto prevent him.  The grown up finger nail of A-1 had caused a  serious  injury
\nto her  eye.    She says that three months prior to the arrest of the accused,
\nshe had told this incident to  P.W.3,  Sureshkumari.    She  has  emphatically
\ndenied all the suggestions in the cross-examination and has withstood the same
\nand her  evidence  has  not  been shattered and remains intact.  We accept her
\nevidence as true.\n<\/p>\n
        59(e) The trial  Judge,  while  seeing  the  demeanour  of  P.W.8,  in
\nparagraph 272 of her judgment, has remarked as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
        “While   recalling  the  forcible  act  of  rape,  the  court  noticed
\ntorrential flow of  tears  from  the  eyes  of  P.W.8.    With  all  pain  and
\nconscience-shocked,  the  court  listened  to the most startling and saddening
\nstory of P.W.8, who is yet to attain mental maturity.  Though  P.W.8  attained
\npuberty, she  is yet to grow physically and mentally.  Even her childish voice
\nis not broken into that of a grown up and adult woman.  The version  of  P.W.8
\nnot  only inspires the confidence of the court, but also shocks the conscience
\nof the court.  ”\n<\/p>\n
        60.  P.W.9-Puspharani; Age-16\/94; Date of Examination-4.7.1996 :\n<\/p>\n
        60(a) Accident Register-Ex.P.33 dated 19.11.1994 :  Age was  certified
\nto be  16 years as per her own statement and by physical examination.  She had
\nno complaints.  Hymen -Not intact.\n<\/p>\n
        60(b) Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.-Ex.P.132 dated 23.11.1994  :
\nShe  states that A-1 had forcible sexual intercourse with her in his room when
\nshe was 14 years old and she was warned that she should not tell that fact  to
\nanybody.\n<\/p>\n
        60(c) Relevant Prosecution Witness :  P.W.9.\n<\/p>\n
        60(d) Relevant Defence Witnesses :  D.Ws.10, 11 and 14.\n<\/p>\n
        60(e)  P.W.9  was left in the ashram when she was two years old by her
\nmother in Sri Lanka.  She came to India along with others in  the  year  1984.
\nShe  was  initially given sweeping work and night watch between 2 and 3 am and
\nafter some time, the duty was shifted between 10 and 11 pm.  She was beaten in
\nthe year 1992 for coming late to the night watch.  Thereafter, she was  called
\nto the  pooja  room of A-1 and there he raped her forcibly.  She had discharge
\nof blood and she did not inform this to others.  In the year  1994,  at  about
\n11.30  pm on one day, A-1 took her to a room in the Dharmasala and laid her on
\na table there and had forcible sexual intercourse with her.  Five to six  days
\nthereafter, she attended the meeting convened by A-1.  P.W.3, P.W.14 and P.W.7
\nwere present  in that meeting.  A-1 removed her clothes and directed the other
\ngirls to get hold of her ha nds and legs and beat her with a stick.   A-1  put
\nhis big  toe  in  her female part and pressed it for ten minutes.  A-1 did not
\nleave her even though she shouted out of pain.  At that time, P.W.3 got up and
\nleft the place, but, A-1 compelled her to sit.  P.W.9 had told P.W.16 that she
\ndid not like to be in the ashram.  But, the same was, in turn, informed to A-1
\nand only because of this he meted out this torture  to  her  by  removing  her
\nclothes and  insulting  her before others.  Thereafter, she did not attend the
\npooja and stayed in her room.  In the year 1994, two days prior to  Deepavali,
\nA-1  once  again compelled her to have forcible sexual intercourse with him in
\nhis room.  She never consented for the illegal sexual intercourse committed by
\nA-1.\n<\/p>\n
        60(f) In the cross-examination, she has explained as to  why  she  did
\nnot say  fully  about  these things before the police and the Magistrate.  She
\nhas denied all the suggestions, including the one that she was acting with the
\nsupport of P.W.1, who is in turn, the supporter of L.T.T.E.    in  Sri  Lanka.
\nShe  has withstood the lengthy crossexamination and suggestions put to her and
\nnothing has been elicited to discredit her evidence in the chief-examination.\n<\/p>\n
        60(g) D.W.10, whose evidence has been let in on behalf of the defence,
\nis related to A-1.  Her parents as well as her brother and sister  are  living
\nin the  ashram.   She speaks of the illegal relationship between P.W.9 and one
\nAmara Kumar.  Though her father was not doing any work, the ashram was meeting
\nthe expenses of her parents, her brother and her sister.  Though she was close
\nwith P.W.9, she had not informed anything about the rape incident to him.   In
\nher  chiefexamination,  a specific question was put to her as to whether P.W.9
\nwas sent for after she had attained puberty by A-1, for which she has  replied
\nin the negative.  We must remember that the father of D.W.10 is the brother of
\nA-1, but  still  such  a question has been put to D.W.10.  She has denied each
\none of the allegations made by the  prosecution  witnesses  like  the  torture
\nmeted out to Pushaparani, Krishnaveni and Aruljothi.  Even though she had told
\nthe  trial court that she had no complaint against the police and that she had
\nagreed to go out because her father was  prepared  to  take  her  outside  the
\nashram  and  inspite  of  fearing  that if she goes to the ashram, she will be
\nmurdered, she was taken to the ashram along with her parents  and  was  living
\nthere.  Therefore, the evidence of D.W.10 is unreliable.\n<\/p>\n
        60(h)  D.W.11 is a Mathaji of the ashram and she denies the allegation
\nmade by P.W.9.\n<\/p>\n
        60(i) D.W.14, Amara Kumar, who speaks ill of Sureshkumari,  also  says
\nthat after breaking his relationship with Sureshkumari, he started moving with
\nP.W.9 and  he  says  that he had sexual intercourse with her.  We have already
\nseen that the evidence of D.W.14 is totally unreliable.\n<\/p>\n
        60(j) The court, while observing the demeanour of  P.W.9,  found  that
\nwhile  narrating  the  ugly episode, the court could realise the psychological
\nharassment to this girl.  When she was confronted with  the  question  of  her
\nhumiliation,  she  developed  a  kind  of  giddiness  and  uneasiness  and the
\ncross-examination had to be stopped at this juncture and  could  be  continued
\nonly the  next  day.    P.W.9  was  not  questioned  about her alleged illegal
\nrelationship with D.W.14 and obviously, D.W.14 was led in  by  the  appellants
\nfor  the  purpose  of  discrediting  the  witness,  but in our view, they have
\nmiserably failed to do so.\n<\/p>\n
        61.  P.W.10-Sasikumari; Age-16\/94; Date of Examination-4.7.1996 :\n<\/p>\n
        61(a) Accident Register-Ex.P.29 dated 19.11.1994 :   As  per  her  own
\nstatement and  by  physical  examination,  she  is  16  years  old.    No  age
\ncertificate.  Hymen-Not intact.\n<\/p>\n
        61(b) Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.-Ex.D.6  dated  23.11.1994  :
\nStudying VII standard.   Admits night watch for girls.  Talks about the act of
\nA-1 of embracing and squeezing her breasts.  Further  says  that  her  sister,
\nSureshkumari, P.W.3 used to go to the room of A-1.\n<\/p>\n
        61(c) P.W.10  is  the sister of P.Ws.3, 7 and 8.  P.W.8 and P.W.10 are
\ntwins.  Her mother is D.W.32, Deivanai.  She was left  in  the  Boopalakrishna
\nAshram at Sri Lanka along with the other sisters at the age of 2.  She came to
\nIndia  in  the year 1984 by boat and arrived at Vedaranyam and from there, A-1
\ntook them to Crapatti, Tiruchy.  All of them went to the present ashram in the
\nyear 1986.  She attained puberty in the year 1993 when she was 15  years  old.
\nShe was confined to her room during that time for 15 days.  After 15 days, A-1
\ncame to  her  room and gave her a kiss after embracing her.  The next day, she
\nwas asked to come out of the room.  She was assigned the job  of  night  watch
\nbetween 10  and 11 pm.  On one of these days while she was in her night watch,
\nshe saw A-1 taking one girl by name Kumari to his room.    There  will  be  an
\nhourly  pooja in the ashram and the room of A-1 is 50 feet away from the spot.
\nWhen she was near that place on one day, A-1 signalled her  to  come  to  him.
\nWhen  she  went  there, he asked her to come closer to him and he squeezed her
\nbreasts and compelled her.  Fearing further advances from A-1, she  ran  away.
\nTwo days  thereafter,  she  was  given night watch between 1 and 2 am.  During
\nthat time, A-1 came and dragged her inside his room.  She tried to wriggle out
\nof the clutches of A-1, but he slapped her repeatedly and forced her  to  have
\nsexual intercourse,  though  she  did  not agree for the same.  Though A-1 had
\ntaken a number of girls separately to the Arulvakku room and he had  committed
\nrape on them, she was threatened that if she revealed any of those things, she
\nwould be  made a samadhi.  P.W.10 says that A-1 had warned her and other girls
\nthat even though he was in the human form, he was the God and that they should
\nnot reveal anything either to the police or to the Magistrate.  P.W.10  admits
\nin  the  cross-examination that she did not tell the acts of A-1 either to the
\npolice or to the Magistrate and also says that the other girls who were  doing
\nthe night  watch  did  not  also  know  about this.  Nothing has been elicited
\ncontradicting the evidence given P.W.10 except the usual suggestions that  she
\nhad not stated these before the police and the Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
        61(d)  The  defence  witnesses  have  not stated anything against this
\nwitness in order to discredit her evidence, except referring to  a  photograph
\nalleged  to have taken during the birthday celebrations of A-1, wherein P.W.10
\nwas found to have participated.  The argument that if she had  been  raped  by
\nA-1,  she  would  not  have  participated  in  the  function happily cannot be
\naccepted since her mere participation in a  function  does  not  lead  to  the
\ninference that nothing would have happened to her.\n<\/p>\n
        62.  P.W.11-Shantha; Age-34\/94; Date of Examination-4.7.1996 :\n<\/p>\n
        62(a) Accident  Register-Ex.P.39  dated  21.11.1994  :   Admits sexual
\ncontact with a known male person for one year, three times with her own  will.
\nHymen-Not intact.\n<\/p>\n
        62(b)  Statement  under  Section 164 Cr.P.C.-Ex.D.7 dated 24.11.1994 :
\nAdmits consented sexual relationship with A-1 thinking that she was  the  only
\nwoman with whom A-1 was having relationship.  Now that she has learnt that A-1
\nhad  sexual  relationship  with  her  sister  Vanitha  and  she had to undergo
\nabortion, the 100% faith that she had reposed in A-1 had failed and  that  she
\nwas shocked.\n<\/p>\n
        62(c)  P.W.11,  who  is  a post-graduate qualified lady, says that she
\ncame to India in the year 1984 due to the ethnic problems in Sri  Lanka  along
\nwith her parents, two sisters and two brothers and they were initially staying
\noutside the  ashram.  She got contact with the ashram when her mother, who had
\nstrong faith in religion and God, went to the ashram for the treatment of  her
\nbrother.  P.W.11 believed that A-1 is the incarnation of God and that he could
\ntake out  lingam  from his stomach.  P.W.11 worked hard for the development of
\nthe ashram.  They believed that because of the viboothi prasadam given by  A-1
\nto her  mother,  her  diabetes  problem  was  reduced.  In the ashram, she was
\nattending to the people who come to the trance interview of A-1.  She used  to
\ngive  advance  information  to  those  persons  who  wanted to have the trance
\ninterview with A-1.  In November 1991, at about 4 pm,  when  she  was  in  the
\ntrance interview  room,  A-1  embraced  her.  When she questioned as to why he
\nmust do like, A-1 is said to have replied that he is the  incarnation  of  God
\nand that when many people are longing to touch his hand, she must be fortunate
\nthat he  was embracing her.  According to her, he made her believe that he was
\nthe messenger of God and then, even though she did not initially  consent  for
\nthe  sexual  intercourse, he made her to agree and had sexual intercourse with
\nher.  She did not inform this to her parents.  When her parents  were  looking
\nfor  a bridegroom for her, she had told them that she had decided not to marry
\nand dedicate her life to the ashram.  She was the editor of a magazine  called
\n‘Premavahini’ coming from the ashram.\n<\/p>\n
        62(d)  P.W.11  further  says  that A-1, by his designed act, created a
\nrift between her father and brother and they left the ashram.  Ultimately,  he
\nalso  kept  Vanitha,  P.W.13, her own sister and tried to create a competition
\nbetween herself and Vanitha in order to get the attention of A-1.  Her another
\nsister, Geetha was studying B.A.  outside while staying in the  ashram.    A-1
\nwas  keeping  Vanitha  in  his  own room for a week on the ground that she was
\nhaving urinary problems.  A-1 did not  allow  P.W.11  or  her  mother  to  see
\nVanitha.   In  November  1992,  A-1  had  sexual  intercourse  with her in the
\nvisitors’ room even though she was not willing for the  same.    In  the  year
\n1992, when P.W.13 Vanitha, the sister of P.W.11, started vomitting, she wanted
\nto take  her  to  the  doctor.    P.W.13  did not tell her the reasons for her
\nvomitting, but told her that A-1 would take care of it.  Thereafter,  A-2  and
\nA-4  took  Vanitha  in the Contessa car of A-1 to Thanjavur and kept her there
\nfor three days.  When she enquired, A-1 had told her that P.W.13 was having an
\nulcer and therefore she was vomitting.  After coming back, Vanitha became very
\nlean and was bed-ridden.  In November 1993, at about 11 pm, when she was alone
\nin the room of Divya Mathaji, A-1 came there and had sexual  intercourse  with
\nher, though  she  did  not  give her complete consent.  She had allowed sexual
\nintercourse by A-1 only because she thought that he is God incarnate.\n<\/p>\n
        62(e) P.W.11 has denied the suggestion that she was  deposing  at  the
\ninstance of  P.W.1  and  others.   She has stated in her crossexamination that
\nwhen A-1 was taken into custody and before he got into the police vehicle,  he
\nhad  told  the  people in the ashram that he would come back within three days
\nand in view of the fact that he will come back, she  did  not  say  all  these
\nthings  before  the  police and had suppressed the real facts in her statement
\nbefore the police.  She says that A-1 had, in his lectures, stated that  great
\nsaints  had  sexual  relations with many women in their private lives and made
\nher believe that A-1 was also one  such  saint  who  could  have  such  sexual
\nrelations  in  his  personal  life  and  that is why she did not oppose to his
\nforcible sexual relationship with her.  She had denied the  usual  suggestions
\nthat she  was  supporting P.W.1, who was trying to help the L.T.T.E.  and that
\nher parents were also supporting the L.T.T.E.  and only because of  that  they
\nwere sent  out  of the ashram.  She admits that her sister Geetha had become a
\nSanyasin in the ashram in the year 1992.    She  denied  the  suggestion  that
\nGeetha was  having  relationship  with  one  Jayaraj.   All the three sisters,
\nnamely herself P.W.11 Geetha and P.W.13 Vanitha were taken together  and  they
\nwere enquired  separately.    She says that there was no restriction either in
\nthe police station  or  in  the  institution,  ‘Udavum  Karangal’.    She  has
\nclarified what she meant in her statement before the doctor under Ex.D.39 that
\nshe had sexual relationship with a known person, which refers only to A-1.\n<\/p>\n
        62(f)  P.W.11 is a grown up, well built Post Graduate qualified woman.
\nHer evidence is that she had consented for  the  sexual  relations  with  A-1.
\nThough  she  makes  out a case of A-1 having mislead her and therefore she had
\npermitted her company, we are not able to see that force had been used by  A-1
\nin her  case.  Hence, we find that the charge of rape as against P.W.11 is not
\nestablished.\n<\/p>\n
        63.  P.W.12-Udayakumari; Age-21\/94; Date of Examination- 5.7.1996 :\n<\/p>\n
        63(a) Accident Register-Ex.P.40 dated 21.11.1994  :    Accepts  sexual
\ncontact with a known male person one year back.  Hymen-Not intact.\n<\/p>\n
        63(b) Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.  :  Not recorded.\n<\/p>\n
        63(c)  P.W.12  is  a  Sri Lankan national and is the sister of P.W.15,
\nMalligadevi and D.W.29, Kanthan and they came to India in the year 198 4.  She
\ncame along with the other girls and was kept in the rented house  by  A-1  and
\ncame to  the  ashram  in  the year 1986.  She was assigned the work of looking
\nafter the dogs.  In the year 1990, A-4 took her on  the  requisition  by  A-1.
\nWhen  she went inside the room of A-1, he asked her whether she was willing to
\nhave relationship with him.  P.W.12 is said to have stated to A-1  as  to  how
\nshe  could  have relationship with him when she was brought up by him from her
\nchildhood onwards and that she was seeing A-1 as her father and mother.  After
\nshe came away, A-1 was having a grudge against her on her refusal.  Therefore,
\non the pretext that she was not taking care of the dogs properly, he  put  her
\nin the dog kennel for three days without providing food or water.  Thereafter,
\nin  May 1993, when she was watering the plaints, at about 4 pm, A-1 forced her
\nto have sexual intercourse with him by pushing her down, even though  she  did
\nnot consent  for  the action of A-1.  Since he was lying on her, she could not
\ndo anything.  She says that A-1 would not allow her to talk to her brother  or
\nsister  and  therefore,  she could not tell about the rape committed by A-1 to
\nanybody.  According to her, there are a number of  orphans  like  her  in  the
\nashram.\n<\/p>\n
        63(d) In the cross-examination, she has given other particulars on the
\ndog kennel.    According to her, the dog kennel is of 8 feet width and 10 feet
\nheight and it is a stone built-up room.  There is a gate for the said  kennel.
\nThere used to be five dogs which were of the Kombai variety and she was inside
\nthat kennel  for three days.  She further says that A-1 took her from her room
\nand put her in the dog kennel at about 9 am and  that  nobody  in  the  ashram
\nprevented A-1  from  doing so.  She says that while she was inside the kennel,
\nthe dogs did not bother her.  She says that when she was forced to have sexual
\nintercourse by A-1 in the flower garden, he closed her mouth  and  though  she
\nwanted to  shout, she could not make any noise.  She further says that at that
\ntime, all others had completed their work and had gone away  and  that  before
\nshe could decide what was to be done, A-1 had completed his intercourse within
\nten minutes.  Her evidence is trustworthy and is acceptable.\n<\/p>\n
        63(e)  The  learned  trial  Judge  has observed as to the demeanour of
\nP.W.12 during her examination and has stated in paragraph 304 of her  judgment
\nas follows :-\n<\/p>\n
        “P.W.12 had narrated the entire incident in a simple manner and in her
\nown language.   The court could notice the reflection of pain and suffering on
\nher face.  There was torrential flow of tears even while she was recalling the
\nincident.  During the examination, she could not control herself when she  was
\nquestioned  as  to  whether  she  had  consented for the act committed on her.
\nNothing could be more perverse than to reject the  testimony  of  this  victim
\ngirl.\n<\/p>\n
        64.  P.W.13-Vanitha; Age-24\/94; Date of Examination-5.7.1996 :\n<\/p>\n
        64(a) Accident  Register-Ex.P.57  dated  21.11.1994  :  Contact with a
\nknown male person for more than four years.  MTP done twice.   Last  abortion,
\ntwo years back at Thanjavur.  Hymen absent.\n<\/p>\n
        64(b)  Statement  under  Section 164 Cr.P.C.-Ex.D.8 dated 24.11.1994 :
\nAdmits of sexual contact while she was studying Plus One and she thought  that
\nit could  be  Satish Kumar.  Consequently, she became pregnant and was aborted
\nat the instance of A-1.  A-1 called her one day to  have  sexual  contact  and
\nbecause of  the  love  she  had  for  A-1,  she  agreed for the same.  She was
\nthinking that A-1 was having relationship only with  her.    She  became  five
\nmonths’  pregnant and she was taken to Thanjavur by A-1 and she was staying in
\nthe hospital at Thanjavur for three days.  After returning from the  hospital,
\nA-1 had sexual relationship with her again.\n<\/p>\n
        64(c) Relevant Prosecution Witnesses :  P.Ws.3, 11, 16, 18 and 26.\n<\/p>\n
        64(d) Relevant Defence Witnesses :  D.Ws.15 and 41.\n<\/p>\n
        64(e)  P.W.13  is  the younger sister of P.W.11, Shantha and the elder
\nsister of Geetha.  Her brother’s name is Prithviraj.  She came to India  along
\nwith  her  family  from  Sri Lanka in the year 1984 due to the ethnic violence
\nthere.  They were living separately at R.M.S.  Colony at Tiruchy.   They  came
\nto the  ashram  in the year 1989 and were staying with their parents.  She was
\nasked to take care of the work of Divya Mathaji in July  1991,  when  she  was
\nstudying Plus  Two.    In July 1991, while she was sleeping in one of the four
\nrooms of A-1 in the midnight at 1 am, somebody had covered her  face  and  had
\nsexual intercourse  with  her  forcibly.  She was not in a position to wriggle
\nout of the situation.  Only after the man got off her, she  realised  that  it
\nwas A-1.   He  was  wearing  a  cap  at  that time.  When she asked A-1 in the
\nmorning about it, he denied the same.  Because of that intercourse, she missed
\nher period and became pregnant.  As per the procedure that whenever they  miss
\ntheir  periods,  they  must intimate the same to Mathaji, she informed this to
\nMathaji and A-1.  A-1 got her urine for examination and sent the same  through
\nA-7.   Thereafter,  she  was taken to Thanjavur by A-1, A-2 and A-5 along with
\nP.W.3.  The car was driven by A-2.    At  Thanjavur,  she  was  taken  to  Dr.
\nGomathi’s Hospital  and  her  pregnancy  was aborted.  After staying for three
\ndays in the hospital, she was taken back to the ashram by car.   The  car  was
\ndriven by  A-2.    After returning from the hospital, A-1 kept her in his room
\nfor five days and did not allow her to see her parents.  She was studying B.A.
\nFirst Year in the Seethalakshmi Ramasamy College at Tiruchy in the year  1992.
\nIn  July  1992,  at about 3 pm on a Saturday, A-1 called her in reference to a
\nwork.  As soon as she went inside the room, A-1 closed the  doors  and  pushed
\nher on to the bed and had forcible sexual intercourse, even though she did not
\nagree for  the  same.   Due to this sexual intercourse, she missed her periods
\nfor five months and became pregnant.  A-1 sent her urine for  examination  and
\nafter  finding that she was pregnant, she was taken to Thanjavur by A-4 at the
\ninstance of A-1.  She got the pregnancy aborted in the hospital there  by  Dr.
\nBalendran.   The  doctor  had  advised  her  that she must not have any sexual
\nrelationship as her uterus was very weak.  Three  days  thereafter,  she  went
\nback to  the  ashram  and  she was in a very weak condition.  She did not tell
\nthese facts to anybody because she believed that A-1 had godly powers and that
\nif she tells these facts to outsiders, her family would be harmed.   Ten  days
\nafter  her  second  abortion,  P.W.13  told  A-1  that she was informed by the
\nhospital authorities that she was in a very weak condition.   After  listening
\nto her,  A-1 had forcible sexual intercourse with her.  In October 1994, while
\nshe was studying Final Year B.A., at about 11 am, A-1 called her and when  she
\nwent  to his room, he had forcible sexual intercourse with her, though she did
\nnot agree for the same.  P.W.13 further goes on to say that she did  not  tell
\nthis to her parents because A-1 had told them that he did not have potency and
\nfearing that   he   would   harm   her   family.     She  has  stated  in  her
\ncross-examination that her statement before the doctor  that  she  had  sexual
\nrelationship with  a  known  male  person  refers only to A-1.  She denied the
\nsuggestion that she had illegal relationship with others and also  denied  the
\nusual suggestions that she was supporting P.W.1, Ambikanandan in his design to
\ncreate a rift in the ashram, etc.<\/p>\n
        64(f) P.W.3  and  P.W.11  corroborate  the  case of P.W.13.  P.W.3 had
\naccompanied P.W.13 when she  was  taken  to  the  hospital  at  Thanjavur  for
\nabortion.   When  P.W.11  Shantha  asked A-2 about P.W.13, A-2 is said to have
\ntold her that P.W.3  was  having  stomach  ulcer  and  that  is  why  she  was
\nvomitting.   The soiled pads of P.W.13 were disposed of by P.W.1 6, who was in
\nthe kudil of A-1.  The evidence of P.W.11 and P.W.16 clearly  corroborate  the
\nversion  of  P.W.13  that  she  was  kept in the room of A-1 for his continued
\nsexual relationship.  P.W.18, the brother of P.W.5, denied the  suggestion  in
\nthe cross-examination  that  he  did not love P.W.13.  No such love affair was
\nsuggested to P.W.13  in  the  box.    The  evidence  of  P.W.13  is  true  and
\nacceptable.\n<\/p>\n
        64(g) P.W.26,  Dr.   Gomathi, has admitted that she had treated P.W.13
\non the reference letter given by A-1.   She  was  a  Special  Grade  Assistant
\nProfessor  and  temporary  Civil  Surgeon  at  the  Thanjavur  Medical College
\nHospital at that time.   She  says  that  she  was  practising  as  a  private
\nconsultant since  1986.   She is a devotee of A-1 and used to visit the ashram
\nalong with her family members and receive the blessings of A-1.  She admits of
\nhaving seen  P.W.13,  five  years  earlier  when  she  came  to  her  hospital
\naccompanied  by  a  male  person along with a reference letter written by A-1.
\nShe says that she had examined P.W.13 and had prescribed medicines to stop her
\nbleeding and had advised her to meet her again  if  there  was  any  complaint
\nregarding menstruation.    When  P.W.13  was taken to Thanjavur by A-1 and A-2
\naccompanied by P.W.3 and P.W.5, it was for the purpose of doing  the  abortion
\nto her.    P.W.13  has  categorically  stated  as  to  she was admitted in Dr.
\nGomathi’s hospital and undergone the abortion.   Therefore,  the  evidence  of
\nP.W.26  to  the  effect that she has prescribed medicine to P.W.13 to stop her
\nbleeding does not  lead  us  anywhere.    It  was  not  a  case  of  irregular
\nmenstruation or  amenorrhoea.   It is not understandable as to how when P.W.13
\ncame there having missed her periods and having become  pregnant,  P.W.26  has
\nprescribed medicines to stop her bleeding.\n<\/p>\n
        64(h)  D.W.15,  a national of Congo, who came to ashram in October, 19
\n93 and was attending the work of night watch says that he saw  P.W.13  in  the
\nlap  of  P.W.18,  Dinesh  and  that  he  had  complained about the same to the
\nMathajis.  This witness had been found to be speaking in support of the  story
\nof  the  defence to the effect that all the victim girls had love affairs with
\nothers and had no moral character.   No  credence  can  be  attached  to  such
\nsweeping allegations made without any materials.\n<\/p>\n
        64(i)  D.W.41  is  a Mathaji of the ashram, who says that P.W.13 never
\ncomplained to her anything about A-1 and gives her own opinion about P.W.13 as
\na girl who used to flirt with boys.  D.W.41 is a partisan witness inasmuch  as
\nshe  was  interested  in  saving  A-1,  as  is  clear from her evidence and no
\ncredence, therefore, can be attached to her allegations.  P.W.13 has not  been
\nquestioned on these allegations made by D.W.15 and D.W.41.\n<\/p>\n
        65.  P.W.15-Malligadevi; Age-20\/94; Date of Examination-18.7.1996 :\n<\/p>\n
        65(a) Accident Register-Ex.P.32 dated 19.11.1994 :  Hymen-Not intact.\n<\/p>\n
        65(b)  Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.-Ex.P.133 dated 23.11.1994 :
\nSays that the initial attempts of A-1 were resisted by her,  but  admits  that
\nshe  permitted  A-1 to have sexual intercourse thinking that she will be cured
\nof Asthma.\n<\/p>\n
        65(c) Relevant Defence Witnesses :  D.Ws.10, 11 and 29.\n<\/p>\n
        65(d) P.W.15 is the younger sister of P.W.12, Udayakumari.    She  was
\nattending the  library  duty  along  with  night  watch.  According to her, in
\nNovember 1991, when she was attending to the night watch between 10 and 11 pm,
\nA-1 called her to his room th h a ten year old boy.  There, he forced  her  to
\nhave sexual  intercourse  with  him,  but ran away from his room.  Five months
\nthereafter, in April 1992, she had told A-1 that since she was having  Asthma,
\nshe would  not  be able to do the work in library.  However, A-1 compelled her
\nto do the library duty.  While returning from the duty  at  about  2  pm,  A-1
\nsignalled to  her  from his room to come near him.  As soon as she went inside
\nhis room, A-1 embraced her.  P.W.15 told  him  that  if  she  gets  the  child
\nwithout marriage, people will talk ill of her, for which A-1 is stated to have
\nreplied  that  if  she  had  sexual intercourse with him, she will be cured of
\nAsthma and thereafter, he pushed her  on  the  bed  and  had  forcible  sexual
\nintercourse with  her.   A-1 did the act for a period of ten minutes and after
\ncompletion, she returned to her room, weeping.  She has stated that since  A-1
\nhad  warned her that she should not reveal these things to the police, she did
\nnot say these things in the police enquiry.\n<\/p>\n
        65(e)  In  the  cross-examination,  P.W.15  has   denied   the   usual
\nsuggestions  of  her failure to state these facts before the police as well as
\nbefore the Magistrate.  But, she has categorically  stated  in  her  statement
\nthat  since  A-1  had  left the ashram threatening that he would come back and
\nwould beat her and torture if she revealed these  things  to  the  police  and
\nfurther,  she  being  an  orphan without parents, she had no other place to go
\nexcept the ashram and hence, she did not tell these facts to the police.   She
\ndenied  the  suggestion  that  Anandan  had  any relationship with her and she
\nfurther says that even if two girls were talking together, A-1 would not  like
\nit.    She   had   withstood   the   lengthy,   and   at   times,  humiliating
\ncross-examination suggesting personal relationship.  Her evidence is clear and
\ncategorical.  We find her evidence as acceptable.\n<\/p>\n
        65(f) The defence has suggested to D.W.10 that P.W.15 was in love with
\nP.W.18, Dinesh.  Even D.W.12, Anantha Kumar had stated  that  P.W.17  used  to
\nboast  of  his  relationship  with girls, but no reference was made to P.W.15.
\nThe suggestion made to P.W.15 that she  was  having  contact  with  P.W.17  is
\nwithout  any  foundation  and  only reveals the inconsistent defence story put
\nforward to portray the victim girls as immoral.\n<\/p>\n
        66.  P.W.55-Krishnaveni; Age-25\/96; Date of Examination-30.8.1996 :\n<\/p>\n
        66(a) She came to India along with Divya Mathaji and  was  staying  in
\nthe ashram.    According to her, while she was attending to the night watch in
\nthe year 1992, between 1 and 2 am midnight, A-1 called her and  asked  her  to
\nconcede to  his  sexual demands in his room.  P.W.55 snatched herself from A-1
\nand came away running.  Because of her refusal, the next day, A-1 tied her  to
\na calf  and  made her to run along with it.  Consequently, she had severe pain
\nfor a period of two weeks.  Thinking that if she continued in the ashram,  she
\nwould  be  killed,  she  was  about  to  leave the gate of the ashram when two
\npersons caught hold of her and brought her to A-1.  A-1 beat her severely  for
\nher attempt and made her to sit for three hours in his room after removing her
\nclothes.  He also warned her that she should not tell about this punishment to
\nanybody and in case she tells the same, she would be killed.  In January 1994,
\nat  about 3 pm, A-1 came to her room, pushed her on the floor and had forcible
\nsexual intercourse with her.  Again, in August 1994, at about  12  noon,  when
\nshe  was  preparing for the pooja, she was sent for by A-1 and she went to his
\nroom.  When she stood outside and called A-1, he asked her to come in  and  as
\nsoon as  she went inside, he had forcible sexual intercourse with her.  Again,
\nin September 1994, when she was attending the  night  watch  duty  along  with
\nMary,  A-1 took her to his room, pushed her on the bed and had forcible sexual
\nintercourse.  At that time, he covered her mouth with his hand and warned  her
\nthat if  she  reveals this outside, she would not be alive.  P.W.55 went on to
\nsay that five to six days prior to his arrest  on  19.11.1994,  A-1  told  the
\ngirls  in  the  ashram  that he may be arrested and even if he is arrested, he
\nwould come back within one or two days and warned them that  they  should  not
\ntell anything  about his sexual relationship.  She says that she knew Anandan,
\nbut did not have any sexual relationship with him.\n<\/p>\n
        66(b) It is seen that no charge  has  been  framed  on  this  evidence
\nprobably  because of her failure to reveal these things in her statement under
\nSection 161(3) Cr.P.C.  No medical examination was conducted  on  her  either.
\nFurther,  she  was  not  arrayed  along  with  the  other girls as prosecution
\nwitness.  It is seen that it is at the instance of the defence  and  on  their
\npetition,  P.W.55  was  produced and she came out with startling facts against
\nA-1.  Even after the disclosure of the sexual assault and  rape  committed  on
\nher by  A-1,  the  prosecution  did  not  frame  the charge on this count.  As
\npointed out, this only goes to show the fair and impartial investigation.   In
\nthe crossexamination, P.W.55 has stated that she had told these facts to P.W.3
\nand not  to  the Mathajis or the teachers.  According to her, she had not told
\nthese facts to Mark Dennis or P.W.1, Ambikanandan.   She  says  that  A-1  had
\nasked  her  to  say,  whenever  there  was  an  enquiry,  that  she had sexual
\nrelationship with Anandan and that is why when she was  subsequently  examined
\nby  the  lady doctor at Pudukottai, she has stated that she was used to sexual
\nintercourse.  According to her, A-1 had sexual intercourse with her 10  to  15
\ntimes, but  she  could  recollect  only  three  of them.  She has rejected the
\ndefence statements made by P.W.17.  She has reiterated the  torturous  conduct
\nof A-1 of tying her with the calf and ask her to run.  She further says in the
\ncross-examination  that when A-1 had sexual intercourse with her for the first
\ntime, she had unbearable pain and that she had fever for a week and  that  she
\ndid not  go  for  the  pooja  and  A-3  gave medicines for her fever.  She has
\nwithstood the cross-examination.  It is revealed  that  A-1  had  specifically
\nasked her to say that she was having sexual relations with P.  W.17, which she
\nrefused.   This  shows the plan of A-1 to portray that the girls in the ashram
\nwere having illicit affairs.  The evidence of this witness is  clear,  natural
\nand trustworthy.   Her evidence corroborates the evidence of P.W.3, the threat
\nas spoken to by all the prosecution witnesses, the torture and ill-treatment.\n<\/p>\n
        67.  P.W.16-Latha; Age-30\/94; Date of Examination-18.7.1996 :\n<\/p>\n
        67(a) She was a resident of Mathalai, Sri Lanka and she is  an  orphan
\nhaving no parents.    She  was  left in the ashram at her very young age.  She
\ncame to India along with ten girls and ten boys in the  year  19  84  and  was
\nstaying in  the  rented  house at Tiruchy provided by A-1.  They later shifted
\ntheir residence in the year 1986 to the ashram conducted by A-1.  According to
\nher, in the year 1987, P.W.3 was called by A-1 for  giving  viboothi  prasadam
\nand when  P.W.3 went inside the room of A-1, P.W.16 was standing outside.  A-1
\nhad compelled P.W.3 to concede to his sexual desire and P.W.16 could hear what
\nwas going on, as she was standing just outside the room of  A-1.    P.W.3  was
\ncrying and had refused to concede to the demands of A-1.  She heard A-1 saying
\nto  P.W.3  that he was like her father and that if she had sexual relationship
\nwith him, she will not  beget  any  child  and  that  she  could  have  sexual
\nrelationship with  him without any fear.  However, P.W.3 was shouting that she
\nwould not concede to the demand and within 20 to 25 minutes, A-1 came  out  of
\nthe room  and  some  time  thereafter,  P.W.3  also came out weeping.  A-1, on
\nseeing P.W.16, asked her what she  was  doing  there,  for  which  P.W.16  had
\nreplied stating  that  she was just sitting.  He further asked her whether she
\nhad heard  their  conversation  inside,  for  which  P.W.16  answered  in  the
\naffirmative.   A-1  told her that she should not reveal this to anybody and if
\nshe does that, she would be beaten.  Hence, she did not tell this incident  to
\nanybody else.    She further says that in June 1991, P.W.16 along with P.W.13,
\nVanitha, were asked to come and sleep in the room of A-1.  P.W.13 was sleeping
\nin one of the rooms and P.W.16 was in another room.  At about 1  am  midnight,
\nshe heard  the  cries  of  P.W.13  and  her shouting, ” Please leave me.  I am
\nafraid.  It is paining”.  After hearing these shouts, P.W.16 went  inside  the
\nroom where  P.W.13  was  sleeping.  At that time, A-1, by covering the face of
\nP.W.13, was raping her like an animal and having sexual intercourse.\n<\/p>\n
        67(b) P.W.16 further says that P.W.13, Vanitha became pregnant and A-1
\nwas keeping Vanitha in his room after she was brought back from  the  hospital
\nafter abortion.    She  further  says  that  for  the purpose of giving egg to
\nP.W.13, she was asked to get eggs from the shop outside.  She says that in the
\nyear 1992, at about 5 am early morning, she heard P.W.5 crying.  In  order  to
\nfind  out  why  P.W.5 was crying, she went to the room of A-1 and saw that A-1
\nwas committing forcible sexual intercourse on P.W.5.  A-1, after  having  seen
\nP.W.16  witnessing the occurrence, warned her that she should not tell this to
\nanybody and if she says that, she would meet the same fate as  that  of  Ravi.
\nShe  further  says that A-1 started beating her so as to forewarn her that she
\nmust not reveal about this  occurrence  to  anybody.    Unable  to  bear  this
\ntorture, she  consumed  poison  (pesticide).    She  was taken and admitted in
\nBhuvaneswari Hospital for this purpose.  A-3 was attending her.  A-1, A-2  and
\nA-4 to  A-7  also came and saw her.  She was warned that she should not reveal
\nthat she had consumed poison.  A-2 and A-4 to A-7 also  warned  her  that  she
\nshould  not  reveal  the beatings and the consumption of poison to the police.
\nIn the year 1994, according to her, when she was attending the pooja room, she
\nwas talking with P.W.4, Nallammal.  At that time, A-1 called her and asked her
\nwhat was she talking about with Nallammal, for which she had replied that  she
\nunderstood  P.W.4  was  pregnant  and that she was enquiring her as to who was
\nresponsible for her pregnancy and that P.W.4 was refusing to reveal the  name.
\nA-1  asked  P.W.16  whom  she  thinks  must be responsible for that, for which
\nP.W.16 is stated to have replied that it must  be  A-1.    Infuriated  by  her
\nreply, A-1  said  that  he  would take care of her after coming back.  Finding
\nthat her continued presence in the ashram will  endanger  her  life,  she  had
\ndecided to  leave  the ashram.  She says that she had told all these things to
\n“The Indian Express” people and when police examined her two  months  earlier,
\nshe had informed the same to them.  She says that she did not specifically say
\nabout  the  rape  committed by A-1 on P.Ws.3, 5 and 13 because of the fear and
\nthe warning of A-1.  She says that P.W.1  was  attending  the  requirement  of
\nVanitha, including  providing  of  sanitary  napkins  to her.  On the basis of
\nthis, she presumed that Vanitha had aborted, though she did not say  that  she
\nhad undergone  abortion.    A-1  also gave P.W.16 the stained sanitary napkins
\nused by Vanitha for disposal.  Though P.W.16 is not a victim of rape  by  A-1,
\nher evidence corroborates the rapes committed by A-1 on P.Ws.3, 5 and 13.  Her
\nreplies  to  A-1  also show that A-1 had a suspicion that she may reveal these
\nfacts and had beaten her severely, consequent on which she had consumed poison
\nand was treated for the same.  Though she was cross-examined  at  length,  she
\nwithstood the  same and her evidence has not been shattered.  On the contrary,
\nshe has clearly spoken to about  the  sexual  relationship  of  A-1  with  the
\nprosecution witnesses, including Divya Mathaji.\n<\/p>\n
        68.  P.W.14-Aruljothi; Age-21\/94; Date of Examination-12.7.1996 :\n<\/p>\n
        68(a) Accident Register-Ex.D.9 dated 21.11.1994 :  Admits contact with
\na known male person for five years.  Hymen absent.\n<\/p>\n
        68(b)  Statement  under  Section 164 Cr.P.C.-Ex.D.10 dated 21.1.1995 :
\nShe says that they were attending to the work of clearing the  land  purchased
\nat Fathima  Nagar  by  A-1  by  removing  the  stones, bushes, etc.  When they
\nrequested permission from A-1 to go to school, he asked to attend to the  work
\ngiven to  them  and  to take care of their studies later.  She says that after
\nshe attained puberty, within two months, she was asked to oil massage the  leg
\nof  A-1  and  thereafter,  he  compelled  her  to  hold  his private parts and
\nthereafter, he pushed her on to the bed and inspite of her crying,  he  closed
\nher mouth  and  had  forcible  sexual  intercourse with her.  She could not do
\nanything.  She was weeping and she was warned by A-1 that if she tells this to
\nanybody, she will not be given food and will be beaten.  On the next  day,  at
\nabout 5.30 am, P.W.14, along with four girls, escaped from the ashram and went
\nto one  Amman  Temple.    They were found out by the Secretary of A-1 and were
\ndragged to the car and brought back to the ashram.  Again, A-1 took her to his
\nroom and had forcible sexual intercourse with her.  Out of  the  fear  of  his
\nbeating, she  had to concede to his demands.  Whenever she missed her periods,
\nshe would inform the same to Divya Mathaji who  will,  in  turn,  inform  A-1.
\nP.W.3  will  be  asked to give unriped pine-apple and P.W.14 was asked to take
\nthe whole fruit.  After the news came in “The Indian Express “, she was warned
\nthat she should not reveal these things to the police.  On the next day,  when
\nthey  were  doing  night  watch  between  11 and 12 midnight, A-1 sent for her
\nthrough A-4.  A-1 forced her to have sexual intercourse.  This  happened  five
\ndays prior  to  his  arrest.    She  missed  her  period  subsequently  and on
\nexamination, she was informed that she had conceived.  She requested that  the
\npregnancy  may be terminated, for which she was informed that unless the court
\npermits, the same could not be done.\n<\/p>\n
        68(c) Relevant Prosecution Witnesses :  P.Ws.3, 4, 6 and 7.\n<\/p>\n
        68(d) Relevant Defence Witnesses :  D.Ws.6, 8, 28, 10, 47 and 48.\n<\/p>\n
        68(e) She is a native of Sri Lanka, born at Mathalai.  From the age of
\n2, she was brought up  in  the  ashram  at  Mathalai.    The  ashram  by  name
\nBoopalakrishna Ashram  was  run  by A-1.  He left the ashram in the year 1983.
\nP.W.14, along with others, came to India by a boat in the year 1984.  A-1 took
\nthem in a van to Crapatti at Tiruchy and kept them in a  rented  house.    She
\nattained puberty  in  the  year 1987.  In the year 1988, on the day of Krishna
\nJayanthi, when she was sleeping with P.W.3, at about 5.30 am, A-1 came to  her
\nroom,  put his dhoti on her face and had forcible sexual intercourse with her.
\nIn the year 1989 , at about 4 pm, she was called by A-1 to  his  room  and  he
\nasked her  to  put oil on his private parts.  When she refused, she was beaten
\nseverely.  She was warned that she should not reveal these things to  anybody.
\nOn  the next day, at about 5.30 am, she, along with four other girls, ran away
\nfrom the ashram and they were in the Samayapuram Amman Temple.   However,  the
\nrelative  of  A-1  could  trace  them and they were forcibly taken back to the
\nashram.  A-1 tied all the three girls and beat them.  In the year  1991,  when
\nshe  was preparing food in the kitchen, at about 1 pm, A-1 came there and took
\nher to a room and had forcible sexual intercourse with her.  Because of  this,
\nshe missed  her  menstrual periods.  She says that on every Sunday, A-3, along
\nwith Divya Mathaji, will have a meeting to enquire about the  missing  of  the
\nmenstrual periods  for the girls.  When P.W.14 informed them about her missing
\nthe period, A-3 gave her  some  tablets  and  after  taking  the  tablets  and
\npine-apple and papayya, she got the conception aborted and thereafter, had her
\nregular menstrual periods.  However, within two days after this, while she was
\nbleeding  for  the  second  day, A-1 had forcible sexual intercourse with her.
\nThis time, she got fever and she was treated by A-3.   One  month  thereafter,
\nwhen she was attending to the pooja, at about 1 pm, A-1 came there, pushed her
\non the  floor and had sexual intercourse in the pooja room itself.  Because of
\nthat, she again missed her periods.  Once again, A-3 gave her tablets and  did
\nthe abortion.    In  the year 1992, when she was called by A-1, she did not go
\nbecause she was suffering from fever.  On the next day, when  she  was  taking
\nfood,  A-1  came  there,  caught  hold of her and smashed her head against the
\nwall.  He took a stick and thrusted it in her eyes, consequent  on  which  she
\nhad lost her  proper  vision.  This happened in front of all the girls.  About
\nfive days before the arrest of A-1 in the year 1994, when  she  was  attending
\nthe  night watch duty, at about 12 midnight, A-4 came and took her to the room
\nof A-1 saying that A-1 was calling her.  As soon as she went inside the  room,
\nA-1  closed  the  doors,  pushed  her  on  the  bed  and  had  forcible sexual
\nintercourse with her, though she  did  not  agree  for  the  same.    She  had
\nmenstruation 20  days  prior  to this occurrence.  Before A-1 was taken by the
\npolice, he had convened a meeting, wherein he had warned them  that  he  would
\ncome  back  within  two  days  and that they should not tell anybody about the
\nsexual relationship with them and that there will not be  anybody  to  provide
\nthem food  and  shelter.   Earlier, he had also warned them five days prior to
\nhis arrest in the same manner.  A-1 took her  separately  and  threatened  her
\nthat she  should  not  reveal  anything.    P.W.14 says that she had no sexual
\nrelationship with anybody except A-1.  In January 1995, when she was  examined
\nby  the  doctor  at  the  Government  Hospital,  she was informed that she was
\npregnant.  She requested that the pregnancy may be  terminated,  but  she  was
\ninformed that the same could not be done without the permission of the court.\n<\/p>\n
        68(f)  P.W.14  was  subject  to  lengthy  cross-examination, while her
\nchief-examination was  brief  and  specific   to   the   points.      In   the
\nchiefexamination,  she  states  that  now  she  had  no  fear  since it was an
\n‘incamera proceedings’ and the doors of the court had been closed and that she
\nwas able to say whatever she wanted as she was free to say.  Hence,  according
\nto her, she had stated all what she had not stated before the Magistrate.  For
\na  specific  question,  she says that since there are many other girls spoiled
\nand affected, she wanted to say all the facts, but could not say everything in
\nthe enquiry on 18.1.1995 and before the Magistrate on 21.1.1995.  She was  ten
\nyears old  in  the  year  1984.    On  19.11.1994, when the police came to the
\nashram, they enquired as to the number of girls raped by A-1.  The enquiry was
\ndone by a woman police and at that time, nobody  dared  to  reveal  the  facts
\nbecause,  an  hour  before A-1 was taken into custody, he had warned them that
\nthey should not reveal his sexual relationship with them.  She says  that  she
\ncame  to  know  that  other girls were also spoiled by A-1 only when they were
\nexamined by the police at the Pudukkottai Women Police  Station.    They  were
\ntwenty girls  at  that  time  on  21.11.1994.  Only after coming to the police
\nstation, they got the courage and confidence that A-1 would  not  be  able  to
\ncome back  and  they  decided  to  give  the statement before the police.  She
\nadmits that they had started disclosing the facts after the police beat  them.
\nThe  defence wanted to make much out of this in support of their plea that the
\npolice had tortured the witnesses.  This will  be  without  understanding  the
\nfull implication of the statement of P.W.14 under Section 164 Cr.P.C.  In that
\nstatement,  as  referred  to earlier, she has set out the whole history of her
\nlife, as to how she had suffered at Tiruchy to clean the dry land and  develop
\nit  and  how she was not allowed to attend the school so that they may be made
\nto take physical labour out of them and that after she attained  puberty,  how
\nA-1   compelled  her  to  massage  her  private  parts  and  committed  sexual
\nintercourse with her forcefully and that when she escaped from the ashram, she
\nwas brought back and beaten severely and that the last rape took place four to
\nfive days prior to the arrest of A-1.  In this context, the  relevant  portion
\nof the  statement of P.W.14 under Section 164 Cr.P.C.  is translated hereunder
\n:-\n<\/p>\n
        “Balan came in search of me at about 12 midnight and took  me  stating
\nthat Premananda  Swami  is  calling  me.  After letting me inside Premananda’s
\nroom, he went away, locked the door.   On  that  day  also,  Premananda  Swami
\ncompelled me to have sexual intercourse.  This happened five days prior to his
\narrest.   While  Premananda  Swami  was  arrested,  police also took us to the
\nPudukkottai Police Station in a jeep.  In the police station, we were enquired
\nabout the character of Premananda Swami.  Since Premananda has already kept us
\nunder threat, myself and others did not reveal anything to the police.   After
\nthe  police  beat  us,  myself  and other girls informed that we were raped by
\nPremananda.  Only at that time, I came  to  know  that  Premananda  Swami  was
\nhaving sexual relationship with other girls.”\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, the allegation cannot be taken out of context as if the police have
\ntortured P.W.14  to  make  a  false accusation against A-1.  Some of the girls
\ncould not come out of the fear created by the warnings of A-1.  Besides,  this
\nwould also mean exposing their personal life and humiliation to them.  In that
\ncontext,  the  beating could have meant to shake off their inhibition and fear
\nand make them free to say what they wanted to say.    Some  of  their  initial
\nreluctance  not  to  come  out with the truth was got over by the assurance of
\npolice.  P.W.14 has emphatically stated that as stated in  Ex.D.10,  prior  to
\nA-1  having  sexual  intercourse with her for the first time, she did not have
\nsexual relationship with any other man.  That was her first experience.\n<\/p>\n
        68(g) P.W.14 was asked to give a detailed description as  to  how  A-1
\ncommitted   sexual   intercourse   with   her   for  the  first  time  in  the
\ncross-examination, for which she has stated that when  A-1  had  first  sexual
\nintercourse  with  her, her virginity hymen was broken and there was bleeding.
\nA-1 had completely inserted his penis  in  her  female  part  and  had  sexual
\nintercourse.   Because  of  the  bleeding, there were stains on her clothes as
\nwell as on the bed.  When A-1 had the first sexual intercourse, she had severe
\npain.  Few days thereafter, she had fever.  In the bathroom of  A-1,  she  had
\nwashed her  private  parts  and thereafter only she went to her room.  She had
\ncleaned her clothes also in the bathroom.  She stayed in the room of  A-1  for
\nhalf-an-hour and she suffered pain and fever for seven days thereafter.  After
\nshe  was  raped by A-1, she had taken unriped pine-apple and papayya twice for
\nabortion and what she had stated before the police is true.   She  has  stated
\nshe  was  forced to undergo the sexual intercourse after massaging of his legs
\nwas done in the year 1989 and the abortion was in the year  1993.    She  also
\nsays  that  once  menstruation  stopped, A-3, after examining the girls, would
\ngive unriped pine-apple and papayya as well as tablets.  She denied that these
\nwere given only for the purpose of regularising the menstruation.\n<\/p>\n
        68(h) P.W.14 was once again cross-examined in reference  to  the  last
\nepisode in  detail.  She says that when the doctor examined her on 21.11.1994,
\nfearing that her pregnancy would be detected, she gave water  instead  of  her
\nurine.   She  has  stated that since she had menstruation 21 days prior to the
\nexamination and thinking that there was a possibility of conception, she  gave
\nwater instead  of  urine.   She was extensively cross-examined on this aspect.
\nShe says that when she was  enquired  at  Madras  after  confirmation  of  her
\npregnancy, she  has  stated  that  she  had sexual relationship with A-1.  She
\ndenied any sexual  relationship  with  A-7.    What  she  had  stated  in  her
\nchief-examination   remains  unshattered  inspite  of  a  very  unfair  length
\nexamination.  She had  been  subjected  to  severe  cross-examination  without
\nrespect to  the  modesty and the age of the witness.  From her evidence, it is
\nabundantly clear that she was subjected to rape in the  year  1988  and  1989,
\nwhich of  course,  was before the charge period.  But, this would only show as
\nto the manner and methodology that A-1 had  indulged  in,  forcing  young  and
\ninnocent girls  to  commit  rape  on  them.   The first instance as far as the
\ncharge period is concerned occurred in the year 1991 at Dharmasala when P.W.14
\nwas taken from the Dharmasala at about 1 pm to the room of  A-1  and  she  was
\npushed  on  to  the  bed  and  A-1  had  forcible sexual intercourse with her,
\nconsequent on which she did  not  have  her  menstrual  period.    The  second
\ninstance was within two days of her menstruation which occurred because of the
\nsupply of  tablets  and  pine-apple  by  A-3.    Even on the second day of her
\nmenstrual bleeding, A-1 had forcible sexual intercourse with her,  because  of
\nwhich she  had  fever.    On  the  third occasion, a month thereafter, A-1 had
\nsexual intercourse with her in the pooja room itself, consequent on which  she
\nmissed  her  menstrual period and on this occasion also, she was given tablets
\nby A-3.  The last crucial forcible sexual intercourse was five days  prior  to
\nthe arrest  of  A-1.   P.W.14 became pregnant because of the rape committed by
\nA-1 either  on  14.11.1994  or  15.11.1994,  which  is  supported  by  medical
\nevidence.   According  to  P.W.44,  the  foetus was aged 14 to 15 weeks as per
\nP.M.O.  63, Ultra Sonogram Picture.  P.W.14 was enquired into  and  thereafter
\nto ‘Udavum Karangal’ at Madras.  Having had her last menstruation on or ab out
\n29.10.1994,  she  missed her next menstruation around 21.11.1994 to 2.12.1994.
\nBesides, she developed morning sickness and thereafter, she was taken  to  the
\nGovernment Hospital  on  5.12.1994  for check-up.  However, only when she went
\nfor a second examination on 15.1.1995, her pregnancy was confirmed by a second
\nreport.  In Ex.D.10, P.W.14 has clearly stated as to how the conception should
\nhave taken place consequent on the rape committed on her either on  14.11.1994
\nor 15.11.1994.\n<\/p>\n
        68(i)  The  commission  of  rape by A-1 on P.W.14 in the year 1988 was
\ncorroborated by the evidence of P.W.3 who was sleeping along  with  P.W.14  on
\nthe  fateful  day  in  the  year 1988 and she also describes as to how A-1 had
\ncommitted rape inspite of the refusal by P.W.14, though this rape was  not  in
\nthe charge period.\n<\/p>\n
        68(j) P.W.4, Nallammal corroborates the beating of P.W.14 by A-1 while
\nthey were  talking.  Consequent on the beating, P.W.14 suffered eye injury and
\nher vision was affected thereafter.  Of course, the reason for beating  P.W.14
\nhas  been  stated  in  her  evidence, namely that she refused to attend to the
\nurgent sexual call of A-1.\n<\/p>\n
        68(k)  P.W.7,  Selvakumari  also  confirms  the  incident   in   which
\nAruljothi’s  head  was dashed against the wall by A-1 and as to how her vision
\nwas affected.  In fact, this open  torture  was  intended  to  create  a  fear
\npsychosis  in  the minds of the girls who had refused to toe in line with A-1.
\nNo suggestion was put to P.W.14 about her character or affair with A-7.\n<\/p>\n
        68(l) As it is the case with other victim girls, without laying proper
\nfoundation, a number of  questions  were  put  to  the  defence  witnesses  to
\npicturise  the victim girl as immoral and having free sexual relationship with
\nother boys.  D.W.16, the own brother of P.W.14, has  stated  that  she  had  a
\nliking  for  P.W.2,  Nesan and that she had not complained to him that she was
\nsexually abused by A-1.\n<\/p>\n
        68(m) Another defence witness D.W.28, Chitrangani, who is  the  warden
\nor  care-taker  of  the  girls  in  the  ashram,  refers to various incidents,
\nincluding the one connecting P.W.14 with A-7 in a cattle shed and that she had
\ncaught them red-handed.  No particulars or date of this incident was given and
\nno action appears to have been taken against her  consequent  on  the  alleged
\ndiscovery by D.W.28.\n<\/p>\n
        68(n)  D.W.8, Nirmala Devi Mathaji, who is the disciple of A-1 and who
\nwas preparing an affidavit at the instance of lawyers for taking A-1 on  bail,
\nalso speaks  about  the  relationship  of P.W.14 with A-7.  As is the habit of
\nA-1, they were trying to find out a scapegoat for the  admitted  pregnancy  of
\nP.W.14  which  had  escaped  the  regular  weekly  meetings and the subsequent
\n‘natural treatment’, since by that time, A-1 was arrested and was in  custody.
\nThe  first accused appears to have attempted to tamper and win over the victim
\ngirls by offering cash for their proposed marriages, for which he  would  make
\narrangements through  D.W.32  as  evidenced  by the letter, Ex.P.215.  Another
\ninstance is made through P.W.14 after having obtained orders for  getting  her
\nblood sample, P.W.14 refused to give her sample subsequently.  Further, he had
\nmade a statement that A-7 was responsible for the pregnancy and not him.  This
\nstatement  is  not  an  evidence  and is obviously contrary to all her earlier
\nevidence.  Finding that the medical evidence is unimpeachable,  she  had  been
\nwon over to say so in the court.  It was out of context and has no evidentiary
\nvalue.\n<\/p>\n
[C]     Modus Operandi :\n<\/p>\n
        69.   From  a combined reading of the evidence of the victim girls, as
\ndiscussed above, we are able to find a pattern of attack by A-1 on the  victim
\ngirls and the modus operandi of A-1 in committing rape and sexual abuse on the
\nvictim girls, can be summarised below.\n<\/p>\n
        70.   All  the  victim  girls, being inmates of the ashram from a very
\ntender age, were brought up and were at the mercy of A-1, he being responsible
\nfor shifting them from Sri Lanka to India through illegal means by a boat  and
\nit  is  he who had received them at Vedaranyam and had taken them to a private
\nresidence at Tiruchy and later to the present ashram  premises.    The  victim
\ngirls,  though some of them have parents, brothers and sisters, were under the
\ncomplete control of  A-1  for  everything  like  food,  water,  education  and
\nclothing.   Excepting  few  girls,  others  were not allowed to get themselves
\neducated and they were made to attend the personal needs of  A-1  or  to  take
\ncare  of the ashram, including development of the land, gardening, taking care
\nof the dogs and other works of the ashram like  cooking,  cleaning,  preparing
\nfor pooja, etc.<\/p>\n
        71.   Another  strange  practice  seen  is  that once the girls attain
\npuberty, they are kept in a secluded room for 15 days.  It is A-1 who used  to
\ntake them in his arms and kiss them before they are let outside.  According to
\nA-1,  kissing the grown up girls is the show of affection by them towards him.
\nTaking advantage of the physical and psychological state of mind of the  girls
\non  their attaining puberty, and their seclusion for 15 days, they were forced
\nto submit themselves to the sexual intercourse with A-1.  They were  initially
\ncajoled  and  enticed  to  have sexual intercourse stating that A-1 had divine
\npowers and that they must be blessed by his act  of  sexual  intercourse  with
\nthem;  sometimes, out of sheer force, resorted to sexual intercourse with them
\nand on their refusal, put them to severe beating and torture.  Once the  girls
\nsubmit  themselves,  inspite  of  their  initial  resistance,  then the second
\noperation becomes easier for A-1.  A-1, unmindful of  the  presence  of  other
\ngirls  whom  he  had already raped, commits rape and makes it appear that they
\nwill keep it with themselves without revealing about it to others, of  course,
\nby threatening   them   with  dire  consequences.    Whenever  there  was  any
\nresistance, they were severely dealt  with.    A-1  was  fully  aware  of  the
\nconsequences  of  rape  and  the  other  accused  have  assisted  not only the
\ncommission of the rape by A-1, but helped the termination  of  conception  and
\npregnancy of the girls by providing natural abortifacients, tablets, drugs and
\nif  these  methods  fail,  take  the  girls  to  hospital for carrying out the
\nabortions.  A-1 has schemed the presence of victim girls by  giving  them  odd
\njobs, including  night  watch.    He  had  chosen  unsuspected  places for his
\noperation.  He had taken  advantage  of  his  spiritual  cover  and  with  the
\nassistance  of  the other accused, had a free run of his nefarious activities.
\nThe above general pattern can be  easily  demonstrated  by  referring  to  the
\nevidence of  P.Ws.3, 16 and 55.  Their evidence is corroborated by the medical
\nevidence, their statements before the  Magistrate  and  the  evidence  of  the
\napprovers in  this case, P.W.1 and P.W.2.  Though their evidence was sought to
\nbe discredited by letting in defence witnesses in opposition to each and every
\nallegation made by  the  prosecution  witnesses,  we  find  that  the  defence
\nwitnesses have miserably failed in their attempts and we find that all of them
\nare  procured witnesses, not telling the truth, and are out to help A-1 out of
\nthe situation.  Many of them are still living in  the  ashram  and  there  are
\nMathajis  ordained  by  A-1  and  hence,  no credence could be attached to the
\nevidence of these defence witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
[D]     Medical evidence regarding the parenthood of A-1 :\n<\/p>\n
        72.  P.W.14, Aruljothi, one of the victim girls, is  alleged  to  have
\nbeen  raped  by A-1 at 5.30 pm in the room where she was sleeping on a Krishna
\nJayanthi day in the year 1988.  The second incident of rape is alleged to have
\ntaken place in the kudil of A-1 in the year 1991.  The third alleged  rape  on
\nP.W.14 by  A-1  was  in his room, five days prior to his arrest.  Aruljothi is
\nunmarried.  In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she had specified  the
\ndate of  the  last  sexual intercourse by A-1, which would be 14.11.1994.  She
\nwas lodged in the social service  organisation  ‘Udavum  Karangal’  at  Madras
\nalong with the other girls.  She was taken to the Government Hospital, Kilpauk
\non  15.1.1994  and  again on 17.1.1995 and on examination, she was found to be
\npregnant.  On her request for aborting the foetus with the permission  of  the
\ncourt, doctors were requested to abort the foetus of P.W.14 and to collect the
\nproducts of conception and her sample blood to be sent for D.N.A.  Testing and
\nafter  getting  her  consent,  her  pregnancy  was  terminated on 21.2.1995 by
\nP.W.44, Dr.  Shantha Gokuldoss with the assistance of Dr.  Kamala.    Ex.P.100
\nis the abortion certificate issued by Dr.  Kamala.  In the meantime, C.C.M.B.,
\nHyderabad was  contacted  for  getting  the  D.N.A.  examination of the sample
\ndone.  The Director of C.C.M.B.  was addressed as per Ex.P.206.  This was much
\ncommented upon by the defence.  The request of the prosecution for  scientific
\nexamination  cannot  be  construed  as  a  request  for  a  favourable report.
\nC.C.M.B.  is an independent body and the Scientists  there  are  professionals
\nand are  in  no  way  obliged to the prosecution.  We do not find any merit in
\ntheir suspicion  or  substance.    As  per  their  instructions  and  circular
\nEx.P.172, the  products  of conception and 10 ml.  sample blood of P.W.14 were
\ncollected by P.W.56 in the special containers sent by C.C.M.B.    and  sealed.
\nOn  the  same  day at 4 pm, P.W.35 collected the sealed parcel from P.W.56 and
\nthe same was handed over in person to C.C.M.B., Hyderabad on 22.2.1995  at  10
\nam.   Again,  as per the requisition of the Judicial Magistrate, after filling
\nup the proforma sent by C.C.M.B.  and after affixing  the  photograph  of  A-1
\ntherein, 10  ml.    sample  blood  was  taken from A-1 by P.W.46 on 22.2.1995.
\nEx.(A) Identification Card-1 is  the  said  proforma.    After  obtaining  the
\npermission   from   the  Judicial  Magistrate,  P.W.33  collected  the  parcel
\ncontaining the sample blood  of  A-1  from  P.W.46  and  he  travelled  in  an
\nairconditioned  car  to  Madras  and  at Madras, it was handed over to P.W.34,
\nInspector of Police who was then waiting.  The said parcel was handed over  to
\nC.C.M.B.  at Hyderabad by P.W.34.\n<\/p>\n
        73.  After  examining  the samples, P.W.59, Dr.  Lalji Singh has given
\nhis report, Ex.P.185, opining that A-1, Premananda  was  responsible  for  the
\nproducts   of   conception\/aborted   foetus  beyond  reasonable  doubt,  whose
\nbiological mother is P.W.14, Aruljothi.  His further reports are Exs.P.189  to
\nP.191.\n<\/p>\n
        74.  With the permission of the court, on behalf of the defence sample
\nblood  was  taken  from A-1 on 24.3.1997 and the sample of the foetus was also
\ncollected from  C.C.M.B.,  Hyderabad  by  D.W.49  and  D.W.46.    P.W.14   had
\nsubsequently refused  to give her sample blood for defence purpose.  According
\nto D.W.49, the available samples  were  sent  to  the  University  Diagnostics
\nLaboratory, London, United Kingdom on 1.4.1997.  Ex.D.98 is their report which
\nhas opined that A-1 cannot be the father of the foetal tissues.\n<\/p>\n
        75.  The  prosecution called in P.W.59, Dr.  Lalji Singh in support of
\ntheir report that A-1 is the  biological  father  of  the  aborted  foetus  of
\nP.W.14.  D.W.49 was also called as a witness by the defence.\n<\/p>\n
        76.   In  the  light  of  this  conflicting  expert  testimony,  it is
\nnecessary to understand the scientific background of D.N.A.\n<\/p>\n
        76(a) The basic unit of life is the Cell.  Each Cell contains the same
\ngenetic programming.   Within  the  nucleus  of  the  Cells  is  the  chemical
\nsubstance known as D.N.A.\n<\/p>\n
        76(b)  D.N.A.,  Deoxy  Ribo  Nucleic  Acid, is the fundamental natural
\nmaterial which determines the  genetic  characteristics  of  all  life  forms.
\nHumans  have  human  form  and  elephants  have  elephant  form because of the
\ndifferences in the make up of the respective D.N.A.  Every cell that  contains
\na nucleus  contains  D.N.A.   There are approximately 10 trillion cells in the
\nhuman body and almost all of them contain D.N.A.  The red blood cells which do
\nnot have nuclei are significant exceptions.  Within humans, much of the D.N.A.
\nIs identified.  It is this identity of D.N.A.  that makes all humans look like
\nhumans.  Humans create human offspring by transferring their D.N.A.  to  their
\nchildren.  The science of genetics states how and why this happens.\n<\/p>\n
        76(c) D.N.A.    Is  composed of a long double helix which looks like a
\nspiral staircase.  A single D.N.A.  molecule consists of  approximately  three
\nbillion base pairs.  The sequence of these three billion base pairs along with
\nthe hand rails of the D.N.A.  is the key to the information represented by the
\nD.N.A.   This  sequence  is  responsible  for producing arms, legs, kidneys or
\nbrain cells.  Of this sequence, approximately three million  sites  vary  from
\nperson to  person.  There are numerous differences between individuals because
\nof the manner in which the base pairs are arranged.  These  variations  called
\n‘Polymorphisms’ occur  in  different  regions  of  D.N.A.    They  are readily
\ndetachable when there  lengths  are  altered  by  the  action  of  restriction
\nenzymes,  thereby  giving  rise  to  ‘Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism
\n(RFLP)’.  Identical twins are the exceptions.  Since they are both the product
\nof a single union between one egg and one sperm cell, the twins’  D.N.A.    is
\nidentical.\n<\/p>\n
        76(d) Each  individual’s  D.N.A.    is  apportioned  into  46 discrete
\nsections within  the  nucleus  of  each  cell.    These  sections  are  called
\nChromosomes.   22  of  these chromosomes come from the mother and 22 come from
\nthe father.  They are genetically arranged  in  pairs.    Additional  two  sex
\ntyping chromosomes denominated ‘X’ and ‘Y’ are present.\n<\/p>\n
        76(e)  During  reproduction, the chromosome pairs of mother and father
\nsplit apart and then re-combine.  It takes one chromosome from the mother  and
\none  chromosome  from  the  father  to create 22 new chromosome pairs of their
\nchild.  Females have two ‘X’ chromosomes  and  males  have  one  ‘X’  and  ‘Y’
\nchromosomes, thus giving each human a total of 46 chromosomes.\n<\/p>\n
        76(f) A  portion of D.N.A.  which is responsible for certain traits is
\ncalled ‘Gene’ (e.g., different person has a gene for the production of  eyes).
\nAll humans  have  thousands of genes located on the 46 chromosomes.  Each gene
\nis located at a specific site or locus, upon a specific chromosome.  Alternate
\nforms of genes are called ‘Alleles’.  This total pool of  genetic  information
\nis known as Human Genome.\n<\/p>\n
        77.   In  recent  years, scientists have discovered certain methods by
\nwhich they can extract the D.N.A.  from a cell and  examine  the  patterns  of
\ninformation contained  in  the  cells.   Using these methods, scientists claim
\nthat they are now able to determine if two samples of D.N.    A.    containing
\nmaterials  have  come  from  the  same individual or if there is a paternal or
\nmaternal relationship between the two samples.\n<\/p>\n
        78.  Isolation of D.N.A.  is the first step for forensic  analysis  of
\nthe sample.    There  are  generally  accepted techniques and experiments that
\nexist  that  are   capable   of   producing   reliable   results   in   D.N.A.
\nidentification.  There are eight separate scientific procedures or experiments
\nwhich are conducted.  They are :-\n<\/p>\n
        (1)     Digestion of D.N.A.  into fragments by restriction
\nenzymes.\n<\/p>\n
        (2)     Separation of D.N.A.  fragments by electrophoresis.\n<\/p>\n
        (3)     Staining the separate fragments for getting\nillumination by ultra-violet exposure.\n        (4)     Transferring the D.N.A.  on to a nylon membrane.\n        (5)     Hybridisation with a labelled probe of interest.\n        (6)     Stringent washing of the membrane.\n        (7)     Autoradiography.\n        (8)     Analysis of the band pattern produced by the\nmethod.\n\n<\/pre>\n
The  laboratory  can  then  examine  the  processed  x-rays and based upon the
\nlocation of the markings, make a determination as to whether a D.  N.A.  match
\nhas occurred.\n<\/p>\n
        79.  Having understood the process involved in D.N.A.    Analysis,  we
\nhave to consider :-\n<\/p>\n
        (1)     Whether the D.N.A.  evidence is generally accepted       by
\nthe scientific community ?\n<\/p>\n
        (2)     Whether the testing procedure used in this case is
\ngenerally accepted as reliable, if performed            properly ?\n<\/p>\n
        (3)     Whether the tests were performed properly in this        case
\n?  and
\n        (4)     Whether the conclusion reached in this case is
\nacceptable ?\n<\/p>\n
        80.  It  is  stated  that  the D.N.A.  evidence is admissible in every
\nState and Federal Circuit in one form or the other in  the  United  States  of
\nAmerica.   No other scientific technique has gained such widespread acceptance
\nso quickly and no other technique has been  potentially  as  valuable  to  the
\ncriminal justice system  as the D.N.A.  It is submitted that D.N.A.  Typing is
\npossibly the most powerful innovation in forensics since  the  development  of
\nfinger printing  in  the  last  part of the 19th century.  In a recent book by
\nHaren Lavey titled “And the Blood Cried Out”, it is  stated  that  by  January
\n1990, D.N.A.    Analysis had been admitted into evidence in at least 185 cases
\nby 38 States and the U.S.  Military.\n<\/p>\n
        81.  The journal  “Forensic  Science  International”,  Volume-88  No.1
\ndated  18th  July  1997,  a  special  issue  relating to the legal position of
\nForensic D.N.A.  Analysis in Europe gives the report from  various  countries.
\nAs per  the  report, the following countries have accepted D.N.A.  Analysis as
\nreliable, viz., Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands,  Belgium,  The  Republic  of
\nIreland,  France,  Italy,  Greece,  Spain,  Portugal, Austria, Switzerland and
\nGermany, subject to certain  limitations.    For  instance,  in  Denmark,  the
\nresults of  D.N.A.  investigations were used more systematically since 1990 in
\ncriminal cases such as rape, homicide, etc.  Since  1990,  there  has  been  a
\ntendency  in  court  decisions  to  put  more  and  more  emphasis  on  D.N.A.
\ninvestigations.   In  Norway,  based  on  recommendations  from  an   official
\ncommittee,  some  changes have been introduced in the Norwegian Legislation to
\nallow the use of D.N.A.  evidence in criminal case work.  But, in Finland, the
\ntests are not used as 100% evidence.  In Sweden, D.N.A.    Analysis  has  been
\nregarded  by  the  court,  and in the public opinion, as an important tool for
\nforensic case work right from the beginning.  In 1990, the Dutch Supreme Court
\nadmitted the use  of  D.N.A.    as  exculpatory  evidence.    A   new   D.N.A.
\nLegislation  was  incorporated  in  the  Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure from
\n1.9.1994, which forces non-consenting defendants to give biological  reference
\nsamples, and  the  results of the D.N.A.  tests can be used as proof of guilt.
\nInsofar as France is concerned, the consent of interested parties is mandatory
\nwith the restriction that in the  case  of  a  suspect,  his  refusal  can  be
\ninterpreted as a prima facie evidence.\n<\/p>\n
        82.  D.N.A.    evidence  has  been  accepted  in  the United States of
\nAmerica in a number of  high  profile  cases,  like  for  instance,  the  O.J.
\nSimpson’s Case (PEOPLE of State of California vs.  Oranthal James Simpson).<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
        83.  From  the  above,  it is clear that D.N.A.  Analysis is generally
\naccepted and recognised in general.  Some of the decisions of the U.S.  Courts
\nwhich have accepted D.N.A.  results are referred to hereunder :-\n<\/p>\n
        83(a) In People of the State of New York vs.  Joseph  Castro,  Supreme
\nCourt of New  York,  Bronx  County  (545 N.Y.S.  2d 985 ; LEXSEE 144 Misc.  2d\n<\/p>\n
956), it was concluded that there is  general  scientific  acceptance  of  the
\ntheory underlying D.N.A.      Identification   and   that   D.N.A.    forensic
\nidentification  technique  and  experiments  are  generally  accepted  in  the
\nscientific  community  and  can produce reliable results, though in that case,
\nthe D.N.A.  Identification evidence was found inadmissible.\n<\/p>\n
        83(b) In U.S.A.  vs.  Sylvester Young @ Buddie Young, U.S.    District
\nCourt for the District of South Dakota, Central Division (754 F.  Supp.  739 ;
\n1990  US  District  LEXIS  18657) dated December 18, 1990, the Court held that
\nD.N.A.  evidence is generally accepted by the scientific community.   In  that
\ncase,  it  was  held  that  the  technique  used was reliable, the testing was
\nproperly performed and the evidence was more probative than prejudicial.\n<\/p>\n
        83(c) In State of Washington vs.  Curtis Scott Buckner, Supreme  Court
\nof Washington  (125 Wn.  2d 915) dated March 16, 1995, the Court took the view
\nthat the Restricted Fragment Length Polymorphism method of D.N.A.   Typing  is
\nadmissible  under the Frye Standard, though ultimately the court remanded that
\ncase for further proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
        83(d) In People of the State of New York vs.   Basheen  Rush,  Supreme
\nCourt of  New York, King’s County (165 Misc.  2d 821) dated June 7, 1995 , the
\nCourt concluded that D.N.A.  evidence alone was legally sufficient to  support
\nthe guilty verdict.  In this case, the Court has observed that there appear to
\nbe  two  reported  decisions  in  the U.S., both of which have upheld criminal
\nconvictions where the sole evidence linking the  defendant  to  the  crime  is
\nD.N.A.  evidence.   The  cases  referred were Springfield vs.  State (860 P.2d\n<\/p>\n
435) and People vs.  Soto (34 Cal.  App.   4th  1588).    It  is  observed  as
\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n
        “The  holdings  in these cases are consistent with the recognition and
\napproval, lawyers and judges have recently bestowed on D.N.A.  evidence.    In
\nless than  a  decade, D.N.A.  evidence has been used in thousands of homicide,
\nrape and paternity cases, often with little challenge from defence  attorneys.
\nThe technology is regarded as theoretically fool-proof.”\n<\/p>\n
The Court also observed,<\/p>\n
        “The D.N.A.   evidence  is not infallible, no evidence is.  Critics of
\nforensic science are able to cite examples of sloppy laboratory performance to
\nsupport their claim that there is room for drastic improvement.”\n<\/p>\n
Ultimately, the Court held,<\/p>\n
        “This Court is, therefore, satisfied that the testimony  of  even  one
\nD.N.A.   Expert that there is a genetic match between the semen recovered from
\nthe victim of a rape and the blood of the defendant, a total stranger, and the
\nstatistical probability that any one else was the source of the semen  is  one
\nin 500 million is legally sufficient to support a guilty verdict.”\n<\/p>\n
        84.  Paul E.  Tracy, Ph.D.  and Vincent Morgan, in their Article, “Big
\nBrother And His  Science  Kit  :    D.N.A.    Databases for 21st Century Crime
\nControl?” published in the Journal of  Criminal  Law  and  Criminology,  North
\nWestern University School of Law, Volume-90\/No.2\/Winter 2000, have highlighted
\nmany aspects of  D.N.A.   Testing.  In their introduction, they have stated as
\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n
        “Scientific community has conclusively  demonstrated  the  reliability
\nand validity  of D.N.A.  Testing and the ‘matching’ of an evidence sample with
\nthat taken from a suspect for the purposes of exclusion versus  inclusion  can
\nbe highly  successful.    Further, although at one time there was considerable
\ndebate about the admissibility of D.N.A.  evidence, the point is now moot.”\n<\/p>\n
The Article says that presently, there are three principal  methods  by  which
\nD.N.A.  Testing is usually accomplished.  They are :-\n<\/p>\n
        (1) Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP)
\n        (2) Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)
\n        (3) Short Tandem Repeats (STRs)<\/p>\n
According to the authors,<\/p>\n
        “Depending  upon  the quantity and quality (i.e., molecular weight and
\npossible degradation)  of  the  forensic  sample  available,  the  time  frame
\navailable  for  testing  and  other factors, one or more of these methods will
\ngenerally produce valid results for  making  a  ‘match’  between  an  evidence
\nsample  and  a  suspect  sample  for  the  purposes of excluding or failing to
\nexclude the suspect as the perpetrator.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
While dealing with D.N.A.  effectiveness, the authors say as follows :\n<\/p>\n
        “There are two basic applications for D.N.A.  in law enforcement,  and
\nthese  two  widely  divergent  applications must be differentiated so that the
\nproper focus will be clear.  First, there is D.N.A.  testing concerning  known
\nsuspects and evidence samples.  Here, the D.N.A.  extracted from bodily fluids
\nor tissues found at a crime scene (e.g., blood or semen) and a victim’s D.N.A.
\nextracted  from  a  residue  left  on  the offender (e.g., victim’s blood) are
\ncompared to determine if there is a match.  It  would  be  seen  that  in  the
\nabsence of other explanatory information, a D.N.A.  match or non-match will be
\ndispositive of the suspect’s involvement in or his\/her innocence of the crime.
\nWe  wholeheartedly  and  unequivocally  endorse  this particular use of D.N.A.
\nTesting with known offenders, and further, encourage its  use  as  broadly  as
\npossible.   The only meaningful caveats we would offer involve proper training
\nfor  crime-scene  technicians  and  laboratory  personnel  as  well  as  sound
\ncertification  policies  and a well-conceived oversight and monitoring process
\nfor both evidence collection and subsequent D.N.A.  Testing.”\n<\/p>\n
        85.  In our case, Dr.  Lalji Singh has been examined on behalf of  the
\nprosecution as P.W.59.   Dr.  Lalji Singh is working as the Deputy Director at
\nthe Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology at Hyderabad.   This  Centre  is
\none  of  the  Constituent  Laboratories  of  the  Council  of  Scientific  and
\nIndustrial Research under the Department of Science and Technology, Government
\nof India.  Dr.  Lalji Singh initially joined the Centre as Scientist-E-II  and
\nwas subsequently  promoted  as Scientist-F (Deputy Director) from 1992.  He is
\nB.Sc., M.Sc.  and Ph.D.   qualified  from  Banaras  Hindu  University,  having
\nobtained his  Doctorate  in  the  year  1971.    He had worked in the Calcutta
\nUniversity as a Pool Officer from 1971 to 1974.  He was  awarded  Commonwealth
\nFellowship  to  go  to  United  Kingdom and he was working in the Institute of
\nAnimal Genetics, University of Edinburg from 1974 to 1987.  He came  to  India
\nand joined the  C.C.M.B.,  Hyderabad  on  3.6.1987.    According to Dr.  Lalji
\nSingh, he had  published  57  Scientific  Papers  in  internationally  reputed
\njournals.  He was awarded the Banaras Hindu University Gold Medal in 1966, the
\nScience Academy Medal for Young Scientists for the year 1974 and various other
\nawards like  the  C.S.I.R.   Technology Award for the year 1992 for Biological
\nSciences, Professor S.P.  Roy Chaudhuri 75th Birthday Lecture  Award  for  the
\nyear  1994,  Professor  Viswanathan  Memorial Lecture Award for the year 1995,
\nVASVIK Research Award for Biological Sciences and Technology for the year 1992
\nand the Ranbaxy Research Award in the field of Basic Medical Sciences for  the
\nyear 19  94.  He is the elected Fellow of the Indian Academy of Sciences since
\n1989, Fellow of National Academy of Sciences since 1991 and Fellow  of  Indian
\nNational Science  Academy  elected  in  1993.   He is also a Member of various
\nother organisations like the Indian Society for Cell Biology, etc.   According
\nto  him,  he  had  given  opinion in 96 cases and has also given evidence in 5
\ncases in various courts, including the Rajiv Gandhi’s Assasination Case.\n<\/p>\n
        86.  P.W.59 says that on the communication by the Director General  of
\nPolice,  Madras,  he  had  sent  instruction  forms  and special containers to
\ncollect the blood samples and the products of conception  and  also  indicated
\nthe manner of collection, packing and forwarding of the same.  The doctor says
\nthat D.N.A.    Fingerprinting  was carried out by using the Multi Locus Probe,
\ni.e., Bkm derived 2(8) Probe;  Bpf.    3.8,  a  Single  Locus  Probe;  and  by
\nPolymerase Chain  Reaction.    The  details of the examination and the results
\nwere given in his report Ex.P.185.  The doctor has stated as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
        “When D.N.A.  profiles in track 3 (Premananda) was compared with  that
\nof  track  2 (tissue from the foetus) and track 1 (Aruljothi), it is seen that
\nevery band present in track 2 is fully accounted for  either  being  inherited
\nfrom the  mother  (track 1) or from the alleged father (track 3).  The alleged
\nfather Premananda (source of Exhibit A) and the mother  Aruljothi  (source  of
\nExhibit  C)  are, therefore, the biological parents of the dead foetus (source
\nof Exhibit B).\n<\/p>\n
        There are 23 bands shown by arrows in track 2 (tissue of foetus) which
\nare not present in track 1 (mother Ms.   Aruljothi  Fig.1A  and  1B).    Since
\nmaternity  is  not  in  question,  these  bands  must  be  inherited  from the
\nbiological father.  Since all of the paternal bands in the  tissue  of  foetus
\nare  present  in  track  3 (alleged father Premananda), without any exception,
\nshown by arrows (tracks 2 and 3, Fig.1A and 1B), the alleged father Premananda
\n(source of Exhibit A) is, therefore, responsible for the product of conception
\n(source of Exhibit B).\n<\/p>\n
        In order to confirm that the paternally inherited bands in  the  child
\nare exactly  the same as in the alleged father, equal amount of D.N.A.  7.5 ug
\nfrom each of the alleged father and the foetus were run in track 4 (Fig.1A and
\n1B).  In track 4 (Fig.1A and 1B), all the bands shown by  arrows  are  exactly
\nthe same  as  in  track  3.   Had these bands been different, additional bands
\nwould have appeared in track 4 ( appeared in track 4[Fig.1A and 1B])  adjacent
\nto the bands shown by arrows in track 3 (Fig.1A and 1B), but this is not so.\n<\/p>\n
        The  test  was  repeated twice with the same enzyme and every time the
\nsame results were obtained (Fig.1A and 1B).  Autoradiographs were over-exposed
\nto score very faint bands and under-exposed to  avoid  fusion  of  very  close
\npredominant bands.    The  result  presented is the outcome of all the results
\npooled together.\n<\/p>\n
        The chance that the dead foetus is not related to the  alleged  father
\nPremananda  but  happens  to  share  the  23 bands derived from the biological
\nfather detected by the Multi Locus Probe Bkm with Hin FI and Bst NI, is  0.223
\n=  8.4×1017  = one in 1.19 x 1015, considering the world population 6.0 x 109,
\nwhere 0.2 is the mean probability of  occurrence  of  a  fragment  (using  Bkm
\nProbe) in two unrelated individuals.\n<\/p>\n
        Single Locus Fingerprinting :\n<\/p>\n
        The  above  conclusion  was  further  substantiated  by using a highly
\npolymorphic variable number of tandem repeat (VNTR) human D.N.A.    Clone  Bpf
\n3.8.    This   is   extensively   used   as  single  locus  probe  for  D.N.A.
\nFingerprinting tests.”\n<\/p>\n
        …..\n<\/p>\n
        “The above tests prove beyond any reasonable doubt  that  the  alleged
\nfather  Premananda  (source  of  Exhibit  A) is responsible for the product of
\nconception (source of Exhibit B) whose biological mother  is  Ms.    Aruljothi
\n(source of Exhibit C).\n<\/p>\n
        During  the  course  of the examination and for conducting the test, I
\nhave used three probes, one is Multi Locus Probe  called  Bkm  derived  2  (8)
\nProbe, which  gives  large  number of bands.  The second probe is Single Locus
\nProbe called Bpf 3.8, it gives two bands in Hetero zygous  condition  and  one
\nband in  Homo zygous condition.  Multi Locus Probe and Single Locus Probes are
\nour probes.  The third probe I have used is published by the  western  country
\nscientists.  It  is based on Polymerase Chain Reaction, P.C.R.  The conclusion
\nof all these tests are the same as with earlier probes  used  in  the  report.
\nThe photographs taken are enclosed along with Ex.P.185 report.  The photograph
\npertaining to  Multi Locus Probe is Ex.P.186.  The photograph taken during the
\nSingle Locus Probe is Ex.P.187.  The photograph taken for the Polymerase Chain
\nReaction is Ex.P.188.”\n<\/p>\n
        …..\n<\/p>\n
        “Ex.P.189 is the Report of finding  using  Polymerase  Chain  Reaction
\nproducts  of DNA recovered from the Exhibits 465, 466 and 467 by using primers
\nT.1940 and T.1941.  Ex.P.190 is another report of the finding using Polymerase
\nChain Reaction products of DNA recovered from the Exhibits 465, 466 and 467 by
\nusing primers T.1942 and T.1943.  Ex.P.19 1 is  the  Report  using  the  probe
\nanalysis  of Micro Satellites (i) HUMVWA-31A (ii) HUMTHO-1 (iii) HUMF-13A1 and\n<\/p>\n
(iv)  HUMFES\/FPS  using  Genescan  programme  for  establishing  Relatedness.”
\n(emphasis added)<\/p>\n
        87.   After  the declaration of the matching bands and the statistical
\nanalysis, P.W.59 has stated that the chances that the aborted  foetus  is  not
\nrelated to  A-1 are extremely remote.  Considering the evidence of P.W.59, the
\nscientific finding arrived at by him that A-1 is responsible for the foetus of
\nP.W.14 is to be accepted.  Once  three  samples  are  found  to  have  similar
\nprofiles,  there  is  no significance in the argument of lack of database, and
\nthe defence cannot be permitted to say  that  the  patterns  have  matched  by
\nchance or  that  it could be one in a million possibility.  P.W.59 has pointed
\nout that in case  of  paternity  disputes,  the  paternity  of  the  child  is
\ndetermined by identifying as to which are the maternal bands and which are the
\npaternal bands.   The  comparison  of D.N.A.  Fingerprinting of the child with
\nthat of the  mother  will  identify  as  to  which  are  the  maternal  bands.
\nIllumination of these bands will then give those bands inherited by the father
\nwhich are  specific.   If the alleged father contains all these bands, then he
\nis the true biological father of the child and  the  paternity  is  confirmed.
\nHence,  the  evidence  of  P.W.59, who also relied on the Article published by
\nCellmark Organisation, Ex.D.42 that no large scale  database  is  required  in
\npaternity dispute, is to be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
        88.   The  argument  of the learned senior counsel for A-1 that P.W.59
\ncannot be a competent witness as he was doing research on animals deserves  no
\nconsideration.  Whether the expert was doing genetic research on animals or on
\nhuman  beings,  we  do not find that it makes any difference while undertaking
\nthis experiment.  Whether he had worked on silkworms, snakes or other animals,
\nhe was a scientist doing research in molecular biology  and  to  belittle  the
\nscientific  knowledge  of  such an expert would only show the ignorance of the
\nunderstanding on the subject.  P.W.59 is Scientist No.V and Dr.  G.V.  Rao  is
\nScientist No.  III.  All the tests could have been conducted either jointly or
\nunder  the supervision of P.W.59, even though some of the tests were conducted
\nby Dr.  G.V.  Rao, and it does not in any way affect the evidence  of  P.W.59.
\nAs rightly pointed  out, if really the defence thought that Dr.  G.V.  Rao was
\nso essential for proving the evidence, the defence  could  have  summoned  him
\nalso.  The  argument  on the nature of the C.C.M.B.  Laboratory also cannot be
\ncountenanced.  They are also taking fingerprinting for forensic purposes right
\nfrom 1988.  The infrastructural facilities and  the  knowledge  that  C.C.M.B.
\npossesses cannot  be  doubted.    Of course, there are other labs available in
\nMadras, but they are of recent origin.  It is not clear whether the Madras lab
\nis equipped to undertake D.N.A.  Fingerprinting to the standard expected of.\n<\/p>\n
        89.  There cannot be a case for tampering or alteration of the samples
\nas contended by the appellants, and it is not supported by any material except
\na suspicion.  From the evidence, it is seen that the collection of the  sample
\nwas  done as per the instructions given by P.W.59 and they were transported as
\nper the instructions and acknowledged to have been received in good condition.
\nP.W.59 has spoken as to how he handled the sample.  We do not find that  there
\nwas  any  possibility of contamination, tampering, alteration or break of link
\nin the laboratory or  in  the  process  of  experiment  and  opinion.    After
\ncarefully  analysing  the  evidence,  we  have  no hesitation to hold that the
\naccepted methods have been followed and the samples repeatedly tested and  the
\nconclusions arrived at are clear, convincing and are acceptable.\n<\/p>\n
        90.  On behalf  of A-1, D.W.49, Dr.  Wilson J.  Wall has been examined
\nand the report obtained from him, Ex.P.98 has been  marked.    It  has  to  be
\nstated  at  the  outset  that  the  evidence  of  D.W.49 has to be looked with
\nsuspicion and doubt.  In his evidence, he admits the following :\n<\/p>\n
        (1)     He is a private consultant.\n        (2)     He was requested to undertake a review of the\nevidence of Dr.  Lalji Singh, P.W.59.\n        (3)     He had held conferences with the defence counsel         both\nin London and in India.\n        (4)     He was present in the Court on 28.10.1996 and\n29.10.1996 when Dr.  Lalji Singh (P.W.59) was           cross-examined by  the\ncounsel for A-1.\n        (5)     He says, \"I have been instructed by the counsel         for\nthe accused to inform this Honourable Court             that       if      the\nprosecution wants to repeat this                experiment,  the  accused   is\nprepared to pay the             cost of the same\".\n        (6)     He admits that the test was conducted at the\nlaboratory called University Diagnostics                Laboratory, London and\nthat he had a working           arrangement  with  the  above said laboratory,\nbut             they are professionally independent.  He further         says,\n\"I was present in this Court instructing                the defence lawyer for\n<\/pre>\n
cross-examining P.W.59.         I  am  not  a  scientist   attached   to   the
\nUniversity              Diagnostics Laboratory, London.\n<\/p>\n
From  the above, it could be seen that D.W.49 is a partisan witness engaged by
\nthe defence for the purpose of reviewing the evidence of P.  W.59 and  he  had
\nbeen instructing  the  defence counsel for crossexamining P.W.59.  He has also
\nbeen instructed by the counsel for the accused to submit before the Court that
\nthe accused is prepared to pay the cost for repeating the  experiment.    That
\napart, it is seen that the report furnished by him is to the effect that it is
\nimpossible  that  A-1,  Premananda,  is  the  father  of  the  foetal  tissue.
\nAccording to him, when the above laboratory was working independently and that
\nhe had only a working arrangement with them, it is no t understandable  as  to
\nhow  he could give a joint opinion by himself without the opinion of the other
\nscientists who have conducted the test and running the laboratory.  D.W.49  is
\nneither the owner of the laboratory nor is he attached to the laboratory where
\nthe experiments are said to have been conducted.\n<\/p>\n
        91.   P.W.14,  Aruljothi, had refused to give her blood sample for the
\nsecond time for the purpose of either assisting or in support of the  defence.
\nTherefore,  D.W.49  had  only  the sample of the aborted foetus and the sample
\nblood of A-1.   Hence,  the  test  conducted  in  the  University  Diagnostics
\nLaboratory, London is  unreliable.  Without the D.N.A.  profile of the mother,
\nthere cannot be any proper interpretation  of  the  D.N.A.    profile  of  the
\naborted foetus.    D.W.49  has  also  not  substantiated his evidence with any
\nvisual presentation like photographs, etc.  The attempt on the part of  D.W.49
\nwas  to  highlight  the  possibility  of  contamination,  which  is  found not
\nestablished in the light of clear evidence of P.W.56  who  has  collected  the
\naborted foetus  and  the  blood  sample.    As deposed by P.W.59, there was no
\ncontamination in the feotal sample and if  it  were  there,  additional  bands
\nwould have  appeared  in  track  2  (D.N.A.   profile of the aborted foetus in
\nExs.P.18 7, P.189 and P.190).  Similarly, no such additional bands were  found
\nin the  blood  sample of the mother.  That apart, D.W.49 had not conducted the
\nMulti Locus Probe and Single Locus Probe tests so as to disprove the  evidence
\nof P.W.59.   It is not understandable as to how he can contradict the evidence
\nof P.W.59 without doing  the  experiment  with  those  two  probes.    On  the
\ncontrary,  it  is  seen  that  neither  the University Diagnostics Laboratory,
\nLondon has submitted any report nor the scientists  namely  James  Watson  and
\nPaul  Debenham,  who  are alleged to have conducted the tests, have signed the
\nreport, Ex.D.98.  Even D.  W.49 himself had not signed Ex.D.98, report.  Apart
\nfrom  that,  there  are  no  lab  results  excepting  some  data  without  any
\ninterpretation or explanation.  As rightly pointed out by the learned Sessions
\nJudge, D.W.49 had stated that the S.T.R.  Method used by the London laboratory
\nis  theoretically  quite  straight  forward,  but  is  fraught  with potential
\nproblems.  However, the appellants  had  not  taken  any  efforts  to  explain
\nwhether those  potential problems were got over by D.W.49.  Further, no visual
\npresentation or explanation on the  test  results  was  furnished  before  the
\nCourt.  The P.C.R.    Test  conducted  by  C.C.M.B.  is placed higher than the
\nS.T.R.  Test, because P.C.R.  products often have  100  to  1200  base  pairs,
\nwhere the  interpretation  of  results  would  be more reliable.  Whereas, the
\nreport and the evidence of D.W.49 was without  any  demonstrable  evidence  or
\nproof to  the  satisfaction  of the Court.  The evidence of P.W.59, who is the
\nDeputy Director of the Laboratory and who  had  himself  participated  in  the
\nconduct of  the experiments and the tests, is more authentic and reliable.  We
\naccordingly hold that the opinion of P.W.59 is to be accepted.    Whereas,  we
\nare  unable  to accept the evidence of D.W.49 for the reasons stated above and
\nit has to be rejected, apart from the fact  that  he  has  not  conducted  the
\nexperiment  himself and the report has not been properly signed, authenticated
\nand explained with materials.\n<\/p>\n
[E]     Factors to be considered :\n<\/p>\n
        92.  It has been held in a series of decisions dealing with rape  that
\na  rapist  not  only violates the victim’s privacy and personal integrity, but
\ninvariably causes serious physical as  well  as  psychological  harm  in  that
\nprocess.   Rape  is  not merely a physical assault, it is often destructive of
\nthe whole personality of the victim.  A murderer destroys the physical body of
\nhis victim, a rapist degrades the very soul  of  the  helpless  female.    The
\nCourts,  therefore,  shoulder a greater responsibility while trying an accused
\non a charge of rape.  They must deal with such cases with utmost  sensitivity.
\nThe  courts  should  examine  the  broader probabilities of a case and not get
\nswayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement
\nof the prosecutrix which are not of a fatal nature to throw out  an  otherwise
\nreliable prosecution   case.    The  testimony  of  the  prosecutrix  must  be
\nappreciated in the background of the entire case.\n<\/p>\n
        93.  A rape, for a woman, is deathless shame and must be dealt with as
\nthe gravest crime  against  human  dignity.    A  girl,  in  a  traditionbound
\nnon-permissive  society,  would  be extremely reluctant even to admit that any
\nincident, which is likely to reflect upon her chastity,  had  occurred,  being
\nconscious of  the  danger  of  being  ostracized  by  the  society.   No woman
\nordinarily will accuse a person or rape since she sacrifices thereby, what  is
\ndearest to  her.   The conduct and behaviour of the victim girl must be judged
\nin the backdrop of the situation in which she was placed.  The purpose of  the
\nstay,  the  person  and  his  position,  the misuse or abuse of office and the
\ndespair of the victim which led to her surrender,  are  all  relevant  factors
\nwhich  must  be  present in the mind of the court while evaluating the conduct
\nand the evidence of the prosecutrix.  If the position of the  accused  is  one
\nrepresenting  absolute  authority,  and  the  submission  of  the victim is on
\naccount of the fact of her having no option but to concede to the will of  the
\nauthority,  then  the  question  of willing party does not arise since she had
\nbeen deprived of her will by the show of authority.  The court must take  into
\nconsideration the  ground  realities.    The  court must hear the loud cry for
\njustice by the society and more particularly, in case of a  heinous  crime  of
\nrape of  innocent,  helpless children.  Cases involving sexual molestation and
\nassault require a different approach-a sensitive approach and not an  approach
\nwhich  a  court  may  adopt in dealing with a normal offence under penal laws.
\nGirl child is in a very vulnerable position  and  one  of  the  modes  of  her
\nexploitation is  rape,  besides  other  modes  of sexual abuse.  These factors
\npoint towards a different approach required to be adopted in such cases.\n<\/p>\n
        94.  The principle that the prosecutrix  in  a  rape  case  cannot  be
\nconsidered  to  be  an  accomplice  and  the  only  rule of law is the rule of
\nprudence and there is no rule of practice and there must, in every case, be  a
\ncorroboration  before a conviction can be allowed to stand, has been laid down
\nin a series of decisions by the Supreme Court.   It  has  been  held  that  we
\ncannot cling on to the ‘fossil formula’ and insist on corroborative testimony.
\nOrdinarily,  the  victim’s evidence must be accepted without requiring further
\ncorroboration.  A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on  par  with  an
\naccomplice.   She  is,  in  fact,  a victim of the crime and her evidence must
\ncarry the same weight as that attached to an injured person unless  there  are
\nspecial circumstances   which   call  for  greater  caution.    To  insist  on
\ncorroboration except in the rarest of rare cases is to equate a woman, who  is
\nthe  lust  of  another,  with  an  accomplice  to  a  crime and thereby insult
\nwomanhood.  It would be adding insult to injury to tell a woman that her story
\nof woe will not  be  believed  unless  it  is  corroborated  by  any  material
\nparticulars as  in  the  case  of  an  accomplice  to  a  crime.    Ours  is a
\nconservative society where it concerns  sexual  behaviour.    Ours  is  not  a
\npermissive society  as  in  some  of  the Western and European countries.  Our
\nstandard of decency and morality in public life is not the same  as  in  those
\ncountries.   The  standard  of  proof to be accepted by court in such cases is
\nthat it must take into  account  the  fact  that  such  crimes  are  generally
\ncommitted  slyly  and  very  rarely direct evidence of a person other than the
\nprosecutrix is available.  If the totality of the circumstances  appearing  on
\nthe  record  of  the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong
\nmotive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have
\nno hesitation in accepting her evidence.  It has been held that  there  is  no
\nlegal  compulsion to look for corroboration of the evidence of the prosecutrix
\nbefore recording an order of conviction.  Evidence has to be weighed  and  not
\ncounted.   A  conviction  can  be  recorded  on  the  sole  testimony  of  the
\nprosecutrix if her evidence  inspires  confidence  and  there  is  absence  of
\ncircumstances which  militate against her veracity {vide Madhav Ram vs.  State
\nof U.P.  [A.I.R.  1973 S.C.  469], Krishnan Lal vs.  State of Haryana  [A.I.R.
\n1980 S.C.  1252], Rafiq  vs.    State  of U.P.<\/a>  [1981 L.W.  (Crl.) 41 (S.C.)],
\nState of Maharashtra vs.  C.K.  Jain<\/a> [1990  S.C.C.    (Crl.)  210],  State  of
\nMaharashtra vs.  Prakash<\/a>  [1993  S.C.    C.    (Crl.)  411], State of Himachal
\nPradesh vs.  Raghubir Singh<\/a> [1993 (2) S.C.C.  622], Karnel Singh vs.  State of
\nM.P.<\/a>  [1995 (5) S.C.C.  518], State of Rajasthan vs.  Om Prakash<\/a> [2002  S.C.C.
\n(Crl.) 1210] and State of Punjab vs.  Gurmit Singh<\/a> [1996 S.C.C.  (Crl.) 316]}.\n<\/p>\n
        95.   It  has  been  held  that  the past promiscuous behaviour of the
\nprosecutrix is no ground to condone the rape.  The  character,  reputation  or
\nthe  status  of  a  rape  victim  is not relevant while awarding sentence to a
\nrapist {vide State of Punjab vs.  Gurmit Singh<\/a> [1996  S.C.C.    (  Crl.)  316]
\ncited supra and State of Haryana vs.  Premchand [1990 (1) S.  C.C.  249]}.\n<\/p>\n
        96.   After  having considered the background of the case on hand, the
\nprinciples of law and the facts and circumstances, we are fully satisfied that
\nthe evidence of the victim girls in this case are  reliable,  trustworthy  and
\nthat  there  are  no grounds to discredit the testimony of those victim girls.
\nOn the other hand, it is seen that they were able to come out of the  physical
\nand  psychological control which A-1 was exercising over the poor orphan girls
\nwho had no place to look for and have revealed the sexual assaults on them  by
\nA-1.   While  evaluating the evidence, we are alive to the fact that they were
\nnot in a position to successfully protest on their being sexually assaulted by
\nA-1 and also their failure to protest to  the  repeated  sexual  assaults  and
\ntorture.   They  could  neither come out of the ashram to tell these things to
\nthe police or anybody else as there was no assurance that their plea would  be
\nheard or  taken  note  of.   On the other hand, there was every possibility of
\ntheir being subjected to much more serious assaults and possible death at  the
\nhands of  the appellants.  Therefore, the contention that the victim girls did
\nnot inform  their  teachers,  their  friends  or  their  parents,  has  to  be
\nunderstood in  the  facts and circumstances of this case.  Apart from the fact
\nthat in the normal course of human conduct,  the  unmarried  girls  and  minor
\nchildren,  the  victim girls in this case, would not have thought of informing
\nthe traumatic experience they had undergone and they would have felt  terribly
\nembarrassed  in  relation  to the narrating the incidents to their teachers or
\nothers.  Their psychological feeling of shame and their natural inclination to
\navoid talking about these things to anyone, besides getting over the fear, has
\nto be understood in a proper perspective.  Therefore, there is  absolutely  no
\nsubstance  in  the  argument  that the victim girls ought to have informed the
\nfact of rape to others.  The appellants have miserably failed to show that the
\nvictim girls are of generally immoral character.\n<\/p>\n
        97.  The Supreme Court has laid down that minor  discrepancies,  which
\nare  not  fatal  to  the  case,  should be overlooked considering the inherent
\ntendency of the victim girls to  conceal  the  outrage  of  sexual  aggression
\ntowards them.    All the victim girls have withstood the cross-examination and
\nthey were able to repeat again and again, the details of the  rape  incidents,
\nand their credibility and the story has been consistently spoken to inspite of
\nthe  attempt of the defence, in some cases, having gone beyond the legal limit
\nand to the extent of causing humiliation to the victims of the  crime.    They
\nwere  asked to narrate minute details of the manner of the intercourse and the
\naftereffects of the same, the reaction and  acts  done  by  the  victim  girls
\nimmediately  after  the  rape,  including their going to the bathroom, thereby
\ncasting a stigma on the character of the victim girls, which act on  the  part
\nof the defence, has to be deprecated.  P.W.14 is one such witness who had been
\nsubjected to humiliating  cross-examination.    In State of Punjab vs.  Gurmit
\nSingh<\/a> [1996 S.C.C.  (Crl.) 316]<\/p>\n
cited supra, the courts were reminded of their duty to  see  that  the  victim
\ngirl is  not  harassed  or  humiliated  on  the plea of crossexamination.  The
\ncourts should not sit as a silent spectator, while the victim of the crime  is
\nbeing cross-examined, without controlling the recording of the evidence in the
\ncourt.   The  demeanour  of  the  witnesses  has  been closely observed by the
\nlearned Sessions Judge.    It  has  been  observed  that  P.W.8,  one  of  the
\nprosecution  witnesses, developed a kind of giddiness and unconsciousness when
\nshe  was  confronted  with  the  question   of   her   humiliation   and   the
\ncross-examination  had  to  be stopped at that juncture and continued only the
\nnext day.  In reference to P.W.8, the court had  noticed  torrential  flow  of
\ntears  from the eyes of P.W.8 and with all the pain and conscience shocked, it
\nis observed, the court listened to the most startling and saddening  story  of
\nP.W.8  who  was  yet  to  attain  mental  maturity;  though P.W.8 had attained
\npuberty, she was yet to  gain  physical  and  mental  maturity  and  even  her
\nchildish  voice  was  not  broken  to  that  of a grown up adult woman and her
\ntearful narration was rebutted uncharitably with a suggestion that  her  tears
\nwere meant for causing prejudice in the mind of the Judge.\n<\/p>\n
        98.   Similarly,  the  demeanour of P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.9 and P.W.13 was
\nalso noticed by the learned Judge and it  was  observed  that  their  evidence
\ninspired  confidence  and  the  fact  that  they  were  trustworthy  has to be
\naccepted.  The victim girls have no motive against A-1 and others, they having
\nsheltered the girls, provided them food, etc.  Absolutely no acceptable motive
\nhas been attributed against the victim girls in order to falsely implicate the
\nappellants.  We have also considered earlier, the suggestion  that  they  were
\ninstigated, while considering their evidence individually.\n<\/p>\n
        99.     In Govind vs.   State  of  M.P.<\/a>    [1994  Crl.L.J.   938], the
\nSupreme Court, while considering the discrepancies  in  the  evidence  of  the
\nprosecution  witnesses,  namely  that  they  did  not give many details of the
\noccurrence in their statements under Section 161  and  164  Cr.P.C.,  that  by
\nitself, is  not  a  ground  to reject their evidence.  In that case, the whole
\ncross-examination was concentrated on those omissions.   The  High  Court,  in
\nthat  case,  after  considering  the  evidence  of  those witnesses, has given
\nsufficient good reasons for accepting  their  evidence  against  some  of  the
\naccused persons.  The High Court observed in that case that they were truthful
\nwitnesses.  The Supreme Court did not interfere with the conviction and upheld
\nit.\n<\/p>\n
        100.  In  Mohanlal  Gangaram  Gehani  vs.   State of Maharashtra [1982
\nS.C.C.  (Crl.) 334], the Supreme Court held that when a prosecution witness is
\nexamined under Section 164 Cr.P.C.  and makes a particular statement which  is
\ncontradictory to a statement made in the Sessions Court, then Section 145 will
\napply if  the  accused  wants  to  rely on that contradiction.  But, where the
\nstatement made by a witnesses is contradicted not by his own statement but  by
\nthe statement of another prosecution witness, then the question of application
\nof Section  145 does not arise.  In that case, the evidence of the prosecution
\nwitness, P.W.11 was not only consistent throughout, but her earlier  statement
\nrecorded could  be  taken  to corroborate her subsequent statement.  There was
\nthus, no question of contradicting the statement of P.W.11 by her previous  or
\nsubsequent statements.    In that case, P.W.11, the doctor, made a note of the
\ninjuries received and also named his assailant as one Tiny.  The  evidence  of
\nthe  doctor, according to the Supreme Court, shows that Tiny was undoubtedly a
\nknown person and was not a fictitious person.  The doctor was  examined  as  a
\nprosecution  witness  and  therefore, her evidence cannot be excluded as being
\ninadmissible as per Section 144 of the Indian Evidence Act.  According to  the
\nSupreme  Court,  Section 145 applies only to cases where the same person makes
\ntwo contradictory  statements  either  in  different  proceedings  or  in  two
\ndifferent stages  of  proceedings.    In  that  case,  P.W.11  was  consistent
\nthroughout  and  therefore,  there  was  no  question  of  contradicting   the
\nstatements of  P.W.11 with her previous or subsequent statements.  The Supreme
\nCourt further held that the statement of the injured  to  P.W.1,  the  doctor,
\nbeing  the  first  state  ment  in  point  of  time,  must be preferred to any
\nsubsequent statement and that takes away the entire bottom of the  prosecution
\ncase.   Further  circumstances  were  pointed  out  by the Supreme Court which
\nrender the testimony of P.W.5 valueless.  This decision  is  strongly  pressed
\ninto  service  in support of the case of the appellants that the statements of
\nthe victim girls made to the doctors, being the first statements in  point  of
\ntime, must  be  preferred.  First of all, most of the girls have simply stated
\nthat they had sexual intercourse with a known person and only some of the have
\nspecified A-1 as the known person.  All the victim girls  have  explained  the
\ncircumstances  under  which  they  could not reveal the name of A-1 before the
\ndoctors, and the Sessions Court as  well  as  this  Court  have  set  out  the
\nbackground  under  which  these  girls  were taken for medical examination and
\nstatements were given before the doctors while they  were  examined.    It  is
\nfairly submitted  by  Mr.  Shanmuga Velayutham that the Medical Code prohibits
\nthe doctors from entering the name  of  the  assailants  or  the  accused  and
\ntherefore, they  specifically  enter as ‘known person’.  The doctor’s evidence
\nin this respect has not been contradicted.  The evidence of the  victim  girls
\nbefore  the  court, stating that the known person which they have mentioned in
\ntheir medical examination certificates is referrable to A-1, has  to  accepted
\nand  the  evidence  of  some  of  the  victim girls, prior in point of time in
\nreference to the  assailant,  has  to  be  considered  in  the  light  of  the
\nbackground  stated  above and their subsequent consistent statement before the
\ncourt has to be accepted.  This decision has no application to this case.\n<\/p>\n
        101.  In Sahdeo Gosean vs.  King Emperor [1944 Madras Weekly  Notes  (
\nCrl.)  57], the Federal Court held that the statement made by P.W.1 before the
\npolice cannot explain his failure to mention his name  before  the  Magistrate
\nand besides, under the provisions of Section 162 Cr.P.  C., the statement made
\nto  the  police  during the course of investigation could be used only for the
\npurpose of contradicting a prosecution witness and except in that  connection,
\nit could not be used for any other purpose and that the failure of the witness
\nto  mention  the  name  of  the  accused  in  his statement to the Magistrate,
\nprobable subsequent statement against the accused made during the trial nearly
\nfour months later cannot be of value.  In Noor Mohammed  vs.    Hakim  [A.I.R.
\n1949 P.C.   161], it was held that evidence of criminal acts of the accused in
\nother cases are admissible only to relevant issue.  The issue, however, should
\nhave been raised in substance.  Before an issue can be said to be raised which
\nwould permit the admission of such evidence so obviously  prejudicial  to  the
\naccused, it must have been raised in substance.  In that case, the accused was
\ntried for  murder  of a woman by poisoning her.  Evidence was admitted to show
\nthat the accused had  previously  murdered  another  woman,  his  wife,  under
\nsimilar circumstances.  It was held that the admission of the evidence was not
\njustified  as there was no direct evidence in either case that the accused had
\nhimself administered the poison.  The court also held that  if  the  appellant
\nwas  proved  to  have administered poison to Aysha in circumstances consistent
\nwith the accident, then proof that he had previously  administered  poison  to
\nGoria in  similar  circumstances  might well have been admissible.  There was,
\nhowever, no direct evidence in either case that the appellant had administered
\nthe poison himself.\n<\/p>\n
        Corroboration by medical evidence :\n<\/p>\n
        102.  The medical evidence to the effect  that  all  these  girls  are
\nunmarried  and  that  they  were  used  to sexual intercourse corroborates the
\nallegation that it is A-1 who had committed rape on them repeatedly.   Insofar
\nas P.Ws.7, 8, 9 and 10 are concerned, both the medical evidence as well as the
\nradiological examination show that they were below 16 years of age at the time
\nwhen they  were  subjected to rape.  The Supreme Court, in Tahsildar Singh vs.
\nState of U.P.  [A.I.R.  1959 S.C.  1012], has held that Section  162  Cr.P.C.,
\nhas  confined  the right of the accused to cross-examine the witness as to the
\nprevious statement made by him by contradicting the witness  by  referring  to
\nthose parts of the writing which are inconsistent with the previous statement.
\nIt  enables  the  prosecution to re-examine the witness to explain the matters
\nreferred to in the cross-examination.  This also enables  the  prosecution  to
\nexplain  the  alleged  contradictions  by  pointing  out that if a part of the
\nstatement used to contradict be read in the context  of  any  other  part,  it
\nwould  give a different meaning and that if so read, it would explain away the
\nalleged contradictions.\n<\/p>\n
        103.  The allegation that Section 160 Cr.P.C.  has  been  violated  is
\ndenied.   The  victim  girls  were  taken  to  the  Women  Police  Station  at
\nPudukkottai and the Government Hospital and their  statements  were  recorded.
\nThe  ashram  cannot  be  treated as a residence and the evidence of the victim
\ngirls has to be considered in the light of the constant threat and  danger  to
\nthe lives  and security of the victim girls.  Even assuming that the provision
\nis violated, the evidence  gathered  will  not  become  inadmissible  and  the
\nevidence has  to  be  weighed  and  considered  according to law.  The Special
\nPublic Prosecutor has denied the allegation of  tutoring  and  access  of  the
\npolice  to the prosecution witnesses as clearly established by the evidence of
\nD.W.47, namely Vidyakar, the founder of ‘Udavum Karangal’ under whose  custody
\nthe victim girls were entrusted.\n<\/p>\n
[F]     Women’s Institution :\n<\/p>\n
        104.   The  question  whether  Premananda Ashram is an institution for
\nwomen or children is important insofar as these appeals are concerned.  It  is
\ncontended  that  the ashram is a religious institution and will not come under
\nthe category of institution for women and in any event, A-1 did not  have  any
\nofficial position in the ashram.\n<\/p>\n
        105.  We  have seen earlier that A-1 is the founder of the ashram.  He
\nhad the power  of  appointment  of  Mathajis  who  are  supposed  to  run  the
\nadministration of  the  institution.    He  has  admitted that he is the power
\n(sakthi) behind the ashram for  Question  No.1  under  his  questioning  under
\nSection 313  Cr.P.C.    It is he who conducts the meetings, delivers lectures,
\nperforms miracles and gives religious discourses.  From the evidence led in on
\nboth sides, we have no hesitation in holding that A-1  is  the  authority  and
\nholds an  unquestionable  position  of management of the ashram.  It is he who
\nreprimands the inmates, including the deceased Ravi, punishes the inmates  for
\ncoming late to the night watch, canes them, puts them in dog kennel, puts them
\nin confinement,  compels  them  to  attend meetings, etc.  The fact that he is
\nholding the absolute control over the institution is beyond any doubt.    Even
\nthough the defence witnesses are made to speak that A-1 is concerned only with
\nthe  religious  teaching imparted in the ashram and that the administration of
\nthe ashram rests with the Mathajis, it is improbable taking into consideration
\nthe overall evidence and the circumstances of the case.  The letters,  Ex.P.20
\nseries,  proved to have been written by A-1 by finger-print expert, containing
\nhis signature show that he had involved himself in the various  activities  of
\nthe ashram  by participating in each and every activity of the ashram.  He had
\nexpressed  his  concern  even  about  the  telephone  bills  of  the   ashram.
\nTherefore,  A-1  is  in  management  and  holds  an  official  position in the
\ninstitution.   To  Question  No.26  (in  the  questioning  under  Section  313
\nCr.P.C.),  A-1  has  admitted  that there are 200 girls in the ashram and that
\nthey are being kept under the control of the Mathajis and the teachers.   They
\nalso supervise  the  girls’ menstrual conditions.  To Question No.10, A-1 says
\nthat the girls entrusted to him were mostly orphans and that they were  looked
\nafter  for  their clothing, food, residence and medical facilities by those in
\nthe ashram.\n<\/p>\n
        106.  The second question that arises for consideration in this aspect
\nis whether the institution is intended for women or children.    Explanation-2
\nto Section 376(2) I.P.C.  is as follows :\n<\/p>\n
        “‘Women’s  or  children’s  institution’  means an institution, whether
\ncalled an orphanage or a home for neglected women or children or widows’  whom
\nor  by  any  other name, which is established and maintained for the reception
\nand care of women and children.”\n<\/p>\n
It is in evidence that a number of victim girls are orphans and they have been
\nbrought to this institution, some of them when they were  stranded  in  a  bus
\nstand  or  standing  on  a  road or simply without parents, and they have been
\nbrought up in this institution.  It is evidenced that 10-20  girls  came  over
\nfrom  Sri  Lanka  and it is A-1 who went and received them from Vedaranyam and
\nRameswaram, brought them to Tiruchy and temporarily housed them in  a  private
\nrented  building  and  therefafter, it is he who established the ashram in the
\nyear 1989 and brought them there.  The fact that  in  the  ashram,  there  are
\nseparate  dormitories  for women, hostel for them and they are given education
\nand training in trade is not in dispute.  Even the evidence of the defence  is
\nto  the  effect  that  there  are  strict rules that boys should not go to the
\nwomen’s hostel and that they should not talk with them, etc.   Therefore,  the
\nfact  that  this institution is an institution for housing the orphans, girls,
\nwomen and children leaves no room for any doubt.  The victim girls  have  been
\nbrought  up from the age of 2-3 in the same institution initially in Sri Lanka
\nand thereafter, to India.  Therefore, it has to be held that Premananda Ashram
\nis an institution for women and children.\n<\/p>\n
        107.  Once it is found to be so, then the question of  presumption  as
\nto  absence  of  consent can be raised, as provided under Section 114-A of the
\nIndian Evidence Act.  Therefore, once sexual intercourse by A-1 is proved, the
\nquestion whether it was wi r without consent of the  girls  is  not  relevant,
\nsince  the  evidence of the victim girls before the court is that they did not
\ngive consent, and<\/p>\n
hence, the court is entitled to presume that they did not consent for the  act
\nof sexual  intercourse  by A-1.  The argument on behalf of the appellants that
\nmany of the girls have given their consent for sexual intercourse,  therefore,
\nhas no legs to stand.  Even assuming it to be so, factually it is not correct.\n<\/p>\n
        Character of A-1, whether relevant ?\n<\/p>\n
        108.   A serious charge of rape of 13 girls was made, four of whom are
\nsaid to be below 16 years of age.  The further allegations  are  that,  taking
\nadvantage  of  the  position  of  the  orphan  girls  and his alleged fatherly
\naffection, A-1 received these girls when they came  out  from  their  solitary
\nstay  on their attaining puberty by kissing them and fondling them and that he
\nhad used the cover of a guru for  such  nefarious  activities.    The  further
\nallegations  that  A-1 had schemed to make the girls available by putting them
\non night watch around his kudil so as to pick them up  easily  and  the  girls
\nwere made to undergo torture on their failure to concede to his demands and he
\nhad  used  the  pooja  room  and  the  trance-interview  room  for  his sexual
\nactivities and his repeated raping of girls show his propensity to commit rape
\non women and his sadistic pleasure to put these girls under fear and  torture.
\nThe  potency  of  A-1  was tested and he was found to be normal and capable of
\nhaving sexual intercourse.  The D.N.A.  Test reveals that he had fathered  the
\nterminated foetus of P.W.14.  Whereas, his reply in his questioning is that he
\nis unaware  of  these  earthly  pleasures.    The  evidence on the side of the
\nappellants is to the effect that he  is  an  embodiment  of  virtue  with  the
\nhighest  morality,  simplicity  and  sincerity  and  he  is  a  highly evolved
\nspiritual master and he lives the life of a renunciated monk.\n<\/p>\n
        109.  P.M.O.3 is a photograph in which the first accused is  found  in
\nthe midst  of  girls  and  the  absconding  accused  Divya  Devi.  He is found
\nembracing P.W.13, Vanitha in P.M.O.3.  P.M.O.6 reveals the  closeness  between
\nA-1 and  the  absconding  accused  Divya  Devi.    For  Question  No.32 in his
\nquestioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., A-1 admits that there are 200 girls  in
\nthe  ashram  and  that  there is nothing wrong in his embracing or kissing the
\ngirls in the ashram since he was moving with them like their parents  and  has
\nalso  stated  that he had done this in front of other also and that nobody had
\nso far objected for such conduct of his.  According to  him,  even  the  girls
\nconcede  to his doing such things without any bad faith as if they are showing
\ntheir affection to their parents.  From P.M.O.73, letters,  it  is  seen  that
\nA-1, A-2 and Divya Devi have indulged in sexual relationship.  In that letter,
\nDivya  Devi  has  stated that A-1 directed A-2 to kiss Divya Devi and when A-2
\nwas kissing Divya Devi, thinking that A-1 is trying to test her  and  fearing,
\nshe immediately  rolled  over  to  the  side of A-1.  She further says that in
\nsubstance, A-1 and A-2 both took her life out on that night.  From this, it is
\nclear that all the three were sharing the same  bed  and  were  having  sexual
\nrelationship  to  the  extent  that Divya Devi was unable to cope up with both
\ntheir demands in the same bed.  P.M.O.73 series are letters written  by  Divya
\nDevi to  the second accused.  In one of the letters, she had admitted that she
\nhad conceived because of A-1.  According to her, even though she did not  like
\nsex  from  childhood onwards and that is the reason why she became a sanyasin,
\nbut however, A-1 had tested her many times and because of his divine play, she
\nhad conceived.  Nirodh  packets,  Tidilon  tablets,  packets  of  alcohol  and
\nplastic syringes were some of the material objects recovered from the kudil of
\nDivya Devi,  as  evidenced  by  P.M.Os.3  8 to 41.  Divya Devi, the absconding
\naccused, is one of the Mathajis and was functioning as de facto  authority  of<\/p>\n
the ashram.    It  is  not  in dispute that the bank accounts are in the joint
\naccount of A-1 and Divya Devi.  For all these reasons,  it  cannot  be  stated
\nthat the character of A-1 is not relevant.\n<\/p>\n
        110.   In  the  charge, it is specifically stated that A-1 had misused
\nthe faith reposed in him and that he had sexually abused the victim  girls  by
\nthreat  and  deceptive  practice  and  that he has outraged the modesty of the
\nvictim girls.  The allegations are that A-1 had denuded the girls in front  of
\nother  girls,  that  he  had  chosen the victim girls for night watch duty and
\nforced them to have sexual intercourse with  him,  and  on  their  refusal  to
\nconcede  to his illegal sexual demands, A-1 punished them on the false pretext
\nthat they were not their night  watch  properly  and  also  tortured  them  by
\nputting them in dog kennel (P.W.12), tied the girls along with a calf and made
\nto  run  along  with  it  (P.W.55), insisting to oil-massage his private parts
\n(P.W.14), compelling  to  handle  his  private  parts  and  have  have  sexual
\nintercourse (P.W.17) are all acts which reflect the character of A-1.\n<\/p>\n
        111.   Even  though  it has been repeatedly submitted on behalf of A-1
\nthat the statements of the girls  are  improvements  and  that  they  did  not
\ninitially  mention  these  facts  in  their statements before the police or in
\ntheir statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the said argument is not  correct.
\nMost  of  the  girls  have come out with their allegations against A-1 even in
\ntheir statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C.  They have come out more  fully  in
\nevidence  before  the court because of the confidence they had gained that A-1
\nwould no longer be in a position to harm them and considering the timidity  of
\nthese  orphan  girls and the position they were placed, it is clear that their
\nevidence are true and acceptable.  The character of A-1 is  relevant  for  the
\npurpose of considering the charges.\n<\/p>\n
        112.    For  all  these  reasons, the findings of the learned Sessions
\nJudge on the charge of rape are liable to be confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
VI.     Murder of Ravi :\n<\/p>\n
        113.  Charge Nos.6 to 11 are concerned with the murder of Ravi.  Ravi,
\naged 30-35 years was an inmate of the ashram who was brought to  India  in  or
\nabout 1990  by his sister from Sri Lanka.  Ravi was put up along with A-4 in a
\nkudil which was located opposite to the kudil of A-1 .  He  was  assigned  the
\njob of  watering and maintaining the plants.  By virtue of the location of the
\nkudil that Ravi was  occupying,  he  had  the  opportunity  of  observing  the
\nactivities going on in the kudil of A-1.  On seeing that A-1 was having sexual
\nrelationship  with  the girls of the ashram, Ravi, having a disturbed mind, is
\nsaid to have been openly shouting,  without  the  normal  inhibition,  to  the
\neffect that  A-1  was  having  sexual  relationship  with  the  girls.  He was
\nchastised by A-1 by caning earlier.  But, inspite of that, after a  few  days,
\nRavi started  shouting  that  A-1  was  a womanizer.  Because of the continued
\nexposure Ravi was making as to the activities of A-1 and outraged by the  open
\ndefiance  and  shouting of Ravi, A-1 himself called Ravi and also directed the
\nother accused to bring A-1 to him.  When Ravi  was  brought  to  him,  he  was
\nordered to  be tied to a pole nearby.  A-7 tied the deceased to the lamp post.
\nThereafter, A-1 took a casuarina stick and continuously beat him on  the  left
\nleg and  on  the left hand.  Consequently, Ravi had suffered blood injuries on
\nhis upper limb and the lower limb.  A-1 ordered the ropes to  be  removed  and
\nthe moment  he was untied, Ravi fell down.  Even thereafter, A-1 kicked him on
\nthe back and A-2 kicked him on the chest.  The force of  the  beating  was  so
\nmuch that  even  the  lamp  post is said to have fallen down.  Thereafter, A-1
\ndirected Ravi to be taken and confined in a room with a further direction that
\nnobody should give him food or water.  Accordingly, P.W.1, A-4,  A-6  and  A-7
\ndragged Ravi  and  locked  him  in a room called Kavadi Kudil.  The key of the
\nkudil was retained by A-2.  P.W.1 left the  ashram  2-3  days  thereafter  and
\nreturned to  the  ashram  on  17.4.1991.    When  P.W.1 went and saw as to the
\ncondition of Ravi through the window, he  found  Ravi  lying  without  breath.
\nThereafter,  P.W.1 got the key of the kudil from A-2 and went inside the kudil
\nto see the condition of Ravi.  Ravi was found dead and  swarmed  by  ants  all
\nover  his  eyes,  mouth and other parts of the body where there were injuries.
\nWhen P.W.1 went and reported the death of Ravi to A-1 and A-2,  both  of  them
\nreceived  the  news  with  no  reaction  and  without  any  shock or surprise.
\nThereafter, as per the orders of A-1 and A-2, Ravi’s  body  was  cleaned,  his
\nface  was  shaved by P.W.1 and a new dhoti and a maroon coloured sweater given
\nby Divya Devi were put on the dead body of Ravi.  A-4 and A-7  assisted  P.W.1
\nin getting  these  things done on the dead body.  P.W.1 put the flower garland
\nbrought by A-4 and A-7 on the deceased Ravi  and  with  the  assistance  of  a
\nforeign lady,  a  photo  was  taken  of  the  dead body of Ravi.  The body was
\nremoved by about 7-8 pm on that day with the assistance of the  villagers  who
\ndug the  pit.    P.W.1,  along  with  A-2 and A-5, buried the dead body of the
\ndeceased Ravi.\n<\/p>\n
        114.  The overt acts of  the  accused  have  been  spoken  to  by  the
\neyewitnesses namely P.Ws.1, 3, 5, 8, 11, 16, 17 and 18.  The defence witnesses
\nwho speak  about the occurrence are D.Ws.1, 8, 12, 2, 11, 19 and 22.  From the
\nevidence of the prosecution and the defence witnesses, the following facts are
\nnot disputed :\n<\/p>\n
        (1) Ravi died and he was buried on 17.4.1991.\n<\/p>\n
        (2) Before burial, Ravi was given a bath, his face was shaved  and  he
\nwas clad with a full sleeved sweater (old) and a dhoti.\n<\/p>\n
        (3) The  death of Ravi was not informed to the police.  No information
\nor complaint was given either to the Village Administrative Officer or to  the
\npolice.\n<\/p>\n
        (4)  No  prior  treatment of any kind was given to the deceased before
\nhis death.\n<\/p>\n
        115.  The case of the  prosecution  is  that  Ravi  died  out  of  the
\ninjuries  caused and consequential confinement and starvation accelerating his
\ndeath.  Whereas, the case of the appellants is that Ravi could  have  died  on
\naccount of the self-inflicted injuries and that it was a natural death.\n<\/p>\n
        116.  When A-1 was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C.  on the aspect
\nof  the death of Ravi, for Question No.260 that on information of the death of
\nRavi, as to why A-1 and A-2 did not show any response, A-1 has replied stating
\nthat somebody came and informed him about Ravi’s death  and  since  he  was  a
\nsaint to whom happiness and sorrows are one and the same and therefore, he did
\nnot react  .    Besides,  he  says  that  he  knew  that  Ravi’s condition was
\ndeteriorating and that he was punishing himself.   In  reference  to  Question
\nNo.261  as  to  the direction of A-1 to bathe and clad Ravi with a sweater and
\ndhoti, A-1 admitted that Ravi’s body was cleaned and decorated, but says  that
\nhe does  not  remember  by  which cloth he was adorned.  However, he remembers
\nthat he had directed Ravi’s body to be buried near the  burial  place  of  his
\nuncle  and  before  burial, there was a big prayer where all the people of the
\nashram had participated and the burial took place only after a procession  and
\nthat for  the  purpose  of taking a photograph, the body was decorated.  This,
\naccording to him, was for the purpose of informing Ravi’s family  that  things
\ndid not  happen  secretly.   In reference to Question No.263 as to the time of
\nburial of Ravi, A-1 says that the burial was between  5.30  and  6.30  pm  and
\nsince  there  was  no  light near the burial place, a petromax light was used.
\nA-1 also admits that Ravi was brought to the ashram by his mother and  sister,
\nthough he  does  not  remember  the  year.  He also refers that Ravi was being
\nspecially taken care of.  Some times, A-1 adds,  Ravi  acted  with  unbearable
\nenrage and  rudeness.    From  the answers of A-1, it could be seen that it is
\nadmitted that Ravi’s physical condition  was  deteriorating  and  the  further
\nfacts  that he died and was buried in the ashram having not been disputed, the
\nburden is on the defence to satisfactorily explain the cause of Ravi’s  death.
\nThe fact  that  Ravi  was  behaving  violently  is  admitted.  The case of the
\nprosecution is that Ravi was enraged by the activities of A-1 and had  started
\nopenly  shouting that A-1 was indulging in sexual relationship with the girls.
\nAs per the prosecution evidence, after Ravi was beaten and locked  up  in  the
\nkavadi  kudil  with an order that nobody should provide him food or water, A-2
\nwas keeping the key of  that  kudil.    The  prosecution  witnesses  were  not
\nquestioned on the specific allegations which are consistently spoken to by all
\nthe prosecution  witnesses  in  this case.  Therefore, there was no foundation
\nfor the defence to put forward a different theory of  self-inflicted  injuries
\nwhich resulted  in  the  death of Ravi.  In any event, there is no explanation
\nfor the confinement of Ravi in a kudil and his being locked there without  any<\/p>\n
food  or  water and A-1 having admitted of not showing any response on receipt
\nof the information of Ravi’s death stating that he was a sanyasi and hence  he
\ncould not respond to the news of death.\n<\/p>\n
        117.   P.W.17,  who  is  the brother of P.W.9, who had been implicitly
\nobeying the directions of A-1, has clearly spoken to about the  overt  act  of
\nthe accused  and  the death of Ravi.  According to him, on a particular day at
\nabout 12 noon in the year 1991, since the deceased was standing  in  front  of
\nA-1’s  kudil  and  shouting  that  A-1  was a womanizer and that he was having
\nsexual intercourse with the girls in the ashram, A-1  directed  A-7  to  bring
\nRavi and  tie him to the lamp post.  Apart from the other overt acts spoken to
\nby P.W.1 and corroborated by P.Ws.3, 5, 8 and 16, P.W.17 also says that  after
\nbeing  locked  in kavadi kudil, Ravi was shouting for food and water and since
\nA-1 had issued a command not to provide food or water to him, he had not given
\nthe same to the deceased.  He further says that on the next day of the burial,
\na meeting was convened by A-1 wherein A-1 warned all the inmates not to reveal
\nabout the incident of Ravi and that if anybody leaks out the same, they  would
\nmeet the same fate as Ravi and hence, nobody dared to reveal the same outside.
\nHe further adds that before Ravi was beaten, Ravi had persisted in shouting in
\nfront  of  A-1  that  he was a womanizer and that Ravi did not respond for the
\nbeating he received.  It is pertinent to note that when Ravi was shouting that
\nA-1 was a womanizer, nobody prevented him from shouting so.\n<\/p>\n
        118.  P.W.18, who is the brother of P.W.5 and P.W.2, also speaks about
\nRavi’s incident clearly.  He says that since Ravi  pulled  himself  unable  to
\nbear the beatings, the lamp post, to which he was tied, got bent.  Thereafter,
\nhe  says,  A-1 directed A-7 to remove the ropes, consequent on which Ravi fell
\ndown and A-1 and A-2 kicked Ravi on his chest and  backside  respectively  and
\nthat it  was  12  noon  at  that time.  Ravi was then directed to be locked in
\nkavadi kudil and all others were directed not to provide him food or water and
\nRavi died 7-8 days thereafter.\n<\/p>\n
        119.  P.W.3 also speaks about  the  overt  acts  of  A-1  and  A-7  in
\nreference to  Ravi’s  incident.    P.W.3  says  that she heard the plea of the
\ndeceased Ravi demanding food and water.  P.Ws.5 and 8 also  clearly  speak  of
\nthe said  incident.    P.W.11  says  that  Ravi  informed  her  of  the sexual
\nrelationship of A-1 with many girls.  However,  she  says  that  she  did  not
\nactually  see  Ravi  being  beaten,  but only heard Ravi shouting while he was
\nbeing beaten.  She further says that when she asked as to why he should not be
\ntaken to the hospital, A-1 is said to have told her that it  would  better  if
\nRavi disappears.   She also refers to the order of A-1 that Ravi should not be
\nprovided with food or water after his being beaten and confined.  P.W.16  also
\nspeaks  clearly about the overt acts of the accused and as to how Ravi was put
\nto death and also as to the meeting convened by A-1 subsequent to  the  burial
\nof Ravi and the warning given by him therein.\n<\/p>\n
        120.   D.W.1,  who is the wife of P.W.1, gives her opinion that Ravi’s
\ndeath was natural and says that she used to take food to him daily and collect
\nthe cleaned clothes of Ravi.  According to her, in May\/ June  1991,  when  she
\nwent  to  Ravi’s kudil to give him food, he was found lying and therefore, she
\nrequested other to go and see the  condition  of  Ravi,  upon  which  she  was
\ninformed that  he  had  died.   She says that he was never starved of food and
\nwater, while she admits that normally, he would not be found lying in the bed.
\nShe says that she had stated in her affidavit that she sent the food  to  Ravi
\nthrough  her  son 2 – 3 days prior to Ravi’s death and that she had not stated
\nabout the treatment given to Ravi in her affidavit.  D.W.1  obviously  is  not
\ntelling  the facts leading to the death of Ravi, but only speaks of the mental
\ncondition of Ravi.\n<\/p>\n
        121.  D.W.8 says that she was ordained as Devi Mathaji in the year  19
\n93  and  she was staying in the ashram between 1989 and 1992 and was in charge
\nof foreign visitors.  According to her, Ravi was aggressive towards others and
\nagainst himself.  The following are the specific questions and her answers  to
\nthe same :-\n<\/p>\n
Qn :    Despite the deterioration of Ravi’s mental and physical condition,  no
\neffort was taken to put him in the mental       hospital either at Madurai  or
\nat Tiruchy ?\n<\/p>\n
Ans:  The ashram is not duty bound to put him in the mental     hospital
\neither at Madurai or at Tiruchy.  Besides, I    do  not  know whether there is
\nany mental hospital in  Madurai or in Tiruchy.\n<\/p>\n
Qn :  If any inmates of the ashram become seriously sick,       that    inmate
\nwould be shifted to the Tiruchy hospital        for   better   management  and
\ntreatment.  What do you say ?  Ans:  Yes, it is correct.   If  any  person  is
\nseriously ill   and when he\/she cannot be treated effectively in the
\nashram, treatment would be given to him\/her in the      Tiruchy       hospital
\nprovided the person arrives in the      ashram in a healthy condition.   If  a
\nperson is       seriously ill or is suffering from a serious ailment,   that
\ninmate would be shifted to the Tiruchy hospital for treatment.\n<\/p>\n
        122.   D.W.11,  who is the resident of the ashram from 1990, says that
\nRavi was a mental patient, but admits that he was not treated in  a  big  way.
\nAccording to  her,  he  used  to  pass stools outside.  She is also one of the
\nordained Sanyasins of the ashram.  D.W.19 says that he saw Ravi in the library
\nand within a short time, he removed a tooth from his mouth.    D.W.22  is  the
\nvisiting  doctor  of the ashram and he says that he knew the person named Ravi
\nand that he looked like any other patient and therefore, he did not  pay  much
\nattention  to  Ravi,  though he says that Ravi threw away biscuits and when he
\ncame near him, he was smelling urine and that he abused him and  threw  stones
\nat him.    Though D.W.22 is a doctor, admittedly he did not give any treatment
\nto Ravi.  The evidence of the defence witnesses is mainly intended to speak to
\nthe effect that Ravi was a mental patient and that he could have inflicted the
\ninjuries himself.  However, all of them admit that no treatment was  given  to
\nRavi for  his  mental or physical condition.  On the contrary, the prosecution
\nwitnesses namely P.Ws.1, 3, 5, 8, 16, 17 and  18,  cogently  speak  about  the
\novert  acts of A-1 to A-7 and the direction of A-1 to confine Ravi and st arve
\nhim has been implicitly carried out by the other accused.  A-2 kept the key of
\nthe kudil with him and no food and water was given to Ravi, even though he had
\nbeen pleading and shouting for food and water.    The  circumstances  set  out
\nabove,  coupled  with the direct evidence of the prosecution witnesses clearly
\nestablish the case against the accused.\n<\/p>\n
        123.  P.W.3, Sureshkumari, in her statement under Section  161(3)  Cr.
\nP.C.   dated  17.11.1994, had narrated about the sexual acts of A-1, including
\nthe murder of Ravi and the involvement of P.W.1 in the same.    The       said
\nstatement   reached   the  Magistrate’s  Court  immediately  as  early  as  on
\n20.11.1994.  Thereafter, the offence under Section 302 I.P.C.   was  added  to
\nCrime No.1183  of  1994  on  23.11.1994.   A-1 was examined in the presence of
\nP.W.29, the Village Administrative Officer and on the basis of the  admissible
\nportion of the confession statement of A-7 that he would identify the place of
\nburial of  the deceased Ravi, Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C.  were added to Crime
\nNo.1183 of 1994 as per Ex.P.200, the Express Report.  As per the direction  of
\nP.W.28,  the  Tahsildar,  issued in pursuance to the requisition, the skeletal
\nremains of the deceased Ravi were exhumed on 22.11.1994 in the presence of the
\nTahsildar, Dr.  Ravi Shankar, the Village  Administrative  Officer  and  other
\npolice officials and observation mahazars Exs.P.61 and 6 2 were prepared.  The
\ninquest report Ex.P.64 was submitted and thereafter, the skeletal remains were
\nentrusted  to P.W.46, who had conducted a post-mortem of the same and Ex.P.110
\nis the detailed post-mortem certificate.\n<\/p>\n
        124.  In the post-mortem certificate Ex.P.110, the  doctor  refers  to
\nthe  commencement  of the exhumation, the details of the identification of the
\nplace, digging, finding the  skeletal  remains  and  its  removal.    In  that
\ncertificate, it is stated as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
        “At a depth of 45 cms.  in the upper 1\/3rd of the rectangular pit dug,
\na  human  skull  and  mandible  with locks of hair adherent to the left fronts
\nparieto temporal regions found being turned to its right.    On  seeing  this,
\nmeticulous digging  and  cleaning done and at further depth of 5 to 10 cms.  a
\ncompletely skeletonised human remains, totally devoid  of  skin  soft  tissues
\nmuscles,  ligaments,  tendons,  cartilages  and organs was found with head and
\nface portion turned to its right side and the left foot from the  ankle  joint
\nlevel being kept underneath the right foot.  The length from the vertex to the
\nright heel was measured and found out to be 161 cms.”\n<\/p>\n
                …..\n<\/p>\n
        “Though  the  clothings  on  their remains totally absent in the lower
\nhalf of the skeleton, there was a Maroon coloured, full hand collared, acrylic
\n‘T’ shirt with a transversely placed grey band of 4.5 cms.    width  over  the
\nlower part of front of chest portion.”\n<\/p>\n
        …..\n<\/p>\n
        “A  manufacturer’s  tag was found over the inner aspect of the collar.
\nThis T shirt was  identified  to  belong  to  the  deceased  by  Kanthan  S\/o.
\nArumugam,  Age  21Y\/94,  residing  in  the  same  Ashramam  and  Kumanan, S\/o.
\nAmbikanathan, Age 18Y\/94, residing in the same Ashramam.”\n<\/p>\n
The report further says,
\n        “All the bones of the above said skeleton  except  the  sternum  right
\npissiform  two distal phalanges of the right hand four distal phalanges of the
\nright foot, all carpal bones of the left hand, all phalanges of the left hand,
\nupper end of the left fibula, left patella, all metatarsal bones of  the  left
\nfoot  and  all  phalanges  of  the  left  foot  which  were found missing were
\nmeticulously collected, sealed and brought  to  this  department  for  further
\ndetailed study of each bone individually.\n<\/p>\n
Thereafter,  the  report gives the findings of the detailed study of each bone
\nindividually.  The doctor’s opinion is as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
        “OPINION :  From the above examination we are of the opinion that :\n<\/p>\n
1.      The skeletal remains examined would appear to belong to  a  male  aged
\nabove  30 years but below 36 years with a stature of 168 cms ( consistent with
\nthe given history);\n<\/p>\n
2.      The deceased would have lost his 1st Molar tooth in  the  right  upper
\nquadrant,  1st premolar tooth in the left upper quadrant and the 2 nd premolar
\ntooth in the left lower quadrant at any time, 6 months to 1 year prior to  his
\ndeath;\n<\/p>\n
3.      Death of the deceased would appear to have occurred 3 to 5 years prior
\nto the day of exhumation i.e.  24.11.94; and<\/p>\n
4.      The  Antemortem  injuries  seen  in the examined skeletal remains were
\nsuggestive of the cause of death of the deceased to be due to Left  Upper  and
\nLower Limb injuries.”\n<\/p>\n
        125.   In  his  evidence  as P.W.46, the doctor has stated that he had
\nfound 11 ante-mortem injuries and except one injury on the  midline,  all  the
\nother injuries  were  on  the left side of the skeleton.  According to him, he
\ncame to the conclusion that those 11 injuries are antemortem in nature for the
\nfollowing reasons :-\n<\/p>\n
        “1.  In the above  11  suspected  sites  of  antemortem  injuries  the
\nBenzidine  test were found to be immediately positive and the blue colour that
\ndeveloped in the reaction was much intense in contrast to the other  uninjured
\nsites and the stained areas;\n<\/p>\n
        2.   On  examination  of  the above skeleton in the suspected sites of
\nantemortem injuries the bones showed faster  demineralisation  and  consequent
\ndisintegration.\n<\/p>\n
        3.   Even  among  the above suspected 11 sites of antemortem injury in
\nsites where the bones were lighter, smaller  and  thinner  have  disintegrated
\ncompletely and hence found missing.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   In  the above suspected 11 sites of antemortem injuries the vital
\nreaction in the form of presence of blood or its elements have been  found  by
\nme  and  by  Benzidine  test, and this vital reaction of presence of blood has
\nbeen confirmed by the Chemical Analysis and Serology Report  of  the  Forensic
\nSciences Department, Madras-4.\n<\/p>\n
After sustaining the above said injuries in 11 sites if the injured person was
\nunder  complete starvation without food or water, he would have survived for a
\nmaximum of 7-10 days.  The fractures are grievous in nature.  After sustaining
\nthe injuries if the person was under complete starvation such starvation would
\nreduce the resistance power and the consequent infection<\/p>\n
will be accelerating the process of death.\n<\/p>\n
Question :  Doctor what do you mean by infection resulting in acceleration  of
\ndying process ?\n<\/p>\n
Answer :    Due to total starvation reduced resistance to infection occurs and
\nhence the bacteria causing such infection will be multi-fold  in  contrast  to
\nthe normal injured person and will result in these bacterial entering into the
\nblood  stream  and causing septicaemia and thus this state of septicaemia will
\naccelerate the dying process.”\n<\/p>\n
        126.  In  the  chief-examination,  the  doctor  has  referred  to  the
\nfindings of  the detailed study of the following bones individually.  They are
\nthe skull, mandible, cervical vertebrae, thoracic vertebrae, lumbar vertebrae,
\nsacrum, sternum, ribs, collar bones, scapulae, hip  bones,  right  upper  limb
\nbones,  right  radius,  right  ulna,  right  carpal  bones, right metacarpals,
\nphalanges of right hand; right lower  limb  bones-right  femur,  right  tibia,
\nright  fibula,  right  patella, tarsal bones of the right foot, metatarsals of
\nthe right foot, phalanges of  the  right  foot;  left  upper  limb  bones-left
\nhumerus, left radius, left ulna, carpal bones of the left hand, metacarpals of
\nthe  left  hand, phalanges of the left hand; left lower limb bones-left femur,
\nleft tibia, left  fibula,  left  patella,  tarsal  bones  of  the  left  foot,
\nmetatarsals of the left foot, phalanges of the left foot and hyoid bone.\n<\/p>\n
        127.   The  doctor,  in  his  cross-examination,  has  stated that the
\nBenzidine Test was done to the skeletal remains and that he had noticed  three
\nreactions,  viz.,  a) Negative, b) Delayed Positive and c) Immediate Positive.
\nTaking into  consideration  the  nature  of  the  reaction,  i.e.    immediate
\npositive,  he  concluded  that  those  injuries  should have been ante-mortem.
\nAccording to the doctor, in  the  following  sites,  the  benzidine  test  was
\nimmediate positive :\n<\/p>\n
        1.  Lower half of left Ulna,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        2.  Front half of the lateral condyle left femur,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        3.  Upper end of left tibia,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        4.  Upper end of left fibula,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        5.  In the area of the Carpal bones of left hand, and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        6.  Tarsal bones of the left foot.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  doctor,  while  elaborating  the  fractures on these bones, has stated as
\nfollows :-\n<\/p>\n
        “There was an antemortem fracture in the Left Ulna.    The  antemortem
\nfracture  is  stated  as  ‘a  furrow like breakage in between the head and the
\nstyloid process at the lower end of  the  bone’.    In  my  report,  Ex.P.110,
\nwherever I  use the word breakage it is synonymous with fracture.  In one part
\nof my report I have  also  mentioned  one  fracture  as  antemortem  fracture.
\nThough  the  words  ‘fracture and breakage’ refer to the antemortem injuries I
\nused two different words to make a fine distinction between  them.    Fracture
\nrefers to  the  injury  where  discontinuity is through and through.  Breakage
\nmeans loss of bony tissues on the surface of a bone.  In a  simple  manner  it
\ncould be  stated in a Fracture the bone is cut into two pieces.  In my opinion
\nthe loss of bony tissue on the surface of a bone is not a simple injury; it is
\na grievous injury.  Over the head of the fifth m etacarpal bone  of  the  left<\/p>\n
hand a  brownish  black  stain was spotted.  When it was tested with Benzidine
\nthe reaction was immediate positive.  There was no fracture or breakage on the
\nhead of the fifth metacarpal of the left hand.\n<\/p>\n
        The next site which reacted immediately positive to Benzidine was  the
\nleft Femur.  I have not mentioned any breakage or fracture of left Femur bone;
\nWitness further adds :  that the injury is mentioned as ‘Depression’.\n<\/p>\n
        The next site which reacted immediately positive to Benzidine was left
\nTibia.   Here  also  I  have  not  stated any fracture or breakage of the left
\nTibia.  The injury is referred to as ‘Depression’.\n<\/p>\n
        Regarding the site  Tarsal  bones  of  the  left  foot  which  reacted
\nimmediately  positive  for  Benzidine,  I  have  not  stated  any  fracture or
\nbreakage.  The injury is referred to as ‘The  Broken  surfaces  of  the  three
\ncuneiform bones’.”\n<\/p>\n
        128.  The doctor has stated that he might have done the benzidine test
\nfor  the  skeletal  remains  for  as  many  as  33 sites and according to him,
\nwherever the result of the benzidine test was immediate positive, the injuries
\nare ante-mortem in nature.  He has clarified that all other  areas  where  the
\ntest  was found to be negative or delayed positive, the breakages of the bones
\nwere osteo-porotic breakages due to demineralisation and due to the  prolonged
\nburial of  the  body.    The doctor had also stated that though the conclusion
\narrived at conducting the benzidine test  was  an  important  one,  all  other
\nreasons were  also  of  equal  importance  in  arriving at the conclusion.  In
\nreference to clause 4 of  his  opinion  that  the  ante-mortem  injuries  were
\nsuggestive of the cause of death due to left upper and lower limb injuries, he
\nhas  stated  that  the  words  ‘suggestive  of’  are  used by him in the sense
\n‘indication of’ and not in the sense ‘suspicious of’.  The evidence of P.W.46,
\nDr.  Ravi Shankar, is cogent, clear and convincing and he  has  withstood  the
\nlengthy cross-examination and the challenge to many of his findings.\n<\/p>\n
        129.   We  find  that  the  defence has gone at length to question the
\nveracity of the conclusion arrived at by the doctor  P.W.46  on  unsustainable
\nmaterials and grounds.  The doctor has put in 16 years of practice in forensic
\nmedicine  and according to him, he had conducted as nearly as 12,000 to 15,000
\npost-mortem examinations.  He had attended and conducted 15 to  25  exhumation
\ncases.   Much  is  made  out  of certain corrections made by the doctor in his
\nnotes taken at the time of exhumation.  Though usually,  the  notes  that  are
\nprepared  at the time of exhumation or at the time of examination of the bones
\nare not produced before the court, they are produced only if they are required
\nby the court and in this case, the doctor has  readily  produced  those  notes
\nwhich are marked as Ex.D.32.  He had conceded that there were corrections made
\nby him, but denied the suggestion that they were made at a later date and then
\na date  put  as  24.11.1994.    He  has  explained  the  reasons as to how the
\ncorrections had occurred as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
        “While collecting the bones,  during  the  exhumation,  I  was  giving
\ndictation  to  the Scientific Assistant and he was taking down the particulars
\nof the bones.  After removing the gloves and after washing  the  hands,  again
\nwhen I verified the bones with that of the particulars of the bones written by
\nthe  Scientific  Assistant, as and where I found the mistakes, I corrected the
\nsame with my pen and initialled  the  same  by  putting  the  date.    Ex.D.32
\ncontains  the  writings  of  two  persons,  viz.,  my Scientific Assistant and
\nmyself.  The main writings are that  of  the  handwritings  of  my  Scientific
\nAssistant and I have made the corrections and wherever I made the corrections,
\nI initialled there with dates.”\n<\/p>\n
The  doctor  says  that  for every human being, for each one hand and each one
\nfoot also, totally 14 Phalanges and the total body Phalanges are 56 in number.
\nAccording to the  corrected  version,  32  Phalanges  were  recovered  and  24
\nPhalanges were  found  missing.   He further explains that when the bones were
\ncollected at the spot, in the rear of hands and foot, Phalanges were collected
\nand when they were brought to the Department and  carefully  examined,  10  of
\nthem were found to be hardened soil or pieces of stones and that the length of
\neach Phalange  is 1 to 1.5 cms.  According to the doctor, it is not correct to
\nstate that his Assistant was right in not writing the 10 Phalanges as  against
\nItem  30  in  Ex.D.32  and  it  was  a  human error on his part and not of his
\nAssistant.      During the examination of the Phalanges in the Department,  he
\nhad  found  that  10  of  them  described  as Phalanges in Ex.D.32 were either
\nhardened soil or pieces of stones and he  had  found  them  to  be  so  before
\npreparing Ex.P.110.\n<\/p>\n
        130.   In  Ex.D.32,  the  word  ‘not’ was subsequently written when he
\nreferred to sternum.  So also, there are some corrections in the word ‘ place’
\nwhich was wrongly written as ‘piece’.  It  was  contended  that  the  original
\nwriting  should  have  been  sternum  found  in  piece  and  that  P.W.46  has
\ndeliberately corrected it.  The explanation of the expert witness in reference
\nto the corrections made then and there is convincing.  While describing  this,
\nthe doctor has stated as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
        “STERNUM :    The  manubrium sterni, the body of the sternum and xiphi
\nsternum were found conspicuously missing.\n<\/p>\n
        RIBS :  All the twelve pairs of ribs were identified and all  of  them
\nwere   found   with   irregular  broken  areas  in  different  places  due  to
\nosteo-porotic changes, consequent to prolonged burial which answered  negative
\nfor ‘Benzidine’ test.”\n<\/p>\n
The  doctor  has  also  stated  that  in areas where there are injuries to the
\nsternum, there is a possibility for  the  sternum  to  get  disintegrated  and
\ndisappear, where the ribs be in position.  He further says that had there been
\ninjuries to the sternum, the sternum being light and narrow one, it would have
\ndisintegrated  faster  in  comparison to the surrounding ribs without injuries
\nand hence, the sternum would have completely disappeared.\n<\/p>\n
        131.  The doctor has also given opinion  that  where  the  bones  were
\nfound  missing,  the  areas adjacent to the bones showed presence of blood and
\nthe missing of bones was conspicuously on the left side  in  contrast  to  the
\nright  side  which is convincing, namely that because the presence of blood in
\nthe areas of ante-mortem  injuries,  there  was  faster  demineralisation  and
\ndisintegration of smaller, lighter and thinner bones.  The credibility of this
\nwitness  cannot be assailed on the ground of corrections in the notes since he
\nhas produced the notes immediately on the requisition and  as  also  explained
\nwhy the corrections were made.\n<\/p>\n
        132.  We do not find any ground to doubt the opinion of the doctor and
\nhis findings.   In our view, he was fair to his examination and report.  Where
\nhe concedes in his chief-examination that the deceased could  have  died  even
\nfive  years prior to the date of exhumation and he also says that the fracture
\nmight have been caused even by an accident and the fracture of  the  left  leg
\nand left  fore  arm need not necessarily be due to the blows by the stick.  He
\nfurther says that he knew that the benzidine test is discontinued  abroad  for
\nabout a decade but, he adds, not in India.\n<\/p>\n
        133.  D.W.46, Dr.  V.R.  Purandhar, a Pathologist from J.J.  Hospital,
\nBombay  who  had  been  working  the  Department  of Forensic Medicine, Baroda
\nMedical College and S.S.G.  Hospital, was examined on the side of the  defence
\nin  reference  to  the  post-mortem  certificate Ex.P.110 and as to the expert
\nevidence of P.W.46.  At the outset, we are  thoroughly  dissatisfied  the  way
\nD.W.46 had  expressed  his  opinion on the opinion of another expert.  Some of
\nhis statements are extracted below :-\n<\/p>\n
        “It  is  totally  scientific  rubbish  to  say  that  the  bone   will
\ndisintegrate faster if there is blood on the bone compared to the bone without
\nany blood.”\n<\/p>\n
        “It  is equally rubbish that if a bone has disappeared, it must be due
\nto the presence of blood on it.”\n<\/p>\n
        “In my opinion, his (Dr.  Ravi Shankar, P.W.46) opinion is false.  The
\nopinion has been given without application of scientific mind.”\n<\/p>\n
        “It is my firm opinion that there is no evidence  of  any  ante-mortem
\ninjury to  the bones.  All the breakages and chippings are due to post-mortem.
\nDisintegration and damage is natural during long burial and  possibly  due  to
\nthe violence of the exhumation process.”\n<\/p>\n
He has characterised the opinion of P.W.46, another expert, as false.  Without
\ngoing  into  the  veracity of the defence witness, it is has to be pointed out
\nthat it is rather unfortunate to note that an expert, who claims to be a  M.D.
\nin  Pathology,  should  use the word ‘false’ while referring to the opinion of
\nanother expert and call that opinion as rubbish.    Equally,  we  are  totally
\nunable to appreciate as to how he can say that the breakages and chippings are
\nbecause  of  postmortem and that disintegration and damage was possibly due to
\nthe violence of the exhumation process.\n<\/p>\n
        134.  D.W.46, in the cross-examination, has stated as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
        “I had no opportunity of seeing the place of exhumation.  But, I  have
\nseen and examined the bones only in the court during the chiefexamination.”\n<\/p>\n
It  is  worthwhile  here  to  recollect  the  meticulous  manner  in which the
\nexhumation had taken place in the  presence  of  the  Tahsildar,  the  Village
\nAdministrative  Officer  and  other police officials, and also the notes taken
\nand the procedure followed while exhuming the skeletal remains of the deceased
\nRavi.  The said report Ex.P.110 was issued  after  taking  the  bones  to  the
\nlaboratory and  studying  them  scientifically  and  examining them.  Whereas,
\nD.W.46, without even  seeing  the  place  of  exhumation  or  having  had  the
\nopportunity  of  examining  the  bones  in a laboratory with scientific tools,
\nmerely on a cursory glance at the  bones,  has  given  his  opinion  that  the
\nevidence  of  P.W.46  is false and that the breakages and chippings might have
\nbeen due to the violence of the exhumation process.  This would clearly go  to
\nshow  that  D.W.46  is  a  highly interested witness got up for the purpose of
\ndiscrediting the evidence of P.W.46 and his approach and the method of  giving
\nan  opinion is not scientific and worthy to be accepted as an expert evidence.
\nThe Supreme Court, in Piara Singh vs.  State of Punjab<\/a> [19 77 S.C.C.    (Crl.)
\n614],  while  dealing  with the conflict of opinions of two competent experts,
\nheld that the opinion of the  one  supporting  the  direct  evidence  and  the
\nopinion  of  the  doctor  who  performed  the  post-mortem  preferably must be
\npreferred and accepted.  In Tanviben  Pankaj  Kumar  Divedia  vs.    State  of
\nGujarat [1997  (7)  S.C.C.    156],  the  Supreme Court held that in case of a
\nconflict of opinion of two doctors, the opinion of  the  doctor  who  actually
\nexamined  the injured or held the post-mortem examination must be preferred to
\nthe expert opinion of the doctor who gave his opinion only on the basis of the
\ninjury report, x-ray report, post-mortem report,  etc.    In  the  absence  of
\nconvincing  evidence  that  the  doctor  holding  post-mortem  examination had
\ndeliberately given a wrong report, his evidence cannot  be  discarded.    Even
\nD.W.46, while agreeing that the first three opinions may or may not be correct
\nand  that he had not been asked to give opinion on those three points and that
\nhe had not applied his mind, he says that the fourth opinion was false because
\nthere was no evidence of any antemortem injuries and even if such  injury  was
\ninflicted on the deceased before death, it was impossible to cause death.\n<\/p>\n
        135.   The  Chemical  Report, Ex.P.111 is another crucial report which
\nsupports the case of the prosecution.  This report  is  in  reference  to  the
\nchemical  examination of the maroon full sleeved silken T.Shirt with grey band
\nand white beeding along the chest and upper arm portion and  with  red  woolen
\nborders on which were dark brown stains.  The report says as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
                “Detected blood on the above item.”\n<\/p>\n
In the Serology Report, Ex.P.112, the following result was noted :-\n<\/p>\n
                \"T.Shirt - origin of grouping - human;          result      of\ngrouping test - inconclusive.\"\n\n<\/pre>\n
P.W.46 has stated that Ex.P.112, Serology Report, says that  human  blood  was
\ndetected in  the  T.Shirt.   Thus, it could be seen that the deceased Ravi was
\nbleeding to death and even the bath given to his  body  could  not  completely
\nremove the  blood  stains.    The  sweater had also retained blood to tell the
\nstory of his bleeding injuries.  Ex.P.113 is the Chemical Analysis  Report  of
\nthe  soil  at  the head end of this skeleton, at the heel end of the skeleton,
\nfrom both sides, in the middle portion, from above the skeleton and from below
\nthe skeleton at the level of the pelvis.  The doctor says that while  all  the
\nbones in the skeleton showed breakages in different degrees at different sites
\ndue  to  osteo-porosis  consequent  to  prolonged burial, some such sites were
\nsuspected to be ante-mortem and hence soil around such sites was preserved and
\nseparately sealed and kept in their department to  be  sent  to  the  Forensic
\nScience Department,  Madras.    Ex.P.116 is the Chemical Analysis Report which
\ndetected human blood in the soil taken from around the left wrist joint.    As
\nper Ex.P.115, item No.1, soil from the head end of the skeletal remains, human
\nblood was detected.\n<\/p>\n
        136.   The  evidence  of  P.W.46  is,  therefore,  strengthened by the
\nserology report also, where human blood was detected in the soil from the head
\nend of the skeletal remains, Ex.P.115 and soil collected from the wrist  area,
\nEx.P.117  and  blood  having  been  also  found  in  the  sweater  is  another
\ncircumstance in favour of the prosecution.  The doctor, P.W.46  had  explained
\nthat  the  blood  detected  from  the  soil  from the head end of the skeletal
\nremains could be connected with  the  missing  of  sternum  and  the  positive
\nbenzidine test over the anterior aspect of the upper thoracic vertebrae.\n<\/p>\n
        137.   From  the  above,  we have no hesitation in concluding that the
\nmedical evidence fully supports the case of the prosecution  in  reference  to
\nthe death of the deceased Ravi.\n<\/p>\n
        138.   On  behalf  of  the appellants, in support of their theory that
\nRavi, being a lunatic, had inflicted injuries on his body on his own and  that
\ndeath  would  have  been  due  to  such injuries, they have filed Ex.D.66, the
\nPsychatric Case Sheet of Ravi.  The said document was marked through D.W.26, a
\nMember of the Bar in Sri Lanka.  According to him, A-1 is a messenger of  God,
\nsent to save mankind from suffering and also to impart spiritual teachings and
\nhe always  taught  to  lead a virtuous and righteous life.  He says that after
\nthe arrest of A-1, he was asked by  the  ashram  authorities  to  contact  the
\nmental  hospital  in  Angoda  to  get  the  copy  of the psychatric case sheet
\npertaining to Ravi.  The said document was marked subject to  objection.    As
\nper  this document, Ravi had suffered sleeping problem in the year 1990 and he
\nwas abusing and assaulting his family members and was uncontrollable  at  home
\nand over-talkative.    He  was keeping q uiet and there was no evidence of any
\ndistrust.  He was transferred to the Government Hospital and brought  back  to
\nthe O.P.   in  the year 1990.  He escaped from the ward and went to the house,
\nbut was brought back to the hospital by S.  Gnanandan, his brother and  again,
\nhe was  transferred  to the Government Hospital.  The certificate sets out the
\nhistory of Ravi upto 23.3.1990.\n<\/p>\n
        139.  From the above document, it can  only  be  said  that  Ravi  was
\nsuffering from  a  mental  disorder  at  intervals.    He  was  aggressive and
\nover-talkative.  From Ex.D.79, it could be seen that after leaving the  mental
\nhospital, he  went  back  to  his  house.  The diagnosis that he was talkative
\ncorroborates the prosecution evidence that he was questioning  the  activities
\nof  A-1  and was over-talking and aggressive on the activities of A-1 and also
\ncourageous enough to shout about the misdeeds of A-1.   The  argument  of  the
\ncounsel  for  the  appellants that Ravi was a raving lunatic and was unable to
\nunderstand the happenings around him is contrary to the  findings  in  Ex.D.66
\nwhich says  that  he  had  complete orientation towards person and time.  As a
\nmatter of fact, he was taken to the ashram at Tiruchy with a hope  that  there
\nwas possibility  for his complete cure.  In contrast to this evidence, D.W.22,
\nthe doctor himself has stated that Ravi was found to be normal  at  times  and
\nthat he  did  not  think it necessary to treat him.  The prosecution witnesses
\nnamely P.Ws.1, 3, 11, 16, 17 and 18 have all stated  that  there  was  nothing
\nwrong  with Ravi and that he was attending to the normal activities, including
\nthe reading of newspapers in the library.  It is somewhat surprising  to  note
\nthat  inspite  of  the  alleged  communication  as to the death of Ravi to his
\nmother, there was no response from his  mother  or  his  relatives.    On  the
\ncontrary,  the statement of the family in Ex.D.48 that the Government of India
\nhas full power to take any legal action and proceedings with  regard  to  this
\ncase  and  the absence of further letters or correspondence after the case was
\nregistered and the failure of the family members to attend the commission only
\nstrengthens the case that the family of Ravi did not accept the case that Ravi
\nhad met with a natural death.\n<\/p>\n
                        140.  The present attempt of the appellants  to  argue
\nthat  Ravi  was  suffering from serious mental ailment has no legs to stand in
\nthe face of the failure of the ashram authorities, including D.W.22 and  other
\npersons,  who  are  said  to  have  been attending Ravi everyday in not giving
\ntreatment for Ravi.  If really Ravi was as bad as it  is  now  painted,  their
\nfailure  to  give  treatment to Ravi falsifies their story that he was roaming
\naround the ashram with mental illness.  The evidence of the defence  witnesses
\nis  totally  unbelievable  and  unsupported by any other independent evidence.
\nWhen the victim girls were taken to the hospital for the purpose of conducting
\nabortion upon their failure to get periods after 2-3 months in the car of  A-1
\nand with assistance and funds, if really the ashram authorities felt that Ravi
\nwas  insane  and  uncontrollable,  nothing  would  have  prevented  them  from
\nadmitting Ravi in a hospital for giving treatment.\n<\/p>\n
        141.  Yet another argument is that Ravi had become  so  uncontrollable
\nand hence, there was compulsion to confine him  in a  separate  kudil.   It is
\nthe case of the appellants that D.W.12 was taking care of Ravi.  However,  she
\nwas  not  competent  to  speak  anything  that  happened to Ravi since she had
\nadmittedly left the ashram on 17.11.1991.  D.W.1 as well as D.W.12 have stated
\nthat they had been giving food to Ravi regularly.  D.W.1 also says  that  when
\nshe  t  ook  food  to  Ravi  in  May\/ June 1991, he was lying and since it was
\ncontrary to his usual behaviour, she became suspicious  and  asked  others  to
\nexamine  Ravi  and  others,  after  examining  him,  found that Ravi was dead.
\nWhereas, D.W.12 also says that on the day prior to the death of Ravi, that was
\non 16.11.1 991, in the evening, she went to Ravi’s kudil  and  after  cleaning
\nthe kudil,  she  left  water  in  a  jug  and a bucket with a mug.  Both these
\nwitnesses are contradicting one another and their evidence  looks  artificial.
\nIt  is  not  in dispute that after the beating of Ravi, either on 10th or 11th
\nApril 1991, he was confined in the kudil and locked,  the  key  of  the  kudil
\nhaving been  kept  by A-2.  The appellants have pleaded that Ravi was confined
\nbecause he had become uncontrollable.  Their version is  unbelievable  because
\nthey have not given any treatment to him for his uncontrollable behaviour.  He
\nwas not only confined, but was locked.  D.W.12 does not say that he was giving
\nfood to  the  deceased Ravi.  The evidence of D.W.1 has been commented upon by
\nthe learned Sessions Judge and she found her as a totally  unreliable  witness
\nas she  was highly interested in securing the release of A-1.  We fully concur
\nwith the same.\n<\/p>\n
        142.  Taking the clue from the medical report, Ex.P.110, evidence  was
\nled  in  to  show that Ravi was capable of taking out his tooth by bare hands.
\nIt is highly improbable that an adult person like Ravi would be able to remove
\nhis tooth unless the tooth had already  been  decayed  or  was  in  a  falling
\ncondition.   From  this,  it  could  not be inferred that he would have caused
\ninjuries to himself.  Assuming that Ravi had certain  mental  illness  to  the
\nextent  of  showing  his aggression and being talkative, that will not, in any
\nway, justify the action of the accused in causing his murder.\n<\/p>\n
        143.  It was argued on behalf of the appellants that the injuries that
\nwere caused to the deceased  Ravi  with  casuarina  stick  were  only  on  the
\nnon-vital  parts  of his body namely on the left upper limb and lower limb and
\nkicking Ravi on his chest and back.  It is argued that there  might  not  have
\nbeen  any  intention to cause the murder of Ravi with such beating and that at
\nbest, it could attract either Sections 323 or 324 I.P.C.  The  subsequent  and
\nprior actions of the accused have to be taken note of in this regard.  A-1 has
\nclearly  indicated  (vide the evidence of P.W.11) that Ravi should be disposed
\nof as he was talking too much openly and shouting about the sexual acts of A-1
\nwith the victim girls.  So, it is clear that the beating was for  the  purpose
\nof disposing  of  Ravi.    The subsequent command of A-1 was that Ravi must be
\nconfined in the kudil and that nobody should give him food  or  water.    This
\ncommand was  followed  by  the  locking  of  the kudil by A-2.  There is clear
\nevidence that Ravi was shouting for food and water and nobody  dared  to  give
\nthe same  to  him.   Ravi was bleeding and was also starving, but no treatment
\nwas given to him and he was subjected to die in the most inhuman manner at the
\ninstance of and with the connivance of the accused.  The statement of  A-1  in
\nhis  questioning  under  Section  313 Cr.P.C., that he did not feel shocked or
\nsurprised when he was informed that Ravi  was  dead,  fully  corroborates  the
\nknowledge of A-1 as to Ravi’s condition.  He received the news of the death of
\nRavi coolly and ordered the burial of the body in such a way as<\/p>\n
not to  give  rise  to  a suspicion.  All these things, coupled with the clear
\nmedical and prosecution evidence, lead to the inescapable conclusion that Ravi
\nwas murdered and that the accused are guilty of the charge  of  murder.    The
\nprosecution  has  established the guilt of the accused A-1, A-2 and A-4 to A-7
\nbeyond any reasonable doubt.  Hence, the finding of the learned Sessions Judge
\nis hereby confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
        Approvers’ Evidence :\n<\/p>\n
        144.  Insofar as the evidence of the approvers  P.W.1  and  P.W.2  are
\nconcerned,  it  is  seen  that  they  were  arrested  on  21.12.1994 and their
\nstatements recorded on 29.12.1994.  The  Additional  District  Judge-cum-Chief
\nJudicial  Magistrate,  Pudukkottai  had recorded the Tender of Pardon of P.W.1
\nand P.W.2.\n<\/p>\n
        145.  From the overt acts  attributed  to  P.W.1  and  the  facts  and
\ncircumstances,  it is clear that the main test of reliability of participation
\nin the criminal act has been satisfied in this case.  P.W.1, in his  evidence,
\nhas spoken  to  of  his  participation in the act.  P.W.1 has involved himself
\nfully in the murder of Ravi by assisting A-1.  P.  W.1 belongs to  Yazhppanam,
\nSri Lanka.  He knew A-1 prior to coming down to Tiruchy.  He was staying along
\nwith his family in the ashram.  Ravi was brought to ashram four or five months
\nafter P.W.1 came to the ashram.  P.W.1 says that he was there when A-1 ordered
\nRavi to be brought to him because Ravi was shouting that A-1 was having sexual
\nintercourse with  the  girls  of the ashram.  According to P.W.1, A-4, A-6 and
\nA-7 brought Ravi before A-1.  A-2 and A-5 were residing just opposite  to  the
\nkudil of A-1.  A-1 directed A-7 to tie Ravi to the lamp post.  A-7 tied him to
\nthe post and thereafter A-1 repeatedly beat Ravi with a casuarina stick.  Ravi
\nsuffered blood  injuries on the left leg and left hand.  When A-1 directed A-7
\nto untie the ropes, it was done and immediately thereafter,  Ravi  fell  down.
\nA-1 kicked  Ravi  on his back and A-2 kicked Ravi on his chest.  The lamp post
\nto which Ravi was tied got bent.  As per the direction of  A-1  that  must  be
\nconfined in a room without food or water, he, i.e.  P.W.1, along with A-4, A-5
\nand A-6,  dragged  Ravi and put him in the kavadi kudil.  When he took Ravi in
\nthat manner along with others, Ravi shouted  at  P.W.1  stating  that  he  was
\nacting like  a pimp and that he should not stand in front of him.  After P.W.1
\nreturned from Madras on 17.4.1991 in the morning, he  went  to  see  Ravi  and
\nfound him  lying  without  breath.  Thereafter, he went and got the key of the
\nkudil from A-2 and opened the kudil to see Ravi.  Ravi was found dead and  his
\nbody was  being covered with ants.  P.W.1 informed this to A-1 and A-2 who did
\nnot show any surprise or shock.  P.W.1 was directed to clean  and  clothe  the
\ndead body.   Accordingly,  P.W.    shaved the face and bathed the dead body of
\nRavi.  He clad the body with a sweater and dhoti.  He also garlanded the  body
\nwith flowers  which  were  brought  by A-4 and A-7.  In the cross-examination,
\nP.W.1 admits that initially, A-1 called him aloud so as to bring Ravi.\n<\/p>\n
        146.   For  question  No.260,  A-1 has admitted that somebody came and
\ninformed him of the death of Ravi and for question No.261, he admits that  the
\nbody  of  Ravi  was ordered to be cleaned and decorated, but does not remember
\nwho had done it, that he had directed them  to  bury  Ravi  near  his  uncle’s
\nburial place.  Thereafter, the body was taken and a photo was taken so that it
\nmay  be  sent  to  the  family of Ravi to enable them to know that nothing had
\nhappened in secret.  The pertinent point here is that A-1 has not denied  when
\na  specific  question  was  put  to him that it was P.W.1 who had informed him
\nabout the death and that it was P.W.1 who was directed to clean  and  decorate
\nthe dead body.\n<\/p>\n
        147.  From the above, it is clear that P.W.1 has implicitly obeyed the
\nmandate of A-1 to drag Ravi and confine him in the kudil and he also refrained
\nfrom giving food or water to the injured Ravi and thereby, P.W.1 has become  a
\ncoconspirator in  the  conspiracy  hatched at the scene of occurrence.  He had
\ninvolved himself in the  overt  act  in  abetting  the  murder  by  wrongfully
\nconfining Ravi in the kavadi kudil.  He had acquiesced himself to the criminal
\nact  by  obeying  the  mandate of A-1 and intentionally abetting the murder of
\nRavi along with A-4 and A-7.  In furtherance to the conspiracy, with a view to
\ncause destruction of the evidence of the murder, P.W.1 had  clean  shaved  the
\nbody  of  the deceased Ravi, clad the body with P.M.O.10, full sleeved sweater
\nand the body was buried by P.W.1 and A-4 to A-7, thus giving it  a  colour  of
\nnatural death.\n<\/p>\n
        148.   The  above  conduct  of  P.W.1  clearly establishes that he had
\nparticipated in the commission of the offence of  murder  from  the  beginning
\ntill the  end.    As  it  is  in evidence that Ravi was talkative and had been
\nopenly shouting about the sexual acts of A-1 with the girls in the ashram  and
\nusing  abusive  colloquial  expressions  to  imply  that A-1 was having sexual
\nintercourse with the girls, and hence, A-1 called P.W.1 to bring Ravi  and  by
\nthat time he went there, A-2 and A-4 were already there near the kudil of A-1.
\nA-4, A-6 and A-7 brought Ravi near the kudil of A-1 and therefore, it is clear
\nthat there  was  no  pre-determined  plan.   The conspiracy was formed at that
\nmoment and therefore, the answer of P.W.1 that there was no predetermined plan
\nhas to be understood in the light of the facts of the case.  P.W.1 has  passed
\nthe test of reliability as his participation in the crime and the overt act of
\nabetting  the murder of Ravi, wrongfully confining him in the kavadi kudil and
\nhis subsequent conspiracy to cause destruction of the evidence of the  murder,
\nwhich  has  been  admittedly done by P.W.1, would clearly establish that P.W.1
\nhas participated in the criminal act and has satisfied the  reliability  test.
\nThe  evidence  of  P.W.1 has been corroborated by the admission of A-1 and the
\nevidence of other witnesses, especially P.W.17 and P.W.17  who  speak  clearly
\nabout the  overt  act  of A-1 and A-2.  Besides, it is further strengthened by
\nthe evidence of the victim girls P.Ws.3, 5, 16 and 18.\n<\/p>\n
        149.   The  main ground raised against the approver’s evidence is that
\nhis evidence is unreliable and is  brought  about  by  the  influence  of  the
\nprosecution  and  once  it  is  held  to  be  unreliable, corroboration of his
\nevidence is not going to help the case of the prosecution.    Besides,  it  is
\nsubmitted  that  P.W.1  has  admitted  that  he  did  not  participate  in any
\npre-planned conspiracy and that he was deliberately arrested a month after the
\narrest of A-1.\n<\/p>\n
        150.  The argument on behalf of the appellant that P.W.1  had  reasons
\nto  speak  against  A-1  namely  that A-1 had demanded for return of the money
\nborrowed by P.W.1 from A-1 and the request of P.W.1  to  ordain  Gunananda  as
\nSanyasi  and  that  A-1  did  not  permit  him to go abroad are not sufficient
\ngrounds for P.W.1 to have taken revenge on A-1.  P.W.1 has denied that he  had
\nsought  for  the  permission of A-1 to go abroad or that he had requested that
\nGunananda be ordained as the head of the ashram and he has also stated that he
\nhad returned the money borrowed by him from A-1.  His  evidence  that  at  the
\nrequest  of  P.W.13  and  P.W.30  he  also  joined them in order to reveal the
\nillegal activities of A-1 is convincing.\n<\/p>\n
        151.  P.W.2, Nesan, the other approver in  this  case,  came  to  this
\nashram along  with his brother, P.W.18 and sister, P.W.5.  According to P.W.2,
\nabout six months prior to the arrest, A-1 had instructed him to make love with
\nP.W.4.  Though P.W.4 informed P.W.2 about her pregnancy through  A-1,  he  had
\nstated  that  even  thereafter, he had intercourse with P.W.4, who was already
\nraped by A-1.  He further says that he did so on the directions of A-1.  P.W.2
\nhad such implicit fait in the divine powers of A-1 that  he  was  prepared  to
\nbear  the responsibility of the pregnancy of P.W.4 and the consequences of the
\nrape on her by A-1.  The evidence of P.W.2 is not  exculpatory  and  the  fact
\nthat  he  had acted on the directions of A-1 on the faith that he had with A-1
\nhas been spoken to by P.W.2.  Thereby, P.W.2 had involved himself in  effacing
\nthe  evidence  of  rape  committed  by  A-1 on P.W.4 and caused termination of
\npregnancy and thereby intentionally aided the act of  rape  by  A-1.    P.W.2,
\nunder  the  directions  of  A-1,  took P.W.4 to the doctor for terminating her
\npregnancy and he had disguised himself as Ramesh before Dr.    Thangamani  and
\nthereafter, P.W.2  took P.W.4 to Dr.  Muthulakshmi’s Clinic where the abortion
\ntook place.  In the consent letter given by P.W.4, Ex.P.94 for abortion, P.W.2
\nhad also signed as Ramesh.  He has paid Rs.3,000\/- for aborting the  pregnancy
\nof P.W.4 and the said amount was given to him by A-1.  P.W.4, in her evidence,
\nhad  explained the compelling circumstances under which she was forced to give
\nEx.D.14, letter wherein she is said to have expressed her  regret  for  having
\nsexual relations  with  P.W.2,  Nesan.  If really P.W.4 had become pregnant in
\nview of her  love  affair  with  P.W.2  on  her  own,  definitely  the  ashram
\nauthorities  would have taken steps to inform the same to her parents, who are
\nliving in the nearby village or at least would taken steps to send her out  of
\nthe ashram.   However, she was allowed to stay back in the ashram and with the
\nfinancial assistance of A-1, she got her abortion done.  The further  argument
\nto  discredit the approver’s evidence of P.W.2 is that he was deliberately not
\narrested at the time of the arrest of others and even after his arrest after a
\nmonth, he was let to got on bail without any objection being  raised  and  the
\nsame  has  been  properly  explained  by  the  prosecution  that though he was
\navailable initially, thereafter, he was absconding.  As rightly pointed out by
\nthe prosecution, after the initial enquiry, the police investigating the  case
\nwould have let him off after interrogation.  Simply because there was a gap of
\none  month  between  the  arrest  of  P.W.2  and  others, it does not make his
\nevidence as bogus.  The evidence of P.W.2 is trustworthy and his  evidence  is
\ncorroborated  with  material  particulars as well as the evidence of the other
\nprosecution witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
        152.  After going through the evidence of  P.W.2,  we  find  that  his
\nevidence is  not in any way exculpatory.  Though he has generally acted on the
\ndirections of A-1, he speaks about his having sexual  intercourse  with  P.W.4
\neven after  he  came  to  know that A-1 was responsible for her pregnancy.  He
\ntook P.W.4 to the hospital at Tiruchy for doing an abortion on her and in this
\nprocess, he had acted to remove the evidence of the rape committed by A-1  and
\nacted  overtly  in  causing  the  termination  of the pregnancy of P.W.4, thus
\naiding the act of rape committed by A-1.  There is nothing  to  discredit  the
\ntestimony of  P.W.2.    Even  though  the  reference  by  P.W.2 that he had no
\nintention to suppress the evidence of rape committed on the victim  girls  and
\nthat he did not plan the rape, the consequent effacing of evidence of rape and
\nthe  termination  of  pregnancy,  it  should  only  mean  that  there  was  no
\npre-determined plan or prior arrangement on the part of P.W.2.   In  reference
\nto  the  murder  of  Ravi, P.W.2 says that after Ravi was brought, tied up and
\nbeaten, on the commands of A-1 that he should not be provided  with  food  and
\nwater,  P.W.2,  along  with A-4, A-6 and A-7, dragged Ravi to the room (Kavadi
\nKudil).  P.W.2 went and saw Ravi’s condition through the window on  17.4.1991.
\nThereafter,  he took the key of the room from A-2 and went inside the room and
\nfound Ravi dead.  P.W.2 informed the matter to A-1 and A-2 who  did  not  show
\nany response.   P.W.2  shaved  Ravi and cleaned his body.  Thus, it is clearly
\nseen that P.W.2 had participated in the commission of the crime against Ravi.\n<\/p>\n
        153.  In Bhiva Doulu Patil vs.  State of  Maharashtra<\/a>  [A.I.R.    1963
\nS.C.   451],  while considering the combined effect of Sections 133 and 114 of
\nthe Indian Evidence Act, it was held by the Supreme Court  that  according  to
\nthe  former,  which  is  a  rule  of  law,  an accomplice is competent to give
\nevidence and according to the latter, which is  a  rule  of  practice,  it  is
\nalways  almost  unsafe  to  convict  the  accused  upon  the  testimony of the
\naccomplice alone.  Therefore, though the  conviction  of  an  accused  on  the
\ntestimony  of an acco mplice cannot be said to be illegal, yet the court will,
\nas a matter of practice, not accept  the  evidence  of  such  witness  without
\ncorroboration in  material particulars.  Without corroboration of the approver
\nqua a particular accused person,  a  conviction  of  that  accused  person  is
\nunsustainable,  the  law  being  that  there  should  be  corroboration of the
\napprover in material particulars and qua each accused.  In  Sarwan  Singh  vs.
\nState of  Punjab<\/a> [1957 Madras Weekly Notes (Crl.) S.C.  40], the Supreme Court
\nheld that the appreciation of an approver’s evidence has to satisfy  a  double
\ntest-his  evidence  must show that he is a reliable witness and the approver’s
\nevidence must receive sufficient corroboration.  This test is special  to  the
\ncase of  a  weak  or  tainted  evidence like that of the approvers herein.  In
\nYudhishtir vs.  State of Madhya Pradesh [1971 S.C.C.(Crl.) 684],  the  Supreme
\nCourt  held  that corroboration for any evidence given by witness may be found
\nnecessary when a court is not inclined to reject the evidence of  the  witness
\nto be  false.    But,  when  the  evidence  of  a witness has been rejected as
\nunacceptable, there is no scope for attempting to find corroboration by  other
\nindependent evidence or other circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
        154.   The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in Saravana Bhavan
\nvs.  State of Madras [A.I.R.  1966 S.C.  1273], while considering the evidence
\nof an approver and the value of corroboration, held that ordinarily,  a  court
\nseeks  for  corroboration  of the evidence of an approver before convicting an
\naccused person on that evidence.  Generally speaking, this corroboration is of
\ntwo kinds.  Firstly, the court has to satisfy itself that the statement of the
\napprover is credible in itself and there is evidence other than the  statement
\nof  the  approver  that  the  approver  himself  had  taken part in the crime.
\nSecondly, after the court  is  satisfied  that  the  approver’s  statement  is
\ncredible  and  his  part  in  the crime is corroborated by other evidence, the
\ncourt seeks corroboration of the approver’s evidence with respect to the  part
\nof the other accused person in the crime and this evidence has to be of such a
\nnature as  to connect the other accused with the crime.  But, it must be never
\nbe forgotten that before the  court  reaches  the  stage  of  considering  the
\ncorroboration  and  its adequacy or otherwise, the first initial and essential
\nquestion that has to be considered is  whether  even  as  an  accomplice,  the
\napprover is a reliable witness.  If the answer to this question is against the
\napprover, then that is the end of the matter and no question as to whether his
\nevidence is  corroborated  or not falls to be considered.  In other words, the
\nappreciation of an approver’s evidence has to satisfy the double  test.    His
\nevidence  must  show that he is a reliable witness and that is a test which is
\ncommon to all the witnesses.  If this test is satisfied, the second test which
\nstill remains to be considered is that the approver’s  evidence  must  receive
\nsufficient corroboration.    But, there may be cases where the evidence of the
\napprover is so thoroughly discrepant and so  inherently  incredible  that  the
\ncourt might  consider  him  wholly  unreliable.   It was further held that the
\nantecedents of the approver do not really make him  either  better  or  worse.
\nHis  evidence  can  only  be  accepted  on  its own merits and with sufficient
\ncorroboration.\n<\/p>\n
        155.  In Subramanian vs.  State of  Tamil  Nadu<\/a>  [A.I.R.    1975  S.C.
\n139],  the  Supreme  Court  accepted  the  evidence  of  the approver on being
\nadequately corroborated from independent sources for upholding the conviction.
\nIn Ranjeet Singh vs.  State of Rajasthan [1988 S.C.C.  (Crl.) 22  9],  it  was
\nheld by the Supreme Court that while looking for corroboration, the court must
\nlook at the broad spectrum of the approver’s version and then find out whether
\nthere is other evidence to lend assurance to that version.  The nature and the
\nextent of  the  corroboration  may  differ upon the facts of each case.  While
\nreferring to the law laid  down  in  this  regard,  well  settled  by  several
\ndecisions,  in  that case, it was held that corroboration should not be of any
\ndirect evidence that the accused committed the crime.  Corroboration  even  by
\ncircumstantial evidence  may  be  sufficient.    But,  such  evidence  must be
\nindependent and must not be vague or unreliable.  In Balbir Singh vs.    State
\nof  Rajasthan  [1997  (1) Crimes 67 (S.C.)], it was held that deposition of an
\napprover  about  injuries  caused  on  the  person  of  the  deceased  can  be
\nsubstantially corroborated from medical evidence.\n<\/p>\n
        156.   Insofar  as  the  overt  acts  are  concerned,  the  overt acts
\nattributed to A-2 of kicking Ravi on his chest, confining him in the kudil and
\nkeeping the key of that kudil with him has been spoken to by P.  Ws.1,  3,  5,
\n8, 16,  17  and 18.  The overt acts attributed to A-4 of bringing Ravi to A-1,
\nconfining him in the kavadi kudil and his assistance to  P.W.1  to  clean  and
\ndecorate the dead body of Ravi and its burial has been spoken to by P.Ws.1, 8,
\n16, 17  and  18.    The  overt  acts  attributed to A-6 have been spoken to by
\nP.Ws.1, 3, 8, 16, 17 and 18.  On the overt acts of A-1, P.Ws.1, 3, 5,  8,  16,
\n17 and  18  have spoken to the same.  The argument of the counsel for A-4, A-6
\nand A-7 is that there was no direct involvement of  the  appellants  and  that
\nthat they did not have the intention to commit the offence of murder of Ravi.\n<\/p>\n
        157.   In  this context, the following decisions were relied on by the
\ncounsel for the appellants.  In Ramnath vs.   King,  Emperor  [1925  Allahabad
\n230],  a  learned  Judge  of  the  Allahabad High Court has held that the mere
\ngiving of an aid will not make the act of  abetment  of  an  offence,  if  the
\nperson  who  gave  an  aid  did  not  know  that  the offence was committed or
\ncontemplated.  The intention should be to aid an offence or to facilitate  the
\ncommission of  an  offence.  If the person who lends his support does not know
\nor has no reason that the act which he was aiding or supporting was by  itself
\na  criminal  act,  it cannot be said that he intentionally aids or facilitates
\ndoing of that offence.  To the same effect is the decision of another  learned
\nJudge in M.  Shevanthi vs.  Emperor<\/a> [A.I.R.  1928 Nagpur 257].  In Hanuman vs.
\nState of  Rajasthan<\/a>  [1994 S.C.C.  (Crl.) 693], it was held that giving a bath
\nto the dead body or going with the dead body to cremate it  without  giving  a
\nfinding  will not attribute intention of screening the offender from the legal
\npunishment.  In Mithu Singh vs.  State of Punjab<\/a> [200 1 S.C.C.   (Crl.)  668],
\nthe  Supreme Court has held that an inference regarding a common intention can
\nbe drawn from  the  acts  or  conduct  of  the  accused  from  other  relevant
\ncircumstances  and  only  when  such  inference having been drawn with certain
\ndegree of assurance, that the question of culpable liability would arise.   It
\nwas  held  that  common  intention  has  to  be distinguished from the same or
\nsimilar intention.  It is true that it is difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to
\ncollect  and  produce direct evidence in proof of the intention of the accused
\nand mostly, an inference as to the intention shall have to be drawn  from  the
\nacts  or  conduct  of  the  accused  or  other  relevant  circumstances as are
\navailable.  In P.K.  Narayanan vs.  State of Kerala [1995 S.C.C.  215], it was
\nheld that the circumstances proved before, during or after the occurrence have
\nto be considered before deciding the complexity of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
        158.  For all these reasons, we hold that Charge Nos.6  and  8  to  11
\nhave been established as against Accused 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7.\n<\/p>\n
        Charge No.12 :\n<\/p>\n
        159.  A-1  is charged under Section 420 I.P.C.  for having cheated and
\ninduced Mark Dennis and others to part with money on the basis of his claim of
\nspiritual powers to perform ‘Lingothbhavam’ (taking out the Sivalinga  alleged
\nto have been materialised in the stomach from out of his mouth).  The Sessions
\nCourt held that the charge has been proved.\n<\/p>\n
        160.   At  the  outset, we have to point out that though the charge is
\nsaid to have been framed on the basis of enquiry on  the  allegation  of  Mark
\nDennis and some other devotees that they were made to part with their money on
\nthe  belief  and  deception  practised  by A-1, the charge is not framed under
\nSection 415 I.P.C.  for mak ing out a case of deception.    The  charge  being
\nunder  Section  420 I.P.C., in the absence of evidence of the persons who were
\nalleged to have been induced  dishonestly  to  deliver  money  have  not  been
\nexamined, no other evidence is available to show that A-1 was collecting money
\nby his  deception.    The  claim  of  A-1  that the lingams were formed in his
\nstomach for ten months, that he would take them out on Sivarathiri night, that
\nhe had been used as an instrument by the God  to  come  to  this  world,  that
\nseeing  or  holding  these  lingams will have miraculous cure for diseases and
\nthat A-1 could materialise viboothi and other items are matters which we  need
\nnot go  into in our discussion.  Suffice it is to state that there is no proof
\nof inducement of Mark Dennis and others to part with money so as to  say  that
\nA-1 had  cheated  them.  The court cannot, from circumstantial evidence, infer
\nsuch an offence.  Therefore, we hold that Charge No.12 has not been proved.\n<\/p>\n
        161.  Learned counsel for A-3 referred to the decision of  a  Division
\nBench of the  Mysore  High  Court, in In Re vs.  Malayara Seethu [A.I.R.  1955
\nMysore 27], wherein the Mysore High Court has held that there is a distinction
\nbetween miscarriage to a woman “with child” and ” quick with  child”  since  a
\nlarger punishment is provided for the former.  The Division Bench approved the
\nview  of  Modi  that legally, miscarriage means the premature expulsion of the
\nproduct of conception, an ovum or foetus from the uterus at any period  before
\nthe full  term  is  reached.  Medically, three distinct terms namely abortion,
\nmiscarriage and premature labour are used to denote the expulsion of a  foetus
\nat different stages of gestation.  Thus, the term ‘abortion’ is used only when
\nan  ovum  is  expelled  within the first three months of pregnancy, before the
\nplacenta is formed, ‘miscarriage’ is used when a foetus is expelled  from  the
\nfourth  to seventh month of of gestation before it is viable, while ‘premature
\nlabour’ means delivery of a viable child  possible  capable  of  being  reared
\nbefore it has become fully matured.  This judgment is not of any assistance to
\nthe  accused  since  the expression ‘miscarriage’ means premature expulsion of
\nthe product of conception at any period before the full term is reached,  even
\nthough  medically  there  is  a  distinction between abortion, miscarriage and
\npremature labour.\n<\/p>\n
        162.  Parekh’s  Textbook  of  Medical  Jurisprudence  and  Toxicology,
\nFourth Edition-1988  describes  the methods to procure abortion.  According to
\nthe author, there are two methods in common use to procure abortion.  They are
\nby drugs and by application of violence.  The author says  that  inexperienced
\nmay  first  resort  to  drugs  and when these fails, some instrument method is
\nused.  On the use of  drugs,  it  is  stated  that  many  drugs  are  used  as
\nabortifacients.   Most  of  them have no effect on the uterus or foetus unless
\nthey are given in  toxic  doses.    The  drugs  which  are  commonly  used  as
\nabortifacients  may  be  classified as those acting directly on the uterus and
\nthose acting indirectly on the uterus.  At  the  end  of  the  37th  month  of
\npregnancy,  the  foetus  is  9 cm long floating in an ample supply of amenotic
\nfluid and the osetore is closed.  Contraction of  the  uterus  wall  in  those
\ncircumstances  can hardly be expected to empty the cavity to which the opening
\nof osetore is necessary preliminary nor is it likely to  damage  the  floating
\nfoetus or  affect the placental supplies to any extent.  Therefore, while such
\ndrugs can cause uterine contractions, they may not necessarily cause  abortion
\nand usually fail in the earlier months of pregnancy.  Some of the drugs, it is
\nstated,  taken  in  extremely  large  doses,  are  sufficient to produce other
\neffects, unpleasant and even dangerous.  The drugs which are acting indirectly
\non the uterus or drugs commonly used for this purpose are  irritants.    These
\ndrugs   are   taken   on  the  basis  that  any  violent  stimulation  of  the
\ngastro-intestinal tract may result  in  an  abortion  by  reflexly  permitting
\nuterine contractions.   But,  such  effect  is  not constant.  Large doses are
\ntaken to induce abortion.  It is stated as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
        “In India, the drugs that are  used  for  procuring  abortion  include
\ncamphor,  the  seeds of unriped fruit of carsica papayya, the unriped fruit of
\npine-apple, the seed of gajar, the milky juice  of  madar,  the  bark  of  lal
\nchitra, sawa,  karela, lavang, jaiphal, kesar and sanguinarea, etc.  They have
\nacquired undeserved reputation as abortifacients among the lay public.    They
\nact  chiefly  as irritants, although they are supposed to have specific effect
\non the uterus.”\n<\/p>\n
The role played by A-3 has been spoken to by the prosecution witnesses.    The
\nfact that she had been administering the drugs cannot be disputed in the light
\nof the overwhelming evidence.  The learned Sessions Judge has given convincing
\nreasons for  finding  A-3  guilty of the charge framed against her.  We do not
\nfind grounds to sustain the submissions of the learned counsel for A-3.    We,
\ntherefore,  confirm  the  finding of the learned Sessions Judge as against the
\nthird accused.\n<\/p>\n
        163.  Mr.  Shanmuga Velayutham, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
\nA-2, A-4, A-6 and A-7, though not raised in the grounds,  submitted  that  the
\nsentences of double life imprisonment for offences under Section 376 read with
\nSection 109 I.P.C.   and Section 302 read with Section 109 I.P.C.  are illegal
\nand unconstitutional.  According to the learned counsel, the sentence of  life
\nimprisonment  implies  imprisonment  for life and therefore, there is no scope
\nfor imposing a second life imprisonment on the accused.   In  support  of  his
\nsubmissions he  has relied on a number of decisions.  Learned counsel referred
\nto Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code which deals with punishments.   One  of
\nthe  punishments  provided  for  under  that Section is imprisonment for life.
\nSection 55 states that in every case in which a sentence of  imprisonment  for
\nlife  had  been  passed, the appropriate Government may commute the punishment
\nfor imprisonment for either description for a term  not  exceeding  14  years.
\nTherefore,  according  to him, unless commutation of the sentence is made, the
\nsentence will mean imprisonment for the whole of the life of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
        164.  In State of M.P.  vs.  Ratan Singh [1976 S.C.C.  (Crl.) 428], it
\nwas held that a sentence for life would  enure  till  the  life  time  of  the
\naccused  and  the  accused  is  not  entitled  to  be  released as of right on
\ncompleting the term of 20 years, including the remission.   In  Gopal  Vinayak
\nGodsey vs.  State  of Maharashtra<\/a> [A.I.R.  1961 S.C.  600], it was held that a
\nsentence  of  imprisonment  for  life  must,  prima  facie,  be   treated   as
\nimprisonment  for  the whole of the remaining period of the convicted person’s
\nnatural life.  In Naib Singh vs.  State of Punjab<\/a> [1983 S.C.C.   (Crl.)  536],
\nit  was  held that imprisonment for life means rigorous imprisonment for life.
\nIn Lakshman Naskar vs.  Union of India<\/a> [2000 S.C.C.  (Crl.) 509], it was  held
\nby  the  Supreme  Court  that  a  life sentence is nothing less than life long
\nimprisonment and by earning remissions, a life  convict  does  not  acquire  a
\nright to  be released prematurely.  It was held therein that if the Government
\nhas framed any rule or made a scheme for the early release of  such  convicts,
\nthen  those  rules  or  schemes  will  have  to  be  treated as guidelines for
\nexercising its power under Article 161 of the Constitution, and  the  convicts
\nthen have  a right to put up their case for consideration.  In Lakshman Naskar
\nvs.  State of West Bengal [2000 S.C.C.  (Crl.) 1431], the Supreme  Court  held
\nthat solely on the basis of completion of a term in jail serving imprisonment,
\nremission  s  earned  under  the  relevant  rules  or  law will not entitle an
\nautomatic release to the life convict, but  the  appropriate  Government  must
\npass a separate order remitting the unexpired portion of the sentence.\n<\/p>\n
        165.   The  provisions  that  we  are  concerned  in this case, namely
\nSection 302 and 376(2)(c) of the Indian Penal Code  provide  for  imprisonment
\nfor life  and imprisonment for a term, which may be for life.  There is no bar
\nunder the Indian Penal Code to impose the punishment as provided for under the
\nrespective provisions for  the  respective  offences.    Whereas,  Section  31
\nCr.P.C.  enables  to  impose several punishments.  The fact that it may not be
\npracticable for a person to undergo a second sentence  of  life  imprisonment,
\ncannot be  a  ground for not imposing a punishment.  Therefore, we do not find
\nany merit in the said submission.\n<\/p>\n
        166.  In State of A.P.  vs.  Polamala Raju<\/a> [A.I.R.  2000 S.C.   2854],
\nwhile  considering  the  imposition of a sentence under Section 376(2) I.P.C.,
\nthe Supreme Court held as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
        “We are of the considered opinion that it  is  an  obligation  of  the
\nsentencing  court  to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on
\nthe question of sentence and impose a sentence commensurate with  the  gravity
\nof the  offence.    The sentencing court must hear the loud cry for justice by
\nthe society and more particularly, in cases of a  heinous  crime  of  rape  of
\ninnocent,  helpless  children,  as  in  this case, of the victim of crime, and
\nrespond by imposing an appropriate sentence.”\n<\/p>\n
Their lordships have referred to the earlier decision of the Supreme Court  in
\nState of A.P.   vs.    Bedem Sundara Rao [1995 (6) S.C.C.  230] and emphasised
\nthe following passage :\n<\/p>\n
        “Imposition of grossly inadequate sentence  and  particularly  against
\nthe  mandate  of the legislature not only is an injustice to the victim of the
\ncrime in particular and the society as a whole in general, but also at  times,
\nencourages a criminal.”\n<\/p>\n
        …..\n<\/p>\n
        “Public abhorrence of the crime needs a reflection through the court’s
\nverdict in  the  measure of punishment.  The courts must not only keep in view
\nthe rights of the criminal, but also the rights of the victim of the crime and
\nthe society at large, while considering imposition of proper punishment.   The
\nheinous crime of committing rape on a helpless 13\/14 years old girl shakes our
\njudicial conscience.  The offence was inhumane.” (emphasis added)<\/p>\n
Their  lordships referred to another judgment of the Supreme Court in State of
\nKarnataka vs.  Krishnappa<\/a> [2000  (4)  S.C.C.    75]  while  referring  to  the
\nimposition of punishment and approved the following passage :-\n<\/p>\n
        “The  measure  of  punishment in a case of rape cannot depend upon the
\nsocial status of the victim or the accused.  It must depend upon  the  conduct
\nof  the  accused,  the  state and age of the sexually assaulted female and the
\ngravity of the criminal act.   Crimes  of  violence  upon  women  need  to  be
\nseverely dealt with.” (emphasis added)<\/p>\n
        167.   We  have considered the elaborate and well- considered judgment
\nrendered by the learned Sessions Judge and we are in full agreement  with  the
\nfindings  and  conclusions arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge, including
\nthe consecutive sentences on A-1 and A-2 except in reference to the conviction
\nand sentence on A-4, A-6 and A-7.\n<\/p>\n
        168.  The prosecution has established that A-1  and  A-2  have  caused
\nbodily  injuries on the deceased Ravi with a casuarina stick on the left upper
\nlimb and lower limb and that both of them kicked Ravi on his  back  and  chest
\nwhen he  fell  down  after  being  untied.  Afterwards, Ravi was confined in a
\nkudil without being provided with food or water on the  instructions  of  A-1.
\nA-2 was  keeping  the key of the kudil with him.  Admittedly, no food or water
\nwas given and Ravi was starved to death.  The prior and subsequent conduct  of
\nA-1  and  A-2  and  the  circumstances  of the case, including motive, clearly
\nestablish the intention of A-1 and A-2 to commit the murder of  Ravi  and  the
\novert acts  committed  by them for the murder.  The charge against A-1 and A-2
\nfor having committed the offence under Section  302  I.P.C.    is,  therefore,
\nestablished  and their conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed on
\nthem is hereby confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
        169.  However, insofar as A-4 to A-7 are  concerned,  the  prosecution
\ncase  is  that  they  have not provided food or water to the deceased Ravi and
\ntheir subsequent conduct in causing the destruction of the evidence by burying
\nthe body of Ravi would show that  they  have  also  abetted  A-1  and  A-2  in
\ncommitting the  murder  of Ravi.  The prosecution has not established that A-4
\nto A-7 had the duty to provide food and water to the deceased  Ravi  and  that
\nthey had,  by  their  conduct, made the deceased Ravi to starve and die.  From
\nthe circumstances of the case, an inference could be made that A-4 to A-7  had
\nthe  knowledge  that Ravi was likely to die by their act, but the intention of
\ncausing death cannot be attributed to them.  Therefore, we  are  of  the  view
\nthat  A-4  to  A-7  are  liable  for  the punishment for culpable homicide not
\namounting to murder under the Second Part to Section 304 I.P.C.  and we impose
\na sentence of imprisonment for a period of ten  years  on  A-4  to  A-7  under
\nCharge No.7.\n<\/p>\n
        170.  In the result, we confirm the conviction and sentence imposed by
\nthe  learned  Sessions  Judge in respect of A-4 to A-7 except for Charge No.7,
\nwhich we have modified as above.  However, in all other respects, the judgment
\nof the learned Sessions Judge is hereby confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
        171.  While imposing the fine amount  on  A-1,  the  learned  Sessions
\nJudge  has  taken  into  consideration the age of the victim girls, the trauma
\nwhich they have undergone and the damage which they have  suffered  and  hence
\nordered  a  fine of Rs.5,00,000\/- on A-1 to be paid as compensation to each of
\nthe victim girl.  We find that the fine imposed is commensurate with the crime
\nand the capacity of A-1 to compensate.  It is  not  in  dispute  that  A-1  is
\nholding a Joint Account with Divya Devi, the absconding accused to a
\ntune  of  Rs.89,00,000\/-  and  the  operation of this account had been freezed
\nunder the orders of the court.  Though an attempt had been  made  by  a  third
\nparty  to represent that this amount represents the amount of a Trust and that
\nit cannot be utilised by A-1 for paying the fine ordered to be paid by him, we
\nhave no hesita tion in  rejecting  such  a  representation  made  without  any
\npleading and  records.  It only fortifies our apprehension that the appellants
\nare trying to see that the fine amount is not recovered  and  thereby  deprive
\nthe victim  girls  of their due compensation.  As the amount in the bank is in
\nthe joint account of A-1, the said amount is liable to be utilised for payment
\nof the compensation.  Therefore, we direct the concerned, including  the  Bank
\nand  the  Revenue  Authorities,  to  permit  and  release  the  fine amount of
\nRs.61,30,000\/- (Rs.61,20,000\/- + Rs.10,000\/-) and the compensation as  ordered
\nby  the  court,  viz.,  Rs.5,00,000\/-  be  paid  to  each of the victim girls,
\nexcepting P.W.11, Shantha, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt
\nof a copy of the operative portion of this judgment.  A Division Bench of this
\nCourt, in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos.5291 of 1997 etc.  filed in  the
\nabove  appeals,  by order dated 15.9.1998, has directed that the entire frozen
\namount be invested in the respective banks subject to the ultimate decision in
\nthe appeals.\n<\/p>\n
        172.   The  appeals  filed  by  A-1, A-2 and A-3 are dismissed and the
\nconviction and sentence imposed  by  the  learned  Sessions  Judge  is  hereby
\nconfirmed (except  on  one  count  in  reference  to  P.W.11,  Shantha).   The
\nappellants, viz., A-1 and A-2 have committed the heinous crime of rape on  the
\ngirls in  an  Ashram  and  also a murder.  Inasmuch as there was one charge of
\nrape on 12 girls, the Sessions Court has awarded one  life  sentence  for  the
\noffence under  Section 376(2)(c) I.P.C.  A-1 and A-2 have been found guilty of
\nmurder under Section 302 I.P.C.  The offences of rape and murder  are  not  in
\nthe course of the  same transaction.  The Supreme Court, in Mohd.  A.  Hussain
\nvs.  Assistant Collector, Customs<\/a> ( Prevention), Ahmedabad [A.I.R.  1988  S.C.
\n2143],  has  held  that if the transaction relating to the offences is not the
\nsame  or  the  facts  constituting  the  two  offences  are  quite  different,
\nconsecutive sentences may be imposed.  Justice to the victims of crime of this
\nnature  could  be  done  only  if  the  maximum sentence permissible in law is
\nimposed on the accused.  Considering  the  gravity  and  the  manner  of  acts
\ncommitted  on  innocent, poor orphan girls and the inhuman manner of murder of
\nRavi, the sentences imposed  on  the  accused  should  be  undergone  by  them
\nconsecutively in order to meet the ends of justice.\n<\/p>\n
        173.   The  appeal  filed by A-4, A-6 and A-7 is allowed to the extent
\nindicated, in the sense that except for Charge No.7, which we have modified as
\nstated above, the conviction and sentence  imposed  by  the  learned  Sessions
\nJudge as  against  A-4,  A-6 and A-7 are confirmed.  Considering the facts and
\ncircumstances, viz., the overt acts committed by them as per the directions of
\nA-1, we are of the view that justice will be done by allowing them  (A-4,  A-6
\nand A-7) to undergo the imprisonment awarded to them concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
        174.   We hereby confirm the findings, the conviction and the sentence
\nimposed by the learned Sessions Judge subject to the above modification.   The
\nsummary of convictions and sentences is as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
Charge Nos.  (1)
\nConvicted Under Section (2)
\nAccused (3)
\nSentence of Imprisonment \/ Fine Imposed (4)
\n1<\/span><\/p>\n
120(B) I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
A-1 to A-7
\nNo separate sentence.\n<\/p>\n
2<\/span><\/p>\n
376 (2)(c) I.P.C.  (12 Counts)<\/p>\n
A-1
\nImprisonment for  LIFE  and  to pay a fine of Rs.5,10,000\/- on each count.  In
\ndefault, Rigorous Imprisonment for a further  period  of  Two  Years  and  Six
\nMonths.  (Total  fine Rs.61,20,000\/-).  Imprisonment for LIFE on each count is
\nto run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
376 r\/w 109 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
A-2, A-4, A-6 & A-7<\/p>\n
A-3
\nImprisonment for LIFE on each accused.\n<\/p>\n
Rigorous Imprisonment for Two Years, 7 Months and 2 Days (Period  of  sentence
\nalready undergone)  and  to  pay  a fine of Rs.10,000\/-.  In default, Rigorous
\nImprisonment for a further period of 3 Months.\n<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
354 I.P.C.  (One Count)
\nA-1
\nNo separate sentence.\n<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
312 I.P.C (Four Counts)<\/p>\n
A-3
\nRigorous Imprisonment for Two Years, 7 Months and 2 Days (period  of  sentence
\nalready undergone) and to pay a Fine of Rs.5,000\/- on each count.  In default,
\nRigorous Imprisonment   for  a  further  period  of  45  Days.    (Total  Fine
\nRs.20,000\/-)
\n6<\/span><\/p>\n
302 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
302 r\/w 34 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
A-1<\/p>\n
A-2
\nImprisonment for LIFE and to pay a Fine of Rs.10,000\/-.  In default,  Rigorous
\nImplicating for a further period of 3 Months.\n<\/p>\n
Imprisonment for  LIFE and to pay a Fine of Rs.10,000\/-.  In default, Rigorous
\nImprisonment for a further period of 3 Months.\n<\/p>\n
7<\/span><\/p>\n
304 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
A-4, A-6 and A-7
\nImprisonment for Ten Years and to pay a Fine  of  Rs.10,000\/-.    In  default,
\nRigorous Imprisonment for a further period of 3 Months on each accused.\n<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
343 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
A-1, A-2, A-6 to A-7
\nNo separate sentence.\n<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
201 r\/w 304 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
A-6 & A-7
\nFor  each  accused,  Rigorous  Imprisonment  for ONE Year and to pay a Fine of
\nRs.2,500\/-.  In default, Rigorous Imprisonment for a  further  period  of  ONE
\nMonth.  (R.I.    For  One  Year is to run concurrently with the sentence under
\nCharge 7).\n<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
201 r\/w 114 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
A-2
\nRigorous Imprisonment for ONE Year and to  pay  a  Fine  of  Rs.2,500\/-.    In
\ndefault, Rigorous Imprisonment  for a further period of ONE Month.  (R.I.  For
\nONE Year is to run concurrently with the sentence under Charge 6).\n<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
506 (Part II) I.P.C.  (2 Counts)
\nA-1, A-2 A-4, A-6 and A-7
\nNo separate sentence.\n<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
420 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
A-1
\nAcquitted.\n<\/p>\n
CONVICTION ACCUSED WISE :\n<\/p>\n
A-1             ..      Convicted under Secs.120(B) I.P.C.; 376(2)(c)
\n                        I.P.C.  (12 Counts); 354 I.P.C.  (1 Count);\n<\/p>\n
                        302 I.P.C.; 343 I.P.C.  and 506 (Part II)
\n                        I.P.C.  (2 Counts).\n<\/p>\n
A-2             ..      Convicted under Secs.120(B) I.P.C.; 376 r\/w\n                        109 I.P.C.; 302 r\/w 34 I.P.C.; 343 I.P.C.;\n                        201 r\/w 114 I.P.C.  and 506 (Part II) I.P.C.\n                        (2 Counts).\n\nA-3             ..      Convicted under Secs.120(B) I.P.C.; 376 r\/w\n                        109 I.P.C.  and 312 I.P.C.  (4 Counts)\n\nA-4             ..      Convicted under Secs.120(B) I.P.C.; 376 r\/w\n                        109 I.P.C.; 304 I.P.C.; 343 I.P.C.  and\n                        506 (Part II) I.P.C.  (2 Counts).\n\nA-6 & A-7       ..      Convicted under Secs.120(B) I.P.C.; 376 r\/w\n                        109 I.P.C.; 304 I.P.C.; 343 I.P.C.; 201 r\/w\n                        304 I.P.C.  and 506 (Part II) I.P.C.  (2\n                        Counts).\n\n<\/pre>\n
1st Accused :  The sentence imposed on A-1 on Charge Nos.2
\n                        and 6 are to run consecutively.  Total           Fine
\non A-1 is Rs.61,30,000\/- (Rs.61,20,000\/-                        +
\nRs.10,000\/-).  Sentences imposed on A-1 in                      default     of
\npayment of fine on each count                   are   to  run  separately  and
\nconsecutively                   apart from the above sentence of
\n                        imprisonments.  In default of payment of
\nfine, Total further sentence to undergo :                       32-1\/2 Year  +
\n3 Months.\n<\/p>\n
2nd Accused :   The sentence imposed on A-2 on Charge Nos.3
\n                        and 6 are to run consecutively.  Total           fine
\non A-2 Rs.12,500\/- (Rs.10,000\/- +                       Rs.2,500\/-).       The
\nsentences imposed on                    A-2 in default of payment of  fine  is
\nto                      run consecutively apart from the above
\nsentence of imprisonments.\n<\/p>\n
3rd Accused :   Sentence imposed on A-3 on each count on
\n                        Charge No.5 is to run concurrently.  The
\n                        sentence of imprisonment imposed on A-3 on
\n                        Charge No.3 is to run concurrently with the
\n                        sentence imposed on her under Charge No.5.\n<\/p>\n
                        Total fine on A-3 :  Rs.30,000\/- (Rs.10,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
                        + Rs.20,000\/-).  The sentence imposed on A-3
\n                        in default of payment of fine is to run
\n                        separately and consecutively.\n<\/p>\n
4th Accused :   The sentence of imprisonment on Charge Nos.3
\n                        and 7 are to run concurrently.  Fine amount
\n                        on A-4 :  Rs.10,000\/-.  The sentence of
\n                        imprisonment imposed in default of payment of
\n                        fine is to run separately.\n<\/p>\n
Accused 6&7 :   The sentence of imprisonment imposed on each
\n                        of these Accused on Charge Nos.3 and 7 are to
\n                        run concurrently.  Total fine :  Rs.12,500\/-\n<\/p>\n
                        each (Rs.12,500\/- X 2 = Rs.25,000\/-).  The<\/p>\n
                        sentence of imprisonment imposed in default
\n                        of payment of fine is to run separately and
\n                        consecutively.\n<\/p>\n
Total fine on A-1 to A-7 …..  Rs.62,07,500\/-.\n<\/p>\n
Out  of  the  payment  of  fine  of  Rs.61,30,000\/-  collected  from A-1 under
\nSec.357(1) & (3) Cr.P.C., a compensation of Rs.5,00,000\/- is  to  be  paid  to
\neach of the victim girls, P.W.3-Sureshkumari; P.W.4Nallammal; P.W.5-Princy,
\nP.W.6-Mary; P.W.7-Selvakumari @ Manjula; P.W.8-Sugunakumari
\n@   Sudha;  P.W.9-Pushparani;  P.W.10-Sasikumari  @  Jaya;  P.W.12Udayakumari;
\nP.W.13-Vanitha; P.W.14-Aruljothi and P.W.15-Malligadevi (Rs.5,00,000  X  12  =
\n60,00,000\/-).\n<\/p>\n
        Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos.780 to 782 of 1998 are closed.\n<\/p>\n
VII.    Observations :\n<\/p>\n
        175.    The above criminal proceedings are unique of its kind.  It has
\nshown  the  vulnerability  of orphans, especially girls and the need for their
\nprotection.  It has revealed to what extent persons  professing  as  spiritual
\ngurus could screen their true picture.  But for the small step taken by one of
\nthe  victim  girls  and the timely help provided to her by the All India Women
\nDemocratic Association and “The Indian Express”, the whole episode  would  not
\nhave seen  the  light  of  the day.  Persons like A-1 could have continued his
\nspoils unhindered.\n<\/p>\n
        176.  The above case demonstrates the urgent  need  for  updating  the
\nscientific investigation  techniques and experts’ opinion.  Much of the energy
\nspent on gathering oral evidence and their  risk  of  being  tampered  can  be
\nsaved.  It  will  help  speedy  investigation  and  successful trial.  All the
\nadvanced countries have made laws for gathering and test-finding  D.N.A.    We
\nmust not lag behind.\n<\/p>\n
        177.   We  reiterate  that investigation and courts must be sensitive,
\nhelpful and understanding towards the victims of rape.  We must  expedite  the
\nproceedings  at  all  levels  in  order  to  put  an  end to the agony and the
\ntampering of the victim girls so that they can be restored to normal life.\n<\/p>\n
        178.  Women police and lady judges could be able to inspire confidence
\nand understanding the victims of such crimes.  Therefore,  wherever  possible,
\nthe  enquiry,  recording  and  trial in matters concerning rape cases could be
\nentrusted to lady officers and judges.\n<\/p>\n
        179.  We record our appreciation for the good  investigation  done  in
\nthis case and the painstaking work done by the trial court.<\/p>\n
\n\n                                                (P.S.M., J.) (M.C., J.)\nIndex :  Yes                                    12th December, 2002\nInternet :  Yes\nab\n\n\nTo\n\n1.  The Principal Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai.\n2.  The District Collector, Pudukkottai.\n3.  The Director General of Police, Chennai-4.\n4.  The Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchy.\n<\/pre>\n
5.  The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore.\n<\/p>\n
6.  The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
7.  The Inspector of Police,
\nC.B., C.I.D., Pudukkottai,
\nViralimalai Police Station.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Chandradevi (A-3) vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 December, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 12\/12\/2002 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice P. SHANMUGAM and The Honourable Mr. Justice M. CHOCKALINGAM Criminal Appeal No.895 of 1997 and Criminal Appeal No. 896 of 1997 and Criminal Appeal No. 897 […]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9232","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nChandradevi (A-3) vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 December, 2002 - 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\/chandradevi-a-3-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chandradevi (A-3) vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandradevi-a-3-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-16T23:34:53+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=\"305 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandradevi-a-3-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandradevi-a-3-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chandradevi (A-3) vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 December, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-16T23:34:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandradevi-a-3-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2002\"},\"wordCount\":59398,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandradevi-a-3-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandradevi-a-3-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandradevi-a-3-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2002\",\"name\":\"Chandradevi (A-3) vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-16T23:34:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandradevi-a-3-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandradevi-a-3-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandradevi-a-3-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chandradevi (A-3) vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 December, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Chandradevi (A-3) vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 December, 2002 - 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\/chandradevi-a-3-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chandradevi (A-3) vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandradevi-a-3-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-16T23:34:53+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":"305 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandradevi-a-3-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandradevi-a-3-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chandradevi (A-3) vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 December, 2002","datePublished":"2002-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-16T23:34:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandradevi-a-3-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2002"},"wordCount":59398,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandradevi-a-3-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandradevi-a-3-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandradevi-a-3-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2002","name":"Chandradevi (A-3) vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-16T23:34:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandradevi-a-3-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandradevi-a-3-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandradevi-a-3-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chandradevi (A-3) vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 December, 2002"}]},{"@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\/9232","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=9232"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9232\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9232"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9232"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9232"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}