|
|
A word of caution to the Special Investigation Team. By all means take action in the criminal cases against the indicted individuals with a single minded determination if you feel convinced about their guilt. No one is above Law, but if you divert and deviate from that direction unmindful of the rights of the innocent devotees of the Mutt, it would result not only in diluting the prosecution but also cause a deep shadow on it.
Madras High Court – 11.02.2005
State machinery in Tamil Nadu is not only taking an undue interest but is going to any extent in securing the conviction of the accused by any means
Supreme Court – 26.10.2005
THE BEST “DIWALI” OF OUR LIFE TIME
In the history spanning over 2500 years of the venerated Kamakoti Peetam, 11th November 2004 would remain the darkest day. Hearts were filled with sadness and eyes with tears. What will it be like if your house collapsed right in front of your eyes? The saint of the masses faced an outrageous charge. The attack on the mutt shook the devotees. They bore the brunt and were confident that “this day shall also pass”. They responded with dignified silence and took the catastrophe in to their strides. They prayed to that ‘Living God’’ who traversed this earth in the 20th Century and adorned this Peetam as its 68th Acharya and left it to Him and continued to act in faith and Bhakti. Truly the Judgment of the Supreme Court transferring the trial in the Sankararaman murder case out of Tamil Nadu is the best Diwali gift to the devotees of the Kanchi Mutt. As the festival of lights draws near, this landmark judgment has only strengthened our spirit and faith.
What Next ?
As we look ahead with renewed optimism, a fleeting glance of the observations of the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court in the various petitions that came before them convinces us that these foisted cases would soon get a decent burial and the Kanchi Mutt will rise like a phoenix.
A quick recap, the murder case was built on the foundation of :
i) the theory of conspiracy,
ii) confession of third parties,
iii) exchange of huge sums of money to the ‘hirelings’,
iv) a motive based on the animus of Sankararaman to the Peetadhipatis and his vilification campaign.
All these were demolished to varying degrees by the courts leaving the oppressive state machinery in a state of shock. There is enough evidence now to ask for a discharge of His Holiness Sri Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal, His Holiness Sri Sankara Vijayendra Saraswati Swamigal and other mutt officials from this case. That day is not too far when they shall emerge unscathed and Truth prevails. That would be the best “Diwali” of our life time.
Sr
No
Date
Observation
Observing
Authority
Remarks
1
26.10.2005
Para 9 –
This, therefore, establishes the correctness of the version of the incident given by Shri A. Shanmugam in his affidavit and also by Shri K.S. Dinakaran, advocate in his letter, namely, that the aforesaid statement was given by Ravi Subramaniam at the prompting of Shri Prem Kumar and then make a totally false allegation against a very senior counsel appearing for the defence is bound to demoralize and scare him and he cannot perform his duty of conducting the case in a fearless and proper manner.
Supreme Court of India
Transfer Petition No. Cr (134) of 2005
2
26.10.2005
Para 10 –
Though it is not necessary for the decision of the present Transfer Petition yet we cannot restrain ourselves from commenting that the necessary ingredient of an offence under Section 201 IPC is actually causing any evidence of the commission of an offence to disappear with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. Therefore, the oral threat or inducement allegedly given by the two lady lawyers to Ravi Subramaniam not to give any statement against the petitioner cannot amount to commission of an offence under the said section. Yet the local police submitted a charge-sheet against the aforesaid lady lawyers for their prosecution under Section 201 IPC. Institution of the criminal case against the junior lawyers, whose seniors are appearing as counsel for the accused, undoubtedly shows that in the prevailing conditions the accused will be seriously handicapped in defending themselves on account of threat and intimidation to their counsel.
Supreme Court of India
Transfer Petition No. Cr (134) of 2005
3
26.10.2005
Para 13 –
The police called for title deeds relating to the properties, which had no connection with the criminal case.
Supreme Court of India
Transfer Petition No. Cr (134) of 2005
4
26.10.2005
Para 15 –
It is also important to note that the order of the High Court allowing the writ petition and setting aside the direction issued regarding freezing of the accounts has attained finality as the same has not been challenged in any higher forum. As rightly observed by the High Court an organization (Mutt) cannot be paralysed or closed down by issuing a direction under Section 102 Cr.P.C. only for the reason that the head of the Mutt and few office bearers are alleged to be involved in some offence. The freezing of all the accounts of the Mutt and its associated trusts and endowments is a clear pointer to the fact that the State machinery anyhow wants to paralyse the entire working of the Mutt and the associated trusts and endowments in order to put pressure upon the petitioner and other co-accused who are in any manner connected with the Mutt so that they may not be able to defend themselves. The action of freezing the accounts demonstrate as to what extent the State machinery can go while prosecuting the petitioner in the Sankararaman murder case.
Supreme Court of India
Transfer Petition No. Cr (134) of 2005
5
26.10.2005
Para 17 –
It is not possible to lightly brush aside the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid detention orders were passed only to pre-empt the release from custody of these accused as a result of bail being granted to them, as some of them would have claimed parity with the order of bail granted to the petitioner Jayendra Saraswathi by the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court of India
Transfer Petition No. Cr (134) of 2005
6
26.10.2005
Para 23 –
We have discussed above many facets of the case which do show that the State machinery in Tamil Nadu is not only taking an undue interest but is going to any extent in securing the conviction of the accused by any means and to stifle even publication of any article or expression of dissent in media or press, interview by journalists or persons who have held high positions in public life and are wholly unconnected with the criminal case.
Supreme Court of India
Transfer Petition No. Cr (134) of 2005
7
26.10.2005
Para 23 –
From the material placed before us we are prima facie satisfied that a situation has arisen in the present case wherein the lawyers engaged by the petitioner and other co-accused cannot perform their professional duty in a proper and dignified manner on account of various hurdles created by the State machinery.
Supreme Court of India
Transfer Petition No. Cr (134) of 2005
8
26.10.2005
Para 23 –
Passing of the detention order against 16 co-accused soon after grant of bail to the petitioner by this Court on 10.1.2005, which order could be of some support in seeking parity or otherwise for securing bail in the present murder case, is a clear pointer to the fact that the State wanted to deprive them of any chance to secure release from custody.
Supreme Court of India
Transfer Petition No. Cr (134) of 2005
9
26.10.2005
Para 23 –
……………leads to an inference that the State machinery is not only interested in securing conviction of the petitioner and the other co-accused but also to bring to a complete halt the entire religious and other activities of the various trusts and endowments and the performance of Pooja and other rituals in the temples and religious places in accordance with the custom and traditions and thereby create a fear psychosis in the minds of the people.
Supreme Court of India
Transfer Petition No. Cr (134) of 2005
10
26.10.2005
Para 23 –
…………….. shows the attitude of the State that it cannot tolerate any kind of dissent, which is the most cherished right in a democracy guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution
Supreme Court of India
Transfer Petition No. Cr (134) of 2005
11
26.10.2005
Para 24 –
we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner and other co-accused of the case have a reasonable apprehension that they will not get justice in the State of Tamil Nadu.
Supreme Court of India
Transfer Petition No. Cr (134) of 2005
12
26.10.2005
Para 24 –
But it is the actions of the prosecuting agency and the State machinery, which are responsible for creating a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner and other co-accused that they will not get justice if the trial is held in any place inside the State of Tamil Nadu. We are, therefore of the opinion that the interest of justice that the trial may be transferred to a place outside the state of Tamil Nadu
Supreme Court of India
Transfer Petition No. Cr (134) of 2005
13
10.01.2005
In our opinion, the recovery of these letters from the house of the deceased himself is not a proof of the fact that they were actually received by the Petitioner or were brought to his notice. The deceased was not an employee of the Mutt, but was working as an In-Charge Administrative Manager of another Dharmasthanam which has nothing to do with Kanchi Mutt and at least since 1998 he had no connection with the said Mutt.
Supreme Court of India
Case No. Appeal (Crl) 44 of 2005
Bail Application of HH Sri Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal
14
10.01.2005
There is absolutely no evidence collected in investigation that the Petitioner made any kind of protest or took any kind of action against the deceased.
Supreme Court of India
Case No. Appeal (Crl) 44 of 2005
Bail Application of HH Sri Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal
15
10.01.2005
There is absolutely no evidence or material collected so far in investigation which may indicate that the Petitioner had ever shown any resentment against the deceased for having made allegations against either his personal character or the discharge of his duties as Sankaracharya of the Mutt. The Petitioner having kept absolutely quiet for over three years, it does not appeal to reason that he suddenly decided to have Sankararaman murdered and entered into a conspiracy for the said purpose.
Supreme Court of India
Case No. Appeal (Crl) 44 of 2005
Bail Application of HH Sri Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal
16
10.01.2005
No document of the account in ICICI Bank have been produced in support of the plea which was twice taken by the prosecution before the High Court while opposing the prayer for bail made by the Petitioner.
Supreme Court of India
Case No. Appeal (Crl) 44 of 2005
Bail Application of HH Sri Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal
17
10.01.2005
Therefore there should be a prima facie evidence that the person was a party to the conspiracy before his acts or statements can be used against his co-conspirators. No worthwhile prima facie evidence apart from the alleged confessions has been brought to our notice to show that the Petitioner along with A-2 and A-4 was a party to the conspiracy. The involvement of the Petitioner and A-2 and A-4 in the alleged conspiracy is sought to be established by the confessions themselves…… The confessions of A-2 and A-4 were recorded long after the murder when the conspiracy had culminated and, therefore, Section 10 of the Evidence Act cannot be pressed into service.
Supreme Court of India
Case No. Appeal (Crl) 44 of 2005
Bail Application of HH Sri Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal
18
10.01.2005
Learned Counsel has also submitted that there are two other witnesses who have heard the Petitioner telling some of the co-accused to eliminate the deceased……. However these persons are not employees of the Mutt and are strangers. It looks highly improbable that the Petitioner would talk about the commission of murder at such a time and place where his talks could be heard by total strangers.
Supreme Court of India
Case No. Appeal (Crl) 44 of 2005
Bail Application of HH Sri Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal
19
10.01.2005
We are of the opinion that prima facie a strong case has been made out for grant of bail to the Petitioner. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order of the High Court is set aside.
Supreme Court of India
Case No. Appeal (Crl) 44 of 2005
Bail Application of HH Sri Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal
20
10.02.2005
From the facts narrated above, in the absence of the actual involvement of the Petitioner or his participation to agree to do an illegal act or so caused to be done, a doubt should arise, whether he would come within the meaning of conspirator, attracting Section 120-A & 120-B of the IPC warranting prima facie case, under Section 302 r/w 120-B IPC.
Madras High Court
Criminal Original Petition 3107/2005
Petition for Bail U/s. 437 Cr.PC of HH Sri Sankara Vijayendra Swamigal
21
10.02.2005
But prima facie, a doubt should arise regarding the participation of this Petitioner as Co-conspirator.
Madras High Court
Criminal Original Petition 3107/2005
Petition for Bail U/s. 437 Cr.PC of HH Sri Sankara Vijayendra Swamigal
22.
10.02.2005
The other materials produced probably to prove the payment to mercenaries or hirelings, at present, also failed to give any support.
Madras High Court
Criminal Original Petition 3107/2005
Petition for Bail U/s. 437 Cr.PC of HH Sri Sankara Vijayendra Swaigal
23.
10.02.2005
Considering all these facts and the attending circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion, tampering of witnesses, urged on behalf of the prosecution, appears to be not well founded and the apprehension also may not be reasonable, considering the quality of materials collected by the prosecution and this apprehension is probably aimed to deny the right of bail, is not acceptable to me.
Madras High Court
Criminal Original Petition 3107/2005
Petition for Bail U/s. 437 Cr.PC of HH Sri Sankara Vijayendra Swaigal
24
11.02. 2005
Learned Public Prosecutors has not been able to point any single reason for freezing of account in the context of Sec.102 Cr.PC except for expressing apprehension that the Mutt may use the funds for gagging or tampering with the witness. Certainly Sec.102 CrPC is not intended or visualized for such a contingency.
Madras High Court
Writ Petition No. 1050 of 2005
Freezing of the Accounts of the Mutt Case
25
11.02.2005
But they have a right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purpose within the framework of law and such right is granted as a fundamental right under the constitution vide Article 26. Such an organization cannot be paralyzed or closed down virtually by writing a letter purporting to and under Sec.102 Cr.PC, only for the reason that the Head of the Mutt and few office bearers are alleged to be involved in some offences. A word of caution to the Special Investigation Team. By all means take action in the criminal cases against the indicted individuals with a single minded determination if you feel convinced about their guilt. No one is above Law, but if you divert and deviate from that direction unmindful of the rights of the innocent devotees of the Mutt, it would result not only in diluting the prosecution but also caused a deep shadow on it.
Madras High Court
Writ Petition No. 1050 of 2005
Freezing of the Accounts of the Mutt Case
26
11.02.2005
It is not for the Special Investigation Team dealing with the murder and assault to plunge into the accounts of the Mutt and paralyze its functions by invoking Section 102 CrPC. With the result I am inclined to hold that the impugned action of the third respondent in invoking Section 102 Cr.PC for freezing the accounts of the Mutt is ultra vires the said provision, illegal and liable to be set aside.
Madras High Court
Writ Petition No. 1050 of 2005
Freezing of the Accounts of the Mutt Case
27
28.01.2005
Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the inordinate delay in preferring the complaint and considering the towering fact, that at the earliest opportunity, the complainant had reported that he had sustained injuries only in the road accident, I am of the undoubted view, that this case must be a foisted one or in other words, no prima facie case has been made out against the Petitioners for the refusal of anticipatory bail.
Criminal Original Petition No. 430 & 607/2005
TVS Group Employee Case in Thirukostiyur Madhavan Affair
28
05.05.2005
“In spite of our hectic search, we are unable to find any material either through some documents or through some statements from the public to show that due to the ground incident, there has been a feeling of insecurity among the people who are residents of the local area. Similarly, no single materials has been placed before the detaining authority to indicate that even tempo of life was affected or that the people in the locality got afraid or felt insecure or that there was public disorder. Nobody speaks about the apprehension that even tempo of the community got endangered.
In the absence of any material to show that there was disturbance to the public order in the public place and the people got panic due to the said incident, we are at loss to understand as to how the detaining authority could uniformly state in all the detention order: “by committing the above describing crime in a public place, he has created fear and panic and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the people of the area and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
………… that the conclusion arrived at by the detaining authority as mentioned in the grounds of detention totally contradicts the case of the sponsoring authority.”
(the word “ground incident” has been used for the murder case of Sankararaman)
Madras High Court
Habeaus Corpus Petition No.79 of 2005 – Goondas Act
29
31.05.2005
……. and there is no specific role played by the Petitioner Mr. Sundaresa Iyer and there is nothing to indicate that he took part in the meeting and made deliberations so as to say that he also conspired along with Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal and others for murdering Sankararaman
Madras High Court
Hon. Mr. Justice S Sardar Zackria Hussain
Criminal Original Petition No. 11282, 11284, 11325, 11722 & 11723 of 2005
Bail Applications
30
31.05.2005
Therefore, there is nothing to indicate that the Petitioner Raghu also conspired along with other co-accused for murdering Sankararaman.
Madras High Court
Hon. Mr. Justice S Sardar Zackria Hussain
Criminal Original Petition No. 11282, 11284, 11325, 11722 & 11723 of 2005
Bail Applications
31
03.05.2005
A careful reading of the entire FIR from top to bottom would suggest that the above said incidents viz, three accused contacting Meenakshisundaram, Meenakshisundaram instructing the 1st accused, 6th accused informing the 1st accused about the arrival of the accused in Sankararaman’s murder case are all took place only one month prior to the date of arrest, in this crime, i.e. it must be on or before 22.3.2005. If this is the logical conclusion that could be deduced, then certainly a doubt should arise how Kumar could have informed about the hearing, date before the Sessions Court, even before committal. This inbuilt inconsistency available in the FIR fails to make out a conspiracy, as far as this Petitioner is concerned.
Madras High Court
Justice M
Thanickachalam
Crl OP 10541 of 2005 – Ganja Case
>>
© Copyright kanchi-sathya.org
No part of this web site may be reproduced without explicit permission from
the webmaster.
Some material put up on this web site are protected by individual
copyrights of the concerned organisations.
This site is optimised for 800 x 600 resolution or higher.