KAMALANANTHA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(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 A5 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:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_170_JT4_2005Html1.htm</FRM> 1st Accused: The sentence imposed on A1 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 Section 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 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 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/-.

(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.

(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" (exhibit D.29) followed by a complaint, exhibit P-25 dated 16.11.1994 given by R. Sureshkumari @ Baby (PW-3) to the Inspector of Police, Viralimalai which 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 cas sette. 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.