Friday, January 07, 2005

Case against Kanchi seer falling apart

Legal Correspondent/ New Delhi

Behind the bars for over two months, Kanchi Shankaracharya Jayendra Saraswati may finally have something to cheer about.



During the hearing on his bail petition in the Sankararaman murder case in Supreme Court on Friday, it appeared as if the prosecution case was falling apart as seer's counsel FS Nariman hammered out glaring loopholes in the charges filed by the TN police on sources of money paid to the assailants.

After claiming it had clinching evidence against the seer, the prosecution maintained an embarrassing silence on the so-called confessional statement of the seer where he was alleged to have admitted his involvement in the crime. The State Government had first opposed the bail before the Madras High Court

During the arguments it also became clear that the police had not recorded any dying declaration of Sankararaman and its version was based on the statement of a witness.

Similarly, the TN police had alleged that the seer had a chopper ready to escape to Nepal. But during the course of hearing, the prosecution failed to identify the owner of the chopper.

After two days of marathon arguments, Chief Justice of India RC Lahoti and Justices GP Mathur and PP Naolekhar reserved judgment on the Kanchi seer's Special Leave Petition against rejection of his bail plea in the Sankararaman murder case by the Madras High Court. He has been in jail since November 12.

The seer on Friday has offered that in case he is granted bail, he is ready to give an undertaking that he will not visit the mutt till the investigating agency files the chargesheet. The State Police had alleged that as most of the witnesses in the case were employees of the mutt, granting of bail to the Sankaracharya would hinder the investigations.

Opening his arguments for the pontiff, senior counsel Fali Nariman said the High Court had erred in concluding that there was a bar on it granting bail to the seer. The HC judge was relying on a Supreme Court judgment last year in Pappu Yadav`s case.

Mr Nariman said the Pappu Yadav judgment cited by the Tamil Nadu Government was applicable only as far as the facts of that case went. Unlike the Sessions Court, by virtue of Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court had the power to grant bail to a person accused of an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment and it was important to note that bail is the rule and not jail.

Mr Nariman made light of the changing theories of the prosecution regarding the seer's role in paying the hired goons for the elimination of Sankararaman.

The prosecution, through senior advocate KTS Tulsi while opposing the bail in the past, had first stated that Rs 50 lakhs was withdrawn from three banks to pay the hired assassins but later changed the story to say the the money which was paid to the assassins came from a payment of Rs 50 lakh which was received from the sale of a land.

Producing the bank statements, Mr Nariman said the money received from the sale of land was deposited in the bank as far back as May 7, 2004 in two accounts of the seer, much before the murder of Sankararaman in September.

He said that the prosecution case was built on this piece of evidence which stood throughly demolished now.

Coming to the question of bail, Mr Nariman said though there were several "pujas" which required his presence in the mutt, the seer would not go to the mutt and the junior pontiff would take care of the rituals as "fortunately he had not been arrested till now".

Mr Tulsi, opposing the bail plea, said the prosecution has evidence in the form of a "dying declaration" of Sankararaman, who had a continuing tirade against the mutt and the seer's activities, implicating the pontiff in his murder as he had told a person a few months prior to his death that "if anything happened to him, the seer should be held responsible".

When the court asked did the deceased give it in writing to the police, the prosecution replied in the negative and said this was stated by the same person, who was now a witness in the murder case, before whom Sankararaman had said this.

No comments: