Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Feb 11, 2005

About Us
Contact Us


Front Page
News: Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous | Engagements |
Advts:
Classifieds | Employment |

Front Page Printer Friendly Page   Send this Article to a Friend

Junior Acharya gets bail

By A. Subramani



The junior Sankaracharya of Kanchi, Sri Vijayendra Saraswathi, coming out of the Judicial Magistrate Court-1, Kancheepuram, on Thursday. — Photo: V. Ganesan

CHENNAI, FEB. 10. Exactly a month after his arrest, the Madras High Court today ordered the release of the junior Sankaracharya of the Kanchi Mutt, Sri Vijayendra Saraswathi, on conditional bail in the Sankararaman murder case.

While allowing his plea, Justice M. Thanikachalam pointed out several discrepancies in the prosecution theory, and said that there was no material directly connecting him to the crime; that the confession statements of the co-accused were not corroborated by supportive evidence; that the material relied on by the prosecution to arraign him as a co-conspirator was "not strong"; and that the junior Acharya had made out a strong case for bail.

To stay in Chennai

In his order, Mr. Justice Thanikachalam directed Sri Vijayendra Saraswathi to reside within the Corporation limits of Chennai and to report to the Thousand Lights police at 10 a.m. on Sundays. He must execute an affidavit to the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Chengalpattu district, stating that he would not tamper or make any attempt to tamper with witnesses or evidence in any manner.

While not totally ruling out the possibility to "meddle with materials" given the fact that the Mutt was a powerful institution and that some of the witnesses were its employees, the Judge said that at the same time it could not stated straightway that the junior Acharya was not entitled to bail on account of this fact alone.

The judge said: "In the absence of clear materials to prove the meeting of minds between the conspirators, at present, it may not be possible to say that this petitioner was a party to the conspiracy."

Even if it was conceded that he carried out the mandate of the senior Acharya, it could only be said that he obeyed the direction of his senior without any intention, Mr. Justice Thanikachalam said, adding that prima facie a "doubt arises regarding his participation as co-conspirator."

As for the allegation that the junior Acharya's brother, Raghu, had asked a bank to issue Rs. 5 lakhs to Residency Builders, the Judge said: "No material had been produced before me stating that the company belongs to any one of the accused."

Referring to the prosecution case that three cheques were drawn before the conspiracy date of September 1, 2004, the Judge said that it was not relevant as the case was not that any sum was paid to the assailants prior to the conspiracy date. "The other materials to prove the payment made to mercenaries or hirelings also fail to give any support. ... It is not possible or desirable to say unhesitatingly, unless corroborated by evidence, that this petitioner directed Raghu to pay the amount [to the assailants] or is involved in the conspiracy."

Stating that the confession of Appu alias Krishnasamy was "inadmissible in its entirety," Mr. Justice Thanikachalam said: "I am unable to find any material directly connecting this petitioner with the crime, whether conspiracy or otherwise."

Similarly, the statements of Ravi Subramaniam "may not be sufficient in the absence of any corroboration or supportive evidence."

As regards the statements of the co-accused, the judge said: "The question of tampering may not arise since their validity and admissibility are under [a] cloud."

"In this case, the materials relied on to rope in this petitioner is not so strong as the first accused and the role said to have been played by him is very limited even according to the prosecution," Mr. Justice Thanikachalam said. The possibility of tampering with evidence could be prevented by imposing conditions and the denial of right of liberty might not be proper and legal.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Front Page

News: Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous | Engagements |
Advts:
Classifieds | Employment | Updates: Breaking News |

Clasic Farm Chennai Bazar


News Update


The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription
Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | The Hindu Images | Home |

Copyright © 2005, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu