Supreme Court of India
KAMALANANTHA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU
- Citation
- 2005 INSC 183
- Decided
- 5 April 2005
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- B N AGRAWAL
Holding
The convictions and sentences are upheld; the rape charges fall within Section 375, Section 160 examination is valid, misjoinder is a curable irregularity, and life imprisonment is included in the term "imprisonment" under Section 31 CrPC.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined the conviction of a swami and his associates for the systematic rape of thirteen orphaned girls in an ashram and the murder of a male inmate. The Court held that the victims' consent was obtained by deceit and threat, rendering it invalid under Section 375 IPC, and that the rape charges were proper. It ruled that examining the victims at a women’s police station did not violate Section 160 CrPC, as the ashram could not be considered a safe place for interrogation. The Court found that the joinder of multiple charges, though procedurally irregular under Section 218 CrPC, was a curable irregularity under Sections 464 and 465 and did not amount to a failure of justice. It also clarified that the term "imprisonment" in Section 31 CrPC includes life imprisonment. Consequently, the Court upheld the trial court’s convictions, sentences of life imprisonment, and the order that no remission or amnesty would apply.
Issues considered
- The applicability of Section 375 IPC to the alleged rapes where consent was obtained by deceit or threat.
- Whether the examination of the victims at a women’s police station contravened Section 160 CrPC.
- The legality of joinder of multiple charges under Section 218 CrPC and its curability under Sections 464/465.
- Whether the term "imprisonment" in Section 31 CrPC includes a sentence of life imprisonment.
- Whether alleged police torture or coercion invalidated the victim statements.
- The admissibility and weight of DNA evidence establishing paternity of a foetus.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 142, s. 160, s. 164, s. 218, s. 31, s. 313, s. 464, s. 465
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 109, s. 120-B, s. 201, s. 302, s. 304, s. 312, s. 34, s. 343, s. 354, s. 376(2)(c), s. 420, s. 506 Part II
Subjects
rapesexual assaultconsent by deceitthreatmisjoinder of chargeslife imprisonmentDNA evidencemurderashramchild victimsCrPC Section 31CrPC Section 160CrPC Section 218
Judgment
A KAMALANANTHA AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
APRIL 5, 2005
B [B.N. AGRAWAL AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 :
Sections 120-B, 376 rlw. 109, 376(2)(c), 354, 302, 302 r/w. 34, 343, 506
C Part-JI, 312, 304 and 201 r/w. 304-Allegation of rape of 13 girls on several
occasions and murder of one person-By Swami in Ashram-:-Prosecutrix
entirely dependent on the accused-Accused abetted and supported by other
accused-Initiation ofprosecution after a news item followed by the complaint
of one of the prosecutrix~Evidence of all the prosecutrix, incriminating the
D accused-Evidence supported by medical evidence and other contemporaneous
documents-Murder proved by evidence· of eye-witnesses-DNA test proving
the accused and one of the prosecutrix to.- be parents of a dead foetus-
Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment by Courts below-On appeal,
held: Jn the facts ofthe case conviction and sentence justified-This is a rarest.
of rare cases.
E
Section 3 75-Rape-Charge of-Consent ofprosecutrix taken by deceitful
manner and under threat-Held: The charge of rape would fall within the
definition of the Section-Consent obtained by deceitful means and under
threat is no consent.
F Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
Section 31-Sentences of life imprisonment-Direction by trial Court to
run consecutively-Validity of-:-Held: Direction of consecutive sentence of
life imprisonment is valid-The term 'imprisonment' occurring in Section 31
G would include sentence of life imprisonment- Sentencing.
Section 160-Examination of prosecutrix in the Police Station-After
removing them from the place ofoccurrence i.e. from the clutches ofaccused-
Held: Such examination not violative of the Section-The provision should be
understood in the context of the situation that the prosectrix were removed
H 182
KAMALANANTHA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 183
from the place of occurrence for their safety and serve the interest of Justice. A
Sections 218, 464 and 465~Violation ofprovision under Section 218-
Curability of-Held· Violation of the provision under Section 218 is not cm
illegality, but is misjoinder of charges, an irregularity-Hence curable ulss.
464 and 465 provided no failure ofjustice had occasioned thereby.
B
Criminal Trial :
Evidence of Prosecutrix-Evidentiary value of-Heid: Evidence of
prosecutrix, if inspires confidence, conviction can be founded :Jn her testimony
alone unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration-Her
evidence is more reliable than that of injured witness-Minor contradictions C
and insignificant discrepancies in her statement should not be a ground for
throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case.
The allegation was that Accused-I a Swami in the Ashram,
systematically abetted by A-2, A-4, A-6, A-7 and 'D' the absconded D
accused had raped 13 Ashram girls PWs 3 to 15 and PW-55, on several
occasions. Most of the victim girls except PWs 4 and 6 were orphans
brought from Sri Lanka. They were entirely dependent on A-1. A-1 had
control over the prosecutrix physically, mentally and spiritually. Four of
the accused were below 16 years of age when they were raped. Many of
the girls had to undergo abortion. A-1 was also alleged to have murdered E
one 'R' with the help of A-2, A-4 0 A-6 and A-7 in April, 1991 by beating
him and confining him to the Kudil without food and water, because he
was shouting in the Ashram that A-1 was having sex with Ashram girls.
'R' had been brought to the Ashram in July, 1990. A-1 was also alleged
to have cheated one 'M' inducing him to part with the money.
F
PW-3 prosecutrix and PW-16 another inmate with the help of one
of her relatives, and with the assistance of a Woman Organisation came
out of the Ashram on 31.10.1994. Till 15.11.1994 no complaint was lodge~.
A news item in this respect dated 15.11.1994 appeared in 'The Indian
Express'. On 17.11.1994 PW-3 lodged a complaint (Exbt.P-25) and a case G
was registered u/ss. 142 and 376 IPC. By an order dated 19.11.1994, the
case was handed over to C.B.C.l.D. The prosecutrix were examined in
women Police Station. On medical examination of all the prosectrix, the
hymen was found not intact. The potency of A-1 was also established,
Investigating Officer seized amongst other things two new packets of
'Nirodh' from the kudil of the·absconded accused in the Ashram. H
184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R.
A Prosecution examined 62 witnesses. None of them turned hostile. All the
prosecutrix, in their evidence, stated that A-1 had raped them on many
occasions; that pregnancy of many of them was terminated by A-1, A-3
and the absconded accused; that A-1 had threatened the prosecutrix not
to disclose his assault; that because of fear of him they had not disclosed
full truth before the Magistrate. PW-59 stated that after DNA test of A-
B 1 and PW-14 prosecutrix, they were·found to be biological parents of the
dead foetus. PW-14 stated that due to fear of A-1, she did not tell the truth
to Magistrate but when the police beat them, she told that A-1 raped them.
Trial Court relied on the prosecution witnesses and rejected the evidence
of defence witnesses. Three of the DWs were declared perjury. Trial Court
C convicted A-1 u/ss. 120-8, 376(2)(c), (12 counts), 354 (one count), 302, 343,
506 Part II, (2 counts) IPC and acquitted him of charge u/s. 420 IPC. A-
2 was convicted u/ss. 1208, 376 r/w 109, 302 r/w 34, 343, 201r/w114 and
506 Part II (2 counts) IPC. A-5 was convicted u/s. 120 8 IPC. A-6 was
convicted u/s.1208, 376 r/w 109, 304, 201 r/w. 304 and 506 Part II (2
counts) IPC. A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7 were sentenced to
D imprisonment for life and fine with default Clause. A-3 was sentenced to
imprisonment for 2 years, 7 months and 2 days and fine with default
clause. Trial Court ordered the sentence of A-1 and 2 to run consecutively·
subject to prov~so (a) to Section 31. It also ordered that any remission mf
sentence or amnesty on any special occasions announced or to be
E announced either by Central or State Government shall not apply to th1e
sentence to the accused.
Habeas Corpus petition was filed by detenues in High Court. On the ·
examination of detenues no complaint of coersion or torture was made~
against the police. High Court in appeal, confirmed the conviction and
F sentence of the accused. A-3 served out her sentence and A-5 died during
pendency of appeal before High Court.
In appeal to this court, appellants contended that the charge of rape
did not fall within ambit of Section 375 IPC inasmuch as some of the
victims had consented to have sexual intercourse with A-1; that there was
G breach of Section 160 Cr.P.C. as the victim girls were examined in Women
Police Stations; that the charge is framed in contravention of Section 218
Cr.P.C. and the same being illegal cannot be cured either u/ss. 464 or 465
Cr.P.C.; that the victim girls were tortured and beaten by the Police as
was evident from statement oi\" PW-14; that conspiracy was hatched against
H A-1 and victim girls were with C.8.C.l.D. right from 1.11.1994; and that
--- KAMALANANTHA v. ST ATE OFT AMIL NADU 185
the term 'imprisonment' enjoined in Section 31 Cr.P.C. does not include
imprisonment for life.
A
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1.1. There is no infirmity or perversity either in Trial Court
or High Court judgment in recording the concurrent findings. by B
-- appreciating the evidence adduced. It is trite law that the prosecutrix is
not an accomplice. The evidence of victim of sexual assault, if inspires
confidence, conviction .can be founded on her testimony alone unless there
are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. Her evidence is more
reliable than that of injured witness. In a case of sexual assault
corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance is not a requirement of . C
law but a guidance of prudence. Examining the testimony of prosecutrix
in the background, and in tlte facts and circumstances of this case, the
testimony of prosecutrix inspires confidence, on the basis of which alone
conviction can be safely sustained. Moreover, in th~ instant case the
statements of the prosecutrix are well corroborated by medical and other D
contemporaneous documents. It is also well established principle of law
that minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement
of the prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise
reliable prosecution case. (214-E-G]
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Ors., (1996) 2 SCC 384, referred E
to.
1.2. The prosecutrix were subjected to incisive cross-examination.
- However, no material could be brought out to discredit the credit-
worthiness of the statement-in-chief. From the facts of the prosecution as
disclosed most of the victim girls were orphans brought from Srilanka. F
A-1 provided them food, clothes and shelter. They were entirely dependent
on A-1 for their survival. Once they were thrown out by A-1 they had no
alternative place to stay. A-I had dominion control over the prosecutrix
physically, mentally and spiritually. In fact, many of them believed that
A-1 is God to them. It is in these circumstances, there is no reason why G
the prosecutrix should depose falsely against A-1 who was the source of
their survival physically, mentally and spiritually, by providing shelter,
food and clothes to them. (214-B-D)
1.3. This case has more than one rarest of rare circumstances. It is
rare that A-1, supposed to be incarnation of God and allegedly having H
186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R.
A divine powers has been alleged of raping 13 of Ashram girl~ systematically
and murder of'R'. It is rare that out of62 prosecution witnesses examined,
none of them turned hostile.His rare that in an institution like Ashram,
the Investigating Officer seized amongst other things two new packets of
Nirodh from the kudil of 'D' the absconded accused, in the Ashram.
[217-B)
B
2.1. The charge of rape leveled against A-1 falls within the definition
of Section 375 I.P.C. It is in the evidence of the prosecutrix, that consent
of.many of the prosecutrix has been obtained by deceitful means or some
of the girls have been raped under threat of dire consequences. A-1 had
C dominion control over the Ashram girls and most of them are orphans
and no alternative place to go. Therefore it clearly falls within the thirdly
clause of Section 375 IPC. Furthermore, if the consent is obtained by
deceitful means or under threat of death or hurt, it is no consent at all
and it is without her consent. This apart, under sixthly clause the consent
is immaterial when she is under 't6 years of age. PWs. 6, 8, 9, 10 were
D below 16 years of age when they were raped by A-1. (217-C; 218-C-D)
2.2. A-1 was ·charged under Section 376(2)(c) IPC and convicted .
under that Section. The charge under Section 376(2)(c) was never
challenged by A-1. (218-E)
.-...
E 3:There is no breach of Section 160 Cr.P.C. All the victim girls were
the inmates of the Ashram. They were raped by A-1 in the Ashram, who
had dorninion control over the Ashram. The victim girls were being
threatened not to disclose to anybody about the misdeeds of A-1 or face
the dire consequences including the threat of death. In such circumstances,
F the Ashram cannot ,f>e the place for the purposes of examination under
Section 160 Cr.P.C. and the victim girls were rightly examined and
interrogated in Women Police Stations. They were ·removed from the
Ashram to erase the fear psychosis from them. It was for the safety and
to serve the ittterest of justice, they were removed from the clutches of A-
t.. Section 160 Cr.P.C. must be understood and appreciated in the context
G of given situati<rn. (218-H; 219-B)
4.1. Section 218 Cr.P.C. is under the Heading- "Joinder of Charges".
Therefore, if joinder of charges is in contravention of procedure prescribed
under Section 218, it would be misjoinder of charges. Misjoinder of charges
is not an illegality but an irregularity curable under Section 464 or Section
H 465 Cr.P.C. provided no failure of justice had occasioned thereby. Whether
KAMALANANTHA v. ST ATE OFT AMIL NADU 187
or not the failure of justice had occasioned thereby, it is the duty of the A
Court to see, whether an accused had a fair trial, whether he knew what
he was being tried for, whether the main facts sought to be established
against him were explained to him fairly and clearly and whether he was
given a full and fair chance to defend himself. [219-E-F; 222-D-E]
W. Slaney v. State of MP., AIR (1956) SC H6, distinguished. B
Birichh Bhuian v. State of Bihar, [1963) Supp. 2 SCR 328; State of
Andhra Pradesh v. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao, [1964) 3 SCR 297 and
State of West Bengal v. Laisal Haque, [1989) 3 SCC 166, relied on.
4.2. In the tacts of the case that the accused was represented by a C
very senior and abled criminal lawyer; that all the prosecution witnesses
were subjected to incisive cross-examination; the accused put up 49 defence
witnesses; that in his cross-examination under Section 313 altogether 445
questions were put to him, affording an opportunity to explain all th~
circumstances appearing against him, no failure of justice has occasioned. D
(222-F-G)
5.1. The statement of PW-14 that she gave the statement after they
were beaten by the Police, must be examined in the context and under
the facts and circumstances, in which it has been stated. Keeping in view
the trauma and agony suffered by all the victim girls at the hands of A-1, E
it is expected that the victim girls were reluctant to disclose the misdeeds
of A-1 for fear of reprisals. In the context of the statement of PW-14, High
Court held that so called beating could have meant to shake-off their
inhibition and fear, to make them free to say what they wanted to say. In,
the given facts and circumstances of this case, beating will mean to remove
the fear psychosis and to come out with truth. [223-C-E; 225-A-B) F
5.2. In the Habeas Corpus Petitions, when the detenus were examined
by the Judges of High Court in Chamber all of them specifically stated
that no coersion or. torture was meted out to them by police and that they
were not ill treated or illegally confined. The detenus - PWs 7, 8 and 10 G
told the Judges that A-1 had tried to lure them by offering money and
marriage with suitable groo~s.
6. The allegation that the victim girls were with C.B. CI.D right from
1.11.1994 is belied by the documents. The theory of conspiracy hatched
against A-1 is, therefore, demolished. (225-D-EJ H
188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R.
A 7. As per the evidence of PW-59, A-1 and PW-14 were the biological
parents of the dead foetus. Both the trial court and the High Court have
correctly appreciated the evidence of PW-59. The evidence of DW-49 a
private·medical consultant has been rejected for good reasons by the High
Court. [228-B-C]
B 8. Both the courts have rightly rejected the testimonies of the defence
witnesses on the ground that they are blind followers of Swami and their
testimony also do not inspire confidence. DWs. 10, 31 and 33 have been
declared perjury by the trial court. [228-F)
C 9.1. From the statement of eye witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 1, 3, 5, 8, 11, 16,
17 und 18, the prosecution has clearly established its case that the deceased
died out of the injuries caused by A-1 and A-2 and subs~quent confinement
and starvation accelerated his death. The homicidal death of the deceased
due to beating and starvation is corroborated by medical evidence of
P. W.46 and Serology Report. [230-A-B)
D
9.2. The plea that during the period the deceased stayed in the
Ashram there was no allegation of rape against A-1, is factually incorrect.
As per evidence of P.W.13, P.W.14 and P.W.5. A-1 had forcibly sex with
them during the period the deceased had stayed in the Ashram.
[229-B-C)
E
10.1. It cannot be said that the term 'imprisonment' enjoined in
Section 31 Cr.P.C. does not include imprisonment for life. The term is not
defined under Cr.P.C. Section 31 falls under Chapter III which deals with
power of Courts. Section 28 Cr.P.C. empowers the High Court to pass any
F sentence authorized by law. Similarly, Sessions Judge and Additional
Sessions Judge may pass any sentence authorized by law, except the
sentence of death which shall be subject to confirmation by High Court.
Hence, the term 'imprisonment' would include the sentence of
imprisonment of life. [30-G-H; 231-A)
G 10.2. Having regard to the amplitude of the gravity of the offence,
perpetrated in an organized and systematic manner, the nature of the
offence and its deleterious effects not only against the victims, but the
civilized society at large, needs to be curbed by a strong judicial hand.
The sentence and conviction as recorded by the Trial Court and confirmed
by the High Court is confirmed .. The order of the Trial Court that any
H remission of sentence or amnesty on any special occasions announced or
KAMALANANTHA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [SEMA, J.] 189
to be announced be either by the Central or the State Government shall A
not apply to the sentence and imprisonment imposed on all the accused is
also maintained. [231-B-DJ
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 611-
612 of 2003.
B
Form the Judgment and Order dated 12.l~.2002 of the Madras High
Court in Crl. A. Nos. 896 and 897 of 1997.
Ram Jethmalani, Ms. Lata Krishnamurthy, Balaji Srinivasan, K. Karthick,
Ms. D. Revathi, Ms. P.R. Mala, Kovid Mishra, Ananda Padnabhan, V. Sudeer,
Sooriya Kumaren, Vivek Reddy, S. Sachin, Riju Raj Jamwal, M.B.R.S. Raju, C
Ms. Sailaja, Ms. S. Sunita and S. Srinivasan with him for .the Appellants.
Sushi! Kumar, C. Mani Shankar, Abhay Kumar, R. Gopalakrishnan,
Subramonium Prasad, Adolf Mathew, Vinay Arora, Sanjay Jain and V. Senthil
Kumar for the Respondent.
D
Ms. Kamini Jaiswal and Ms. Shomila Bakshi for Complainant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
- SEMA, J. These appeals by special leave are preferred by accused nos.
·1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 against their conviction concurrently recorded by two Courts.
A-3 served out the sentence and A-5 died during the pendency of the appeal
E
before the High Court and his appeal stands abated. They were convicted and
sentenced to imprisonment as under :-
Charge Convicted Accused Sentence of Imprisonment/ F
Nos. under Fine imposed.
Section
- (I) (2) (3) (4)
I. 120 (B) A-1 to A-7 No Separate sentence.
l.P.C. G
2. 376(2)(c) A-I Imprisonment for Life and to
l.P.C. (12 pay a fine of Rs. 5,10,000 on
Counts) each count. In default,
Rigorous Imprisonment for a
further period of Two years H
190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R.
A and Six months. (Total Fine
rs. 61,20,000. Imprisonment
for life on each count is to
run concurrenUy.
3. 376 r/w A-2, A-4, Imprisonment for Life on
B 109 I.P.C. A-6 & A-7 each accused. Rigorous
A-3 Imprisonment for Two years,
7 months and 2 days (period
of sentence already
undergone) and to pay a fine
c of Rs. 10,000. In default,
Rigorous Imprisonment for a
further period of 3 months.
4 .. 354 I.P.C .. A-I No separate Sentence.
'(one Count)
D 5. 312 l.P.C. A-3 Rigorous Imprisonment for
(Four Counts) Two.Years, 7 Months and 2
Days (period.of sentence
already undergone) and to
pay a Fine of Rs. 5,000 on
E each count. In default,
Rigorous Imprisonment .for a
further period of 45 Days.
(Total Fine Rs. 20,000)
6. 302 l.P.C. A-1 Imprisonment of life and to
F pay a Fine of Rs. 10,000. In
default, Rigorous
Imprisonment for a further
period of 3 months.
302 r/w A-2 Imprisonment for Life and to
G 34 1.P.C. pay a Fine of Rs. 10,000. In
default, Rigorous
Imprisonment for a further
period of 3 Months;
H
KAMALANANTHA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [SEMA. J.) 191
A
7. 304 1.P.C. A-4 A-6 Imprisonment of Ten years
and A-7 and to pay a fine of Rs.
10,000 In default, rigorous
imprisonment for a further
period of 3 Months on each
accused. B
8. 343 l.P.C. A-1, A-2, No separate sentence.
A-6 to A-7
9. 201 r/w A-6 & A-7 For each accused, ~igorous
304 l.P.C. Imprisonment for One year c
and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500
In default, Rigorous
Imprisonment for a further
period of one month. (R.I.
For one year is to run
concurrently with the
D
sentence under Charge 7).
IO. 201 r/w A-2 Rigorous imprisonment for
114 l.P.C. one year and to pay a fine of
Rs. 2,500 In default,
E
rigorous imprisonment for a
further period of one month.
(R.I. for one year is to run
concurrently with the
sentence under Charge 6).
F
11. 506 (Part II) A-1, A-2, No separate sentence.
t.P.C. (2 A-4, A-6
Counts) and A-7
12. 420 l.P.C A-I Acquitted.
G
1st Accused: The sentence imposed on A-1 on charge Nos. 2 and 6
are to run consecutively. Total fine on A-I is Rs. 61,30,000 (Rs.
61,20,000 + Rs. l0,000). Sentences imposed on A-I in default of
payment of fine on each count are to run separately and consecutively
H
192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R. . ·
A apart from the above sentence of imprisonments. In default o( payment.
of fine, Total further sentence to undergo; 32-1/2 years + 3 months.
2n~ Accused: The sentences imposed on A-2 on Charge Nos. 3 and
6 are to run consecutively. Total fine on A-2 Rs. 12,500 (Rs. 10,000
+ Rs. 2,500). The Sentences imposed on A-2 in default of payment
B of fine is to run consecutively apart from the above sentenced of·
imprisonments.
4th Accused: The sentence of imprisonment of Charge Nos. 3 and
are to run concurrently. Fine amount on A-4: Rs. 10,000 The sentenc~
of imprisonment imposed in default of payment of fine js to run
c separately.
....
~
Accused 6 and 7: The sentence of impfisonmen!.imposed on each of
...
-
_,
these Accused on Charge Nos. 3 and 7 are to run concurrently. Total ·
Fine Rs. 12,500 each (Rs. 12,500 X 2 =Rs. 25,000). The sentence of
imprisonment imposed in default of payment of fine is to run separately
D and consecutively.
Total fine on A-1 to A~ 7 Rs. 62,07 ,SOO
Out of the payment ~ffine~fis. Sl,30,000 collected from A-1 under
Sec. 357(1) a (3) Cr.P.C., a compen$ation of Rs. 5,00.000 is. to be
E pai ..., each of the victim girls, P.W.3 Sureskumari; P.W.4 Nallammal;
P.W.5 Princy, P.W.6 Mary; P.W.7 Selvakumari@ Manjula:; P.W.8
Sugunakumari @ Sudha; P.W.9 Pushparani; P.W.10 Saikumari @
Jaya P.W.12 Udayakumari;P.W.13 Vanitha; P.W.14 Aruljothi and
P.W.15 Malligadevi (rs. 5,00,000 X 12 ==Rs. 60,00,000.
f ACCUSED RELATED:
Accused No. 2 is the Secretary o'r A-1, A-6 is the younger brother of .
A- I and A-7 is the adopted son of A-1.
The facts of this case, as revealed by the prosecution, shocked the
G judicial conscience. It illustrate a classic e)(ample as to how the insatiable lust
for sex of A- I Swami Premananda. leads to the raping of '13 Ashram girls
and murder- of one Ravi. The Ashram which is supposed to be God abode
turned out to be devil's workshop. A-1 to whom the inmates of the ~shram
regarded as God having the divine power turned out to be a monster. It is a
classic case of betrayal of fatherly and divinely trust of the inmates of
H
.: ~ .
KAMALANANTHA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [SEMA, J.] 193
the Ashram girls who were mostly orphans and destitutes, brought from A
Srilanka except PW-4 Nallammal and PW.-6 Mary.
The facts of the case also illustrate .a classic example as to how a game~
keeper has become a poacher or a treasury guard h~s become a robber. From
the facts as disclosed by the prosecution, some of the ·victim girls were
brought up by A-1 since when they were aged about. 2, 3 and 6 years. They B
were reared to be butchered later when they·attained the age.
The prosecution case was set in motion pursuant to the news item
appeared in "The Indian Express" dated 15.11.1994 under the caption, "Tale
of the two who were able to get away" (Ex.D.29) followed by a complaint, C
Ex.P-25 dated 16.11.1994 given by R. Sureshkumari@ Baby (PW-3) to the
Inspector of Police, Viralimalai has laid the foundation for the case of rape
of 13 girls and one murder in an ashram near Tiruchirappalli. In that brief
complaint, Sureshkumari has state4 that she joined the Premananda Swami
Ashram, Mathalai, Sri Lanka when she was six years of age. She was taken
to India by the Swami along with 12 other girls in the year 1984 when the D
ashram ·was formed at Tiruchy. She had alleged that she was subjected to
sexual harassment by the Swami four times even before she attained puberty
at the age of 13 and that she was raped within a inonth on her attaining
puberty by the Swami by threat and by beating her with stick. Unable to
withstand this torture, she left the ashram at the age of 14 and came to E
Madras, but she was caught by the police and sent back to the ashram. Inspite
of her complaint to her mother, she di~ not come forward to help her and she
had to suffer the torture in the ashram as she had no other place to go. She
came to know from some inmates of the ashram that Premananda h:>.d not
only raped her, but also n;iany other girls in the ashram, and she recorded
their conversation in a cassette. In these circumstances, she approached one F
of her relatives, Anand Mohan who helped her and Latha, another inmate, to
come out of the ashram to Chennai, with the assistance of a Women
Organisation. In the ashram, Premananda would not allow them to talk freely
to others and they were compelled to undergo this ordeal. Divya Devi knew
all this and wrui abetting the misdeeds of the Swami. Ultimately, unable to G
. . bear the torture, she left the ashram on l.l t.1'994, but could not gather the
courage to give a police complaint However, with the assistance and
encouragement given by the All Indian Women Democratic Association and
in order to see that other girls also were not subjected to the same fate, she
had come forward to expose the misdeeds of the &wami and the suffering
undergone by her even at the cost of her dignity and modesty. She had stated H
194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R.
A that many girls had to undergo .abortion because of the rapes committed on
them by the Swami. She had alleged. that one Balan had acted as a pimp for
the Swami. She had requested for an appropriate action against the Swami,
Divya Devi and Balan. The subsequent news report on these allegations was
followed by the registration of a crime investigation, enquiry, seizure of
B incriminating documents, materials, evidenc.e and filing of .charge sheet.
The prosecutrix raped .by A-1 systematically abetted by A-2, A-4, ~-
6 and A-7 are P.W.3 Sureshkumari, P.W.4 Nallammal, P.W.5 Princy, P.W.6
Mary, P.W.7 Selvakumari@ Manjula, P.W.8 Sugunakumari@ Sudha, P.W.9
Purshparani, P.W.IO Sasikumari @ Jaya, P.W.ll Shantha, P.W.12
C Udayakumari, P;W.13 Vanitha, P.W.14 Aruljothi, P.W.15 Mallikadevi and
P.W.55 Krishnaveni.
Most of the rapes committed on the victims .as disclosed by the
prosecution story are inside the Kudil of A-1. The modus operandi of A-1
abetted by other accused are that although there were 200-300 boys in the,
D Ashram, A-1 used the girls to put on the night watch around his Kudil,
Arulvakku Room, Dharmasala .and other plac.es. The victims tolerated the
. beastly assault of A-I .as they were orphans .and totally .dependent on A-1
· Ashram for their food and shelter .and they had no alternative place to go if
they made complaint to .the police or to the .outside world. The evidence
E disclosed that A-2, A-4, A-6 .and A-7 were .abetting the commission of rape
-
by A- I by threatening the victims not to reveal the rape committed on them
by A-1.
BACKGROUND FACTS:
F The facts of this case are cumbersome. To avoid prolixity we may refer
to few facts to appreciate the controversy in proper perspective. A-1 called
Swami Premananda was running an orphanage in the name ofBoopalakrishna
Ashram, Mathalia at Srilanka. Due to the ethnic violence in the region A-1
came over to India in the year 1984. 12 young Tamil girls and a few women,
who were in the Ashram in Sri Lanka, were also brought to Tiruchy by boat.
G Initially, A-1 set up an Ashram ,in a rented building at Tiruchy and later
established a big institution at Fathima Nagar in the year 1989 in a sprawling· __.
space spread over rt early 150 acres. The Ashram consists of residence, kudil,
eating place, school, etc. The boys and girls mostly orphans, were staying in
the Ashram. There are separate hostels for the stay, education and training
H for boys, girls and women. Besides, the Ashram has 5 acres of flower plants,
KAMALANANTHA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [SEMA, J.] 195
5 acres of tamarind plantation, mango trees plantation, 300 coconut trees, 90 A
acres of cashew plantation, I acre of jackfruit plantation, l 0 acres of teak
wood, I acre of lime trees and 2 acres of guava trees. The Ashram has its
·branches at U.K., Switzerland, Belgium and many other countries.
BACKGROUND OF THE VICTIM GIRLS :
B
As already noticed except P.W.4 Nallammal and P.W.6 Mary 1 all other
victims are Srilankan. Most of them were orphans and were left in the Ashram
when they were small children. All of them were dependent on the first
accused for food, shelter and other basic needs. All the victim girls were
under the complete mercy and control of A-1 and the other accused. They C
were warned and threatened not to disclose to anybody about the misdeeds
of A-1. If they were turned out from the Ashram they had no place to stay
and therefore they had tolerated the cruel assault of rape on them for so long.
They were like mouse before the cat. Who will bell the cat?
A comparative chart as to particulars of the victim girls of rape as D
recited by the High Court is being reproduced, which speaks for itself.
--
Name, Age and Relatives in Instances of Instances of Statement
Rank the Ashram rape abortion made u/s
committed 161(3) and
and the period 164 Cr.P.C. E
Sureshkumari Sister PW7- l) 1985 before Nil Ex.P25 refers
20/1994 Selvakumari attaining to the
-- P.W.3 Sri
Lankan
@ Manjula,
PW 8 -
puberty, at
residential
instances of
rape
Sugunakumari house at committed on F
@ Sudha, Crapatti, her by Al
PWlO Tiruchy.
Sasikumari 2) July 1987
@Jaya and in Al's room
G
-
daughter of 3) July 1987
DW32 - in Al's room
Deivanai 4) November
1991 in Al's
bedroom at l
p.m. H
196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R. r
A Nallammal I) May 94 at Abortion Ex.P27
21/1994 I t.30 am in · conducted (Accident ·
P.W.4 Native the Arulvakku by Dr. Register):
of Room Muthulakshmi Contact with
Pallathupatty, 2) May 94 at some time in known
Keeranur, 12.30 p.m. in Oct. 94. person,
B Tamil Nadu. Al's room PW2-Nesan willingly;
3) May 94 at was asked milk
2.30pm at to bear· secretion
'Dharmasala. responsibility complete
4) May 94 at for the abortion.
c · Dharmasala conception Ex.DJ (u/s
(u/s 164):
Admits
sexual
intercourse
with Al and
D
money given
by Al for
abortion.
Princy, Sister of l) 1986 at Missed her Ex.P.36
20/1994, PW2-Nesan lodge in periods 2-3 (Accident
E PW.5 Sri and PWl8 Courtallam at times; taking Register):
Lankan Dinesan I p.m. the Coitus with
2) July 90, abortifacients working,
days after given by A-3 person
Guru Pumima willingly
F pooja at 11 Hymen not
pm in Al's intact
room. &.D2 (uls
3) 1992, a 164): Refer
month after to Al's
name
G the 3rd
incident at 5 and four ___..
am. instances of
4) 1993 in rape
lodge at commencng
H Thanjavur. from 1992.
- KAMALANANTHA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (SEMA, J.]
5) on
197
A
17.4.1994.
Mary, I) 1993 in the Missed her Ex.P35
16/1994 Pomegranate period once (Accident
PW.6 Native Garden, 4 and Register):
of Venniayaru days abortifacients Shows
Estate, thereafter at given by A3 Hymen Not
B
Madurai. the and Divva intact; as per
Dharmasala Devi physical
examination,
age 16
years: c
As per
EX.P46, Age
Certificate,
completed
16 years
D.
on 2.11.94.
Ex.DJ (11/s
164) Refers
to sexual
intercourse
by force by E
Al at the
age of 13
in the
room near
Dhannasala
F
at 1.30 pm.
Immediately
after
Christmas.
Sivakumari Elder sister of I) May 94 in Nil Hymen not
@Manjula, PW3 & sister Al's room. intact.
G
22/1994, of PW3 8 & 2) October 94 Ex.D4 (u/s
P.W.7, JO related to at 4 pm in 164):
Sri Lankan. Al as their Al's room. Refers to
father's 3) Refers to sexual H
198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R.
A • brother. forced intercourse
perverted oral With Al
s.ex by AL willingly
once.
Sugunakumari I) in 1993, 2-3 Nil Ex.P37
@Sudha, months after (Accident
B 16/1994, she attained Register):
PW 8, puberty Al Not a virgin
Sri Lankan had sexual accustomed
intercourse in to sexual
his room. intercourse.
c 2) September As per
94 in the Ex.P48,
Arulvakku Age
Room. Certificate,
3) September completd 18
94 in the years as
D
Arulvakku on 22.11.94.
Room .. Ex.D5
(u/s.164):
Refers to _,.
sexual
E intercourse
by Al
forcibly.
Pushparani Sister of I) 1992 at Nil Ex.P.33
16/1994, PW 17 1.30 am in the Accident
P.W.9, Pooja room. Register):
F
Sri Lankan 2) 1994 at Had affair
11.30 am in with a
the working
Dharmasala person for I
room. year; as per
G 3) in 1994, 2 her own
days prior to statement
Deepavali in and physical
Al's room. examination,
aged 16. As
per Ex~P49,
H
not
KAMALANANTHA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [SEMA, J.] 199
completed A
16 years.
Statement
(u/s) 164):
Refers
forcible
sexual
B
intercourse
by Al when
she
was 14 years
old. c
Sasikumari @ Twin sister l) In 1993, 15 Nil Ex.P37
Jaya, 16/1994 of PW8 & days after she (Accident
PW.IO Younger attained Register):
sister of puberty in Hymen not
PWs. Al's room. intact. As
3 & 7. per her own D
statement &
physical
,_ examination,
she is 16
years old. E
As per
Ex.PSO, age
certificate
she has not
completed
16 years as F
on 22.11.94.
Ex.D6
(uls 164):
Refers
sexual
G
intercourse
with a
known
person.
Shantha, Sister of I) November Nil Ex.P39
34/1994 PW13 91 first sexual (Accident H
200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R.
.....
A P.W.11 Vanitha intercourse by Register):
Sri Lankan Al who made· Sexual
her to agree contact with
@ 4 pin - known male
Arulvakku person.
.room. Hymen not
B 2) Nov.92 in intact.
Visitors' Ex.D7
Room against (11/s. I 64):
her wish. Refers to
3) November sexual
c 93 in Divya intercourse
Devi's room with Al on
against her consent in
wish. 1991; without
consent in
l9.92; without
D consent in
1993.
Udayakumari Sister of May 1993- Nil Ex. P.40
2111994, PW 15- forcible (Accident ~
P.W.12, Malligadevi intercourse by Register):
E Sri Lankan &DW29 Al in the Hymen - not
Kanthan garden; intact;
accustomed to Refers to
torture meted the sexual
out to her by intercourse.
confining her No
F in the dog's Statement
Kennel. Ills. 164
Cr.P.C.
recorded.
Vanitha, Younger I) June 91 I'' one at. . Ex. P57
.. 21/1994, . ·sister of while sieeping Dr.Gomathi's . .(Accident·
G
PW.13, PWll - in Al's kudil. Hospital@ Register):
Sri Lankan. Shantha 2) July 92 Thanjavur. Contact with
Sa~urday at 3 ~known
pm in Ai's 2nd one at person for
bedroom. Athi Hospital niore than
H 3) October 94 Speaks Of 2 four years.
-
KAMALANANTHA v. ST;\TE OF TAMIL NADU [SEMA, J.] 201
at 11 am in forcible Last A
Al's room. sexual abortion
2 years back
intercourse at Tanjore.
even as MTP done
informed Al twice.
that doctor B
had told her Statem·ent
that her uterus u/s 164
was very Cr.P.C.
weak
Refers sexual
contact with
c
twice and
abortion
twice.
Aruljothi I) 1991 in I) Ex.D9
2111994, Al's room at Abortifacients (Accident D
PW.14, I pm. given by Register):
Sri Lankan 2) One month Divya Devi &
thereafter, A I A3 in 1991. Contact with
had forcible
sexual 2) Second aknown E
intercourse in abortion. at . per~on f~r 5 .
Al's room A3's instance years.
even while by taking
she was tablets. Ex.DJO
bleeding after (uls 164):
taking F
abortifacients. I) Refers to
. 3) On 3 sexual
14.11.94 in intercourse
Al's room. by Al, 2
months after G
attaining
puberty.
2) Second
sexual
intercourse
in Al' room. H
A
202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R.
Missed her
period and
-
took
abortifacient
Next day,
B after
publication
of news,
refers to
the forcible
c sexual
intercourse
by Al and
refers to the
conception
and her
D request for
tennination
of
pregnancy.
E Malligadevi, Sister of 1) April 92 at Nil ExP32
20/1994, PW12 • 2 pm. in Al's (Accident
P.W.15, Udayakumari room Register):
Sri Lankan & 029 2) On 18.11.94 Hymen· not
(_
Kanthan intact.
F Ex.PI 33 (uls
164):
Refers to the
forcible
sexual
· intercourse
G
by Al after
she attained
puberty by
persuading
her that she
H
KAMALANANTHA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [SEMA, J.] 203
would be A
cured of
asthma in
Al's room.
Krishnaveni. I) January 94 Nil Not included
23/1994, at 3 pm in in the
B
-
PW.55 Sri the room of charge.
Lankan PW.55
2) August 94
at 12 noon in
Al's room.
3) September c
94 at night
watch in Al's
room.
on' her refusal
the first time D
she was tied
to calf made
to run along
with it$
tortured for
her adamancy. E
. Latha, Not raped by
30/1994 Al, but speaks
P.W.16 · about the rape
of Sureshkumari,
PW3 by Al
F
1987 arid
Vanitha, PW
13 in June,
1991
From the statements of the victim girls made. under Section 164 Cr.P.C. G
as summarized above, it is seen that :
(a) P.Ws, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, I I, I3, I4 and IS have named A-I and his
forcible rape on. them :
(b) P.Ws. 7 and I I (once) have stated to have consented for sexual
intercourse with A-I; and H
A
204
(c)
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R.
P.W.10 has admitted forcible rape by a known person : - I
ll:
ACTIVITIES OF ASHRAM :
Religious discourses were performed by A-I in the Ashram. He used
to give hoiy water at the time of "abhishekam" which is believed to have a
B. healing power and the "viboothi" and manjal were also used as substances
for healing disease. A- I used to produce "lingams" and viboothi during the
nights of Mahasivarathri.
....
I
J
With this background let us now examine the evidence of each of the
prosecutrix before the Court.
c
P.W.3 Sureshkumari was examined on 1.7.1996. Her age was recorded
as 21 years. She deposed that PW-3 along with 12 other girls left Sri Lanka
through a boat and arrived in India. The first accused took them in a van
from Rameswaram to a house at Crapatti, Tiruchy. At that time she was aged
11-12 years and had not attained puberty. Even during that time A-1 used to
D call her to his room, made her to sit on his lap and used to kiss her and give
her sweets. This happened three times in 1985. On the fourth occasion, A-
l called her to a separate room, removed her dress and squeezed her breast
hard to the pain of P.W.3, thereafter he pushed her on the bed and tried to
have sexual intercourse forcibly. She attained puberty in the year 1987..She
E was confined in a room for nearly one month. After completion of one
month, A- I called her to his room on the pretext of giving viboothi (sacred
ash) in July, 1987. Thereafter, A-1 made her to sit on his lap, embraced her
F
and after kissing, asked her consent for sexual intercourse. When P.W.3
asked him how he could do that when he was wearing saffron robes. To that
A-1 had pacified her by stating that robe is different and sex is different and
further said that since he is like he~ father she would not beget any children
-
even ifhe had sexual intercourse with her. P. W.3, however, managed to open
the doors and came away running. It was witnessed by P.W.16. After three
days at about 1.30 p.m. while P.W.J was standing outside, A-1 gave her a
signal to come. When P.W.3 went inside his room A-I locked the doors.
G Thereafter, P.W.3 was taken to his bedroom and inside his bedroom, inspite
of her attempt to escape, A-1 removed her dress and when she resisted A-
l slapped her and pushed her over the bed. When she shouted A-1 closed her
mouth, mounted on her and started squeezing her breasts and despite protest
A-1 had sexual intercourse with her. A-1 had sexual intercourse with her
three times in year 1987. P. W.3 further stated that at about l p.m. in November,
H 1991 A-1 had forcibly sex with her. She further said that since they were
KAMALANANTHA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [SEMA, J.] 205
orphans and there was nobody else to take care of them, she did not disclose A
to anybody. A-1 had also threatened her that if she revealed this to anybody
she would be beaten. She further disclosed that in October, 1994 when P.W.9
refused to concede to the demand of A-1 during night, A-I convened a
meeting in the next morning on the ground that she was talking with one boy
and therefore A-1 punished her by pushing his big toe in the vagina of
· P.W.9. When P.W.3 was unable to see such torture, she went out of the
B
...... meeting; she was called and slapped in front ofothers. Therefore, P.W.3 not
able to bear such torturous conduct of A- I came out of the Ashram on
31.10.1994. It is also admitted that she left the Ashram in year 1991 and
went to Madras.
P. W.4 Nallammal was examined on 2. 7.1996. Her age was recorded as
c
22 years. She stated that in the Ashram she was doing flower garden work
and the press work. She was also given the responsibility in the Pooja hall.
Six months prior to the attest of A-1 she was arranging the vessels in the
Pooja room at 11.30 on Saturday. A-1 gave Arul vaku at 9.30 a.m. and it was
completed at 3 p.m. After Arul vaku all the devotees left and only A- I was D
in the Arul vaku room. From there A-1 called her and she went there thinking
I
.that A-1 would give vibuthi. But when she went near A-1 he closed three
doors in the Arul vaku room. After closing the three doors he pushed her and
removed the underskirt and raped her and she was crying. Though she was
crying, the first accused continued to rape her. The first accused threatened
E
her if she would disclose the happening to anybody he would kill her like
Ravi was killed. In that month the first accused raped her 3 or 4 times. He
had raped her two times in his room and once in the Dhannasala. In his room
it was at about 12.30 p.m. and in the Dharmasala it was about 2.30 p.m. She
further stated that she got three months pregnancy because A-1 forcibly
raped her. When A-I came to know that she was pregnant he instructed A- F
3 Divya to give pineapple and papaya and as the pregnancy was not aborted.
A- I called A-3 and asked her to give medicines and injection. Despite this
pregnancy was not aborted and witness started bleeding. She further stated
that two days later she gave a statement before the Magistrate. Some of the
statements were true and other were lies because she came to learn from the
interview that A-1 would be out within two days and she was frightened that
G
- if the accused came out in two days he would do something to her. So in
front of the Magistrate, she gave some false information together with the
true information.
P.W.5 Princy was examined on 2.7.1996. Her age was recorded as 22 H
206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] 3 S.C.R.
A years. She stated that when they were in Fatima Nagar Ashram, A-I used to
sleep on bed. Myselff and P. W.3 were sleeping on the floor. At 1.00 a.m. the
,.
first accused came down from the bed. and slept with her. The first accused
{
forcibly raped her even though she was shouting and did not care even
Sureshkumari was nearby. She further stated that Gurupoomima was held in
July and two days after Gurupoomima in 1990 around 11.00 p.m. the first
B accused called her. That night she had the night watch. Night watch was
between 11.00 p.m. to 12.00 p.m. She went into the Ist accused room. The
first accused told-Balan(A-4) to look outside whether anybody was standing
t
outside. When she went inside the room of the first accused he locked the r
C
door. She tried to go outside the room but she could not. The lst accused
forcibly hugged her and pushed her on the ,bed and had sex with her. She told
l
the first accused "I was grown up by you .from 3 years.old and I am like your
daughter" even then he forcibly li~d sex with her. . .
P.W.6 Mary was examined on 2.?.1996. Her age was recorded as 18
years. She stated that in 1993 she was doing the night·watch~'That time the
D first accused called her to pomegranate field: The pomegranate field was in
front of the first accused room. There are a lot of guava trees and pomegranate
trees in the Ashram. She went to the pomegranate field as called by A-1. The
first accused told her to have sex with him, whorri she reftised but then A-
l forcibly had sex with her against her wish. After she had sex with A-1 she
E did not get period for three months. Thereafter, A· l called Divya and the 3rd r-
1
accused Dr. Chandradevi to give some medicine for abortion. Divya
(absconding accused) gave pineapple and papaya. She also took some
medicines given by the third accused. The period was restored. Thereafter A-
l sent for her through a small girl and ~hen she went to A- I, he forcibly had
sex with her in the Dharmasala. She further deposed that she did not tell to
F anybody that A-1 raped her because in the Ashram no one could do anything
against the first accused. She also deposed that A-I pushed his leg big toe
into Pushparani' s vagina. They all put their heads down because they could
not see this. .•
P.W.7 Selvakumari @ Manjula was examined on 3.7.1996. Her age
G was recorded as 23 years. She is the sister of P.W.3 Sureshkumari and P.W.8
Sugnakumari @ Sudha and P.W.10 Sasikumari@ Jaya. A-1 is their uncle.
She stated that she attained the age when she was 14 years. In 1988 the Ist
accused used to touch her while talking. She asked the 1st accused "You are
my uncle, why are you touching me while talking" and the accused told her
H this relationship in earlier days only and now there is no relationship like
- KAMALANANTHA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [SEMA, J.] 207
this. She states that in August, 1990 the first accused caught her and pressed A
her breast. On being asked A- I told her that he liked it and he would do it.
She further deposed that six months before the first accused was arrested she
was pouring water in the garden after lunch at 3 p.m. At that time, the first
accused came from his room and showed the signal through the hand that she
should come to his room. When she went to his room he removed her clothes B
and forcibly raped her. On being refused he slapped her on the cheeks. A-
l raped her in his room. She further stated that one month before the first
accused was arrested he had forcibly sex,..,with her in the evening at 4 p.m.
in his room. She further stated that A- I gave interview to the press before she
gave statement before the Magistrate. In the interview before the press the
accused said that he would come out in two days. Fearing that the accused C
would come out he would do something to her so she- hide some of the
statement before the Magistrate. She further deposed that in l 993 the first
accused kept his penis in her mouth. The first accused beat her to keep his
penis in her mouth and also forced her to suck the penis with her mouth. She
also stated that A- I pushed his leg big toe into Pushparani's vagina.
D
P.W.8 Sugunkumari@Sudha is the younger sister of P.W.3 Sureshkmari
and P.W.7 Selvakumari@ Manjula. She was examined on 3.7.1996. Her age
was recorded as 17 years. She stated that A-1 is her uncle. She attained the
age in 1992. After two or three days on attaining age the first accused sent
her elder sisters by van somewhere. A-1 refused to send me with them and E
she was sleeping in the room. Her room was about l 00 feet distance from the
A-I room. At about 10 p.m. while she was still awaking A-1 came to her
room and spread out something similar to a powder and she became
unconscious. Through the back door A- I carried her to his room and put her ·
on his bed and A- I forcibly lied down on her and raped her. After IO minutes
she became conscious and got up. A- I threatened her that if she told this to F
her elder sisters or any other girls he would kill her. After the rape she got
fever for three days. She did not tell to her sisters when they came back to
the Ashram next day. She did not tell to anybody and kept quiet since A-1
threatened her that he would kill her. One week later A-1 called her. But
because of the fear she did not went to see him. A-1 thereafter sent a little G
girl and called her but because of fear she did not went to his room. Then
the little girl showed the place to A- I where the witness was hiding. Thereafter
A-I showed a stick and threatened her and brought her to' his room. Again
the first accused forcibly raped her in a beastly manner. A- I also threatened
her not to tell anybody and because of fear she did not tell anybody that A-
l had raped her. After that whenever she saw A- I she used to hide herself. H
208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R ..
A Two months thereafter before A-1 was arrested she went to Arul Vaku room
in a queue. A-1 had forcibly raped her for the third time in the Arul Vaku
r.
room. When she tried to stop accused naiis in his hand touched her right eye.
She stated that when A-1 raped her for the. first time she was 14 years old.
The learned Trial Judge recorded the demeanour of P.W.8, in paragraph
B 272 of the judgment as under :- · · · ·
"While' recalling the forcible act of rape, the court noticed
torrential flow Of tears from the eyes of P. W.8 with all pain and
conscience shocked, the court listened to the most startling and
'----
saddening story of P.W.8 who is yet to attain mental maturit)i.
c Though P.W.8 attained puberty, she is yet to grow physically
and mentally. Even her chHdish vofoe is not broken into .that ~f
-
a grown up and adult-woman."
The versicin of P. W;8 not oriiy inspires the.' confidence of the court, but
also shocks the conscience of the court.
.D. '::· :··•:'-·;,· :. ·.. ' .....
P.W.9 Pusharani was examined on 4.7.1996. Her age was recorded as
18 years. She stated that they all came from Srilanka in 1984..In the ,4.shram _ .·
E
she was given works such as building cleaning, supervising work, looking
after the children and night watch. Her night watch time was between ~ and
3 a.m. Later on it was changed. between l 0 to 11 pm. The night ·watch is in
front of the first accused bui_lding. In 1992 A-1 inquired as to why she came
---;
late to do the night watch and beat her. It was. about I 0.30 p.m, Thereafter
F
A-1 took her to his room in the pooja room and. forcibly raped her. Because
of rape she started bleeding iri her' vagina. At about I 30 a.m. when she came
out of the accused room two girls were doing night watch with her inquired
as to where she went. As A~ l had threatened her not to disclose to anybody ... -· ...
-
she did not tell this to girls that A-1 had sex with her. In 1994 A-1 took her
to the Dharmasala at 11.30 p.m. and raped her. The accused .after closing all
the-doors and windows in that room removed all her clothes. A-1 also removed
his clothes and A-1 lay her on a table and had sex with her. She further
G deposed that after 5 to 6 days A-l called.a meeting and she attended the
meeting where P.W.3 Sureshkumari, P.W.14 Aruljothi, P.W.10 Sasikumari,
·P.W.7 Selvakumari and other girls also can:te to th.at meeting. lit the meeting .
A-1 removed all her clothes and called four persons to hold her legs· and
hands. Thereafter A-1 Jay dqwn . her witJtout
.. . b~t
clothes.. and... A-1 . her . \V_ith
a cape. A-1 also pushed his leg big toe into her vagina and when she shouted
H because of pain he did not leave her. Unable to see .P.W.3 left the meeting.
KAMALANANTHA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [SEMA, J.] 209
Two days before Diwali in 1994 A- I had also forcibly sex with her in his A
room.
The learned Trial Judge recorded the demeanour and observed the
manner under which P.W.9 deposed before the Court in paragraph 280 of the
judgment as under :-
B
"280. Experiencing the most humiliatingform of violence P.W.9
did not even attend the daily pooja: About 2 days prior to ·
Deepavali 1994. A- I again had sexual intercourse in his Kudil
with P.W.9. Much weight has to be attached to the evidence of
P.W..9. While narrating the ugly episode the Court could realize
the psychological harassment of this girl. Even while she was C
confronted about the humiliation she developed a kind of
giddiness and uneasiness and the Cross examination could be
continued only the next day. P.W.9 who was below 16 year5
during 1992-94, was ravished by A.I. The consent of P.W. 9 is
not of much relevance". D
P.W.IO Sasikumari @ Jaya was examined on 4.7.1996. Her age was
recorded as 17 years. She also stated that they all came from Srilanka to India
in 1984. She _was working in the garden, cleaning office and cleaning
--- Dharmasla in the Ashram. She further stated that when she was two years
old, her mother left her in Poobalakrishna Ashram. She attained the age in E
1993 when she was 15 years old. She was kept in a room for IO to 15 days.
After 15 days A-I came to her room, hugged her and kissed her. The next
day she came out of the room. From IO to 11 p.m. she was doing night
watch, A- I took her to his room. She was near the bell as after every hour
we ring the bell in the Ashram. It was about 50 feet distance from A-1 room
and when she was near the bell A- I called her making a sign with his hands. F
He asked her to come closer. When she went to A-I he pressed her breasts.
She got frightened and ran out. Two days later, A- I gave her night watch
from I to 2 a.m. and when she was doing night watch A-1 caught her hands
and pulled her to his room and pushed her on:his bed. When A-1 pushed her
on the bed she realized that A-1 would do something so she tried to escape G
from him. But A-1 slapped her on the cheeks, beat her and had forcibly sex
- with her. She further deposed that Arul Vaku room used to be dark and she
saw that A-I used to take girls one by one into that room. She did not
disclose to anybody abo1,1t her rape as A~ 1 threatened her that if she toid
about the rape he would kill her on the same day. -She f~rther deposed that
A- I used to tell them that "although he is in a human body he is God". A- H
210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS i[2~05] 3 S.C.R.
A l also threatened girls that they should not tell against him to the Magistrate
and if they disclosed anything he would come out and see them. The witness
further deposed that two days before the police examined her, A-1 threatened
that they should nottell against him to the Magistrate and therefore they hide
something in their statements to the Magistrate.
B P. W. l l Shanta was examined on 4.7.1996. Her age was recorded as 36
years. The High Court has acquitted the accused on this count, in our view, I
wrongly but since no appeal is preferred, we need not examine the statement
of this witness, although she admitted having sex with A-I.
P.W.12 Udayakumari was examined on 5.7.1996. Her age was recorded
C as 24 years. She stated that she born in Sri Lanka. In 1984 she came from
Sri Lanka. She does not have parents. They were staying in a rented house
with A-1 before they shifted to Fatimanagar in 1986. She was doing work in
the flower garden and looking after the dogs in the Ashram. In 1990 A-1
called her through A-4. When she went to A-1 room and inquired as to why
D he had called her, A-1 asked her whether .she wanted to have sex with him.
To which she replied, "how can I have sex with you because I was grown
up by you and I thought you are like my parents". The first accused then by
way of revenge kept her in the dog kennel for three days without giving her
E
food and water on the excuse that sl)e did not look after the dogs well. The
witness further stated that in May, 1993 when she was working in the flower
garden, A-1 inquired whether I poured water to the plants. To which she
·---
replied that she had poured water. It was about 4 p.m. and in the flower
garden A-1 forcibly hugged her and kissed her and then he pushed down and
lay on her and raped her. She did not tell to anybody as the accused threatened
her not to tell.
F
The learned Trial Judge has observed as to the derq_F;mqur of P. W.12
during her examination and recorded in par1,lgraph 304 of the judgment. as
under:-
"P.W.12 had narrated the entire inc~dent in a simple manner and
in her own language. The cou.rt ~buld notice· the reflection of
G
pain and suffering on her face. There_ was torrential flow of tears
even while she was recalling the incident. During the examination
.she could not control herself when she was questioned whether
she consented for the act committed on .her. Nothing could be
more perverse than to reject the testimony of this victim girl."
H
KAMALANANTHA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [SEMA, J.] 211
P.W.13 Vanitha was examined on 5.7.1996. Her age was recorded as A
27 years. She stated that she was born on 31. 7. l 969 at Srilanka. P. W. l l
Shantha is her elder sister. In 1984 she and her family came from Srilanka
to India because of riots. They were living in a rented house in RMS colony,
Karumandabam, Trichy. In 1989 her sisters Shanta and Gita went to Srilanka
but she stayed back in the Ashram. In 1990 her sisters came from Colombo B
-- to the Ashram. In 199 l when Divya Mataji was not in the Ashram A-1 told
her to do the works of Divya Mataji. At that time she was studying plus one.
She was sleeping in the first accused room. There were four rooms in the first
accused kudil. She was sleeping in the centre section. In the night at l a.m.
she felt that somebody was covering her face with a cloth She also felt that
person the who covered her face had sex forcibly with her. When she got up C
she found that it was A- l. She became three months' pregnant. In the Ashram
if any girl does not,get the periods usually it is reported to Divya Mataji and
Divya Mataji will convey message to A-1. Accordingly, she reported to
Divya Mataji and Divya Mataji reported to A-1 about the delay of three
months period. A-1 took the urine for examination through A-7. She stated D
that A- I had sex with her in June, I 99 I. She went to Tanjavur to Dr. Gomathi
accompanied by P.W.3, P.W.5, A-I and A-2. A-I was driving the car. They
were in Tanjavur for three days and pregnancy was aborted in Dr. Gomathi
hospital. After they came back from hospital A-I did not allow her to go
"- home for five days and kept her in his kudil. She was in the room next to
A- I room. In July I 992 at 3 p.m. A- I called her for some work. When she E
went there A- I closed the door and pushed her on his bed and forcibly had
sex with her. She became five months pregnant after A-I had sex with her.
It was reported to A- I. A-1 again sent her urine for examination and it was
found that she was 5 months' pregnant. Thereafter, A-1 sent her with A-4 to
Tanjavur to abort the pregnancy. She was abortid in Arti hospital in Tanjavur. · F
She did not disclose it to anybody that she had sex with A-1 and went twice
to do abortion in Tanjavur, because she believed that A-1 was a divine man
and if she would tell about activities of A-I he would harm her family. After
IO days of 2nd abortion doctor told A-1 that her womb was weak and when
she told A-1 her womb was weak A-1 had again forcibly raped her. Again
in October, 1994 around 11 am A-1 called her and when she went to his G
room A-1 had forcibly sex with her. She further stated that she did not tell
anybody because she was frightened that A-1 would harm her family and
because A-1 told to her father and mother that he was an important person.
P.W.14 Aruljothi was examined on 12.7.1996. Her age was recorded as
21 years. She stated that she was born in Matala, Sri Lanka. From the age of H
212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R.
A two she was brought up in the Matale Poobala Krishna Ashram. The said
Ashram was managed by A-1. She does not have parents. In year 1983 A-
l came to India. In the year 1984 she and the other children came to India
from Sri Lanka. They arrived at Vedaraniam and from there A- I to.ok them
by a van to Crawford, Trichy. There they stayed in a rented house. In 1986
B they came to the Ashram at Fathimanagar. In the Ashram, the food and
clothes were provided by A-1. She attained the age in the year 1987. In the -
year 1988 on Krishna Jayanthi she was sleeping in Sureshkumari's (P.W.3)
rooin. Early morning at 5.30 A-I came to the room took the_ Vesti he was
wearing and put it on her face and had sex with her by force. In 1989 in the
evening at 4 O'clock A-1 asked her to come to his room. He asked her to
C apply oil to his legs. A-1 also asked her to apply oil on his penis. When-she
refused to do that A-1 beat her and forced her and asked her to apply oil on
his penis. A-1 threatened her that he would murder her, if she told about this
to outside. Next day early in the morning at 5.30, P.W.7 Selvakumari, P.W.5
Princy and P.W.12 Udayakumari, four of them ran away from the Ashram.
D When they were in Samayapuram A-1 and A-2 forcibly took thein from .,_
Samayapuram to the Ashram. In the Ashram A-1 tied her and three others
and beat them. In 1991 when they were cooking in the,kitchen in the afternoon
at about I. O'clock A-1 forcibly took her to his room and pushed her on the
bed in his room and had sex by force. After having sex with him she did not
get menstruation. Divya Devi and A-3 used to have a meeting on every
E Sunday in the Ashram and enquired who and who did not get their
menstruation. During such Sunday's meeting she told A-3 and Divya Mataji
that she did not have her periods. Thereafter Divya Mataji gave her a pineapple
fruit and A-3 Chandra Devi gave tablets for disturbing the conception. Again
A-1 had forcibly intercourse with her. After that she had fever for seven days
F and slept. Then A-3 Dr.Chandra Devi gave treatment to her. After a month
when she was working in the pooja room A-1 came to the pooja room at
around 1.00 in the day time, pushed her down in the pooja room itself and
had forcibly inter~ourse with her. After this again monthly period stopped.
A-3 Dr.Chandra Devi gave tablets to disturb the conception and she was
aborted. In the year 1992 one day A- I sent a message to her and she was
G lying down in her room in fever. Since she did not respond to the calling of
A- I, in Dharamsala when she was eating A-1 pulled her hair and knocked
against the wall. He took a stick and pricked her eyes by the stick, so her eyes
became red and got infection. This was witnessed by about 100 girls in the
Dharmasala.
H In 1994 five days before the arrest of A-1 (A-1 was arrested on
KAMALANANTHA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [SEMA, J.] 213
19.l l.994) she was doing night watch in the cowshed. At midnight about 12' A
0 clock A-4 came to her and told that A-1 is calling her and took her to A-
l room. A-4 left her in A- I room and· went. Thereafter A-1 shut the doors
of the room and pulled her on the bed and had sexual intercourse forcibly.
About 20 days before the arrest of A-1 she had her menstruation. She further
stated that she never told to anybody that A-1 had sexual contact with her B
forcibly. Just before the police arrested A-1, A-1 told that he would come
back within 2 days and that she should not tell anybody that he had sexual
contact with her and he told others that there was no way or nobody for them
to give food. Particularly, A-1 called her alone and threatened her that she
should not tell anybody that he had sexual contact with her just five days
before. She further stated that other than A-1 Swami Premananda, nobody C
had sexual contact with her.
P.w;15 Mallikadevi was examined on 18.7.1996. Her age was recorded
as 22 years. She stated that she was born in Colombo in Sri Lanka. She lost
her parents. She was in a Guru Shanti Villayam in Matakilapu, Sri Lanka. A-
l took her to Poobala Krishna Ashram in Matale. It was maintained by A- D
L In 1984 she came from Srilanka to india. She and her sister P.W.12
Udayakumari along with some other girls came to India from Srilanka. They
were made to stay in a rented house in Crawford, Trichy, by A-I. From there
they came to Fatimanagar Ashram. They were provided food, clothes and
shelter by A-1. She was assigned the library work in the Ashram. She was E
also doing the night watch from 10.00 to 11.00 p.m.
In 1991 when she was doing night watch between 10 to 11 pm A-1
called her to his room and when she went A- I. said that he liked her and
hugged her. In his room when A- I hugged and kissed her to consent to his
wish, she ran out from his room. F
In April, 1992 one day she went to A-1 and told that she is suffering
from asthma and ceuld not work in the library and so she would go and sleep
in the room. A-1 told her that she should compulsorily do the library work
and after that she went to the library. After finishing the work around 2.00
o'.clock in the noon she went to her room. A-1 called her from his room by G
waving his hand and when she went to the room A-1 hugged her to which
she told that she had been suffering from asthma and if she got a baby
without marrying, people would talk bad about her. For that A-1 told her that
if she would sleep with him her asthma would be cured and saying so A-1
pushed her to his bed and had forcibly sex with her. A-1 had sex with her
H
0
214 SUPREM E COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R.
A about I 0 minutes after that she returned to her room crying. She also stated
that she gave a statement to Pudukkottai Magistrate. Before the statement A-
l threatened her not to tell anybody and told Magistrate that she had sex with
A-1 on her own wish.
All the prosecutrix were examined by the doctor and found that hymen
B was not intact. The potency of A-1 was also established.
The prosecutrix were subjected to incisive cross-examination. However,
no material could be brought out to discredit the credit worthiness of the
statement in chief. From the facts of the prosecution as disclosed most of the
C victim girls were orphans brought from Srilanka. A- I provided them food,
clothes and shelter. They were entirely dependent on A- I for their survival.
Once they were thrown out by A-1 they had no alternative place to stay. A-
l had dominion control over the prosecutrix physically, mentally and
spiritually. In fact, many of them believed that A- I is God to them. It is in
these circumstances, there is no reason why the prosecutrix should depose
D falsely against A-I who.was the source of their survival physically, mentally
and spiritually,. by providing shelter, food and clothes to them.
It is trite law that the prosecutrix is not an accomplice. The evidence
of victim ·Of sexual assault, if inspires confidence, conviction can be founded
on her testimony alone unless there are compelling reasons for seeking
E corroboration. Her evidence is more reliable than that of injured witness. In
a case of sexual assault corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance is
not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence. Examining the testimony
of prosecutrix in the background, as stated above, and in the facts and
circumstances of this case, we are of the clear view, that the testimony of
F prosecutrix. inspires confidence, on the basis of which alone conviction can
be safely sustained. Moreover, in the instant case we find that the statements
of the prosecutrix are well corroborated by medical and other contemporaneous
documents. It is also well established principle of Jaw that minor contradictions
or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not ·
be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. [See
G State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Ors., [1996] 2 SCC 384]
We have heard Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel, for the
appellants and Mr. Sushi! Kumar learned senior counsel for the respondent
at length.
H At the outset we may observe here that the contentions which have
KAMALANANTHA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [SEMA, J.] 215
been raised before the Trial Court and the High Court and got rejected by A
assigning good reasons by two courts have been restated again by the counsel
for the appellants before this Court.
Before we proceed to deal with the contentions we may at this stage set
out several charges on various counts framed against the accused by the Trial
Court: B
Charge No. Against which Under what Gist of the
accused section offences
(I) (2) (3) (4)
Charge No.I A.I to A.7 U/s 1208 IPC Al to A7
Criminal c
conspiracy to
commit rape
on victim girls.
Abatement of
rape and to
cause abortion
D
and to murder
Ravi.
A.3 Being a Co-
Conspirator for the
first part of the E
Conspiracy of
rape, Abatement of
rape and abortion.
Charge No.2 A.I U/s 376(2) (c) For committing
I.P.C. 14 Counts rape on 14 Victim
girls Nallammal, F
Mary, Princy
Selvakumari @
Manjula,
Sugunakumari @
Sudha, G
Pushparani,
Mallikadevi,
Sasikumari @Jaya,
Aruljothi,
Sureshkumari,
Latha, H
216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) 3 S.C.R.
A Udayakumari,
Vanitha and
Shantha.
Charge No.3 A.2 to A.7 U/s.376 r/w 109 For abetment of
1.P.C. rape
Charge No.4 A.I U/s 354 1.P.C. For
B 4 counts. outraging the
modesty of 4
victim girls
Sureshkumari,
Princy, Kumari
c and Sasikumari.
Charge No.5 A.3 U/s 3 I3 l.P.C. For causing
8 counts abortion to 8
Victim girls.
Charge No.6 A.I U/s 302 IPC For causing the
A.2 U/s 302 r/w 34 murder of Ravi
D IPC
Charge No.7 A.4 to A.7 U/s 302 r/w 109 For abetting the
murder of Ravi murder of Ravi.
Charge No.8 A.1, A.2, A.4 to U/s 343 1.P.C. Wrongful
·~
A.7 confinement of
E Ravi in Kavadi
Kudil.
ChargeNo.9 A.5 to A.7 U/s 20 I r/w 302 For causing the
1.P.C. evidence burying
the body of Ravi
in the Ashram.
F Charge No. I 0 A.2 U/s 201 r/w H4 Abetment by being
IPC present in the
place where the
body of Ravi. was
buried.
G Charge No.I I A. I, A.2, A.4 U/s 506 (Part II} Criminal
to A.7 1.P.C. (4 Counts) Intimidation and
the threat to cause
death.
Charge NoJ2 A.I U/s 420 l.P.C. For cheatmg Mark
Dennis dishone5tly
H
KAMALANANTHA v. ST A TE OF TAMIL NADU [SEMA, J.] 217
inducing him to A
part with the
money.
This case has more than one rarest of rare facts. rt is rare that A-I,
supposed to be incarnation of God and allegedly having divine powers has
· ·been alleged of raping 13 of Ashram girls systematically and murder of Ravi. B
It is rare that out of 62 prosecution witnesses examined none of them turned
hostile. It is rare that in an institution like Ashram, P.W.62 1.0. seized amongst
other things two new packets of nirodh vide Ex.P.83 from the kudil of Divya
Devi in the Ashram.
The contention of Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel, that the C
charge of rape leveled against A-1 does not come within the ambit of definition
of rape under Section 375 IPC inasmuch as some of the victim girls have
consented to have sexual intercourse with A-1. It_"is also contended that
investigation has been carried out in breach of Section •60 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. These· contentions are to be noted only to be rejected. D
Section 375 defines rape. It reads :-
"375.Rape.- A man is said to commit "rape" who, except in the case
hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under
circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions :-
First. - Against her will. E
Secondly. - Without her consent.
Thirdly. - With her consent, when her consent has been obtained
by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of
·. ~i . death or of hurt.. F.
Fourthly. - With her consent, when the man knows that he is not
her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that
he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully
married.
G
Fifthly. - With her consent, when, at the time of giving such
consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the
. administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying
or unwholesome substal)ce, she is unab~e to understand the nature
and consequences of that to which she gives consent:
H
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R. -
A Sixthly. - With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen
yeas of age.
Explanation. - Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual
intercourse necessary to the offence of rape.
B Exception.- Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife
not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape. -
It is in the evidence of the prosecutrix, as already referred above, consent
of many of the prosecutrix has been obtained by deceitful means that if they
had sex with A- I they would cure the asthma or that if they had sex with A-
C 1 it is service to God or some of the girls have been raped under threat of
dire consequences. As already stated A-1 had dominion control over the
Ashram girls and most of them are orphans and no alternative place to go.
Therefore it clearly falls within the thirdly clause of Section 375 IPC.
Furthermore, if the consent is obtained by deceitful means or under threat of
death or hurt, it is no consent at all and it is without her consent. Therefore,
D the charge of rape leveled against A-1 falls within the definition of Section
375 I.P.C. This apart, under sixthly clause the consent is immaterial when she
is under 16 years of age. PWs. 6, 8, 9, 10 were below 16 years of age when
they were raped by A-1.
E A-1 was charged under Section 376(2)(c) and convicted under that
Section. The charge under Section 376(2)(c) was never challenged by A-1.
Section 376(2)(c) reads :-
"376(2)(c)- Whoever, -
being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or
F other place of custody established by or under any law for the time
being in force or ofa woman's or children's institution takes advantage
of his official position and commits rape on any inmate of such jail,
remand home, place or institution
or .............. .
G
shall be punished with Rigorous Imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than ten years but which may be for life and shall also be
liable to fine."
Similarly, the contention of breach of Section 160 Cr.P.C. is
H unacceptable. All the victim girls were the inmates of the Ashram. They were
KAMALANANTHA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [SEMA, J.] 219
raped by A- I in the Ashram, who had dominion control over the Ashram. A
The victim girls were being threatened not to disclose to anybody about the
misdeeds of A- I or face the dire consequences including the threat of death,
In such circumstances, the Ashram cannot be the place for the purposes of
Section 160 Cr.P.C. and the victim girls were rightly examined and interrogated
in women police stations. They were removed from the Ashram to erase the
fear psychosis from them. It was for the safety. and to serve the interest of. B
justice, they were removed from the clutches of A-1. Section 160 Cr.P.C.
must be understood and' appreciated in the context of given situation.
MISJOINDER OF CHARGES:
Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel, contended that Section
218 Cr.P.C. prescribes that for every distinct offence there shall be a separate
charge and every charge shall be tried separately, which has not been done
in the present case. According to him, the first injunction contained in Sc:ction
218 is incurable either under Sections 464 or under Section 465 Cr.P.C. In
other words, if the charge is framed in contravention of Section 218 it is the D
breach of mandate of Section 218 and is illegal and not misjoinder of charges
and therefore it is incurable either under Section 464 or Section 465 Cr.P.C.
We are unable to countenance with this contention of Mr. Ram
Jethmalani. It is true that Section 218 Cr.P.C. prescribes for every distinct
offence there shall be a separate charge and every charge shall be tried E
separately. Chapter XVII of the Code deals with the charge. Section 218 is
tinder the Heading - "Joinder of Charges". Therefore, if joinder ofcharges is
in contravention of procedure prescribed under Section 218, it would be
misjoinder of charges and curable under Section 464 and Section 465 Cr.P.C.,
provided no failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. p
Reliance has been heavily placed on the decision of this Court in W.
Slaney v. State of MP., AIR (1956) SC 116 particularly the observation of
Justice Imam in paragraphs 97 and 99. That was a case where this Court was
considering the error and irregularity in which there was conviction with no
charge at all from start to the finish down to cases in which there was a G
charge but with errors, irregularities and omissions in it. Therefore, the decision
in Slaney (supra) was not based on misjoinder of charges. There was no
charge under Section 302 IPC from start to finish and in that context this
Court said that a trial must be examined on the touchstone whether the trial
.is fair. ft was pointed out in paragraph 44 as under :-
H
220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R. .....,.
A "44 Now, as we have said, sections 225, 232, 535 and 537(a) between
them, cover every conceivable type of error and irregularity referable
to a charge that can possibly arise, ranging from cases in which there
is a conviction with no charge at all from start to finish down to cases
in which there is a charge but with errors, irregularities and omissions
in it. The Code is emphatic that 'whatever' the irregularity it is not
B to be regarded as fatal unless there is prejudice. ~
'--
It is the substance that we must seek. C?urts have to administer
justice and justice includes the punishment of guilt just as much as
the protection of innocence. Neither can be done if the shadow is
mistaken for the substance and the goal is lost in a labyrinth of
c unsubstantial technicalities. Broad vision is required, a nice balancing
of the rights of the State and the protection of society in general
against protection from harassment to the individual and the risks of
unjust conviction.
Every reasonable presumption mu&t be made in favour of an
D
accused person; he must be given the benefit of every reasonable
doubt. The same broad principles of justice and fair play must be
brought to bear when determining a matter of prejudice as in adjudging
guilt. But when all is said and done what we are concerned to see is
__::
whether the accused had a fair trial, whether he knew what he was
E being tried for whether the main facts sought to be established against
him were explained to him fairly and clearly and whether he was
. given a full and fair chance to defend himself.
If all these elements are there and no prejudice is shown the
conviction must stand whatever the irregularities whether traceable to
F the charge or to a want of one."
Justice Imam in paragraphs 97 and 99 observed that even if there is
a total absence of a charge from start to finish in a case where the law
requires a charge to be framed, is -a contravention of the provisions of the
Code as to the mode of trial and a conviction of the accused of an offence
G in such a case is invalid and the question of prejudice does not arise. As )..
lo;-
already said in Slaney (supra) there was no charge under Section 302 from i
start to finish of the. case. That is not the. case here; here the charge was
framed on all counts. Therefore, the facts of the case in Slaney (supra) are
not applicable in the present facts. However, in Slaney (supra) Justice Imam ·
also observed in paragraph 98 as under :-
'\ H
KAMALANANTHA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [SEMA, J.) 221
"98.ln cases where a charge has been framed and there is an omission A
or irregularity in it, it is difficult to see how the mode of trial is
affected. In any event, the Code expressly provides that in such cases
the conviction need not be set aside, unless, in fact, a failure of
justice has resulted."
In the case of Birichh Bhuian v. State of Bihar, [1963] Supp. 2 SCR B
328, a five Judge Bench of this Court, where Justice Imam was a party,
considered the distinction between an illegality and an irregularity in such
. misjoinder of charges. This Cowt, !lfter considering the divergent views of
the Privy Council as to whether m'isjoinder of charges is not saved by Section
537 (old) and 465 (new), the Court then said at p.335 (2) SCR as under:- C
"In this state of law, the Parliament has intervened to set at rest the
conflict by passing Act XXVI of 1955 making a separate provision
in respect of errors, omissions pr irregularities in a charge and also
enlarging the meaning of the expression such errors etc. so as to
include a misjoinder of charges. After the amendment there is no D
scope for contending that misjoinder of charges is not saved by s.537
of the Criminal Procedure Code if it has not occasioned a failure of
justice.".
This Court summarised its finding at p.337 (2) SCR as under :-
E
"To summarise : a charge is a precise formulation of a specific
accusation made against a person of an offence alleged to have been
committed by him; Sections 234 to 239 permit the joinder of such
charges under specified conditions for the purpose of a single trial.
Such a joinder may be of charges in respect of different offences
committed by a single person or several persons. If the joinder of F.
charges was contrary to the provisions of the Code it would be a
misjoinder of charges. Section 537 prohibits the revisional or the
appellate court from setting aside a finding, sentence, or order passed
by a court of competent jurisdiction on the ground of such a misjoinder
unless it has occasioned a failure of justice."
G
Again in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Cheemalapati
Ganeswara Rao, [1964] 3 SCR 297, the Court noticed the decisions rendered
in (supra) and Birichh Bhuian (supra) and said at p.332 3 SCR as under:-
"Even if we were to assume that there has been a misjoinder of
charges in violation of the provisions of ss.233 to 239 of the Code, H
222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [20Q5] J S.C.R.
A the High Court was incompetent to set aside the conviction of the
respondents without coming to the definite conclusion that misjoinder
had occasioned failure of justice. This decision completely meets the
argument based upon Dawson's case [ 1960] I All. E.R.558. Merely
because the accused persons are charged with a large number of
offences and convicted at the trial the conviction cannot be set aside
B by the appellate court unless it in fact came to the conclusion that the
accused persons were embarrassed in their defence with the result
that there was a failure of justice. ·For all these reasons we cannot
accept the argument of learned counsel on the ground of misjoinder
of charges and multiplicity of charges."
c The question was again examined by this Court in the case of State of
West Bengal v. Laifal Haque; [1989] 3 SCC 166, w~ere the earlier views of
this Court including the views of Justice Vivian Bose in Slaney (supra) were
reiterated.
D It is clear from the aforesaid decisions that misjoinder of charges is not
an illegality but an irregularity curable under SectiOn 464 or Section 465
. Cr.P.C. provided no failure of justice had occasioned thereby. Whether or not
the failure of justice had occasioned thereby, it is the duty of the Court to see,
whether an accused had a fair trial, whether he kitew what he was being tried
for; whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained
E to him fairly and clearly and whether he was given a full and fair chance to
defend himself.
In the !ight of the aforesaid principle, let us now examine the facts of
the present case, as to whether any failure of justice had. occasioned thereby
F or whether any prejudice is caused to the ·accused. The accused was represented
by a very senior and abled criminal lawyer. All the prosecution witnesses
were subjected t~ indsive cross-examination. The accused put up 49 defem;e
witnesses. In his cross-examination under Section 313 altogether 445 questions
were put to him, affording an opportunity to explain all the circumstances
appearing against him. ~aving regard to these facts, in our opinion, no failure
G .of justice has occasioned and both the Courts below are justified in rejecting
the contention.
ALLEGATl()N OF TORTURE AND BEATING TO THE VICTIM
GIRLS BY THE POLICE.
H If this contention is established it could have been fatal to. the
KAMALANANTHA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [SEMA, J.] 223-
prosecution story, but in our opinion not. Mr. Ram Jethmalani in this A
connection has referred to the statement of Aruljothi PW.14. P.W.14 stated
before the Court as under :-
"When the Magistrate examined me I told him that because of the
fear of Al first we didn't give statement, after the police beat us, me
and the other girls gave the statement that we were raped by B
Premananda Swami. I myself took the decision and told to the
Magistrate that I gave the statement after the police beat me. Not all
the girls together took this decision."
This statement must be examined in the context and under the facts and
circumstances, in which it has been stated. All the victim girls were in one c
voice that because of fear of A-1, ladies in the Ashram did not tell to the
police that A-1 had sexually contact with them. They further stated that just
one hour before the arrest ofA-1, he called all the Ashram ladies and threatened
that nobody should tell the police that he had sexually contact with them. The
victim girls were also in one voice that A-1 ·had given a press statement that D
he would come out on bail in two days and the victim girls were frightened
if the accused really came out on bail he would take stem action against
them. Keeping in view the trauma and agony suffered by all the victim girls
at the hands of A-1, it is expected that the victim girls were reluctant to
disclose the misdeeds of A-1 for fear of reprisals. This apart, DW-.10 filed a
Habeas Corpus Petition No. 1808of1994. On 7.12.1994 she was questioned E
by the Hon'ble Judges constituting the Bench of the High Court in Chamber.
She had stated before the Judges that she had not been ill-treated or wrongly
confined by the respondent at any point of time and was not coerced to give
out any statement against her will. Another detenu Valliammal also filed a
Habeas Corpus Petition through her father Sundaram. The allegation in the F
petition was that the police are compelling the detenu to give false statement.
She was examined by the Hon'ble Judges in Chamber and it was observed
by the Hon'ble Judges as under :-
"We examined the detenu in our chambers. According to her, her
date of birth is 9.5.1979. She has crossed 15 years and she is now a Q·
student in 9th standard in the Ashramam School. She was very specific,
while stating before us, that she was not coerced or tortured by the
police to give out any statement against her will and that she was not
wrongfully confined or illegally detained."
Another Habeas Corpus No. 1010of1995 was filed by the legal guardian H
224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R.
A ofVasanthi. She was examined in the Chamber and she did not complaint of
any ill-treatment. She expressed her willingness not to go with the petitioner
but to stay in "Udhavum Karangal", an institution looking after the persons
who are unable to look after themselves.
The detenus also filed Habeas Corpus Petition No. 623 and 624 of
B 1995. They were also examined in the Chambers and there was no complaint
of coercion or ill-treatment.
Another Habeas Corpus Petition No. 1688 of 1995 was filed by Devyani
DW-32 mother of PWs. 7, 8 and 10. The detenus were produced before the
Court escorted by two women police from Ambattur Police Station who had
C nothing to do with the investigating agency in the crime against A-1. No
complaint of torture. or coercion has been made to the Hon'ble Judge on
being questioned. On the contrary, the victim girls stated that their mother
(DW-32) had sent a letter dated 5.4.1995 mentioning that A-1 Swami
Pramananda would give them all in marriage to suitable bridegrooms and pay
D to each one of them Rs. 2 Iakh in dowry. On being questioned by the Hon'ble
Judges DW-32 admitted to have sent the said letter to her daughters. This
would clearly show that even at the belated stage an attempt was made to lure
·the prosecutrix by offering money and· marriages. They were examined on
the 21st day of December, 1995. No complaint of torture or coercion was
made to the Hon'ble Judges.
E
Reverting .back to the statement of P.W.14 Aruljothi, in which she
admitted that they had started disclosing the facts after the police beat them
has to be considered in the light of the statement by P.W.14 under Section
164 Cr.P.C. This is what she has stated :- --
F "Balan came in sea.·ch of me at about 12 midnight and took me
stating that Premananda Swami is calling me. After letting me inside
Premananda's room, he went away locked the door. On that day also
Premananda swami compelled me to have sexual intercourse. This
happened five days prior to his arrest. While Premananda Swami was
arrested, police also took us to the Pudukkottai Police Station in a
G
jeep. In the Police Station, we were enquired about the character of
Premananda Swami. Since Premananda has already kept us under
threat, myself and others did not reveal anything to the police. After
the police beat us, myself and other girls informed that we were
raped by Premananda. Only at that time I came to know that
H Prcmananda Swami was having sexual relationship with other girls."
KAMALANANTHA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [SEMA, .T.] 225
It is in that context the High Court holds that so called beating could have A
meant to shake-off their inhibition and fear, to make them free to say what
they wanted to say. In the given facts and circumstances of this case, beating
will mean to remove the fear psychosis and to come out with truth. We do
not find any infirmity in the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts
below on this count.
B
CONSPIRACY CASTED AGAINST A-1.
The allegation of conspiracy hatched by Mark Denis, Ambikanandan
P.W.I (Approver), Anandamohan P.W.30 and Latha PW.16 is also to be
noted to be rejected. It is admitted t~at P.W.3 Suresh Kumari along with C
Lath a P. W.16 ran away from the Ashram on 31.l 0.14994. Till 15.11.1994 no
complaint was lodged. On 15.11.1994, DW-32 the mother of P.W.3 lodged
a complaint with the Viralimalai Police Station, a crime No. 1181 of 1994
was registered under Section 363 I.P.C. While police was investigating that
case P. W.3 lodged a complaint (Ex.P.25) as already noted and a crime No.
1183/94 was registered on 17.11.1994 under Sections 142 and 376. By an 0
order dated 19.11.1994 passed by the DGP the case was handed over to
C.B.C.I.D. and C.B.C.l.D. came into picture on 19.l l.1994: Therefore, the
allegation that the victim girls were with C.B. CI.D right from l .11.1994 is
belied by the documents. The theory of conspiracy hatched by Mark Denis,
PW-I, Anandamohan, PW-30 and Latha PW-16 against A-1 is, therefore, E
demolished.
D.N.A.TEST
.Dr. Lalji Singh, Deputy Director, C.C.M.B. Hyderabad, was exam;1ed
as P.W.59. Dr.Lalji Singh is working as the Deputy Director at the Centre for F
Cellular and Molecular Biology at Hyderabad. This Centre is on the Constituent
Laboratories of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research under the
Department of Science and Technology, government of India. Dr. Lalji Singh
initially joined the Centre as Scientist-E-11 and was subsequently promoted a5
Scientist-F (Deputy Director) from 1992. He is B.Sc., M.Sc. and Ph.D. qualified
from Banaras Hindu University, having obtained his Doctorate in the year G
1971. He had worked in the Calcutta University as a Pool Officer from 1971
to 1974. He was awarded commonwealth Fellowship to go to United Kingdom
and he was working in the Institute of Animal Genetics, University of Edinburg
from 1974 to 1987. He came to India and joined the C.C.M.. B. Hyderabad on
3.6.1987. According to Dr.Lalji Singh, he had published 57 Scientific papers H
A
226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) 3 S.C.R.
in internationally reputed journals. He was awarded the Banaras Hindu
--
University Gold medal in 1966, the science Academy Medal for Young
Scientists for the year 1974 and various other awards like the C.S.l.R.
Technology Award for the year 1992 for Biological Sciences Professor S.P.
Roy Chaudhuri 75th Birthday Lecture Award for the year 1994. Professor
B Viswanathan memorial Lecture award for the year 1995, VASVIK Research
Award for Biological Sciences and Technology for the year 1992 and the
Ranbaxy Research Award in the field of Basic Medical Sciences for the year
1994. He is the elected Fellow of the Indian Academy of Science since 1989,
Fellow ofNational Academy of Science since 1991 and fellow of Indian
National Science Academy elected in 1993. He is also a member of various
C other organizations like the Indian Society for cell Biology etc. according to
him, he had given opinion in 96 cases and has also given evidence in·5 cases
in various courts, including the Rajiv Gandhi's Assassination Case.
He stated that after the detailed examination, the result was submitted
vide Ex.P.185. The operative portion of the Report is as follows :-
D
"When D.N.A. Profiles in track 3 (Premananda) was compared with
that of track 2 (tissue from the foetus) and track l (Aruljothi) it is
seen that ever· bend present in track 2 is fully accounted for either
being inherited from.the mother (track l) or from the alleged father
(track 3). The alleged father Premananda (source of Exhibit A) and
E the mother Aruljothi (Source Exhibit C) are, therefore, the biological
parents of the dead foetus (Sour~~ M Exhibit B)".
Dr.Lalji Singh was subjected to lengthy cross examination. He has
categorically stated that if really there is any contamination, it would result
F only in non-matching of bands. He has also stated that multilocus/single
locus probe have been carried out throughout the world for DNA test.
Regarding Data Base and contamination Dr.Lalji has stated i~ cross-
examination as under :-"
"As far as Paternity is .concerned, the Paternity of the child is
G determined by iden~ifying which.are the bands of maternal and which
are paternal. Therefore, .comparison of DNA fingerprinting of the
child with the mother will identify which.are.the .bands.maternally
inherited. Elimination of these bands wilUeave those bands inherited
from the childs to father,.the paternally specific bands. If the alleged
H Father's Fingerprinting pattern contains all of these bands, .then he is
KAMALANANTHA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [SEMA, J.] 227
the true Biological Father of that Child and Paternity is confirmed. A
The article published by a Laboratory - CELLMARK, United States
is Ex.D.42."
The witness further clarified that a laboratory error can produce
mismatch but it cannot produce a proper match.
B
_... The witness further clarified that when the sample is taken in sterile
container following the instruction.s given by the CCMB scrupulously there
is no possibility of any bacterial of any other infection.
The witness further stated that the contamination never results into
. proper match. It can give raise to exclusion not to positive inclusion. The C
witness in cross-examination has specifically stated as under :-
"According to me, for paternity test, large scale population Data Base
was neither required not even today. When the samples of the parents
are not available and when one has to establish the identity of the
child based on probability only then Data Base is required. In short, D
where both .the parents are available, no data base is required for
paternity testing."
Both the Trial Court and the High Court have appreciated the evidence
of Dr. Lalji Singh and in our view correctly. E
On behalf of A-1, DW-49 Dr.Wilson J.Wall has been examined and the
High Court has rejected his evidence on the following grounds:-
( I) He is a private consultant.
(2) He was requested to undertake a review of the evidence ofDr.Lalji F
Singh P.W.59.
(3) He had held conferences with the defence counsel both in London
and India.
(4). He was present in the Court on 28. I 0.1996 and 29. l 0.1996 when G
Dr. Lalji Singh (P.W.59) was cross examined by the counsel for
A-1.
(5) He says "I have been instructed by the counsel for the,.accused
to infonn this Honourable Court that if the prosecution wants to
repeat this experiment, the accused is prepared to pay the cost of H.
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R.
A the same".
(6) He admit that the test was conducted at the laboratory called
University Diagnostics laboratory, London and that he had a
working arrangement with the above said laborafory, but they
are professionally independent. He further says, "I was present
B in this court instructing the defence lawyer for cross-examination
P.W.59. I am not a scientist attached to the University Diagnostics
Laboratory, London.
We are of .the view that these are good reasons to have rejected his
testimony.
c
DEFENCE WITNESSES
49 DWs were examined on behalf of the accused, D. W.8 Nirmlal Mataji
was chargesheet witness No. 29, D.W. 11 Uma Devi Mataji was chargesheet
witness No. 28, D.W. 14 Amarkumar was chargesheet witness No. 37, D.W.
D 20 Rajendran was chargesheet witness No. 45, D.W.31 Lilis Mary was
chargesheet witness No. 20, D:W. 10 Vijaykumari was chargesheet witness
No. 11, D.W. 33 Valaimmal was chargesheet witness No. 17, D.W.12 Durga
Devi was chargesheet witness No. 12, D.W.13 Lakshmi Devi was chargesheet
E
No. 13, D.W. 16 Balamurugan was chargesheet witness No. 40, D.W. 27
Parmeshwari was chargesheet witness No. 30, D.W. 29 Kandan was
- '
chargesheet witness No. 39 and D.W. 34 Damayanti Mataji was chargesheet
witness No. 25.
Both the courts have rejected their testimonies on the ground that they
are blind followers of Swami and their testimony also do not inspire
F confidence. We have been taken through the entire evidence of DWs.
DWs. 10, 31, 33 have been de:tared perjury by the Tr,ial Court. By way
of reference D. W. 41 Nithya Devi Mathaji had stated "Mark Dennis also had
personal problem. Mark Dennis was taking treatment With a psychiatrist for
G his mental problem". This was nobody's case. It is false even to the knowledge
of the maker. No credence can be placed on such evidence. Two Courts have
concurrently and rightly rejected the testimony of DWs as not inspire
confidence.
MURDER OF RAVI:
H
Ravi was brought to the Ashram on 22. 7 .1990. He was allegedly beaten
KAMALANANTHA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [SEMA, J.] 229
up by the accused on I0.4.1991 and confined in a Kudil without food and A
water and succumbed to injuries on 17.4.1991. The reason for beating and
confining to death of the deceased Ravi was that he was shouting in the
Ashram that A-1 is having sex with Ashram girls. This had infuriated A-1 to
take this extreme step with the help of A-2, A-4, A-6 and A-7.
The submission of Mr. Ram Jethmalani that during the period Ravi B
stayed in the Ashram there was no allegation of rape against A-1, is factually
incorrect. P.W.13 Vanitha stated that in the year 199! in the night at about
l.00 A.M. A-1 had sex with her. P.W.14 also stated that in the year 1991
when she was cooking in the kitchen in the Dharamshala, A· l forcibly pushed
her in his room and had sex with her. P.W.5 Princy also stated that in the C
year 1990 around 11 p.m. A-1 called her inside his room and had forcibly
sex with her. Again in 1991 before Ravi died, A-l had forcibly sex with her
in his room.
The prosecution relied upon the eye witnesses namely P.Ws. l, 3, 5, 8,
l l, 16, 17 and 18. From the evidence of the eye witnesses it is clearly D
established that Ravi died of the injuries suffered by him. Following facts are
established:
(1) Ravi died of the injuries suffered by him.
(2) The death of Ravi was not reported either to the police or to the
Revenue Authorities. E
(3) Ravi was confined in a room after the injuries he sustained without
food and water for several days.
(4) The skeletal remains were found to be that of the deceased Ravi.
From the evidence on record, it is also clear that: F
(I) Ravi died and he was buried on 17.4.199 l.
(2) Before burial, Ravi was given a bath, his face was shaved
and he was clad with a full sleeved sweater and a dhoti.
(3) The death of Ravi was not informed to the police. No G
information or complaint was given either to the village
Administrative officer or any revenue officer.
(4) No prior treatment was given to the deceased before his
death.
H
230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R.
A From the statement of P.Ws. aforesaid, the prosecution has clearly established
its case that Ravi died out of the injuries caused by A-I and A-2 and subsequent
confinement ~nd starvation accelerated his death.
The defence case was that Ravi died on account of self inflicted injuries
and it was a natural death. The homicidal death of Ravi due to beating and
B starvation is corroborated by medical evidence of P.W.46 and Serology Report.
The evidence of eye witnesses disclosed that when Ravi exposed the misdeeds
of A-I that A-I is raping Ashram girls, A-I ordered that Ravi be brought and
Ravi was brought by A.4, A.6, A.7 near A-1 's kudil and Ravi was tied to the
pole. P. W. l (approver), A.2 and A.5 were also present. A- I had beaten Ravi
C . with Casuarina stick on the left lower and upper limb and Ravi sustained
bleeding injuries. When the knot was untied and Ravi had fallen down, A. I
kicked him on the back and A.2 on the chest. A-I directed P.W.l, A.4 to A.7
to confine Ravi in Kavadi Kudil. A-2 had taken away the key of Kudil after
· confining Ravi in Kavadi Kudil. Ravi was provided neither food or water nor
medical assistance and died of starvation.· The ocular evidence of PWs is
D consistent with the medical opinion of P.W.46.
We have been taken through the entire evidence of P.Ws. and D.Ws.
We do not find any infirmity or perversjty either in Trial Court or High Court
judgment in recording the concurrent findings by appreciating the evidence
'adduced.
E
Mr. Ram Jethmalani learned senior counsel, referred to the evidence of
P.W.15 Mallikadevi when she stated that A-1 had locked Ravi like this arid
he had asked to give food also. It is to be noted that regarding the murder
of Ravi her evidence was not relied upon. by the prosecution. As already
F noted, the prosecution relied upon the testimony of P.Ws. l, 3, 5, 8, 11, 16,
17 and 18 which proved otherwise.
Regarding the sentence, the Trial Court resorted to Section 31 Cr.P.C.
and ordered the sentence to run consecutively, subject to proviso (a) of the
said Section.
G · The contention of Mr. Jethmalani that the term 'imprisonment' enjoined
in Section 31 Cr.P.C. does not include imprisonment for life is unacceptable.
The term 'imprisonment; is not defined under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Section 31 of the Code falls under Chapter III of the Code which deals with
power of Courts. Section 28 of the Code empowers the High Court to pass
H any sentence authorised by law. Similarly, Sessions Judge and Additional
KAMALANANTHA v. ST ATE OFT AMIL NADU [SEMA, J.] 231
Sessions Judge may pass any sentence authorised by law, except the sentence A
of death which shall be subject to confirmation by High Court. In our opinion
the term 'imprisonment" would include the sentence of imprisonment for
life.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we see no infirmity in the well
merited findings concurrently recorded by the two Courts below, which do B
not warrant our interference. The appeals are, accordingly dismissed. Having
regard to the amplitude of the gravity of the offence, perpetrated in an
organized and systematic manner, the nature of the offence and its deleterielus
effects not only against the victims, but the civilized society at large, needs
to be curbed by a strong judicial hand. We are inclined to confirm the sentence C
and conviction as recorded by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High
Court. The order of the Trial Court that any remission of sentence or amnesty
on any special occasions announced or to be announced be either by the
Central or the State Government shall not .apply to the sentence and
imprisonment imposed on all the accused is also maintained.
D
K.K.T. Appeals dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "rape"Sign in to search