kanchi-sathya.org - information on the kanchi seer, latest news on the the seer trial, facts about the kanchi mutt

CELL PHONE CALLS

There are sufficient materials to prove the case of the prosecution as against the Petitioner viz pattern series of telephone calls made between the petitioner and the henchmen and his associates on the day prior to the murder and after the murder. This Honourable Court may be pleased to consider the materials and unassailable evidence collected during the course of investigations for better appreciation of this Petition.

I submit that the Petitioner has acted as the head of the hirelings. The prosecution has got sufficient materials to show that the petitioner before the commission of murder of Sankararaman and after the commission of murder, had several telephone conversations with some of the accused persons who are all notorious rowdy elements and have got criminal records. - COUNTER AFFIDAVIT OF THE STATE DATED 13.11.2004

As far as the conversation in the cell phone is concerned, the specific contention of the state was that the cell phone belonged to the Petitioner herein and calls were made there from to some of the assailants immediately after the occurrence. This submission was however modified and it was represented in Court that the cell phone did not belong to the Petitioner but it was the Manager of the Mutt who owned the cell phone. While answering this submission of the Learned Public Prosecutor, Defence Counsel vehemently contended that the argument of the state was fallacious and the state was called upon to prove it now and now itself. The Learned Public Prosecutor was unable to meet this challenge and merely took time to file detailed counter in this regard. It is ironic that no tangible particulars are furnished in the counter about these phone calls or for that matter the cell phone numbers. More importantly, the contention of the prosecution that the cell phone belonged to the Manager of the Mutt is also untrue and the assertion of the prosecution was denied by the defence Counsel even at the time of arguments on 12.11.2004. - REJOINDER FILED BY HH – 16.11.2004

It is respectfully submitted that the averments contained in paragraph 8 of the Rejoinder are incorrect. There are materials to show that the Petitioner was using cell phone and contacting undesirable elements. This is not the stage where further details in this regard can be disclosed. - REPLY FILED BY THE STATE DT 17.11.2004 TO REJOINDER OF HH

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x==x=x=x=x=x=

More points to ponder….

1. No details of cell phone numbers furnished.

2. When challenged to prove “here and now itself” in the High Court, Public Prosecutor takes time to file a detailed counter.

3. In the counter filed, the State says that this is not the stage where further details can be disclosed.

4. Why did they undertake to file a detailed reply in the counter ? In the affidavit in reply, the State has also not denied what has been stated by the petitioner (HH) in para 8 of the rejoinder.

5. The phones are indeed “MOBILE”, first HH – then Manager – And now ‘NO ONE’ ?

6. Is Tamil Nadu the first state in the world that has technology which allows it to find –

a) who actually telephoned from a mobile at any given point of time?
b) what was spoken between the caller and the called ?