KAMALANANTHA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
LAWS(SC)-2005-4-23
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
April 05,2005
KAMALANANTHA
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
WILLIE WILLIAM SLANEY VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]BIRICHH BHUIAN VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. LAISAL HAQUE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. GURMITSINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. NALINI [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
POLADI YAKUBKHAN ALIAS NINI RAHMETKHAN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2006-11-88] [REFERRED TO]S.A. MIYAJAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2014-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
DURYODHAN ROUT VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(SC)-2014-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
SANAULLAH KHAN VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-2013-2-35] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND VS. SARDAR PARWAN SINGH [LAWS(UTN)-2019-11-154] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH AND ANOTHER VS. STATE FOR NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS. [LAWS(SC)-2017-5-43] [REFERRED TO]
ASHAQ HUSSAIN FACTOO VS. STATE [LAWS(J&K)-2012-11-22] [REFERRED TO]
RAJANGAM VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2019-8-450] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. RAMCHANDRA SAMBHAJI KARANJULE [LAWS(BOM)-2016-3-168] [REFERRED TO]
ASHUMAL @ ASHARAM S/O THAUMAL SHINDI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-1-19] [REFERRED TO]
CHATAR SINGH VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(SC)-2006-11-142] [REFERRED TO]
SAURAV @ GUDDU VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2012-5-435] [REFERRED]
LALAN RAM, SON OF SHRI SHIVJI RAM RESIDENT OF MIRGANJ P S- BEGUSARAI TOWN, DISTRICT VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2018-1-120] [REFERRED TO]
C.S.LALITHA VS. T.V.GOVINDARAJ [LAWS(KAR)-2021-9-293] [REFERRED TO]
JINDER ALI SK. VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR [LAWS(CAL)-2007-4-81] [REFERRED TO]
ARJUN RAM AND ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJ. AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-1-20] [REFERRED TO]
SHER SINGH, SON OF NAWAB SINGH BY CASTE BANJARA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHERIA LODHA, POLICE STATION ROOPWAS, DISTRICT VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-9-27] [REFERRED TO]
MUTHURAMALINGAM AND ORS. VS. STATE [LAWS(SC)-2015-2-135] [REFERRED TO]
MUTHURAMALINGAM & ORS. VS. STATE REP. BY INSP. OF POLICE [LAWS(SC)-2016-7-42] [OVERRULED]
M.K. BALAKRISHNAN VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2010-4-614] [REFERRED TO]
SADHWI PRAGYA SINGH THAKUR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2010-3-18] [REFERRED TO]
A KANDASAMY VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2018-1-689] [REFERRED TO]
SUBASH CHANDRA ADHIKARY VS. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(GAU)-2010-8-15] [REFERRED TO]
DURYODHAN CHAITU MESHRAM VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-12-142] [REFERRED TO]
H S BRUNDA, W/O M S SHYLENDRA VS. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI [LAWS(KAR)-2018-4-85] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2008-9-389] [REFERRED TO]
B VANDANA KUMARI VS. P PRAVEEN KUMAR [LAWS(APH)-2006-9-125] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHU VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2018-12-129] [REFERRED TO]
SUNDARAM @ VELLIAN VS. SECRETARY, STATE OF TAMILNADU [LAWS(MAD)-2014-1-58] [REFERRED TO]
RENUKA VS. TAMMANNA [LAWS(KAR)-2007-6-31] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(SC)-2010-10-76] [REFERRED TO]
RAFIQ AHMED ALIAS RAFI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(SC)-2011-8-5] [REFERRED TO]
LOKESH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2024-11-12] [REFERRED TO]
MURUGAYEE VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2025-1-52] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. EX-GNR AJEET SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2013-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
VINU KARMASHI RADADIA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2006-9-37] [REFERRED TO]
N.GOWTHAMAN @ BABU VS. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2016-8-88] [REFERRED TO]
KUSHAL CHAND AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2013-9-67] [REFERRED]
ANIL ALIAS RAJU NAMDEV PATIL VS. ADMINISTRATION OF DAMAN AND DIU [LAWS(SC)-2006-11-140] [REFERRED TO]
MONTU KALITA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2011-4-9] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF DELHI VS. SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2006-10-22] [REFERRED TO]
SANTHOSH MADHAVAN @ SWAMI AMRITHA CHAITHANYA VS. STATE [LAWS(KER)-2013-12-95] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH SINHA VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2006-9-65] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-2-196] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN ALIAS NARAYAN SAI ASHARAM ALIAS AASHUMAL HARPALANI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-2-7] [REFERRED TO]
JAYESH KHEMCHANDBHAI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-2-225] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL ANANDRAO SAWANT VS. GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2010-4-146] [REFERRED TO]
SHAMBHU NATH PANDEY VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2012-9-85] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK VASANT KALE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2005-10-150] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK @ NANHU KIRAR VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2020-2-8] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR NATH MAHTO VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-8-137] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS VS. D K SHARMA S/O RAM DAS SHARMA AND ORS [LAWS(PAT)-2015-10-130] [REFERRED]
PREM SINGH PRAJAPATI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2024-5-29] [REFERRED TO]
KAMRAJ DAS VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2006-11-21] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL BHOWMICK VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2006-8-47] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2023-3-134] [REFERRED TO]
MAHADEV ASARAM SILLODE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-4-261] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDER @ KALLA VS. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2016-12-47] [REFERRED TO]
DARASINGH ALIAS MARUTI ALIAS DAIJI VAKILYA BHOSALE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2020-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
JAKIR ISHAKBHAI NAT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2007-6-62] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESHA VS. STATE [LAWS(KAR)-2021-7-223] [REFERRED TO]
BALAKRISHNAN ALIAS DURAI VS. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2010-12-28] [REFEREED TO [PARA 12]]
R SURESH S/O ROWTHRAM VS. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2009-10-563] [REFERRED]
ASHUTOSH DAS VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2007-1-9] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
SEMA, J. -
(1.)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 :
JUDGEMENT_1836_AIR(SCW)_2005Html1.htm
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 sen- tence 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 sentences of imprisonments. 4th Accused: The sentence of imprisonment of Charge No. 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/- X2 = 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(l)(a)(3) Cr. P.C. a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- is to be paid to each of the victim girls, RW.3 Sureskumari; P.W.4 Nallammal; RW.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 :
(2.)ACCUSED No.2 is the Secretary of A-1, A-6 is the younger brother of A-1 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 gamekeeper 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.
(3.)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. In spite 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, PW.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.
(2.)ACCUSED No.2 is the Secretary of A-1, A-6 is the younger brother of A-1 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 gamekeeper 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.
(3.)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. In spite 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, PW.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.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.