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

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS OF CHENGLPATTU
DIVISION OF CHENGALPATTU

PRESENT: Thiru G.M. Akbar Ali, B,Sc., B.L,
Principal Sessions Judge

Crl. M.P. 431/2005

SANKARANARAYANAN
@SRI VIJAYENDRA SARASWATHI SWAMIGAL ………PETIONER

VS
State Rep. By
THE Superintendent of Police
Kancheepuram District
(CRIME NO.914 OF 2004 of
Vishnu Kanchi Police Station)
.......... RESPONDENT

This petition coming on 25.1.2005 for final hearing in the presence of Thiruvalargal D.Lakshmana Reddy, M. Varadan, E. Vijayan and T.Bhaskar, Advocates for petitioner and Thiru K. Duraisamy, Advocate and State Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent, upon hearing arguments on both sides, upon perusing the available records, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court made the following:

ORDER

This petition is filed under Sec. 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C. praying for grant of bail to the petitioner.

2. Heard both sides. This petition is filed for grant of bail to the petitioner who was arrested and remanded on 10.1.2005 in Cr. No. 914/2004 ov Vishnu Kanchi Police Station of Kancheepuram.

3. The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under section 302 r/w 34, 120(B) of IPC in Cr. No. 914/2004 of Vishnu Kanchi Police Station, Kancheepuram.

4. The petitioner is named as Sankaranarayanan @ Vijayendra Saraswathi Swamigal, aged 35 years, son of M. Krishnamurthy and popularly called as Vijayendrar and as Ilaiyavar (Junoir Seer). The Chain of events leading to the arrest and incarceration of the Petitioner are as follows:

5. One Sankararaman, was in charge administrative manager of Devaraja Swami Devasthanam. He was hacked to death at about 5.45 P.M. on 3.9.2004 within the precinct of Shri Varadaraja Perumal Temple at Kanchipuram while he was in the Office of the Devastanam by two assailants in the presence of the office staff. The assailants escaped in three motor cycles along with three others who were waiting outside. The case was registered in Cr.No.914/2004 by Vishnu Kanchi Police on a complaint given by Shri N.S. Ganesan at 7.00 P.M. on the same date. A Special Team of Investigation was formed and they were investigating on the murder case, which was later popularly came to be called as "Sankarraman's Murder Case".

6. The Investigating agency never had a break or a clue till 27.10.2004 when five persons namely (1) Devaraj, (2) S. Arun, (3) T. Pandian, (4) P.Arumugham and (5) K.Sathesh surrendered themselves before the XVth Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, George Town at Chennai. The investigating agency obtained police custody of the surrendered persons and on enquiry they found that one of them namely T.Pandian was actually in judicial custody on the date of occurrence i.e. on 3.9.2004.

7. According to Prosecuting Agency, the statements of those accused unfolded a deep conspiracy with a definite motive to do away the victim through hired assassins by a few people of higher status and one among them was enjoying the highest religious status in this country.

8. According to the prosecuting agency, the further investigation led to the arrest of the actual assailants namely Rajini Chinna, Mattu Baskar, Ambi, Kumar and Anand @ Anandkumar.

9. On 9.11.2004, one Kathiravan who was instrumental to engage the assailants was arrested and the investigation further revealed, the involvement of the Senior Pontiff and his aids of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam. On 11.11.2004, the Senior Pontiff namely Shri Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. On 19.12.2004 one Appu @ Krishnaswamy, who is alleged to be the boss of the said Kathiravan was arrested and the police was in hunt for one Ravi @ Ravi Subramaniam, a contractor who was alleged to be in close contact with Mutt and its Achariyas. He was arrested on 26.12.2004. The said Appu @ Krishnaswamy gave a statement on 25.12.2004 and the said Ravi @ Ravi Subramaniam gave a statement on 28.12.2004, and later gave a confession statement on 31.12.2004 before the Judicial Magistrate II, at Kancheepuram.

10. Meanwhile, many witnesses were summoned and examined by the Special Investigation Team and some more persons were arrested in connection with the crime, among them, two important persons are (1) Sundaresa Iyer, the manager of the mutt (2) Raghu, the younger brother of Junior pontiff on 24.12.2004 and 30.12.2004 respectively.

11. The Honourable Supreme Court of India granted bail to the Senior Pontiff on
10.1.2005 and on the same day, the petitioner, Junior Pontiff was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The said Ravi @ Ravi Subramaniam was granted tender of pardon and treated as an approver, and on completion of investigation, the Special Investigation Team has now filed its charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate I, at Kancheepuram. The petitioner before us is arrayed as A-2 in the charge sheet for the alleged offences as stated supra.

12. The learned Counsel Mr. D Lakshmna Reddy who represented the Petitioner took pain to elaborate the chain of events and assailed the case of the prosecuting agency against the Junior Acharya on the following grounds:-

(i) The learned counsel pointed out that all along the investigating agency was relying on the sole confession statement of Kathiravan and there was not even a whisper about the involvement of the Junior Acharya for conspiracy or for the disbursement of amounts to the hirelings.

(ii) The learned counsel pointed out that investigating agency managed to implicate the Junior Acharya through the alleged confession of the said Ravi @ Ravisubramaniam as if that on 1.9.2004, after the conspiracy was finalised in the chambers of the Senior Acharya whereby, the Senior Achariya gave directions to Ravi @ Ravisubramaniam, Appu@Krishnaswamy and Kathiravan to do away with the said Sankararaman who have been threatening to expose the unlawful, immoral and clandestine activities of both Achariyas and directed the said Ravi @ Ravisubramaniam and Appu @Krishnaswamy to appraise the plan to the Junior Achariya in his chambers and on doing the same, they were given a go ahead signal by the Junior Achariya who gave a further direction to his younger brother Raghu to make arrangements for disbursement of amounts. The learned counsel pointed out that it is a deliberate attempt to rope in the Junior Acharya.

(iii) The learned counsel further pointed out that the arrest memo would only reveal that the petitioner took part in a conspiracy to murder Sankararaman and also took part in disbursement of amounts without any details.

(iv) The learned counsel further pointed out that all along the prosecuting agency was alleging a strong motive for the Senior Achariya to get rid off Sankararaman suddenly roped in Junior Achariya on a flimsy and after thought confession.

(v) The learned Counsel further pointed out that neither the conspiracy nor disbursement of amounts or any motive for the involvement of Junior Achariya was made out by the Prosecution even for a prima facie case.

(vi) The learned counsel lastly pointed out that the entire investigation was over and charge has also been filed and no prejudice will be caused to the prosecution if the petitioner is enlarged on bail and assured the court that he will not flee and will not tamper with evidence and ready to face the charges levelled against him in a fair trail.

13. The learned Public Prosecutor for the State Mr. K Duraiswamy submitted that when the investigation was started on 3.9.2004, they were in dark and clueless and the Providential help came in the shape of a fake surrender on 27.10.2004

14. The learned Public Prosecutor for State further submitted that the examination of Kathiravan and his confession did not reveal the involvement of the petitioner, but however further investigation and the confession of Ravi Subramaniam and the Statement of Appu @ Krishnaswamy revealed the involvement of the Junior Achariya and he was promptly arrested and was informed about the grounds of arrest.

15. The learned Public Prosecutor for the State further submitted that the Prosecution has gathered enormous materials both oral and documentary to prove the involvement of the petitioner in the conspiracy and disbursement of amounts under his control for the murder.

16. The learned Public Prosecutor for the State pointed out that the confession of the co-accused can not be brushed aside and the criminal conspiracy itself constitutes an offence and the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agreed to do or caused to be done an illegal act, the agreement must be proved by necessary implication.

17. The Learned Public Prosecutor for the State further pointed that even though investigation has been over and charge sheet has also been filed, the petitioner is an influential person and there is a possibility of tampering with the evidences as many of the witnesses are employees of the Mutt.

18. The learned Public Prosecutor for the State relied on

AIR 1959 SC Page 1 Ram Prakash Vs. The State of Punjab

wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that

"The Evidence Act nowhere provides that if the confession is retracted, it can not be taken into consideration against the Co-accused or contesting accused. Accordingly, the provisions of the Evidence Act do not prevent the court from taking into consideration of a retracted confession against the confessing accused and his co-accused."

19. The learned Public Prosecutor for the state further relied on the following judgements rendered in regard to criminal conspiracy:
(2001) 7 SCC 596
Firozuddin Basheeruddin and others Vs. State of Kerala

(2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases 601
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Satya Dev Sharma and others

(2002) 7 Supreme Court Cases 334
Mohammed Khalid Vs. State of West Bengal

20. This Court went through the above said citations regarding confession of co-accused and on the various interpretations of the criminal conspiracy by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

The learned public prosecutor for the State relied on
1998 Crl. L. J. 741
Sis Rani @ Sahayarani Jayarani and others Vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police

(1998 )1 SCC. 41
State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramesh Taurani

(1978 )1 SCC. 118
Gurucharan Singh and others Vs. State( Delhi Administration)

Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well and Hon'ble High COurts have elaborately discussed, granting bail when not justified.

21. The facts relating to the gruesome murder of Sankararaman within the precints of Sri Varadaraja Perumal Temple at Kancheepuram on 3.9.2004, the arrest of the accused, examination of the witnesses and obtaining statements u/s 161 and 164 of CrPc are not denied, as they are in the usual course of investigation in a murder case. What is denied by the petitioner and as well as by the other accused is their involvement in the case, the alleged motive, conspiracy, engagement of contract killers and disbursement of assured money. However, this Court is to consider the bail application of the petitioner and need not go into the details of examination of evidence and documents and the merits of the case.

22. The Apex Court and the various High Courts have laid down well settled principles to be followed for granting or denying bail. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1978) 1 SCC 118 Gurucharan Singh and others Vs. State( Delhi Administration) had held that the overriding considerations in granting bail which are common both in the case of Sec. 437(1) and 439(1) of Cr.P.C. are the nature and gravity of circumstances in which the offence was committed, the position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses, likelihood of the accused fleeing from Justice, of repeating the offence; of jeopardising his own life, being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case, of tampering with the witnesses, the history of the case, as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds which in view of so many valuable factors cannot be exhaustively set out.

23. In 2004 (3) Scale 257, Kalyan Chandra Sarka Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another (Pappu Yadav's Case) the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that

" The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documents of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non application of mind. Its also necessary for the Court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail ; they are

a ) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in cases of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence ;
b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant ;
c ) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.

24. In 2001 ( 6 ) SC 338 , Puran vs Rambilas and another , the honourable Supreme court had held that
" At the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case has not to be undertaken .What the additional sessions judge had done in the order dated 11 . 9 . 2000 . was to discuss the merits and demerits of the evidence. That was what was deprecated . That did not mean that whilst granting bail some reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted did not have to be indicated."

25. This court has perused the case diary ,documents , of various witnesses including
co- accused , Appu @ Krishnaswamy and Ravi @ Ravi Subramaniam The Kanchi mutt is a huge institution with multi activities and apart from the religious commitments , both Senior and Junior pontiffs have been administering the mutt in their specified areas. There are prima facie evidences on record to show that both Senior and Junior pontiffs are aware of the happenings in the mutt and in other words they have full knowledge of the day to day affairs , religious administrative and general . There are prima facie evidence for a meeting which took place at Nazarathpet between the Senior Acharya and the deceased and the deceased showing more resentment towards the activities of the junior Acharya and his brother Raghu and the Manager Sundaresa Iyer . The final notice urges for the removal of the " poisonous sucessor " and the contents if proved will be more damaging to the Junior than to the Senior.
26. This court is not venturing to discuss the merits and demerits of the evidences and documents, as such venture is deprecated by the Apex Court in the case of Niranjan Singh vs Prabhakaran, Rajaram Kharote (1980) 2 SCC 559. However, there is change of circumstances. The investigation is over and the prosecution has filed the charge sheet. In 1995 (2) MWN Crl.68, Swamy Premananda vs Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D. Pudukkotai, the Honorable High Court of Madras had an occasion to consider the request of bail in a pending trial case. In 1998 CRL.L.J.741 Sis Rani @ Sahayarani Jayamari and others vs State rep. by Inspector of Police, the Honorable High Court of Madras again considered a request for bail in a pending trial. In (1978) 1 SCC 118 GuruCharan Singh and another vs State ( Delhi Administration), the Honorable Supreme Court had also discussed of the cancellation of the bail in a pending trial case.

27. In the above Madras Cases, one relates to Swami Premananda, who was arrested and detained for offence under section 120(b), 302 r/w 34, 376, 375(ii) (c) r/w 109, 201, 202, r/w 114 & 506(ii) IPC. The case of the prosecution was that Swami Premananda who was running an ashram in the District of Pudukkottai, along with 7 ohter persuant to the conspiracy into among themselves raped 15 girls some of them were minors and in the course of investigation, it was disclosed that one of the male inmates was brutally murdered and evidence was erased. In such circumstances, the said Swami Premananda was denied bail many times during the investigation and also at the time of pending trial and the Honorable High Court at Madras after considering the nature and gravity of offences and prima facie case of the prosecution observed that

" On the question of tampering, it has to be seen whether the apprehension of the prosecution that if released on bail the petitioner is likely to interfere with the collection of evidence and its presentation in court. Though charge sheet has already been filed, tampering has two phases: one during investigation, preventing the investigating agency from collecting the evidence and the other during the trial, preventing the prosecution from placing the evidence so collected before Court. In fact, the second phase is as important, if not more important that the first phase. This is so because investigation is not an end in itself. It is a process which proceeds a trial. Evidence has to be collected, but evidence is placed before the Court, appreciated and accepted, the evidence allowed to be preserved and placed before the Court and if in the intervening stage, through the operation of extraneous forces the evidence is allowed to be undermined or erased, the entire investigation becomes an exercise of futility and the guilty escapes the arms of justice. Therefore, the possibility of evidence being tampered is a serious aspect, to which the Court has to give due consideration."

28. The Second case relates to one Father John Joseph, a Christian Father, who was running a Dioceses at Marthandam. He was found in deep conspiracy of murder of one Gilbert Raj, attempt to rape a minor girl and found having habitual sexual intercourse with the inmates who were unmarried sisters. The Honorable High Court of Madras refused to grant bail and held
" The tampering has two phases, one during the investigation preventing the Investigating Agency from collecting the evidences, and other during the trial, preventing the prosecution from placing the evidence so collected before the Court."

29. In both the above two cases, the nature and gravity of circumstances in which offence was committed, the position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses, likelihood of the accused fleeing the justice, of repeating the offences, and tampering with the witnesses were considered and the request for bail was rejected.

30. In Gurucharan Singh & Another Vs. State, the Honorable Apex Court observed:

"The courts over-see the action of the police and in exercise of judicial discretion in granting bail always bearing in mind that the liberty of an individual is not unnecessarily and unduly abridged and at the same time cause of justice does not suffer."

31. The Apex Court further held that the facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of judicial discretion for granting or cancelling bail.

32. In the instant case, one Sankararaman, the manager of Devaraja Swami Devasthanam was brutally murdered within the precinct of Sri Varadaraja Swami Temple at Kancheepuram. There must a reason for any murder. What is the reason?Who is behind? And who committed? were the questions before the investigating agency and after the investigation the agency has leveled serious allegations against the petitioner of his involvement in a conspiracy for murder and the motive being in the form of a potential threat of exposure of immoral activities.

33. To be satisfied about the prima facie case, what has to be looked into is the material to form an opinion that there exists prima facie case for trial, but it is not the exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself. Those prima facie evidences were already discussed supra and there exists prima facie case for trial.

34. In case where after filing of the charge sheet and pending trial, this court is guided by the principles laid down in (1978)1 SCC.118 Gurucharan Singh &Another vs State(Delhi Administration),1995(2)MWN Cr. 68, Swami Premananda Vs. Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D Pudukkottai 1998 Crl.L.J. 741 Sis Rani @ Sahayarani Jayamari and others Vs. State rep. By Inspector of Police. In all the above three cases, the principles of nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed; the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; of repeating the offence; of jeoparadising his own life being faced with grim prospect of possible conviction in the case; of tampering with witnesses; the history of the case and as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds which in view of so many valuable factors can not be exhaustively set out were considered.

35. Coming to the nature and gravity of the offence in the instant case, it is no doubt, a serious offence. The position and status of the petitioner with reference to the victim and witnesses and likelihood of tampering with the witnesses are valuable factors for considering the request for bail. The petitioner is the Junior Pontiff of a renowned Mutt and many of the witnesses are either employees or devotees of the Mutt. The Honorable Supreme Court has granted bail to the Senior Pontiff considering the various aspects. The petitioner can not claim parity with the Senior. The circumstances, which were considered for granting bail to the sSenior Pontiff by the Honorable Supreme Court, were different from the circumstances involving the petitioner at this stage. What is paramount consideration is the status of that petitioner wielding considerable influence as a religious head with reference to the victim, and the witnesses. The facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of judicial discretion for granting or refusing bail. The facts and circumstances of the cases referred to above where the request for bail was rejected in a pending trial are similar to that of the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

36. No doubt, liberty of a citizen must be protected by a court. Nevertheless, when a person is accused of an offence like this, the court has to keep in mind the interest of the prosecution, near and dear of the victim who lost his life and who feel helpless and believe that there is no equal justice in the world. When saints and godlymen are under cloud of suspicion, the equality before law and equal protection of law does not vary from person to person. Even Sita had to enter into fire to prove her chastity. This court honestly believes that Sita alone can emerge unscathed.

37. Therefore, I am satisfied that there is no prima facie case made out for granting of bail to the petitioner to set him at liberty. This petition is dismissed.

Dictated to Steno-typist, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 27th day of January 2005.

Sd/- G.M. Akbar Ali
Principal Sessions Judge
Chengalpattu.

>>


	\| Kanchi Digest \| Archives \| Site Search \| Photo Gallery \| Contact \|