# KAMALANANTHA AND ORS v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

- **Citation:** [2005] 3 S.C.R. 182
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2005-04-05
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 611612 of 2003
- **Bench:** B.N. Agrawal, H.K. Sema
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/kamalanantha-and-ors-v-state-of-tamil-nadu-20560
- **Pages:** 50

## Headnote

Penal Code, 1860 :
Sections 120-B, 376 rlw. 109, 376(2)(c), 354, 302, 302 r/w. 34, 343, 506
C Part-JI, 312, 304 and 201 r/w. 304-Allegation of rape of 13 girls on several
occasions and murder of one person-By Swami in Ashram-:-Prosecutrix
entirely dependent on the accused-Accused abetted and supported by other
accused-Initiation of prosecution after a news item followed by the complaint
of one of the prosecutrix~Evidence of all the prosecutrix, incriminating the
D accused-Evidence supported by medical evidence and other contemporaneous
documents-Murder proved by evidence· of eye-witnesses-DNA test proving
the accused and one of the prosecutrix to.- be parents of a dead foetusConviction and sentence of life imprisonment by Courts below-On appeal,
held: Jn the facts of the case conviction and sentence justified-This is a rarest.
of rare cases.
E
Section 3 75-Rape-Charge of-Consent of prosecutrix taken by deceitful
manner and under threat-Held: The charge of rape would fall within the
definition of the Section-Consent obtained by deceitful means and under
threat is no consent.
F
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
Section 31-Sentences of life imprisonment-Direction by trial Court to
run consecutively-Validity of-:-Held: Direction of consecutive sentence of
life imprisonment is valid-The term 'imprisonment' occurring in Section 31
G would include sentence of life imprisonment- Sentencing.
H
Section 160-Examination of prosecutrix in the Police Station-After
removing them from the place of occurrence i.e. from the clutches of accusedHeld: Such examination not violative of the Section-The provision should be
understood in the context of the situation that the prosectrix were removed
182
KAMALANANTHA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
183
from the place of occurrence for their safety and serve the interest of Justice. A
Sections 218, 464 and 465~Violation of provision under Section 218Curability of-Held· Violation of the provision under Section 218 is not cm
illegality, but is misjoinder of charges, an irregularity-Hence curable ulss.
464 and 465 provided no failure of justice had occasioned thereby.
Criminal Trial :
B
Evidence of Prosecutrix-Evidentiary value of-Heid: Evidence of
prosecutrix, if inspires confidence, conviction can be founded :Jn her testimony
alone unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration-Her
evidence is more reliable than that of injured witness-Minor contradictions C
and insignificant discrepancies in her statement should not be a ground for
throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case.
The allegation was that Accused-I a Swami in the Ashram,
systematically abetted by A-2, A-4, A-6, A-7 and 'D' the absconded D
accused had raped 13 Ashram girls PWs 3 to 15 and PW-55, on several
occasions. Most of the victim girls except PWs 4 and 6 were orphans
brought from Sri Lanka. They were entirely dependent on A-1. A-1 had
control over the prosecutrix physically, mentally and spiritually. Four of
the accused were below 16 years of age when they were raped. Many of
the girls had to undergo abortion. A-1 was also alleged to have murdered E
one 'R' with the help of A-2, A-40 A-6 and A-7 in April, 1991 by beating
him and confining him to the Kudil without food and water, because he
was shouting in the Ashram that A-1 was having sex with Ashram girls.
'R' had been brought to the Ashram in July, 1990. A-1 was also alleged
to have cheated one 'M' inducing him to part with the money.
F
PW-3 prosecutrix and PW-16 another inmate with the help of one
of her relatives, and with the assistance of a Woman Organisation came
out of the Ashram on 31.10.1994. Till 15.11.1994 no complaint was lodge~.
A news item in this respect dated 15.11.1994 appeared in 'The Indian
Express'. On 17.11.1994 PW-3 lodged a complaint (Exbt.P-25) and a case G
was registered u/ss. 142 and 376 IPC. By an order dated 19.11.1994, the
case was handed over to C.B.C.l.D. The prosecutrix were examined in
women Police Station. On medical examination of all th

## Text

_Characters 0–39,838 of 103,413. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39838 for what follows._

A
KAMALANANTHA AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
APRIL 5, 2005
B
[B.N. AGRAWAL AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 :
Sections 120-B, 376 rlw. 109, 376(2)(c), 354, 302, 302 r/w. 34, 343, 506
C Part-JI, 312, 304 and 201 r/w. 304-Allegation of rape of 13 girls on several
occasions and murder of one person-By Swami in Ashram-:-Prosecutrix
entirely dependent on the accused-Accused abetted and supported by other
accused-Initiation of prosecution after a news item followed by the complaint
of one of the prosecutrix~Evidence of all the prosecutrix, incriminating the
D accused-Evidence supported by medical evidence and other contemporaneous
documents-Murder proved by evidence· of eye-witnesses-DNA test proving
the accused and one of the prosecutrix to.- be parents of a dead foetusConviction and sentence of life imprisonment by Courts below-On appeal,
held: Jn the facts of the case conviction and sentence justified-This is a rarest.
of rare cases.
E
Section 3 75-Rape-Charge of-Consent of prosecutrix taken by deceitful
manner and under threat-Held: The charge of rape would fall within the
definition of the Section-Consent obtained by deceitful means and under
threat is no consent.
F
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
Section 31-Sentences of life imprisonment-Direction by trial Court to
run consecutively-Validity of-:-Held: Direction of consecutive sentence of
life imprisonment is valid-The term 'imprisonment' occurring in Section 31
G would include sentence of life imprisonment- Sentencing.
H
Section 160-Examination of prosecutrix in the Police Station-After
removing them from the place of occurrence i.e. from the clutches of accusedHeld: Such examination not violative of the Section-The provision should be
understood in the context of the situation that the prosectrix were removed
182
KAMALANANTHA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
183
from the place of occurrence for their safety and serve the interest of Justice. A
Sections 218, 464 and 465~Violation of provision under Section 218Curability of-Held· Violation of the provision under Section 218 is not cm
illegality, but is misjoinder of charges, an irregularity-Hence curable ulss.
464 and 465 provided no failure of justice had occasioned thereby.
Criminal Trial :
B
Evidence of Prosecutrix-Evidentiary value of-Heid: Evidence of
prosecutrix, if inspires confidence, conviction can be founded :Jn her testimony
alone unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration-Her
evidence is more reliable than that of injured witness-Minor contradictions C
and insignificant discrepancies in her statement should not be a ground for
throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case.
The allegation was that Accused-I a Swami in the Ashram,
systematically abetted by A-2, A-4, A-6, A-7 and 'D' the absconded D
accused had raped 13 Ashram girls PWs 3 to 15 and PW-55, on several
occasions. Most of the victim girls except PWs 4 and 6 were orphans
brought from Sri Lanka. They were entirely dependent on A-1. A-1 had
control over the prosecutrix physically, mentally and spiritually. Four of
the accused were below 16 years of age when they were raped. Many of
the girls had to undergo abortion. A-1 was also alleged to have murdered E
one 'R' with the help of A-2, A-40 A-6 and A-7 in April, 1991 by beating
him and confining him to the Kudil without food and water, because he
was shouting in the Ashram that A-1 was having sex with Ashram girls.
'R' had been brought to the Ashram in July, 1990. A-1 was also alleged
to have cheated one 'M' inducing him to part with the money.
F
PW-3 prosecutrix and PW-16 another inmate with the help of one
of her relatives, and with the assistance of a Woman Organisation came
out of the Ashram on 31.10.1994. Till 15.11.1994 no complaint was lodge~.
A news item in this respect dated 15.11.1994 appeared in 'The Indian
Express'. On 17.11.1994 PW-3 lodged a complaint (Exbt.P-25) and a case G
was registered u/ss. 142 and 376 IPC. By an order dated 19.11.1994, the
case was handed over to C.B.C.l.D. The prosecutrix were examined in
women Police Station. On medical examination of all the prosectrix, the
hymen was found not intact. The potency of A-1 was also established,
Investigating Officer seized amongst other things two new packets of
'Nirodh' from the kudil of the·absconded accused in the Ashram. H
184
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2005] 3 S.C.R.
A Prosecution examined 62 witnesses. None of them turned hostile. All the
prosecutrix, in their evidence, stated that A-1 had raped them on many
occasions; that pregnancy of many of them was terminated by A-1, A-3
and the absconded accused; that A-1 had threatened the prosecutrix not
to disclose his assault; that because of fear of him they had not disclosed
full truth before the Magistrate. PW-59 stated that after DNA test of AB 1 and PW-14 prosecutrix, they were·found to be biological parents of the
dead foetus. PW-14 stated that due to fear of A-1, she did not tell the truth
to Magistrate but when the police beat them, she told that A-1 raped them.
Trial Court relied on the prosecution witnesses and rejected the evidence
of defence witnesses. Three of the DWs were declared perjury. Trial Court
C convicted A-1 u/ss. 120-8, 376(2)(c), (12 counts), 354 (one count), 302, 343,
506 Part II, (2 counts) IPC and acquitted him of charge u/s. 420 IPC. A2 was convicted u/ss. 1208, 376 r/w 109, 302 r/w 34, 343, 201r/w114 and
506 Part II (2 counts) IPC. A-5 was convicted u/s. 120 8 IPC. A-6 was
convicted u/s.1208, 376 r/w 109, 304, 201 r/w. 304 and 506 Part II (2
counts) IPC. A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7 were sentenced to
D imprisonment for life and fine with default Clause. A-3 was sentenced to
imprisonment for 2 years, 7 months and 2 days and fine with default
clause. Trial Court ordered the sentence of A-1 and 2 to run consecutively·
subject to prov~so (a) to Section 31. It also ordered that any remission mf
sentence or amnesty on any special occasions announced or to be
E announced either by Central or State Government shall not apply to th1e
sentence to the accused.
Habeas Corpus petition was filed by detenues in High Court. On the ·
examination of detenues no complaint of coersion or torture was made~
against the police. High Court in appeal, confirmed the conviction and
F sentence of the accused. A-3 served out her sentence and A-5 died during
pendency of appeal before High Court.
In appeal to this court, appellants contended that the charge of rape
did not fall within ambit of Section 375 IPC inasmuch as some of the
victims had consented to have sexual intercourse with A-1; that there was
G breach of Section 160 Cr.P.C. as the victim girls were examined in Women
Police Stations; that the charge is framed in contravention of Section 218
Cr.P.C. and the same being illegal cannot be cured either u/ss. 464 or 465
Cr.P.C.; that the victim girls were tortured and beaten by the Police as
was evident from statement oi\" PW-14; that conspiracy was hatched against
H A-1 and victim girls were with C.8.C.l.D. right from 1.11.1994; and that
---
--
-
KAMALANANTHA v. ST ATE OFT AMIL NADU
185
the term 'imprisonment' enjoined in Section 31 Cr.P.C. does not include A
imprisonment for life.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1.1. There is no infirmity or perversity either in Trial Court
or High Court judgment in recording the concurrent findings. by B
appreciating the evidence adduced. It is trite law that the prosecutrix is
not an accomplice. The evidence of victim of sexual assault, if inspires
confidence, conviction .can be founded on her testimony alone unless there
are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. Her evidence is more
reliable than that of injured witness. In a case of sexual assault
corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance is not a requirement of . C
law but a guidance of prudence. Examining the testimony of prosecutrix
in the background, and in tlte facts and circumstances of this case, the
testimony of prosecutrix inspires confidence, on the basis of which alone
conviction can be safely sustained. Moreover, in th~ instant case the
statements of the prosecutrix are well corroborated by medical and other D
contemporaneous documents. It is also well established principle of law
that minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement
of the prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise
reliable prosecution case. (214-E-G]
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Ors., (1996) 2 SCC 384, referred E
to.
1.2. The prosecutrix were subjected to incisive cross-examination.
However, no material could be brought out to discredit the creditworthiness of the statement-in-chief. From the facts of the prosecution as
disclosed most of the victim girls were orphans brought from Srilanka. F
A-1 provided them food, clothes and shelter. They were entirely dependent
on A-1 for their survival. Once they were thrown out by A-1 they had no
alternative place to stay. A-I had dominion control over the prosecutrix
physically, mentally and spiritually. In fact, many of them believed that
A-1 is God to them. It is in these circumstances, there is no reason why G
the prosecutrix should depose falsely against A-1 who was the source of
their survival physically, mentally and spiritually, by providing shelter,
food and clothes to them. (214-B-D)
1.3. This case has more than one rarest of rare circumstances. It is
rare that A-1, supposed to be incarnation of God and allegedly having H
186
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2005] 3 S.C.R.
A divine powers has been alleged of raping 13 of Ashram girl~ systematically
and murder of'R'. It is rare that out of62 prosecution witnesses examined,
none of them turned hostile.His rare that in an institution like Ashram,
the Investigating Officer seized amongst other things two new packets of
Nirodh from the kudil of 'D' the absconded accused, in the Ashram.
B
[217-B)
2.1. The charge of rape leveled against A-1 falls within the definition
of Section 375 I.P.C. It is in the evidence of the prosecutrix, that consent
of.many of the prosecutrix has been obtained by deceitful means or some
of the girls have been raped under threat of dire consequences. A-1 had
C dominion control over the Ashram girls and most of them are orphans
and no alternative place to go. Therefore it clearly falls within the thirdly
clause of Section 375 IPC. Furthermore, if the consent is obtained by
deceitful means or under threat of death or hurt, it is no consent at all
and it is without her consent. This apart, under sixthly clause the consent
is immaterial when she is under 't6 years of age. PWs. 6, 8, 9, 10 were
D below 16 years of age when they were raped by A-1. (217-C; 218-C-D)
2.2. A-1 was ·charged under Section 376(2)(c) IPC and convicted .
under that Section. The charge under Section 376(2)(c) was never
challenged by A-1. (218-E)
E
3:There is no breach of Section 160 Cr.P.C. All the victim girls were
the inmates of the Ashram. They were raped by A-1 in the Ashram, who
had dorninion control over the Ashram. The victim girls were being
threatened not to disclose to anybody about the misdeeds of A-1 or face
the dire consequences including the threat of death. In such circumstances,
F the Ashram cannot ,f>e the place for the purposes of examination under
Section 160 Cr.P.C. and the victim girls were rightly examined and
interrogated in Women Police Stations. They were ·removed from the
Ashram to erase the fear psychosis from them. It was for the safety and
to serve the ittterest of justice, they were removed from the clutches of At.. Section 160 Cr.P.C. must be understood and appreciated in the context
G of given situati<rn. (218-H; 219-B)
4.1. Section 218 Cr.P.C. is under the Heading- "Joinder of Charges".
Therefore, if joinder of charges is in contravention of procedure prescribed
under Section 218, it would be misjoinder of charges. Misjoinder of charges
is not an illegality but an irregularity curable under Section 464 or Section
H 465 Cr.P.C. provided no failure of justice had occasioned thereby. Whether
.-...
KAMALANANTHA v. ST ATE OFT AMIL NADU
187
or not the failure of justice had occasioned thereby, it is the duty of the A
Court to see, whether an accused had a fair trial, whether he knew what
he was being tried for, whether the main facts sought to be established
against him were explained to him fairly and clearly and whether he was
given a full and fair chance to defend himself. [219-E-F; 222-D-E]
W. Slaney v. State of MP., AIR (1956) SC H6, distinguished.
B
Birichh Bhuian v. State of Bihar, [1963) Supp. 2 SCR 328; State of
Andhra Pradesh v. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao, [1964) 3 SCR 297 and
State of West Bengal v. Laisal Haque, [1989) 3 SCC 166, relied on.
4.2. In the tacts of the case that the accused was represented by a C
very senior and abled criminal lawyer; that all the prosecution witnesses
were subjected to incisive cross-examination; the accused put up 49 defence
witnesses; that in his cross-examination under Section 313 altogether 445
questions were put to him, affording an opportunity to explain all th~
circumstances appearing against him, no failure of justice has occasioned. D
(222-F-G)
5.1. The statement of PW-14 that she gave the statement after they
were beaten by the Police, must be examined in the context and under
the facts and circumstances, in which it has been stated. Keeping in view
the trauma and agony suffered by all the victim girls at the hands of A-1, E
it is expected that the victim girls were reluctant to disclose the misdeeds
of A-1 for fear of reprisals. In the context of the statement of PW-14, High
Court held that so called beating could have meant to shake-off their
inhibition and fear, to make them free to say what they wanted to say. In,
the given facts and circumstances of this case, beating will mean to remove
the fear psychosis and to come out with truth. [223-C-E; 225-A-B)
F
5.2. In the Habeas Corpus Petitions, when the detenus were examined
by the Judges of High Court in Chamber all of them specifically stated
that no coersion or. torture was meted out to them by police and that they
were not ill treated or illegally confined. The detenus - PWs 7, 8 and 10 G
told the Judges that A-1 had tried to lure them by offering money and
marriage with suitable groo~s.
6. The allegation that the victim girls were with C.B. CI.D right from
1.11.1994 is belied by the documents. The theory of conspiracy hatched
against A-1 is, therefore, demolished. (225-D-EJ
H
188
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2005] 3 S.C.R.
A
7. As per the evidence of PW-59, A-1 and PW-14 were the biological
parents of the dead foetus. Both the trial court and the High Court have
correctly appreciated the evidence of PW-59. The evidence of DW-49 a
private·medical consultant has been rejected for good reasons by the High
Court. [228-B-C]
B
8. Both the courts have rightly rejected the testimonies of the defence
witnesses on the ground that they are blind followers of Swami and their
testimony also do not inspire confidence. DWs. 10, 31 and 33 have been
declared perjury by the trial court. [228-F)
C
9.1. From the statement of eye witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 1, 3, 5, 8, 11, 16,
17 und 18, the prosecution has clearly established its case that the deceased
died out of the injuries caused by A-1 and A-2 and subs~quent confinement
and starvation accelerated his death. The homicidal death of the deceased
due to beating and starvation is corroborated by medical evidence of
P. W.46 and Serology Report. [230-A-B)
D
E
9.2. The plea that during the period the deceased stayed in the
Ashram there was no allegation of rape against A-1, is factually incorrect.
As per evidence of P.W.13, P.W.14 and P.W.5. A-1 had forcibly sex with
them during the period the deceased had stayed in the Ashram.
[229-B-C)
10.1. It cannot be said that the term 'imprisonment' enjoined in
Section 31 Cr.P.C. does not include imprisonment for life. The term is not
defined under Cr.P.C. Section 31 falls under Chapter III which deals with
power of Courts. Section 28 Cr.P.C. empowers the High Court to pass any
F sentence authorized by law. Similarly, Sessions Judge and Additional
Sessions Judge may pass any sentence authorized by law, except the
sentence of death which shall be subject to confirmation by High Court.
Hence, the term 'imprisonment' would include the sentence of
imprisonment of life. [30-G-H; 231-A)
G
10.2. Having regard to the amplitude of the gravity of the offence,
perpetrated in an organized and systematic manner, the nature of the
offence and its deleterious effects not only against the victims, but the
civilized society at large, needs to be curbed by a strong judicial hand.
The sentence and conviction as recorded by the Trial Court and confirmed
by the High Court is confirmed .. The order of the Trial Court that any
H remission of sentence or amnesty on any special occasions announced or
-
KAMALANANTHA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [SEMA, J.]
189
to be announced be either by the Central or the State Government shall A
not apply to the sentence and imprisonment imposed on all the accused is
also maintained. [231-B-DJ
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 611612 of 2003.
Form the Judgment and Order dated 12.l~.2002 of the Madras High
Court in Crl. A. Nos. 896 and 897 of 1997.
Ram Jethmalani, Ms. Lata Krishnamurthy, Balaji Srinivasan, K. Karthick,
B
Ms. D. Revathi, Ms. P.R. Mala, Kovid Mishra, Ananda Padnabhan, V. Sudeer,
Sooriya Kumaren, Vivek Reddy, S. Sachin, Riju Raj Jamwal, M.B.R.S. Raju, C
Ms. Sailaja, Ms. S. Sunita and S. Srinivasan with him for .the Appellants.
Sushi! Kumar, C. Mani Shankar, Abhay Kumar, R. Gopalakrishnan,
Subramonium Prasad, Adolf Mathew, Vinay Arora, Sanjay Jain and V. Senthil
Kumar for the Respondent.
Ms. Kamini Jaiswal and Ms. Shomila Bakshi for Complainant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
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. E
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
Nos.
under
Section
- (I)
(2)
I.
120 (B)
l.P.C.
2.
376(2)(c)
l.P.C. (12
Counts)
Accused
(3)
A-1 to A-7
A-I
Sentence of Imprisonment/
F
Fine imposed.
(4)
No Separate sentence.
Imprisonment for Life and to
pay a fine of Rs. 5,10,000 on
each count. In default,
G
Rigorous Imprisonment for a
further period of Two years H
190
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2005] 3 S.C.R.
A
and Six months. (Total Fine
rs. 61,20,000. Imprisonment
for life on each count is to
run concurrenUy.
3.
376 r/w
A-2, A-4,
Imprisonment for Life on
B
109 I.P.C.
A-6 & A-7
each accused. Rigorous
A-3
Imprisonment for Two years,
7 months and 2 days (period
of sentence already
undergone) and to pay a fine
c
of Rs. 10,000. In default,
Rigorous Imprisonment for a
further period of 3 months.
4 ..
354 I.P.C ..
A-I
No separate Sentence.
'(one Count)
D
5.
312 l.P.C.
A-3
Rigorous Imprisonment for
(Four Counts)
Two.Years, 7 Months and 2
Days (period.of sentence
already undergone) and to
pay a Fine of Rs. 5,000 on
E
each count. In default,
Rigorous Imprisonment .for a
further period of 45 Days.
(Total Fine Rs. 20,000)
6.
302 l.P.C.
A-1
Imprisonment of life and to
F
pay a Fine of Rs. 10,000. In
default, Rigorous
Imprisonment for a further
period of 3 months.
302 r/w
A-2
Imprisonment for Life and to
G
34 1.P.C.
pay a Fine of Rs. 10,000. In
default, Rigorous
Imprisonment for a further
period of 3 Months;
H
KAMALANANTHA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [SEMA. J.)
191
A
7.
304 1.P.C.
A-4 A-6
Imprisonment of Ten years
and A-7
and to pay a fine of Rs.
10,000 In default, rigorous
imprisonment for a further
period of 3 Months on each
accused.
B
8.
343 l.P.C.
A-1, A-2,
No separate sentence.
A-6 to A-7
9.
201 r/w
A-6 & A-7
For each accused, ~igorous
304 l.P.C.
Imprisonment for One year c
and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500
In default, Rigorous
Imprisonment for a further
period of one month. (R.I.
For one year is to run
D
concurrently with the
sentence under Charge 7).
IO.
201 r/w
A-2
Rigorous imprisonment for
114 l.P.C.
one year and to pay a fine of
Rs. 2,500 In default,
E
rigorous imprisonment for a
further period of one month.
(R.I. for one year is to run
concurrently with the
sentence under Charge 6).
F
11.
506 (Part II)
A-1, A-2,
No separate sentence.
t.P.C. (2
A-4, A-6
Counts)
and A-7
12.
420 l.P.C
A-I
Acquitted.
G
1st Accused: The sentence imposed on A-1 on charge Nos. 2 and 6
are to run consecutively. Total fine on A-I is Rs. 61,30,000 (Rs.
61,20,000 + Rs. l0,000). Sentences imposed on A-I in default of
payment of fine on each count are to run separately and consecutively
H
192
A
B
c
D
E
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2005] 3 S.C.R. . ·
apart from the above sentence of imprisonments. In default o( payment.
of fine, Total further sentence to undergo; 32-1/2 years + 3 months.
2n~ Accused: The sentences imposed on A-2 on Charge Nos. 3 and
6 are to run consecutively. Total fine on A-2 Rs. 12,500 (Rs. 10,000
+ Rs. 2,500). The Sentences imposed on A-2 in default of payment
of fine is to run consecutively apart from the above sentenced of·
imprisonments.
4th Accused: The sentence of imprisonment of Charge Nos. 3 and
are to run concurrently. Fine amount on A-4: Rs. 10,000 The sentenc~
of imprisonment imposed in default of payment of fine js to run
separately.
....
~
...
Accused 6 and 7: The sentence of impfisonmen!.imposed on each of
these Accused on Charge Nos. 3 and 7 are to run concurrently. Total ·
Fine Rs. 12,500 each (Rs. 12,500 X 2 =Rs. 25,000). The sentence of
imprisonment imposed in default of payment of fine is to run separately
and consecutively.
Total fine on A-1 to A~ 7
Rs. 62,07 ,SOO
Out of the payment ~ffine~fis. S l,30,000 collected from A-1 under
Sec. 357(1) a (3) Cr.P.C., a compen$ation of Rs. 5,00.000 is. to be
pai
..., each of the victim girls, P.W.3 Sureskumari; P.W.4 Nallammal;
P.W.5 Princy, P.W.6 Mary; P.W.7 Selvakumari@ Manjula:; P.W.8
Sugunakumari @ Sudha; P.W.9 Pushparani; P.W.10 Saikumari @
Jaya P.W.12 Udayakumari;P.W.13 Vanitha; P.W.14 Aruljothi and
P.W.15 Malligadevi (rs. 5,00,000 X 12 ==Rs. 60,00,000.
f
ACCUSED RELATED:
Accused No. 2 is the Secretary o'r A-1, A-6 is the younger brother of .
A- I and A-7 is the adopted son of A-1.
The facts of this case, as revealed by the prosecution, shocked the
G judicial conscience. It illustrate a classic e)(ample as to how the insatiable lust
for sex of A- I Swami Premananda. leads to the raping of '13 Ashram girls
and murder- of one Ravi. The Ashram which is supposed to be God abode
turned out to be devil's workshop. A-1 to whom the inmates of the ~shram
regarded as God having the divine power turned out to be a monster. It is a
classic case of betrayal of fatherly and divinely trust of the inmates of
H
. :
~ .
-
_,
KAMALANANTHA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [SEMA, J.]
193
the Ashram girls who were mostly orphans and destitutes, brought from A
Srilanka except PW-4 Nallammal and PW.-6 Mary.
The facts of the case also illustrate .a classic example as to how a game~
keeper has become a poacher or a treasury guard h~s become a robber. From
the facts as disclosed by the prosecution, some of the ·victim girls were
brought up by A-1 since when they were aged about. 2, 3 and 6 years. They B
were reared to be butchered later when they·attained the age.
The prosecution case was set in motion pursuant to the news item
appeared in "The Indian Express" dated 15.11.1994 under the caption, "Tale
of the two who were able to get away" (Ex.D.29) followed by a complaint, C
Ex.P-25 dated 16.11.1994 given by R. Sureshkumari@ Baby (PW-3) to the
Inspector of Police, Viralimalai has laid the foundation for the case of rape
of 13 girls and one murder in an ashram near Tiruchirappalli. In that brief
complaint, Sureshkumari has state4 that she joined the Premananda Swami
Ashram, Mathalai, Sri Lanka when she was six years of age. She was taken
to India by the Swami along with 12 other girls in the year 1984 when the D
ashram ·was formed at Tiruchy. She had alleged that she was subjected to
sexual harassment by the Swami four times even before she attained puberty
at the age of 13 and that she was raped within a inonth on her attaining
puberty by the Swami by threat and by beating her with stick. Unable to
withstand this torture, she left the ashram at the age of 14 and came to E
Madras, but she was caught by the police and sent back to the ashram. Inspite
of her complaint to her mother, she di~ not come forward to help her and she
had to suffer the torture in the ashram as she had no other place to go. She
came to know from some inmates of the ashram that Premananda h:>.d not
only raped her, but also n;iany other girls in the ashram, and she recorded
their conversation in a cassette. In these circumstances, she approached one F
of her relatives, Anand Mohan who helped her and Latha, another inmate, to
come out of the ashram to Chennai, with the assistance of a Women
Organisation. In the ashram, Premananda would not allow them to talk freely
to others and they were compelled to undergo this ordeal. Divya Devi knew
all this and wrui abetting the misdeeds of the Swami. Ultimately, unable to G
. . bear the torture, she left the ashram on l.l t.1'994, but could not gather the
courage to give a police complaint However, with the assistance and
encouragement given by the All Indian Women Democratic Association and
in order to see that other girls also were not subjected to the same fate, she
had come forward to expose the misdeeds of the &wami and the suffering
undergone by her even at the cost of her dignity and modesty. She had stated H
194
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2005] 3 S.C.R.
A that many girls had to undergo .abortion because of the rapes committed on
them by the Swami. She had alleged. that one Balan had acted as a pimp for
the Swami. She had requested for an appropriate action against the Swami,
Divya Devi and Balan. The subsequent news report on these allegations was
followed by the registration of a crime investigation, enquiry, seizure of
B incriminating documents, materials, evidenc.e and filing of .charge sheet.
The prosecutrix raped .by A-1 systematically abetted by A-2, A-4, ~-
6 and A-7 are P.W.3 Sureshkumari, P.W.4 Nallammal, P.W.5 Princy, P.W.6
Mary, P.W.7 Selvakumari@ Manjula, P.W.8 Sugunakumari@ Sudha, P.W.9
Purshparani, P.W.IO Sasikumari @ Jaya, P.W.ll Shantha, P.W.12
C Udayakumari, P;W.13 Vanitha, P.W.14 Aruljothi, P.W.15 Mallikadevi and
P.W.55 Krishnaveni.
Most of the rapes committed on the victims .as disclosed by the
prosecution story are inside the Kudil of A-1. The modus operandi of A-1
abetted by other accused are that although there were 200-300 boys in the,
D Ashram, A-1 used the girls to put on the night watch around his Kudil,
Arulvakku Room, Dharmasala .and other plac.es. The victims tolerated the
. beastly assault of A-I .as they were orphans .and totally .dependent on A-1
· Ashram for their food and shelter .and they had no alternative place to go if
they made complaint to .the police or to the .outside world. The evidence
E disclosed that A-2, A-4, A-6 .and A-7 were .abetting the commission of rape
by A-I by threatening the victims not to reveal the rape committed on them
by A-1.
BACKGROUND FACTS:
F
The facts of this case are cumbersome. To avoid prolixity we may refer
to few facts to appreciate the controversy in proper perspective. A-1 called
Swami Premananda was running an orphanage in the name ofBoopalakrishna
Ashram, Mathalia at Srilanka. Due to the ethnic violence in the region A-1
came over to India in the year 1984. 12 young Tamil girls and a few women,
who were in the Ashram in Sri Lanka, were also brought to Tiruchy by boat.
G Initially, A-1 set up an Ashram ,in a rented building at Tiruchy and later
-
established a big institution at Fathima Nagar in the year 1989 in a sprawling·
__.
space spread over rt early 150 acres. The Ashram consists of residence, kudil,
eating place, school, etc. The boys and girls mostly orphans, were staying in
the Ashram. There are separate hostels for the stay, education and training
H for boys, girls and women. Besides, the Ashram has 5 acres of flower plants,
--
--
-
KAMALANANTHA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [SEMA, J.]
195
5 acres of tamarind plantation, mango trees plantation, 300 coconut trees, 90 A
acres of cashew plantation, I acre of jackfruit plantation, l 0 acres of teak
wood, I acre of lime trees and 2 acres of guava trees. The Ashram has its
·branches at U.K., Switzerland, Belgium and many other countries.
BACKGROUND OF THE VICTIM GIRLS :
B
As already noticed except P.W.4 Nallammal and P.W.6 Mary1 all other
victims are Srilankan. Most of them were orphans and were left in the Ashram
when they were small children. All of them were dependent on the first
accused for food, shelter and other basic needs. All the victim girls were
under the complete mercy and control of A-1 and the other accused. They C
were warned and threatened not to disclose to anybody about the misdeeds
of A-1. If they were turned out from the Ashram they had no place to stay
and therefore they had tolerated the cruel assault of rape on them for so long.
They were like mouse before the cat. Who will bell the cat?
A comparative chart as to particulars of the victim girls of rape as D
recited by the High Court is being reproduced, which speaks for itself.
Name, Age and
Rank
Relatives in
the Ashram
Sureshkumari
Sister PW720/1994
P.W.3 Sri
Lankan
Selvakumari
@ Manjula,
PW 8 -
Sugunakumari
@ Sudha,
PWlO
Sasikumari
@Jaya and
daughter of
DW32 -
Deivanai
Instances of
Instances of
rape
abortion
committed
and the period
l) 1985 before
Nil
attaining
puberty, at
residential
house at
Crapatti,
Tiruchy.
2) July 1987
in Al's room
3) July 1987
in Al's room
4) November
1991 in Al's
bedroom at l
p.m.
Statement
made u/s
161(3) and
164 Cr.P.C.
E
Ex.P25 refers
to the
instances of
rape
committed on F
her by Al
G
H
196
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2005] 3 S.C.R.
r
A
Nallammal
I) May 94 at
Abortion
Ex.P27
21/1994
I t.30 am in ·
conducted
(Accident ·
P.W.4 Native
the Arulvakku
by Dr.
Register):
of
Room
Muthulakshmi Contact with
Pallathupatty,
2) May 94 at
some time in known
B
Keeranur,
12.30 p.m. in
Oct. 94.
person,
Tamil Nadu.
Al's room
PW2-Nesan
willingly;
3) May 94 at
was asked
milk
2.30pm at
to bear·
secretion
'Dharmasala.
responsibility complete
4) May 94 at
for the
abortion.
c
· Dharmasala
conception
Ex.DJ (u/s
(u/s 164):
Admits
sexual
intercourse
D
with Al and
money given
by Al for
abortion.
Princy,
Sister of
l) 1986 at
Missed her
Ex.P.36
E
20/1994,
PW2-Nesan
lodge in
periods 2-3
(Accident
PW.5 Sri
and PWl8
Courtallam at
times; taking Register):
Lank an
Dinesan
I p.m.
the
Coitus with
2) July 90,
abortifacients working,
days after
given by A-3 person
Guru Pumima
willingly
F
pooja at 11
Hymen not
pm in Al's
intact
room.
&.D2 (uls
3) 1992, a
164): Refer
month after
to Al's
G
name
the 3rd
incident at 5
and four
___..
am.
instances of
4) 1993 in
rape
lodge at
commencng
H
Thanjavur.
from 1992.
-
KAMALANANTHA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (SEMA, J.]
197
5) on
A
17.4.1994.
Mary,
I) 1993 in the
Missed her
Ex.P35
16/1994
Pomegranate
period once
(Accident
PW.6 Native
Garden, 4
and
Register):
of Venniayaru
days
abortifacients Shows
B
Estate,
thereafter at
given by A3
Hymen Not
Madurai.
the
and Divva
intact; as per
Dharmasala
Devi
physical
examination,
age 16
years:
c
As per
EX.P46, Age
Certificate,
completed
16 years
D.
on 2.11.94.
Ex.DJ (11/s
164) Refers
to sexual
intercourse
by force by
E
Al at the
age of 13
in the
room near
Dhannasala
F
at 1.30 pm.
Immediately
after
Christmas.
Sivakumari
Elder sister of I) May 94 in
Nil
Hymen not
G
@Manjula,
PW3 & sister
Al's room.
intact.
22/1994,
of PW3 8 &
2) October 94
Ex.D4 (u/s
P.W.7,
JO related to
at 4 pm in
164):
Sri Lankan.
Al as their
Al's room.
Refers to
father's
3) Refers to
sexual
H
198
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2005] 3 S.C.R.
A
•
brother.
forced
intercourse
perverted oral
With Al
s.ex by AL
willingly
once.
Sugunakumari
I) in 1993, 2-3
Nil
Ex.P37
B
@Sudha,
months after
(Accident
16/1994,
she attained
Register):
PW 8,
puberty Al
Not a virgin
Sri Lankan
had sexual
accustomed
intercourse in
to sexual
his room.
intercourse.
c
2) September
As per
94 in the
Ex.P48,
Arulvakku
Age
Room.
Certificate,
3) September
completd 18
D
94 in the
years as
Arulvakku
on 22.11.94.
Room ..
Ex.D5
(u/s.164):
Refers to
_,.
sexual
E
intercourse
by Al
forcibly.
Pushparani
Sister of
I) 1992 at
Nil Ex.P.33
16/1994,
PW 17
1.30 am in the
Accident
F
P.W.9,
Pooja room.
Register):
Sri Lankan
2) 1994 at
Had affair
11.30 am in
with a
the
working
Dharmasala
person for I
room.
year; as per
G
3) in 1994, 2
her own
days prior to
statement
Deepavali in
and physical
Al's room.
examination,
aged 16. As
H
per Ex~P49,
not
KAMALANANTHA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [SEMA, J.]
199
completed
A
16 years.
Statement
(u/s) 164):
Refers
forcible
B
sexual
intercourse
by Al when
she
was 14 years
old.
c
Sasikumari @
Twin sister
l) In 1993, 15
Nil
Ex.P37
Jaya, 16/1994
of PW8 &
days after she
(Accident
PW.IO
Younger
attained
Register):
sister of
puberty in
Hymen not
PWs.
Al's room.
intact. As
3 & 7.
per her own
D
statement &
physical
,_
examination,
she is 16
years old.
E
As per
Ex.PSO, age
certificate
she has not
completed
F
16 years as
on 22.11.94.
Ex.D6
(uls 164):
Refers
sexual
G
intercourse
with a
known
person.
Shantha,
Sister of
I) November
Nil
Ex.P39
34/1994
PW13
91 first sexual
(Accident
H
.....
200
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2005] 3 S.C.R.
A
P.W.11
Vanitha
intercourse by
Register):
Sri Lankan
Al who made·
Sexual
her to agree
contact with
@ 4 pin -
known male
Arulvakku
person.
B
.room.
Hymen not
2) Nov.92 in
intact.
Visitors'
Ex.D7
Room against
(11/s. I 64):
her wish.
Refers to
3) November
sexual
c
93 in Divya
intercourse
Devi's room
with Al on
against her
consent in
wish.
1991; without
consent in
D
l9.92; without
consent in
1993.
Udayakumari
Sister of
May 1993Nil
Ex. P.40
2111994,
PW 15forcible
(Accident
~
P.W.12,
Malligadevi
intercourse by
Register):
E
Sri Lankan
&DW29
Al in the
Hymen - not
Kanthan
garden;
intact;
accustomed to
Refers to
torture meted
the sexual
out to her by
intercourse.
confining her
No
F
in the dog's
Statement
Kennel.
Ills. 164
Cr.P.C.
recorded.
Vanitha,
Younger
I) June 91
I'' one at.
. Ex. P57
G .. 21/1994, .
·sister of
while sieeping
Dr.Gomathi's . .(Accident·
PW.13,
PWll -
in Al's kudil.
Hospital@
Register):
Sri Lankan.
Shantha
2) July 92
Thanjavur.
Contact with
Sa~urday at 3
~known
pm in Ai's
2nd one at
person for
bedroom.
Athi Hospital niore than
H
3) October 94
Speaks Of 2
four years.
KAMALANANTHA v. ST;\TE OF TAMIL NADU [SEMA, J.]
201
-
A
at 11 am in
forcible
Last
Al's room.
sexual
abortion
2 years back
intercourse
at Tanjore.
even as
MTP done
informed Al twice.
B
that doctor
had told her
Statem·ent
that her uterus u/s 164
was very
Cr.P.C.
weak
Refers sexual c
contact with
twice and
abortion
twice.
Aruljothi
I) 1991 in
I)
Ex.D9
2111994,
Al's room at
Abortifacients (Accident
D
PW.14,
I pm.
given by
Register):
Sri Lankan
2) One month
Divya Devi &
thereafter, A I
A3 in 1991.
Contact with
had forcible
sexual
2) Second
a known
E
intercourse in
abortion. at .
per~on f~r 5 .
Al's room
A3's instance years.
even while
by taking
she was
tablets.
Ex.DJO
bleeding after
(uls 164):
F
taking
abortifacients.
I) Refers to
.. 3) On
3 sexual
14.11.94 in
intercourse
Al's room.
by Al, 2
months after
G
attaining
puberty.
2) Second
sexual
intercourse
in Al' room.
H
202
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2005] 3 S.C.R.
-
A
Missed her
period and
took
abortifacient
Next day,
B
after
publication
of news,
refers to
the forcible
c
sexual
intercourse
by Al and
refers to the
conception
D
and her
request for
tennination
of
pregnancy.
E
Malligadevi,
Sister of
1) April 92 at
Nil
ExP32
20/1994,
PW12 •
2 pm. in Al's
(Accident
P.W.15,
Udayakumari
room
Register):
Sri Lankan
& 029
2) On 18.11.94
Hymen· not
(_
Kanthan
intact.
F
Ex.PI 33 (uls
164):
Refers to the
forcible
sexual
G
· intercourse
by Al after
she attained
puberty by
persuading
her that she
H
-
KAMALANANTHA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [SEMA, J.]
203
would be
A
Krishnaveni.
23/1994,
PW.55 Sri
Lankan
. Latha,
30/1994
P.W.16
I) January 94
at 3 pm in
the room of
PW.55
2) August 94
at 12 noon in
Al's room.
3) September
94 at night
watch in Al's
room.
on' her refusal
the first time
she was tied
to calf made
to run along
with it$
tortured for
her adamancy.
Not raped by
Al, but speaks
· about the rape
of Sureshkumari,
PW3 by Al
1987 arid
Vanitha, PW
13 in June,
1991
Nil
cured of
asthma in
Al's room.
Not included
in the
charge.
B
c
D
E
F
From the statements of the victim girls made. under Section 164 Cr.P.C. G
as summarized above, it is seen that :
(a) P.Ws, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, I I, I3, I4 and IS have named A-I and his
forcible rape on. them :
(b) P.Ws. 7 and I I (once) have stated to have consented for sexual
intercourse with A-I; and
H
A
204
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2005] 3 S.C.R.
(c)
P.W.10 has admitted forcible rape by a known person :
ACTIVITIES OF ASHRAM :
Religious discourses were performed by A-I in the Ashram. He used
to give hoiy water at the time of "abhishekam" which is believed to have a
B. healing power and the "viboothi" and manjal were also used as substances
for healing disease. A-I used to produce "lingams" and viboothi during the
nights of Mahasivarathri.
c
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
D call her to his room, made her to sit on his lap and used to kiss her and give
her sweets. This happened three times in 1985. On the fourth occasion, Al called her to a separate room, removed her dress and squeezed her breast
hard to the pain of P.W.3, thereafter he pushed her on the bed and tried to
have sexual intercourse forcibly. She attained puberty in the year 1987 .. She
E was confined in a room for nearly one month. After completion of one
month, A- I called her to his room on the pretext of giving viboothi (sacred
ash) in July, 1987. Thereafter, A-1 made her to sit on his lap, embraced her
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
F further said that since he is like he~ father she would not beget any children
even ifhe had sexual intercourse with her. P. W.3, however, managed to open
the doors and came away running. It was witnessed by P.W.16. After three
days at about 1.30 p.m. while P.W.J was standing outside, A-1 gave her a
signal to come. When P.W.3 went inside his room A-I locked the doors.
G Thereafter, P.W.3 was taken to his bedroom and inside his bedroom, inspite
of her attempt to escape, A-1 removed her dress and when she resisted Al slapped her and pushed her over the bed. When she shouted A-1 closed her
mouth, mounted on her and started squeezing her breasts and despite protest
A-1 had sexual intercourse with her. A-1 had sexual intercourse with her
three times in year 1987. P. W.3 further stated that at about l p.m. in November,
H 1991 A-1 had forcibly sex with her. She further said that since they were
-I
ll:
I
J ....
-
KAMALANANTHA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [SEMA, J.]
205
orphans and there was nobody else to take care of them, she did not disclose A
to anybody. A-1 had also threatened her that if she revealed this to anybody
she would be beaten.