http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 27

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 611-612 of 2003

PETITIONER:

Kamalanantha and Ors.

RESPONDENT:

State of Tamil Nadu

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/04/2005

BENCH:

B.N. Agrawal & H.K. Sema

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

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 before the

High Court and his appeal stands abated. They were convicted and sentenced

to imprisonment as under :-

Charge Convicted Accused Sentence of Imprisonment/

Nos. under Fine imposed.

Section

(1) (2) (3) (4)

1. 120 (B) A-1 to A-7 No Separate sentence.

I.P.C.

2. 376(2)(c) A-1 Imprisonment for Life and to

I.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 and Six months.

(Total Fine rs. 61,20,000. Imprisonment

for life on each count is to run

concurrently.

3. 376 r/w A-2, A-4, Imprisonment for Life on

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 of

Rs. 10,000. In default,

Rigorous Imprisonment for a

further period of 3 months.

4. 354 I.P.C. A-1 No separate Sentence.

(one Count)

5. 312 I.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 each count. In default,

Rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of

45 Days. (Total Fine Rs. 20,000)

6. 302 I.P.C. A-1 Imprisonment of life and to

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 34

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 27

I.P.C. pay a Fine of Rs. 10,000. In

default, Rigorous

Imprisonment for a further

period of 3 Months.

7. 304 I.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.

8. 343 I.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, Rigorous 304

I.P.C. Imprisonment for One year 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 sentence

under Charge 7).

10. 201 r/w A-2 Rigorous imprisonment for

114 I.P.C. one year 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

sentence under Charge 6).

11. 506 (Part II) A-1, A-2, No separate sentence.

I.P.C. (2 A-4, A-6

Counts) and A-7

12. 420 I.P.C A-1 Acquitted.

1st Accused: The sentence imposed on A-1 on charge Nos. 2 and 6 are to run

consecutively. Total fine on A-1 is Rs. 61,30,000 (Rs. 61,20,000 + Rs.

10,000). Sentences imposed on A-1 in default of payment of fine on each

count are to run separately and consecutively apart from the above sentence

of imprisonments. In default of payment of fine, Total further sentence to

undergo; 32-1/2 years + 3 months.

2nd 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 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 sentence of imprisonment

imposed in default of payment of fine is to run separately.

Accused 6 and 7: The sentence of imprisonment 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 and

consecutively.

Total fine on A-1 to A-7 Rs. 62,07,500

Out of the payment of fine of Rs. 51,30,000 collected from A-1 under Sec.

357(1) a (3) Cr.P.C., a compensation of Rs. 5,00.000 is to be paid to 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.

ACCUSED RELATED:

Accused No. 2 is the Secretary of A-1, A-6 is the younger brother of A-1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 27

and A-7 is the adopted son of A-1.

The facts of this case, as revealed by the prosecution, shocked the

judicial conscience. It illustrate a classic example as to how the

insatiable lust for sex of A-1 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

Ashram 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 the Ashram girls who were mostly orphans and destitutes,

brought from 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 has 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

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, 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 stated 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

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 month 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

Madras, but she was caught by the police and sent back to the ashram.

Inspite of her complaint to her mother, she did 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 had not only raped her, but also many other girls in the ashram,

and she recorded their conversation in a cassette. In these circumstances,

she approached one 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 was abetting the misdeeds of the Swami. Ultimately,

unable to bear the torture, she left the ashram on 1.11.1994, 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 Swami and the suffering

undergone by her even at the cost of her dignity and modesty. She had

stated 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 incriminating documents, materials, evidence and filing

of charge sheet.

The prosecutrix raped by A-1 systematically abetted by A-2, A-4, A-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.10 Sasikumari @ Jaya, P.W.11 Shantha, P.W.12 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 27

other accused are that although there were 200-300 boys in the Ashram, A-1

used the girls to put on the night watch around his Kudil, Arulvakku Room,

Dharmasala and other places. The victims tolerated the beastly assault of

A-1 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 disclosed that A-2,

A-4, A-6 and A-7 were abetting the commission of rape by A-1 by threatening

the victims not to reveal the rape committed on them by A-1.

BACKGROUND FACTS :

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 of Boopalakrishna

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.

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 nearly 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 for boys, girls and women. Besides, the Ashram

has 5 acres of flower plants, 5 acres of tamarind plantation, mango trees

plantation, 300 coconut trees, 90 acres of cashew plantation, 1 acre of

jackfruit plantation, 10 acres of teak wood, 1 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 :

As already noticed except P.W.4 Nallammal and P.W.6 Mary, 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 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

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.

Sureshkumari Sister PW7- 1) 1985 before Nil Ex.P25 refers

20/1994 Selvakumari attaining to the

P.W.3 Sri @ Manjula, puberty, at instances of

Lankan PW 8 - residential rape

Sugunakumari house at committed on

@ Sudha, Crapatti, her by A1

PW10 Tiruchy.

Sasikumari 2) July 1987

@Jaya and in A1's room

daughter of 3) July 1987

DW32 - in A1's room

Deivanai 4) November

1991 in A1's

bedroom at 1

p.m.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 27

Nallammal 1) May 94 at Abortion Ex.P27

21/1994 11.30 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,

Tamil Nadu. A1's room PW2-Nesan willingly;

3) May 94 at was asked milk

2.30 pm at to bear secretion

Dharmasala. responsibility complete

4) May 94 at for the abortion.

Dharmasala conception Ex.D1 (u/s

(u/s 164):

Admits

sexual

intercourse

with A1 and

money given

by A1 for

abortion.

Princy, Sister of 1) 1986 at Missed her Ex.P.36

20/1994, PW2-Nesan lodge in periods 2-3 (Accident

PW.5 Sri and PW18 Courtallam at times; taking Register):

Lankan Dinesan 1 p.m. the Coitus with

2) July 90, abortifacients working,

days after given by A-3 person

Guru Purnima willingly

pooja at 11 Hymen not

pm in A1's intact

room. Ex.D2 (u/s

3) 1992, a 164): Refer

month after to A1's

name

the 3rd

incident at 5 and four

am. instances of

4) 1993 in rape

lodge at commencng

Thanjavur. from 1992.

5) on

17.4.1994.

Mary, 1) 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

Madurai. the and Divya intact; as per

Dharmasala Devi physical

examination,

age 16

years:

As per

Ex.P46, Age

Certificate,

completed

16 years

on 2.11.94.

Ex.D3 (u/s

164) Refers

to sexual

intercourse

by force by

A1 at the

age of 13

in the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 27

room near

Dharmasala

at 1.30 pm.

Immediately

after

Christmas.

Sivakumari Elder sister of 1) May 94 in Nil Hymen not

@Manjula, PW3 & sister A1's room. intact.

22/1994, of PW3 8 & 2) October 94 Ex.D4 (u/s

P.W.7, 10 related to at 4 pm in 164):

Sri Lankan. A1 as their A1's room. Refers to

father's 3) Refers to sexual

brother. forced intercourse

perverted oral with A1

sex by A1. willingly

once.

Sugunakumari 1) in 1993, 2-3 Nil Ex.P37

@Sudha, months after (Accident

16/1994, she attained Register):

PW 8, puberty A1 Not a virgin

Sri Lankan had sexual accustomed

intercourse in to sexual

his room. intercourse.

2) September As per 94

in the Ex.P48,

Arulvakku Age

Room. Certificate,

3) September completd 18

94 in the years as

Arulvakku on 22.11.94.

Room. Ex.D5

(u/s.164):

Refers to

sexual

intercourse

by A1

forcibly.

Pushparani Sister of 1) 1992 at Nil Ex.P.33

16/1994, PW 17 1.30 am in the Accident

P.W.9, Pooja room. Register):

Sri Lankan 2) 1994 at Had affair

11.30 am in with a

the working

Dharmasala person for 1

room. year; as per

3) in 1994, 2 her own

days prior to statement

Deepavali in and physical

A1's room. examination,

aged 16. As

per Ex.P49,

not

completed

16 years.

Statement

(u/s) 164):

Refers

forcible

sexual

intercourse

by A1 when

she

was 14 years

old.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 27

Sasikumari @ Twin sister 1) In 1993, 15 Nil Ex.P37

Jaya, 16/1994 of PW8 & days after she (Accident

PW.10 Younger attained Register):

sister of puberty in Hymen not

PWs. A1's room. intact. As

3 & 7. per her own

statement &

physical

examination,

she is 16

years old.

As per

Ex.P50, age

certificate

she has not

completed

16 years as

on 22.11.94.

Ex.D6

(u/s 164):

Refers

sexual

intercourse

with a

known

person.

Shantha, Sister of 1) November Nil Ex.P39

34/1994 PW13 91 first sexual (Accident

P.W.11 Vanitha intercourse by Register):

Sri Lankan A1 who made Sexual

her to agree contact with

@ 4 pm - known male

Arulvakku person.

room. Hymen not

2) Nov.92 in intact.

Visitors' Ex.D7

Room against (u/s.164):

her wish. Refers to

3) November sexual

93 in Divya intercourse

Devi's room with A1 on

against her consent in

wish. 1991; without

consent in

1992; without

consent in

1993.

Udayakumari Sister of May 1993- Nil Ex. P.40

21/1994, PW 15 - forcible (Accident

P.W.12, Malligadevi intercourse by Register):

Sri Lankan & DW29 A1 in the Hymen - not

Kanthan garden; intact;

accustomed to Refers to

torture meted the sexual

out to her by intercourse.

confining her No

in the dog's Statement

Kennel. u/s. 164

Cr.P.C.

recorded.

Vanitha, Younger 1) June 91 1st one at Ex. P57

21/1994, sister of while sleeping Dr.Gomathi's (Accident

PW.13, PW11 - in A1's kudil. Hospital @ Register):

Sri Lankan Shantha 2) July 92 Thanjavur. Contact with

Saturday at 3 a known pm

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 27

in A1's 2nd one at person for

bedroom. Athi Hospital more than

3) October 94 Speaks of 2 four years.

at 11 am in forcible Last

A1's room. sexual abortion

2 years back

intercourse at Tanjore.

even as MTP done

informed A1 twice.

that doctor

had told her Statement

that her uterus u/s 164

was very Cr.P.C.

weak

Refers sexual

contact with

twice and

abortion

twice.

Aruljothi 1) 1991 in 1) Ex.D9

21/1994, A1's room at Abortifacients (Accident

PW.14, 1 pm. given by Register):

Sri Lankan 2) One month Divya Devi &

thereafter, A1 A3 in 1991. Contact with

had forcible

sexual 2) Second a known

intercourse in abortion at person for 5

A1's room A3's instance years.

even while by taking

she was tablets. Ex.D10

bleeding after (u/s 164):

taking

abortifacients. 1) Refers to

3) On 3 sexual

14.11.94 in intercourse

A1's room. by A1, 2

months after

attaining

puberty.

2) Second

sexual

intercourse

in A1' room.

Missed her

period and

took

abortifacient

Next day,

after

publication

of news,

refers to

the forcible

sexual

intercourse

by A1 and

refers to the

conception

and her

request for

termination

of

pregnancy.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 27

Malligadevi, Sister of 1) April 92 at Nil ExP32

20/1994, PW12 - 2 pm. in A1's (Accident

P.W.15, Udayakumari room Register):

Sri Lankan & D29 2) On 18.11.94 Hymen - not

Kanthan intact.

Ex.P133 (u/s

164):

Refers to the

forcible

sexual

intercourse

by A1 after

she attained

puberty by

persuading

her that she

would be

cured of

asthma in

A1's room.

Krishnaveni. 1) January 94 Nil Not included

23/1994, at 3 pm in in the PW.55 Sri

the room of charge.

Lankan PW.55

2) August 94

at 12 noon in

A1's room.

3) September

94 at night

watch in A1's

room.

On her refusal

the first time

she was tied

to calf made

to run along

with it $

tortured for

her adamancy.

Latha, Not raped by

30/1994 A1, but speaks

P.W.16 about the rape

of Sureshkumari,

PW3 by A1

1987 and

Vanitha, PW

13 in June,

1991

From the statements of the victim girls made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as

summarized above, it is seen that :

(a) P.Ws, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14 and 15 have named A-1 and his

forcible rape on them :

(b) P.Ws. 7 and 11 (once) have stated to have consented for sexual

intercourse with A-1; and

(c) P.W.10 has admitted forcible rape by a known person :

ACTIVITIES OF ASHRAM :

Religious discourses were performed by A-1 in the Ashram. He used to give

holy water at the time of "abhishekam" which is believed to have a healing

power and the "viboothi" and manjal were also used as substances for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 27

healing disease. A-1 used to produce "lingams" and viboothi during the

nights of Mahasivarathri.

With this background let us now examine the evidence of each of the

prosecutrix before the Court.

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

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-1 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 was confined in a room for nearly one month. After completion of

one month, A-1 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 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 her father she

would not beget any children even if he 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.3 was

standing outside, A-1 gave her a signal to come. When P.W.3 went inside his

room A-1 locked the doors. 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-1 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 1 p.m. in November, 1991 A-1 had forcibly sex with her. She

further said that since they were orphans and there was nobody else to take

care of them, she did not disclose 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-1 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 meeting; she was called and slapped in

front of others. Therefore, P.W.3 not able to bear such torturous conduct

of A-1 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 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 arrest 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-1 was

in the Arul vaku room. From there A-1 called her and she went there

thinking 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 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 Dharmasala.

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-1 came to know that she was pregnant he

instructed A-3 Divya to give pineapple and papaya and as the pregnancy was

not aborted. A-1 called A-3 and asked her to give medicines and injection.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 27

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 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 years.

She stated that when they were in Fatima Nagar Ashram, A-1 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 Gurupoornima was held in

July and two days after Gurupoornima in 1990 around 11.00 p.m. the first

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

outside. When she went inside the room of the first accused he locked the

door. She tried to go outside the room but she could not. The 1st accused

forcibly hugged her and pushed her on the bed and had sex with her. She

told the first accused "I was grown up by you from 3 years old and I am

like your daughter" even then he forcibly had sex with her.

P.W.6 Mary was examined on 2.7.1996. Her age was recorded as 18 years. She

stated that in 1993 she was doing the night watch. That time the 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, whom she refused but then

A-1 forcibly had sex with her against her wish. After she had sex with A-1

she did not get period for three months. Thereafter, A-1 called Divya and

the 3rd 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-1 sent for her through a small girl and when she went to A-1, he forcibly

had sex with her in the Dharmasala. She further deposed that she did not

tell to anybody that A-1 raped her because in the Ashram no one could do

anything against the first accused. She also deposed that A-1 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 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 Ist accused "You are my uncle, why

are you touching me while talking" and the accused told her this

relationship in earlier days only and now there is no relationship like

this. She states that in August, 1990 the first accused caught her and

pressed her breast. On being asked A-1 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 and forcibly raped her. On being refused he

slapped her on the cheeks. A-1 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-1

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 would come out he

would do something to her so she hide some of the statement before the

Magistrate. She further deposed that in 1993 the first accused kept his

penis in her mouth. The first accused beat her to keep his penis in her

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 27

mouth and also forced her to suck the penis with her mouth. She also stated

that A-1 pushed his leg big toe into Pushparani's vagina.

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 she was sleeping in the room. Her room was about 100 feet distance from

the A-1 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-1 carried her to his room and put her

on his bed and A-1 forcibly lied down on her and raped her. After 10

minutes she became conscious and got up. A-1 threatened her that if she

told this to 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 girl and called her but because of fear she did

not went to his room. Then the little girl showed the place to A-1 where

the witness was hiding. Thereafter A-1 showed a stick and threatened her

and brought her to his room. Again the first accused forcibly raped her in

a beastly manner. A-1 also threatened her not to tell anybody and because

of fear she did not tell anybody that A-1 had raped her. After that

whenever she saw A-1 she used to hide herself. 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 room. When she tried to stop

accused nails 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 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 maturity.

Though P.W.8 attained puberty, she is yet to grow physically and

mentally. Even her childish voice is not broken into that of a

grown up and adult woman."

The version of P.W.8 not only inspires the confidence of the court, but

also shocks the conscience of the court.

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 Ashram she was

given works such as building cleaning, supervising work, looking after the

children and night watch. Her night watch time was between 2 and 3 a.m.

Later on it was changed between 10 to 11 pm. The night watch is in front of

the first accused building. In 1992 A-1 inquired as to why she came late to

do the night watch and beat her. It was about 10.30 p.m. Thereafter A-1

took her to his room in the pooja room and forcibly raped her. Because of

rape she started bleeding in her vagina. At about 1.30 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-1 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 deposed that after 5 to 6 days A-1 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 came to that meeting. In

the meeting A-1 removed all her clothes and called four persons to hold her

legs and hands. Thereafter A-1 lay down her without clothes and A-1 beat

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 27

her with a cane. A-1 also pushed his leg big toe into her vagina and when

she shouted because of pain he did not leave her. Unable to see P.W.3 left

the meeting. Two days before Diwali in 1994 A-1 had also forcibly sex with

her in his 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 :-

"280. Experiencing the most humiliating form of violence P.W.9 did

not even attend the daily pooja. About 2 days prior to Deepavali

1994. A-1 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

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 years during 1992-94, was

ravished by A.1. The consent of P.W. 9 is not of much relevance".

P.W.10 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 1993 when

she was 15 years old. She was kept in a room for 10 to 15 days. After 15

days A-1 came to her room, hugged her and kissed her. The next day she came

out of the room. From 10 to 11 p.m. she was doing night watch, A-1 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-1 called her making a sign with his hands. He asked her to

come closer. When she went to A-1 he pressed her breasts. She got

frightened and ran out. Two days later, A-1 gave her night watch from 1 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 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-1 used to take girls one by one into that room. She did not disclose to

anybody about her rape as A-1 threatened her that if she told about the

rape he would kill her on the same day. She further deposed that A-1 used

to tell them that "although he is in a human body he is God". A-1 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 not tell against him to the Magistrate and

therefore they hide something in their statements to the Magistrate.

P.W.11 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,

wrongly but since no appeal is preferred, we need not examine the statement

of this witness, although she admitted having sex with A-1.

P.W.12 Udayakumari was examined on 5.7.1996. Her age was recorded 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 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 food

and water on the excuse that she did not look after the dogs well. The

witness further stated that in May, 1993 when she was working in the flower

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 27

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.

The learned Trial Judge has observed as to the demeanour of P.W.12 during

her examination and recorded in paragraph 304 of the judgment as under :-

"P.W.12 had narrated the entire incident in a simple manner and in

her own language. The court could notice the reflection of 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."

P.W.13 Vanitha was examined on 5.7.1996. Her age was recorded as 27 years.

She stated that she was born on 31.7.1969 at Srilanka. P.W.11 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 to

the Ashram. In 1991 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 1

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 she found that it was A-1. 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 that A-1 had sex with her in June, 1991. She went to Tanjavur to Dr.

Gomathi accompanied by P.W.3, P.W.5, A-1 and A-2. A-1 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-1 did not allow her

to go home for five days and kept her in his kudil. She was in the room

next to A-1 room. In July 1992 at 3 p.m. A-1 called her for some work. When

she went there A-1 closed the door and pushed her on his bed and forcibly

had sex with her. She became five months pregnant after A-1 had sex with

her. It was reported to A-1. 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 aborted in Arti hospital in

Tanjavur. 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-1 he would harm her

family. After 10 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 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

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-1 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-1 took them by a van

to Crawford, Trichy. There they stayed in a rented house. In 1986 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 27

Krishna Jayanthi she was sleeping in Sureshkumari's (P.W.3) room. Early

morning at 5.30 A-1 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 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. When

they were in Samayapuram A-1 and A-2 forcibly took them 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 1.

0'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 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 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

intercourse 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-1 sent a message to her and she was lying down

in her room in fever. Since she did not respond to the calling of A-1, 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.

In 1994 five days before the arrest of A-1 (A-1 was arrested on 19.11.994)

she was doing night watch in the cowshed. At midnight about 12' 0 clock A-4

came to her and told that A-1 is calling her and took her to A-1 room. A-4

left her in A-1 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

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 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-1

took her to Poobala Krishna Ashram in Matale. It was maintained by A-1. 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-1. 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 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-1 said that he liked her and hugged her. In

his room when A-1 hugged and kissed her to consent to his wish, she ran out

from his room.

In April, 1992 one day she went to A-1 and told that she is suffering from

asthma and could not work in the library and so she would go and sleep in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 27

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

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 about 10

minutes after that she returned to her room crying. She also stated that

she gave a statement to Pudukkottai Magistrate. Before the statement A-1

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 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 victim girls were orphans brought from Srilanka. 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-1 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 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.

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 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 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

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. [See 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. Sushil Kumar learned senior counsel for the respondent

at length.

At the outset we may observe here that the contentions which have been

raised before the Trial Court and the High Court and got rejected by

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 :

Charge No. Against which Under what Gist of the

accused section offences

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Charge No.1 A.1 to A.7 U/s 120B IPC A1 to A7

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 27

Criminal

conspiracy to

commit rape

on victim girls.

Abatement of

rape and to

cause abortion

and to murder

Ravi.

A.3 Being a Co-

Conspirator for the

first part of the

Conspiracy of

rape, Abatement of

rape and abortion. Charge No.2 A.1 U/s 376(2)

(c) For committing

I.P.C. 14 Counts rape on 14 Victim

girls Nallammal,

Mary, Princy Selvakumari

@ Manjula,

Sugunakumari @ Sudha,

Pushparani,

Mallikadevi, Sasikumari

@Jaya, Aruljothi,

Sureshkumari, Latha,

Udayakumari, Vanitha and

Shantha.

Charge No.3 A.2 to A.7 U/s 376 r/w 109 For abetment of

I.P.C. rape

Charge No.4 A.1 U/s 354 I.P.C. For

4 counts. outraging the modesty of

4 victim girls

Sureshkumari, Princy, Kumari

and Sasikumari.

Charge No.5 A.3 U/s 313 I.P.C. For causing

8 counts abortion to 8 Victim

girls.

Charge No.6 A.1 U/s 302 IPC For causing the

A.2 U/s 302 r/w 34 murder of Ravi

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 I.P.C. Wrongful

A.7 confinement of Ravi in

Kavadi Kudil.

ChargeNo.9 A.5 to A.7 U/s 201 r/w 302 For causing the

I.P.C. evidence burying the body of

Ravi in the Ashram.

Charge No.10 A.2 U/s 201 r/w 114 Abetment by being

IPC present in the place where the

body of Ravi was buried.

Charge No.11 A.1, A.2, A.4 U/s 506 (Part II) Criminal

to A.7 I.P.C. (4 Counts) Intimidation and

the threat to cause death.

Charge No.12 A.1 U/s 420 I.P.C. For cheating Mark

Dennis dishonestly inducing him to

part with the money.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 27

This case has more than one rarest of rare facts. It is rare that

A-1, 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. 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 I.O. 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

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 160

of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These contentions are to be noted only

to be rejected. 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.

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 death or of hurt.

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.

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 substance, she is unable to understand

the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.

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.

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-1 they would cure the asthma or that if they

had sex with A-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, 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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 27

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 other

place of custody established by or under any law for the time being in

force or of a 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 ...............

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 unacceptable.

All the victim girls were the inmates of the Ashram. They were raped by A-1

in the Ashram, who had dominion 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, 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

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 Section 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 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

separately. Chapter XVII of the Code deals with the charge. Section 218 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 and curable under Section 464 and Section 465

Cr.P.C., provided no failure of justice has in fact been occasioned

thereby.

Reliance has been heavily placed on the decision of this Court in W. Slaney

v. State of M.P., 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 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. It was pointed out in paragraph 44 as under :-

"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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 27

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 to be

regarded as fatal unless there is prejudice.

It is the substance that we must seek. Courts 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 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 must be made in favour of an 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

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 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 in such a case is invalid and the

question of prejudice does not arise. As already said in Slaney

(supra) there was no charge under Section 302 from 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 :-

"98.In cases where a charge has been framed and there is an omission 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

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 Court, after

considering the divergent views of the Privy Council as to whether

misjoinder of charges is not saved by Section 537 (old) and 465

(new), the Court then said at p.335 (2) SCR as under:-

"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 or 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 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 :-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 27

"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 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."

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, 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] 1 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 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."

The question was again examined by this Court in the case of State of West

Bengal v. Laisal Haque, [1989] 3 SCC 166, where the earlier views of this

Court including the views of Justice Vivian Bose in Slaney (supra) were

reiterated.

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 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.

In the light of the aforesaid principle, let us now examine the facts of

the present case, as to whether any failure of justice had occasioned

thereby 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 to incisive cross-examination. The accused put up

49 defence 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. Having regard to these facts, in our

opinion, no failure of justice has occasioned and both the Courts below are

justified in rejecting the contention.

ALLEGATION OF TORTURE AND BEATING TO THE VICTIM GIRLS BY THE POLICE.

If this contention is established it could have been fatal to the

prosecution story, but in our opinion not. Mr. Ram Jethmalani in this

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 A1

first we didn't give statement, after the police beat us, me and the other

girls gave the statement that we were raped by Premananda Swami. I myself

took the decision and told to the Magistrate that I gave the statement

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 27

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 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 of A-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 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 stern 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.

1808 of 1994. On 7.12.1994 she was questioned 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 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 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. 1010 of 1995 was filed by the legal guardian of

Vasanthi. 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 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 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

to each one of them Rs. 2 lakh 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.

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 :-

"Balan came in search 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 23 of 27

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 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 Premananda Swami was

having sexual relationship with other girls."

It is in that context the High Court holds 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.

We do not find any infirmity in the concurrent findings recorded by both

the Courts below on this count.

CONSPIRACY CASTED AGAINST A-1.

The allegation of conspiracy hatched by Mark Denis, Ambikanandan P.W.1

(Approver), Anandamohan P.W.30 and Latha PW.16 is also to be noted to be

rejected. It is admitted that P.W.3 Suresh Kumari along with Latha P.W.16

ran away from the Ashram on 31.10.14994. 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 order dated

19.11.1994 passed by the DGP the case was handed over to C.B.C.I.D. and

C.B.C.I.D. came into picture on 19.11.1994. Therefore, 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 by Mark Denis, PW-1,

Anandamohan, PW-30 and Latha PW-16 against A-1 is, therefore, demolished.

D.N.A.TEST

Dr. Lalji Singh, Deputy Director, C.C.M.B. Hyderabad, was examined as

P.W.59. Dr.Lalji Singh is working as the Deputy Director at the Centre for

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-II and

was subsequently promoted as 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 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 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.I.R. Technology Award for the year 1992 for Biological

Sciences Professor S.P. Roy Chaudhuri 75th Birthday Lecture Award for the

year 1994. Professor 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 of National Academy of Science since 1991 and

fellow of Indian National Science Academy elected in 1993. He is also a

member of various 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 24 of 27

vide Ex.P.185. The operative portion of the Report is as follows :-

"When D.N.A. Profiles in track 3 (Premananda) was compared with that of

track 2 (tissue from the foetus) and track 1 (Aruljothi) it is seen that

ever bend present in track 2 is fully accounted for either being inherited

from the mother (track 1) or from the alleged father (track 3). The alleged

father Premananda (source of Exhibit A) and the mother Aruljothi (Source

Exhibit C) are, therefore, the biological parents of the dead foetus

(Source of 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 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 in cross-

examination as under :-"

"As far as Paternity is concerned, the Paternity of the child is determined

by identifying 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 will leave those bands inherited from the childs to father, the

paternally specific bands. If the alleged Father's Fingerprinting pattern

contains all of these bands, then he is the true Biological Father of that

Child and Paternity is confirmed. 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.

The witness further clarified that when the sample is taken in sterile

container following the instructions 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

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, 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.

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:-

(1) He is a private consultant.

(2) He was requested to undertake a review of the evidence of Dr.Lalji

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 28.10.1996 and 29.10.1996 when 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

inform this Honourable Court that if the prosecution wants to repeat this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 25 of 27

experiment, the accused is prepared to pay the cost of 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 laboratory, but they are professionally

independent. He further says, "I was present 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.

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. 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 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

confidence. We have been taken through the entire evidence of DWs.

DWs. 10, 31, 33 have been declared perjury by the Trial 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

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 :

Ravi was brought to the Ashram on 22.7.1990. He was allegedly beaten up by

the accused on 10.4.1991 and confined in a Kudil without food and 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 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 1991 in the night at

about 1.00 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-1 forcibly

pushed her in his room and had sex with her. P.W.5 Princy also stated that

in the 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-1 had forcibly sex

with her in his room.

The prosecution relied upon the eye witnesses namely P.Ws. 1, 3, 5, 8, 11,

16, 17 and 18. From the evidence of the eye witnesses it is clearly

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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 26 of 27

(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:

(1) Ravi died and he was buried on 17.4.1991.

(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 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.

From the statement of P.Ws. aforesaid, the prosecution has clearly

established its case that Ravi died out of the injuries caused by A-1 and

A-2 and subsequent confinement and 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

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-1 that A-1 is raping Ashram girls, A-1 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.1 (approver), A.2 and A.5 were also present. A-1 had

beaten Ravi 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.1 kicked him on the back and A.2 on the chest. A-1 directed P.W.1,

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 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 perversity either in Trial Court or High Court

judgment in recording the concurrent findings by appreciating the evidence

adduced.

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 and

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

noted, the prosecution relied upon the testimony of P.Ws. 1, 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.

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 any sentence authorised by law. Similarly, Sessions Judge and

Additional Sessions Judge may pass any sentence authorised by law, except

the sentence 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 27 of 27

merited findings concurrently recorded by the two Courts below, which do

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

deleterious 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 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.