IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE

AT PUDUCHERRY

PRESENT: THIRU C.S.MURUGAN, M.A.,M.L.,
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE

Wednesday, the 27
th
day of November, 2013

Sessions Case No. 94 of 2005

(Cr.No. 914 of 2004 of B2-Vishnu Kanchi Police Station, Kanchipuram)


Names of the accused 1. Subramanian @ Jayendra Saraswathi
(70/04) S/o. Mahadeva Iyer, Erul Neeki,
Mannarkudi now at Sri Sankara Mutt, No.1,
Salai Street, Periya Kanchipuram

2. Sankaranarayanan @ Vijayendra
Saraswathi (35/04) S/o. M.Krishnamoorthy,
Sri Sankara Mutt, No.1, Salai Street, Periya
Kanchipuram

3. N.Sundaresan (67/04) S/o. S.P. Natesa
Sasthirigal, Manager, Sri Sankara Mutt, No.1,
Salai Street, Periya Kanchipuram

4. M.K.Raghu (29/04) S/o. M.Krishna
Moorthy, Sri Sankara Mutt, No.1, Salai Street,
Periya Kanchipuram

5. K.G.Krishnaswamy @ Appu (49/04), S/o.
K.G.Gopal Reddy, 5, IX Cross Road,
M.K.B.Nagar, Chennai

6. Kathiravan (32/04) (died on 21.3.2013) S/o.
Manickam, 9A, V.V.Giri Street, Sathiya
Garden, Saligramam, Chennai

7. Rajinikanth @ Chinna @ Rajinichinna
(29/04) S/o. P.Sugunan, 32/54, Jeevanantham
Street, G.K.M. Colony, Chennai

8. Ambigapathy @ Ambi (31/04) S/o.
Rajagopal, 14, Pillaiyar Koil St.,
Venkayamandi, Maduravoil, Chennai.

9. M.Bhaskar @ Madu Bhaskar (24/04) S/o.
Muthu, 26, Karunanithi Street, Annai Anjugam
Nagar, G.K.M. Colony, Chennai

10. K.S.Kumar (34/04) S/o. Shankar, 65,
Rajan Nagar Main Road, Kolathur, Chennai

11. Anandakumar @ Anand (22/04) S/o.
Chinnaian, 15, 37
th
street, G.K.M. Colony,
Villivakkam, Chennai
2

12. Anilkumar @ Anil (25/04) S/o. Dennis
Paul, 562/A, Saraswathi Nagar,
Thirumullaivoil, Chennai

13. Meenakshisundaram @ Sundar (32/04)
S/o. N.Veerasamu, 4/30, Palai Street, M.G.R.
Nagar, Chennai

14. R.T.Palani (36/04) S/o. Thandavarayan,
110, 7
th
Padasalai Street, Jaffarkanpet,
Chennai

15. Ravi @ Kuruvi Ravi (34/04) S/o.
Paramaguru, 27, Burma Colony,
Ekkattuthangal, Chennai

16. Arumugam (22/04) S/o. Palanisamy, 37,
2
nd
street, Jothi Nagar, Ekkattuthangal,
Chennai

17. Pandian @ Thil Pandian (22/04) S/o.
Thangavel, 80/26, Mugapair Road, Mannurpet,
Padi, Chennai

18. Satheesh (22/04), S/o. Krishna Murthy,
12, Panjaliamman Koil Street, Ambedkar
Nagar, Arumbakkam, Chennai

19. Devaraj (37/04), S/o. Anandan, 10/30, 30
th

Street, M.G.R. Street, Puttmedu, G.K.M.
Colony, Villivakkam, Chennai.

20. Arun (19/04), S/o. Umesh Balan, No.4,
Thanthai Periyar Kudil, Puttmedu, G.K.M.
Colony, Villivakkam, Chennai.

21. Arumugam (24/04) S/o. Ramachandran,
Arjunanmedu, Thiruverkadu, Chennai.

22. Sekhar (27/04), S/o. Arunachalam, 47,
32
nd
Street, Jeevanandan Street, G.K.M.
Colony, Chennai

23. Silverstar @ Stalin (24/04), S/o. John
Arokiya Dass, 74/36, Dr.Jayaprakash Street,
G.K.M. Colonry, Villivakkam, Chennai

24. Senthilkumar (24/04) S/o.
K.Vaithiyalingam, 45/25, Balaji Nagar, 1
st
Main
Road, Ekkattuthangal, Chennai






3
Approver:

P.Subramaniam @ Ravi Subramaniam
(49/04), s/o K.Panchapakesan,
20/128, Rameswaram Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai


Charge against the accused i) Criminal conspiracy in order to commit
murder, punishable u/s. 120-B(1) r/w.
302 of IPC;
ii) House-trespass in order to the
commission of an offence punishable wih
death, punishable u/s. 449 of IPC;
iii) Murder, in furtherance of common
intention, punishable u/s. 302 r/w. 34 of
IPC;
iv) Murder, punishable u/s. 302 of IPC;
v) Abetment of any offence, if abettor is
present when offence is committed, in
order to commit murder, punishable u/s.
114 r/w. 302 of IPC;
vi) Abetment of any offence, if the act
abetted is committed in consequence,
and where no express provision is made
for its punishment, in order to commit
murder, punishable u/s. 109 r/w. 302 of
IPC;
vii) Causing disappearances of evidence of
an offence committed, or giving false
information touching it to screen the
offender, if a capital offence, in order o
commit murder, punishable u/s. 201 Part-
1 r/w. 302 of IPC;
viii) Causing disappearances of evidence of
an offence committed, or giving false
information touching it to screen the
offender, if a capital offence, in order to
commit murder, and in order to commit
abetment of any offence, punishable u/s.
201 Part-1 r/w. 302 r/w. 109 of IPC;
ix) Taking gift, etc. to screen an offender
from punishment if the offence be capital,
punishable u/s. 213 of IPC;
x) Taking gift, etc. to screen an offender
from punishment if the offence be capital
in order to commit abetment of any
offence, punishable u/s. 213 r/w. 109 of
IPC;


4

xi) Offering gift or restoration of property in
consideration of screening offender if the
offence be capital, punishable u/s. 214 of
IPC;

Plea of the accused Not guilty


Finding of the Judge Not guilty

Sentence or order The charges framed for the offences (1) u/s.
120-B(1) r/w. 302 of IPC against the Accused
No.1 to 5; (2) u/s. 120-B(1) r/w. 302 of IPC
against the Accused No.7 to 12; (3) u/s. 120-
B(1) r/w. 302 of IPC against the Accused
No.13 to 15 and 21 to 24; (4) u/s. 120-B(1)
r/w. 302 of IPC against the Accused No.16 to
20; (5) u/s. 449 of IPC against the Accused
No.8 to 10; (6) u/s. 302 r/w. 34 of IPC against
the Accused No.7 to 12; (7) u/s. 302 of IPC
against the Accused No.8 and 9; (8) u/s. 114
r/w. 302 of IPC against the Accused No.7 and
10 to 12; (9) u/s. 109 r/w. 302 of IPC against
the Accused No.1 to 5; (10) u/s. 201 (1) r/w.
302 of IPC against the Accused No.16 to 20;
(11) u/s. 201 (1) r/w. 302 r/w. 109 of IPC
against the Accused No.1 to 5, 7, 9 and 13 to
15; (12) u/s. 213 of IPC against the Accused
No.16 to 20; (13) u/s. 213 r/w. 109 of IPC
against the Accused No.21 to 24; (14) u/s. 214
of IPC against the Accused No.1 to 5, 7 and
13 to 15 as against the accused are not
proved by the prosecution beyond all
reasonable doubts and hence, the accused
are acquitted thereof in terms of Section 235
(1) of Cr.P.C. and the bail bonds executed by
them stand discharged.
The charges framed as against A6-
Kathiravan for the offences u/s. 120- B (1) r/w.
302 I.P.C., u/s. 109 r/w. 302 I.P.C, u/s. 201 (1)
r/w. 302 r/w. 109 I.P.C. and u/s. 214 I.P.C. are
abated.
The approver Subramaniam @
Ravisubramaniam is directed to be released
forthwith u/s. 306 Cr.P.C., if his custody is no
longer required in any other case.

The Material Objects No.1 to 6, 25 to
27, 29, 37 to 39, 41, 45, 49, 50, 52, 55, 63, 64,
66, 67, 68, 73 and 74 are ordered to be
destroyed, M.Os.15 to 24 are ordered to be
kept with case records, M.Os.(30 to 36, 40,
48, 56,62, 65) series, M.Os.46, 51, 53 and 54
are ordered to be confiscated to State, M.Os.,
8, 28, 47, 57, 58, 59 and 69 are ordered to be
5
returned to the respective R.C. owners,
M.Os.9 to 14 are ordered to be returned to
P.W.54, M.Os.42 to 44 are ordered to be
returned to A13, M.O.70 (two rings) and
M.O.71 (bracelet) are ordered to be returned
to P.W.49 and M.O.72 (chain) is ordered to be
returned to P.W.74, M.Os.60 and 61 are
directed to hand over to the Regiment Center,
Avadi Chennai, that too, after the expiry of the
appeal time. M.O.7. Toyota Qualis car was
already returned to the R.C.owner on bond
and the bond get cancelled after the appeal
time is over.

Pleaders for the accused For A1: M/s Venkataraman and
K.S.Dhinakaran, Senior Counsels and
A.Sendhil Narayanan, Advocate;

For A2 & A4: M/s D.Lakshmana Reddy,
M.Varadan, R.N.Sivakumar and
K.S.Vaithianathan, Advocates;
For A3: Mr. V.Varadarajan, Advocate;

For A5: M/s R.Rajarathinam and P.Solomon
Francis, Advocates;

For A6: M/s P.N.Prakash, (presently Hon'ble
Justice, High Court, Madras.) & P.Solomon
Francis, Advocate:

For A7 to A12: M/s K.Lakshmi Narayanan and
G.Balasundaram, Advocates; and

For A13 to A24: M/s K.M.Subramanian,
A.T.Nagendiran and M.Chinnadurai,
Advocates.

Prosecution conducted by Thiru N. Devadas Special Public Prosecutor



(Sessions Case No.191 of 2005 on the file of Principal Sessions
J udge, Chengelpattu was received on transfer as per the Orders of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Transfer Petition (Crl.) No.134
of 2005 dated 26.10.2005 and renumbered as S.C.No.94 of 2005 on
the file of this Court on 25.11.2005.)

[On a Petition filed by A1-Subramani @ J ayendra Saraswathi
objecting to the appointment of Special Public Prosecutor by the
Government of Tamilnadu in this case, my learned predecessor
passed an order dismissing the petition holding that the Government
of Tamilnadu has competency to appoint Special Public Prosecutor
6
even after the transfer of the case from the Principal Sessions Court,
Chengalpet to this Court. Against which revision was filed before
the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court was also pleased to
dismiss the petition. Finally, the matter went to the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed Orders
dated 22.07.208 in Crl.Appeal No.1132/2008 in S.L.P(Crl)
No.1248/2006 directing the State of Pondicherry may continue the
prosecution and that the Public Prosecutor or Special Public
Prosecutor may be appointed by the Government of Pondicherry.]

This case coming on 12.11.2013 for final hearing before me in the
presence of Thiru N.Devadass, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and M/s.
Venkataraman and K.S.Dhinakaran, Senior Counsels and A.Sendhil Narayanan,
Advocate for A1, and M/s. D.Lakshmana Reddy, M.Varadan, R.N.Sivakumar and
K.S.Vaithianathan for A2 and A4, and Mr. V.Varadarajan for A3, and M/s. R
Rajarathinam and P.Solomon Francis for A5, and M/s. P.N.Prakash, presently
Hon'ble Justice of Hon'ble High Court, Madras and P.Solomon Francis for A6,
and M/s. K.Lakshmi Narayanan and G.Balasundaram for A7 to A12 and M/s.
K.M.Subramanian, A.T.Nagendiran and M.Chinnadurai for A13 to A24 and on
hearing both sides and upon perusing the case records, and having stood over
till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:


JUDGMENT

The Additional Superintendent of Police, in Crime No. 914 / 2004 of B2-
Vishnu Kanchi Police Station, Kanchipuram brought the accused before the
committal Court alleging as follows:
The deceased Sankararaman was the Administrative Manager of Sri
Varadharajaperumal Temple at Kanchipuram. He had exposed the misdeeds as
well as assassinated the personal character and conducts of A1 Subramanian @
Jayendra Saraswathi, A2 Sankaranarayanan @ Vijayendra Saraswathi and A4
M.K.Raghu relating to the mal-administrative affairs of Sankara Mutt at
Kanchipuram through various letters addressed to A1 Subramanian @ Jayendra
Saraswathi, Sankara Mutt, Kanchipuram under the guise and name of
Somasekara Kanapadigal. The act of Sankaraman humiliated, infuriated and
intimidated them which resulted to have a final decision of eliminating the
deceased Sankararaman by A1, in consultation with other accused, namely, A3
Sundaresan, A4 Raghu, A5 Krishnaswamy @ Appu and A6 Kathiravan along
with the Approver Subramaniam @ Ravi Subramaniam. Accordingly, on
01.09.2004 at Sankara Mutt, Kanchipuram, after receipt of final notice
7
threatening A1 Subramanian @ Jayendra Saraswathi and A2 Sankaranarayanan
@ Vijayendra Saraswathi to face serious consequences and aggrieved by that,
A1 Subramanian @ Jayendra Saraswathi and A2 Sankaranarayanan @
Vijayendra Saraswathi decided to do away with the deceased Sankararaman and
entered into a criminal conspiracy with A3 Sundaresan, A4 Raghu, A5
Krishnaswamy @ Appu and A6 Kathiravan along with the Approver
Subramaniam @ Ravi Subramaniam. In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy
that was entered into among the accused No.1 to 6 along with the approver
Subramaniam @ Ravi Subramaniam, A5 Krishnaswamy @ Appu and A6
Kathiravan made arrangement to procure hirelings, namely, A7 Rajinikanth @
Chinna @ Rajinichinna, A8 Ambigapathy @ Ambi, A9 Bhaskar @ Madu Bhaskar,
A10 Kumar, A11 Anandakumar @ Anand and A12 Anilkumar @ Anil, who were
actual assailants and also made arrangement for surrendering A16 P.Arumugam,
A17 Pandian @ Thil Pandian, A18 Satheesh, A19 Devaraj and A20 Arun with a
view to cause disappearance of evidence and to conceal the actual offenders
from the clutches of law, and that too, with an aid and facilitation of A13
Meenakshisundaram @ Sundar, A14 Palani, A15 Ravi @ Kuruvi Ravi, A21
R.Arumugam, A22 Sekhar, A23 Silverstar @ Stalin and A24 Senthilkumar. Thus,
A1 to A24 have entered into the criminal conspiracy to execute common design
of the conspiracy to do away with the deceased Sankararaman.
2. In pursuance of the conspiracy, A6 Kathiravan, A7 Rajinikanth @ Chinna
@ Rajinichinna, A9 Bhaskar @ Madu Bhaskar along with the approver
Subramaniam @ Ravi Subramaniam visited Kanchipuram on 02.09.2004, a day
prior to the commission of murder, with a view to locate the whereabouts and fix
the identity of the deceased Sankararaman. To execute the conspiracy on
03.09.2004, A7 Rajinikanth @ Chinna @ Rajinichinna, A8 Ambigapathy @ Ambi,
A9 Bhaskar @ Madu Bhaskar, A10 Kumar, A11 Anandakumar @ Anand and
A12 Anilkumar @ Anil came in three motor cycles to Kanchipuram and stopped
the said motor cycles near the western gate of Sri Varadharajaperumal temple
8
and at about 05.45 p.m. on 03.09.2004, while A7 Rajinikanth @ Chinna @
Rajinichinna, A11 Anandakumar @ Anand and A12 Anilkumar @ Anil were
waiting on the said motor cycles, and A8 Ambigapathy @ Ambi, A9 Bhaskar @
Madu Bhaskar, A10 Kumar with aruvals entered into the said temple and while
A10 Kumar was standing near the foot-steps leading to the entrance of the office
and watching the movement of the people, A8 Ambigapathy @ Ambi and A9
Bhaskar @ Madu Bhasker entered into the office (Vasantha Mandapam) and
inflicted the fatal injuries on the head and neck of the deceased Sankararaman
and caused instantaneous death, in the presence of N.S.Ganesh, Jewel
Accountant and K.Duraikannu, Office Assistant of the said temple. The two eye
witnesses were shocked, shouted and chased the accused with the help of other
co-employees of the office of the said temple. After committing murder of the
deceased Sankararaman, A8 Ambigapathy @ Ambi, A9 Bhaskar @ Madu
Bhaskar, A10 Kumar fled away from the scene of crime with the help of A7
Rajinikanth @ Chinna @ Rajinichinna, A11 Anandakumar @ Anand and A12
Anilkumar @ Anil who were already waiting with the above said three motor
cycles, near the western gate of the said temple. Then the said witnesses
Ganesh and Duraikannu returned to the office and saw the Sankararaman lying
dead in sitting position on a plastic chair with pool of blood. Then Kuppusamy,
one of the Accountant of Sri Varadharajaperumal temple informed the same to
the police. On receipt of information over phone, the Inspector of Police, B2
Vishnu Kanchi Police Station came to the place of occurrence and obtained a
written complaint from N.S.Ganesh and registered a case in Crime No. 914/2004
u/s. 302 r/w. 34 of IPC.
3. After the initital investigation, the chief Investigating Officer, Thiru
S.P.Sakthivel took up the case for further investigation from the Inspector of
Police, B2 Vishnu Kanchi Police Station. During investigation, the accused
Subramaniam @ Ravi Subramaniam turned approver and the Chief Investigating
Officer, after fulfledged investigation, came to a positive conclusion that the
9
accused No.1 to 24 committed the offences u/s. 120-B, 120-B r/w. 302, 449, 201,
109 and 34 of IPC; Accused No.8 and 9 committed the offence u/s. 302 r/w. 34
IPC and 449 IPC; Accused No.10 committed the offence u/s. 449 and 302 r/w.
109 IPC; Accused No.7, 11 and 12 committed the offence u/s. 302 r/w. 109 IPC;
Accused No.7, 9 and 13 to 15 committed the offence u/s. 214 r/w. 302, 109 r/w.
201 r/w. 302 of IPC; Accused No.16 to 20 committed the offence u/s. 201 r/w.
302 and 213 r/w. 302 of IPC; and Accused No.21 to 24 committed the offence
u/s. 109 r/w. 201 r/w. 302 of IPC and they should be punished for the said
offences.
4. Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kanchipuram, on receipt of the final
report laid u/s. 173 (2) of Cr.P.C. and on appearance of the accused, furnished
copies of the relevant records and documents as mandated u/s. 207 of Cr.P.C.
thereafter, upon perusal of the records, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Kanchipuram came to a positive conclusion that the offences involved in this
case is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions and hence, committed the case
before the Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu and the Principal Sessions
Judge, Chengalpattu assigned Sessions Case No.191/2005.
5. As per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Transfer
Petition (Crl.) No. 134 of 2005 dated 26.10.2005, the Sessions Case
No.191/2005 pending on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu was
withdrawn and transferred to the file of this Court and re-numbered as Sessions
Case No.94/2005 on 25.11.2005.
6. On appearance of the accused before this court and after hearing both
sides, upon perusing the entire materials on record and having satisfied prima
facie that there are sufficient grounds to frame charges against the accused, my
learned predecessor's predecessor framed charges u/s. 120-B of IPC against the
accused No.1 to 24; u/s. 120B r/w. 302, 449, 201, 109 and 34 of IPC against the
accused No.1 to 24; u/s. 449 of IPC against the accused No.8 to 10; u/s. 302 of
IPC against the accused No.8 and 9; u/s. 302 r/w. 34 of IPC against the accused
10
No.10; u/s. 302 r/w. 109 of IPC against the accused No.10; u/s. 302 r/w. 109 of
IPC against the accused No.7, 11 and 12; u/s. 214 r/w. 302 of IPC against the
accused No.7, 9, 13, 14 and 15; u/s. 109 r/w. 201 r/w. 302 of IPC against the
accused No.7, 9, 13, 14 and 15; u/s. 201 r/w. 302 of IPC against the accused
No.16 to 20; u/s. 213 r/w. 302 of IPC against the accused No.16 to 20; u/s. 109
r/w. 201 r/w. 302 of IPC against the accused No.21 to 24; and accordingly, the
charges u/s. 120-B of IPC against the accused No.1 to 24; u/s. 120B r/w. 302,
449, 201, 109 and 34 of IPC against the accused No.1 to 24; u/s. 449 of IPC
against the accused No.8 to 10; u/s. 302 of IPC against the accused No.8 and 9;
u/s. 302 r/w. 34 of IPC against the accused No.10; u/s. 302 r/w. 109 of IPC
against the accused No.10; u/s. 302 r/w. 109 of IPC against the accused No.7,
11 and 12; u/s. 214 r/w. 302 of IPC against the accused No.7, 9, 13, 14 and 15;
u/s. 109 r/w. 201 r/w. 302 of IPC against the accused No.7, 9, 13, 14 and 15; u/s.
201 r/w. 302 of IPC against the accused No.16 to 20; u/s. 213 r/w. 302 of IPC
against the accused No.16 to 20; u/s. 109 r/w. 201 r/w. 302 of IPC against the
accused No.21 to 24 are framed, read over, explained and questioned the
accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and thereby claim to be tried.
7. Again, on 18.12.2008 my learned predecessor after hearing both sides
and upon perusing the records and having satisfied that there are materials to
alter the charges, altered the charges as follows:
(1) u/s. 120-B(1) r/w. 302 of IPC against the Accused No.1 to 6;
(2) u/s. 120-B(1) r/w. 302 of IPC against the Accused No.7 to 12;
(3) u/s. 120-B(1) r/w. 302 of IPC against the Accused No.13 to 15 and
21 to 24;
(4) u/s. 120-B(1) r/w. 302 of IPC against the Accused No.16 to 20;
(5) u/s. 449 of IPC against the Accused No.8 to 10;
(6) u/s. 302 r/w. 34 of IPC against the Accused No.7 to 12;
(7) u/s. 302 of IPC against the Accused No.8 and 9;
(8) u/s. 114 r/w. 302 of IPC against the Accused No.7 and 10 to 12;
11
(9) u/s. 109 r/w. 302 of IPC against the Accused No.1 to 6;
(10) u/s. 201 (1) r/w. 302 of IPC against the Accused No.16 to 20;
(11) u/s. 201 (1) r/w. 302 r/w. 109 of IPC against the Accused No.1 to 7,
9 and 13 to 15;
(12) u/s. 213 of IPC against the Accused No.16 to 20;
(13) u/s. 213 r/w. 109 of IPC against the Accused No.21 to 24;
(14) u/s. 214 of IPC against the Accused No.1 to 7 and 13 to 15
the substance of the charges were read over, explained and questioned the
accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and thereby claim to be tried.
8. To substantiate the prosecution case, PWs-1 to 189 witnesses are
examined, Exs.P1 to P491 documents and M.Os.1 to 74 are marked.
9. The case of the prosecution unfolded during the trial is briefly as follows:
9-1. The deceased Sankararaman was the Administrative Manager of Sri
Devarajaswamy Thirukkoil Devasthanam, Chinna Kanchipuram. Padma (PW-1)
is his wife, Uma Maitherayee (PW-2) is his daughter and Anandhakrishna
Sharma (PW-3) is his son. He was discharging the duties of attending
correspondences, temple related cases and lease of the lands. His father Anand
Sharma was also serving in Kanchi Sankara Mutt, while Maha Periyavar Sri
Chandirasekara Saraswathi Swamigal was in the Mutt. After the demise of Maha
Periyavar, the administration of the Mutt at the hands of Jeyendira Saraswathi
Swamigal and Vijendira Saraswathi Swamigal became worst and hence, the
deceased Sankararaman frequently brought about the mal-administration of the
Mutt to the notice of the public, in person and by letters. During the year 2001,
deceased Sankararaman came to know that Jeyendira Saraswathi Swamigal
(A1) proposed a trip to China and hence, in order to prevent the same, the
deceased Sankararaman approached the Hon'ble High Court, Madras, and at
his instigation, the said trip by the said Jeyendira Saraswathi Swamigal(A1) was
cancelled, and as such, there was a difference of opinion between the deceased
12
Sankararaman and the Kanchi Sankara Mutt which is brought out by the
prosecution through the documents marked as Ex.P2 series 1 to 81.
9-2. Ganesh (PW-4) was working as an accountant for the ukkranam /
jewels of the temple. On 03.09.2004 at about 05.45 while he was in his seat in
the office of the said Devarajaswamy Devasthanam, and while the deceased
Sankaraman was sitting on a plastic chair opposite to the seat of the temple
Accountant Kuppusamy (PW-6), and K.Duraikannu (PW-5) was standing near
the seat of the Cashier A.S.Kannan, two persons entered into the office with
aruvals and attacked the deceased Sankararaman with the aruvals and caused
injuries on his head, near right ear, neck, back of head and left little finger, and
after that, both of them fled away from the place of occurrence along with others
who were waiting out side the temple through two Yamaha motor cycles and one
Hero Honda motor cycle. Sankararaman was lying dead in the chair, and then
they informed about the incident over phone to the administration of the temple,
the police, Padma (PW-1), Uma Maitherayee (PW-2) and others.
9-3. On receiving information through wireless message at about 05.45
p.m., Thiru Kothandapani (PW-167), the then Inspector of Police, Vishnu Kanchi
Police Station went to the place of occurrence viz. office of the temple, and
received a written complaint Ex.P14 from Ganesh (PW-4). Thereafter, at 19.00
hours, he went to the Police Station and registered a case in Crime No. 914/04
u/s. 302 r/w. 34 of IPC, and the printed FIR is Ex.P-313. FIR was sent to the
Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kanchipuram and the copies thereof to other officials
concerned. Thereafter, at about 19.45 hours he went to the place of occurrence,
observed the scene of crime, prepared observation mahazar Ex.P315, drew a
rough sketch Ex.P314 in the presence of Chitti Babu (PW-11) and Sundararajan
(PW-12), seized blood stained mosaic tile (MO-3), controlled mosaic tile piece
(MO-4), broken plastic chair (MO-5) and blood stained broken leg piece of the
chair (MO-6) under cover of seizure mahazar (Ex.P24). Then, he conducted
inquest on the dead body of the deceased Sankararaman in front of Kannan
13
(PW-30), four other Panchayatars and witnesses, PWs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6. Further,
he recorded the statements of the said witnesses and prepared Inquest Report
Ex.P316 between 8.45 and 10.30 p.m. He sent the body of the deceased for
postmortem examination through Head Constable Gengan (PW-162). He
examined the mahazar witnesses and recorded their statements. He requested
the services of sniffer dogs, Forensic Experts, Finger Print Experts and photo
graphers. Several teams were formed for the purpose of apprehending the
accused and to seize the vehicles used by the accused for the commission of the
offence.
9-4. On the next day viz. 04.09.2004, Dr. Murali Krishnan (PW-163) the
Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Kanchipuram, after receiving requisition at
about 08.30 a.m. through Gengan (PW-162), Head Constable, conducted
postmortem on the body of deceased Sankara Raman, aged about 52 and
having identification marks: 1) A black mole on the right thigh, and 2) A black
mole on the right side stomach, and the postmortem was commenced at 08.40
a.m. At that time, Rigor mortis were present in both hands and both legs.
External injuries:
1) Deeply lacerated wound extending from near the right eye backwards
above the left ear over right temporal region to right occipital region
length 19 cm x 1 x 6 cm depth extending deeply obliquely through
right temporal bone cutting injuries. The right brain mater inner walls
dark reddish brown surrounding skin stained with dark brown blood
clots.
2) Deep lacerated wound on the right occipital region extending to the
right neck and back of neck 28cm x 2cm x 7 cm deeply obliquely
placed cutting through the outer aspect of right occipital region bone to
posterior neck muscles as seen in figure.
3) Deeply lacerated wound right occipital parietal region 8 cm x 1.5 cm x
3 cm placed 10.5 cm right side of midline cutting through bone i.e
fracture extending upwards 6cm surrounding skin stained brown blood
clots.
14
4) Traumatic amputation of left little finger attached only by skin,
amputated segment 5 cm lacerated wound extends over dorsum of
left hand extending from the medial border of base of left little finger
amputating the left little finger cutting through head of the 4
th
meta
carpal and shaft of 3
rd
mata carpal 8 cm x 1.5 cm x 2.5 cm.
Internal injuries: On opening the skull, middle and posterior part of right temporal
lobe 8 x 3 cm size damaged and seen through injury No.1. Damage extending 2
cm deeply into the brain mater, corresponding bone - right temporal parieto
occipital bones cut obliquely upto the face of skull.
9-5. On 07.09.2004, while Thiru T.S.Alagesan (PW-174) was working as
Scientific Assistant in Forensic Science Laboratory at Chennai, he received
viscera of the deceased Sankararaman, he examined the viscera along with
Jalaja Pattabiraman, Scientific Assistant under the supervision of Assistant
Director, P.Shanmugam, and on examination, it was found that the viscera did
not contain any poisonous substance and he issued Viscera Report (Ex.P 325).
9-6. After considering Viscera Report (Ex.P291) and postmortem
findings, Dr. Murali Krishnan (PW-163) opined that the death occurred due to the
injuries sustained by the deceased and it is possible that the injuries could have
been inflicted with the knives. Post Mortem Certificate is Ex.P-290.
9-7. After conducting Post-mortem Examination, PW-162 Gengan
handed over the dead body of the deceased Sankararaman to his son Ananda
Krishna Sharma (PW-3).
9-8. On 4.9.2004 at about 7.00 a.m. during search of the house of
deceased Sankararaman by the police accompanied by the witnesses one
Gnanasambandam (PW-10) and one Senguttuvan, the daughter of the deceased
produced a plastic file containing certain documents and Inspector Kothandapani
(PW-167) seized the same under cover of mahazar Ex.P20 in the presence of
the above said witnesses and he examined them along with PWs 1 and 2 and
recorded their statements. At about 07.00 p.m he seized blood stained shirt
(MO-1) and blood stained dhothi (MO-2) which were produced by Gengan, the
15
then Head Constable (PW-162) after postmortem examination, under Form 95
Ex.P289, and then recorded the statement of Gengan (PW-162).
9-9. Thiru Gnanasambandam (PW-10), Assistant Commissioner of
Varadaraja Perumal Temple, Kamatchi Ammal Koil and Ayyangarpuram
Anjaneyar Temple at Kanchi issued a showcause notice to the deceased
Sankararaman as the deceased Sankararaman gave an interview in a Tamil
magazine 'Kalki' on 16.02.2002 about the women folk, and in that regard the said
Sankararaman gave an explanation to the notice. PW10 handed over the files
(Ex.P21 series 1 to 9), and (Ex.P22 series 1 to 11) to the police relating to the
auction of temple lands. Sankararaman gave a complaint to the Commissioner
of HR&CE relating to the land and building auction of Kamatchi Amman Temple
and relating to the Golden Chariot, Golden tower and Goddess Vehicle
(Vahanam), and Commissioner conducted enquiry on the said complaint of
Sankararaman. Ex.P23 series 1 to 19 is the relevant file.
9-10. On 05.09.2004, Inspector Kothandapani (PW-167) examined
Gajapathy (PW-7), Achu @ Achudan (PW-8), Kumar (PW-9), Basker (PW-14)
and Natarajan (PW-15) and recorded their statements. On 06.09.2004, at the
scene of occurrence he examined Kasthuri (PW-13) and one Raman and
recorded their statements. On 14.09.2004 he participated the police officers
meeting convened by DIG, Chengalpet Range, where he was informed that
several teams had been formed for the investigation of this case and the
Investigating Officer has been changed. Then he was informed over phone to
hand over the case file and accordingly he handed over the case file to Thiru
Davidson Ashirvadam, Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram.
9-11 Tmt. Bhuvaneswari, Additional Superintendent of Police, Crime of
Kanchipuram District was on medical leave. Hence, as per the order (Ex.P326)
dated 14.09.2004 issued by the D.I.G. Chengai District, Thiru S.P.Sakthivelu
(PW-189), the then Addiional Superintendent of Police, Enforcement,
Kanchipuram was appointed as the Principal Investigating Officer in this case,
16
and accordingly, on 14.09.2004 he took up the investigation of this case from
Thiru Davidson Ashirvadam, Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram, and
received the case file. By the said order (Ex.P326), Thiru K.K.Rajarathinam,
Deputy Superintendent of Police; Thiru A.Mohanavel, Inspector of Police, B-2
Siva Kanchi Police Station; and Thiru Rajarajan, Inspector of Police, Chengalpet
Town Police Station were deputed by the Superintendent of Police to assist PW-
189 in the investigation.
9-12. On the same day, the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) sent
requisitions through the Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram to Thiru
Narasimhan, Divisional Engineer, Telephones; Thiru Rameshkumar, Aircel,
Pondicherry; Trichy BSNL officers; Kanchipuram BSNL officer; and Thiru Sannor,
Airtel officer, calling them to furnish call details of incoming and outgoing in
respect of the telephone Nos. 1) 24867155, 2) 222115, 3) 223405, and Mobile
Nos: 1) 984233131, 2) 9443220321, 3) 9443689855, and 4) 9840024003. He
visited the scene of crime and verified the records and seizure of material
objects. He examined Narasimhan (PW-91), Sambath (PW-92), Saminathan
(PW-93) and Duraikannu (PW-5) and recorded their statements. He perused the
report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, the final notice of
deceased Sankararaman issued to Sankara Madam, the complaint of
Sankararaman and Jeganathan sent to H.R.& C.E Department, the report of the
Commissioner, HRI, statement of HC 357 (PW-154), the report of Thiru
Mohanavel, Inspector of Police and the statements recorded by the said
Mohanavel, the Attendance Register of Varadaraja Perumal Koil paid staff and
volunteers and other staffs. Since, there was heavy rain on the date of
occurrence, finger print or clue from sniffer dogs were not available. The
Superindent of police forwarded to him the thapals received on 14.09.2004.
9-13. On 17.09.2004, Thiru Rajarajan, Inspector of Police sent him a
special report along with statements of Valasaravakkam Mathi @ Mathiazhagan.
Investigating Officer (PW-189) went through the statement and the special report.
17
On 19.09.2004, he along with Superintendent of Police examined Thiru Kannan,
Head Constable 357 (PW-154). He perused the case file in Cr.No.2 of 2004 of
Vishnu Kanchi Town PS in respect of theft of Amman Thali chain of the temple
and also the special report submitted by the Inspector of Police.
9-14. Again, on 20.09.94, the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) sent
Tvl. Manickam and Rajarajan, Inspectors of Police to find out the hirelings at
Chennai. He perused the special reports submitted by Thiru Muniappan,
Inspector of Police (PW-177) and Thiru Mohanavel, Inspector of Police (PW-173)
along with the statements of the witnesses recorded by them. He ascertained
that all the complaints sent by the deceased Sankararaman against the Sankara
Mutt had been prepared in the Students Xerox Centre situated at Nambi Street,
Thirukanchi. He sent letter through Superintendent of Police to furnish call details
of the following phones/mobiles to the following persons:
1) Divisional Engineer, BSNL, Kanchipuram: 220853.
2) MD., Air Cellular, Annasalai, Chennai: 98410 20033.
9-15. Then the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) sent all the
documents seized during the period from 3.9.2004 to 20.9.04 to the Judicial
Magistrate-I, Kanchipuram. As per the order No.C 263/Camp/ Kanchipuram/2004
(Ex.P353) 29 police officials were deputed to him for the investigation of this
case. He examined the witnesses: Gajapathy (PW-7), Achudan @ Achu (PW-8),
Kumar (PW-9), Natarajan (PW-15), Baskar (PW-14), Kasthuri (PW-13), Dr.
Muralikrishnan (PW-163) who conducted Postmortem examination and recorded
their statements. He perused the statements of the witnesses: Veeraragavan,
Lakshmi Narasimmhan, Govindan (PW-21), Kuppusamy (PW-6) Ushrani, and
Kannan (PW-30) recorded by Thiru Mohanvel, Inspector of Police (PW-173). He
also perused the statements of the witnesses: Balamurugan, Ellappan, and
M.S.Kumar recorded by Muniappan, Inspector of Police (PW-177).
9-16. On 21.09.2004, the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) examined
the witnesses Gnanasambandam (PW-10), Senguttuvan, mahazar witnesses
18
Appasamy and Venugopal (PW-130) and recorded their statemens. Thiru
Mohanavel, Inspector of Police (PW-173) submitted a special report to him along
with the statements of witnesses Subramanian, Sridharan, Vijayaragavan,
Gajapathy (PW-7), Govindaraj (PW-26), Kumar (PW-9) and Ganesan, and he
also recorded their statemens. On 22.09.2004, the chief Investigating Officer
(PW-189) examined Padma (PW-1) and Uma Maithirayee (PW-2) by showing the
documents Ex.P2 series and recorded their statements. Thiru Mohanavel,
Inspector of Police (PW-173) submitted to him a report along with the statements
of the witnesses Thamizhmani, Selvam (PW-61), Panjanathan, Manickam,
Tmt. Kantha, Tmt. Sivagami, Tmt. Muniammal recorded by PW-173. He
conducted enquiries about the notorious rowdies at Thiruvotriyur viz. Gate
Rajendiran, Jeganathan and Vellai Ravi. He sent Padma (PW-1) and Uma
Maithirayee (PW-2) to the Computer Division at Chennai in order to sketch out
the figure of the accused. He sent letter to the concerned officials to furnish
incoming and outgoing call details of the following mobiles/telephones: 228760,
98400, 24326, 98400 811251 and 94432 39970.
9-17. On 23.09.2004 Thiru Mohanavel, Inspector of Police (PW-173)
recorded the statements of the witnesses: Varadharajan, Shanmugam, Balaji,
Arumugam, Achuthan (PW-8) and Citti Babu (PW-11) and submitted the same to
him. On 24.09.2004, PW-173 further recorded the statements of witnesses:
Radha, Raghavapattar, Sambathkumar, Rajampattar, Devarajapattar, Narasinga
Pattar and Srinivasan and handed over the same to PW-189. On 25.09.2004,
the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) examined the witnesses N.S.Ganesh
(PW-4), Duraikannu (PW-5), Kuppusamy (PW-6) and Govindaraj (PW-26) and
recorded their statements. PW-173 examined the witnesses: Venkata
Varadhachariyar, Varadharajan, Rangarajan, Narasimmhan, Vijayaraghavan,
Santhanam and Desingan and recorded their statements and submitted the
same along with a report to PW-189. On 26.09.2004, PW-189 examined Ananda
Krishna Sarma and recorded his statement. On 27.09.2004, he sent the
19
witnesses N.S.Ganesh (PW-4), Duraikannu (PW-5), Kuppusamy (PW.6) and
Govindarajan (PW-26) along with Thiru Ramapandiyan, Sub Inspector of Police
to Computer Section at Chennai.
9-18. Further, on receipt of call details in respect of telephone
No.223115, he summened Bala @ Balakumaran (PW-112) through Mohanavelu,
Inspector of Police (PW-173) and on 30.09.2004 he examined PW-112 and
recorded his statement and it revealed since PW-112 misappropriated Rs.12
lakhs from Sankaramutt he was dismissed from Sankaramutt, and Ex.P354 is the
file relating to the complaint of Sankaramutt against PW-112. On 01.10.2004, he
interrogated Sundaresa Iyer (Accused No.3) and seized the notice sent by
deceased Sankararaman, through Advocate, Anbazhagan which was produced
by the accused No.3, under cover of mahazar Ex.P36 in the presence of
witnesses Appusamy and Venugopal. Then, he examined Swaminatha Iyer
(PW-93) who worked as a Clerk in the Varadharaja Perumal temple, the
witnesses: Kalivarathan, Sridharan, Venkataraman, Sundaran, Manikandan,
Kameswara Iyyer, Seshadri, Sankaranarayana Iyyer, Ramamoorthy, and
Thiagarajan and recorded their statements.
9-19. On 05.10.2004, the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) examined
one Viswanathan, Indian Bank, Kaladi Viswanathan (PW-155), Accountant of
Sankaramutt, recorded their statements and he recovered the xerox copies of
statement of accounts of S.B. Account No.171 with Indian Bank, S.B. Account
No.3746 with Union Bank of India, S.B. Account No. 3000153 with Post Office,
and S.B. Account No. 8030 with Indian Bank relating to Sankaramutt (Ex.P265),
and Cashbook relating to Janakalyan Trust (Ex.P256) which were produced by
PW-155 under cover of mahazar Ex.P355 in the presence of the witnesses
Appasamy and Venugopal (PW-130). He examined the witnesses: Seduraman,
Nagarajan, Kuppusamy, Sivan, Sivakumar, Tmt. Usha (PW-18), Panjabakesan,
Mariyappan, Ramasubbu and Sivaraman and recorded their statements.
20
9-20. Again, on 08.10.2004, the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189)
examined the witnesses: Somasundaram, Venkateswara Sharma - Accountant of
Sankaramutt, Jayaraman, N.Kumar, Tmt. Kalyani, Tmt. Meenatchi,
K.S.Srinivasan and Tmt. Ambiga and recorded their statements and collected
materials. On 10.10.2004 and on 15.10.2004, he examined the witnesses:
M.S.Arunachalam - Kainkiriyam of Mutt, Ganapathy Kosalai (PW-110), Janaki,
Sundari, Raghavan, Seduraman, Narasimmhan, Tmt. Lakshmi, Sinnakaliyan,
Venkataraman, Nagarajan, Ramesh and other witnesses and collected materials
relating to this case and recorded their statements.
9-21. On 18.10.2004, he examined Harikaran (PW-101) Artchagar of
Anjenayar temple, Madhavaganapadigal Atchariyar of Vedapadasalai (PW-95),
Jayalakshmi (PW-25), Datchinamoorthy (PW-33), Selvam (PW-119), Ramani
(PW-99), Manickavasagam (PW-42) and Saravanan (PW-37), and recorded their
statements. On the basis of information that on 02.09.2004 viz. one day earlier
to the date of occurrence, near 16 pillar Mandabam in Sannathi Street, a person
who came in a Qualis car boarded in an Ikon car which followed the Qualis car
and went away and again it came there and again he boarded in the Qualis car,
on 20.10.2004, the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) examined the witnesses
who were available near that place: Subramanian, Kanakambal, Gobichandiran,
T.R.Baskaran (PW-14) an employee in a shop, R.Suresh, Datchinamoorthy (PW-
100) the Priest in an Anjaneyar temple, Govindan (PW-21) a Guide in
Varadarajaperumal kovil, Venkatachari, Venkatesan and D.Srinivasan (PW-64) a
worker in the temple to speak about the case and recorded their statements.
9-22. Further, on 26.10.2004, the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189)
interrogated the accused persons of Chennai in the Police Station itself. On
27.10.2004, he went to Ramanathapuram for bundobasth duty, and there, he
received information from the Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram that at
05.00 p.m. five accused persons surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate
No.15, George Town, Chennai in connection with this case. On the same day,
21
while Thiru Ramamurthy (PW-182), the then Assistant Jailor was on duty in
Central Jail, Chennai, Arumugam (Accused No.16), Thil Pandiyan (accused
No.17), Sathish (Accused No.18), Devaraj (accused No.19), and Arun (accused
No.20) involved in this case were remanded by the 15
th
Metroplitan Magistrate,
Chennai and they were brought to the Central Jail.
9-23. On 29.10.2004, the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) gave a
requisition to the Chennai Central Jail for examination of the surrendered
accused, on 30.10.2004 he went to Chennai Central Jail and as per the Jail
procedure, he interrogated the accused: Pandiayan @ Thil Pandiyan,
Arumugam, Sathish, Devaraj and Arun and recorded their confession statements
in the presence of Jailor. He obtained a certificate Ex.P73 from the Assistant
Jailor (PW-41), Chennai Central Jail stating that the accused Pandiyan @ Thil
Pandiyan (A-17) was in jail from 31.12.2003 to 10.09.2004.
9-24. In accordance with the permission granted by the Judicial
Magistrate-I, Kanchipuram, on 03.11.2004 at 07.15 p.m. he took the above said
five accused in police custody for three days, and at 07.30 p.m. the accused
No.17 gave voluntary confession (admssible portion Ex.P131) in the presence of
the witnesses Vimalkumar (PW-142) and Uthirakumar (PW-121), at 09.30 p.m.
Arumugam (accused No.16) gave confession statement (admissible portion
Ex.P133), at 11.00 p.m. Sathish (accused No.18) gave confession statement
(admissible portion Ex.P135), on 04.11.2004 at 01.00 a.m. Devaraj (accused
No.19) gave voluntary confession (admissible portion Ex.P137) and at 02.30 a.m.
Arun (accused No.20) gave voluntary confession (admissible portion Ex.P139) in
the presence of the same witnesses. He went along with the police party, said
witnesses and accused persons to Chennai, at 08.00 a.m. he seized 40 Nos. of
500 rupee currency notes (M.O-30) amounting to Rs.20,000/- under cover of
mahazar Ex.P132 which was produced by the father of the accused No.17
namely, Thangavel (PW-63) from the house of the accused No.17 at Mugaper
Road. At 09.00 a.m. he seized 40 Nos. of 500 rupee currency notes (M.O-31
22
series) amounting Rs.20,000/- under cover of mahazar Ex.P134 which was
produced by the mother of the accused No.16 namely, Anandayee (PW-45) from
the house of the accused No.16 at 2
nd
Street, Jothi Nagar, Egattu Thangal. At
10.00 a.m. he seized 40 Nos. of 500 rupee currency notes (M.O-32 series)
amounting Rs.20,000/- under cover of mahazar Ex.P136 which was produced by
the mother of the accused No.18, namely, Saroja (PW-46) from the house of the
accused No.18 at No.12, Panjaliamman Street, Ambedkar Nagar, Arumbakkam.
At 11.00 a.m. he seized 9 Nos. of 500 rupee currency notes (M.O-33 series)
under cover of mahazar Ex.P138 which was produced by the wife of the accused
No.19, namely, Muniyammal (PW-89) from the house of the accused No.19 at
G.K.M. Colony, Villiwalkam. At 12.00 noon he seized 10 Nos. of 500 rupee
currency notes (M.O-34 series) amounting Rs5,000/- under cover of mahazar
Ex.P140 which was produced by the mother of the accused No.20, namely,
Lakshmiammal (PW-47) from the house of the accused No.20 at No.4, 35
th

Street, Thanthai Periyar Kudil, G.K.M. Colony. The above material objects were
seized in the presence of the same witnesses. He examined PW-63, PW-45,
PW-46, PW-89, PW-47, PW-142 and PW-121 and recorded their statements at
their respective places. On 05.11.2004 he sent those five accused persons to
the court of J.M.-I, Kanchipuram for judicial custody along with the mahazars and
records.
9-25. Then, the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) went to Defence
Colony, Chennai along with the above said witnesses and at 07.00 p.m. he
arrested Palani (accused No.14) and Kuruvi Ravi @ Ravi (accused No.15) and in
the presence of the same witnesses, he recorded the confession statemens
voluntarily given by both the accused, based on which, he seized 14 Nos. of 500
rupee currency notes (M.O-35 series) amounting to Rs.7,000/-, one Nokio
cellphone No.9840515732 (M.O-37), another Nokio cellphone No.9841275166
(M.O-38) under cover of mahazar Ex.P141 which was produced by the accused
No.14, and he seized 12 Nos. of 500 rupee currency notes (M.O-36 series)
23
amounting to Rs.7,000/- under cover of mahazar Ex.P142 which was produced
by the accused No.15.
9-26. While Thiru A.Mohanavel, the then Inspector of Police (PW-173)
was in charge of Vishnu Kanchi Police, on 06.11.2004 at about 02.15 p.m.,
Vimalkumar, Revenue Inspector of Kanchipuram (PW-142) handed over the
accused Kumar (A10) along with the confession statement of A10 (Ex.P247)
recorded by him and in turn, he handed over Accused No.10, the letter given by
PW-142 (Ex.P246) and the confession of A10 (Ex.P247) to the Chief
Investigating Officer (PW-189).
9-27. The Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) addressed letters to the
concerned officers through Superintendent of Police to furnish call details of the
following mobiles / phones to the following persons:
1) Rameshkumar, Pondicherry Regional Aircel : 98423 67499;
2) Narasimhan, Divisional Engineer, BSNL, Kodampakkam:
24902240, 28269195, 28260431, 24865219, 24867051 & 24867242;
3) Sarathi, Airtel, Santhom, Chennai: 98411 21321, 98400 24003, 98400
85984, 98400 79791, 98400 81251, 98400 34001, 98401 20033, 98410 36236
and 98400 24326;
4) BSNL Kodampakkam: 94441 25487 & 28343020.
9-28. Then, on 06.11.2004 at 02.00 a.m. the Chief Investigating Officer
(PW-189) arrested one Meenatchisundaram @ Sundar (accused No.13) at
No.4/30, Palai Street, M.G.R. Nagar, Chennai, and recorded his confession
statement (admissible portion Ex.P143) voluntarily given by him, based on which
he seized Camera cellphone and simcard No.9840108734 (M.O-39), 20 Nos. of
500 rupee currency notes (M.O-40 seires), money-purse (M.O-41), driving
licence (M.O-42), Board Blue Oral privilege card (M.O-43), and VGP Gold Club
card (M.O-44) under cover of mahazar Ex.P144 in the presence of the same
witnesses. At 07.00 p.m. he arrested Sekhar (accused No.22) at Santhosh
Automobile Mechanic shed, and he recorded the confession statement
24
(admissible portion Ex.P145) voluntarily given by him, based on which, he seized
Sony Ericson Cellphone No.9842514424 (M.O-45) and a 500 rupee currency
note (M.O-46) under cover of seizure mahazar (Ex.P146) in the presence of the
same witnesses. At 02.30 p.m., he received a special report (Ex.P246) along
with accused - Kumar (A10) handed over by Thiru Mohanavel, Inspector of
Police (PW-173) stating that P.W.173 arrested accused Kumar (A10) at No.65,
Main Road, Kulathur Rajan Nagar, Chennai and the confession statement
recorded by P.W.142 -Vimalkumar (admissible portion Ex.P247) and received
the letter (Ex.P246) from Vimal Kumar (PW-142), and then P.W.189, the Chief
Investigating Officer also recorded the confession statement of A10 (relevant
portion Ex.P356), in the presence of the witness Vimalkumar (PW-142) based on
which he seized Yamaha motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-22-V-3267
(M.O-47), 2 Nos. of 500 rupee currency notes (M.O-48 series), Nokia Cellphone
No.9382675252 (M.O-49) under cover of mahazar Ex.P357 in the presence of
witnesses: Bharathi (PW-129) and Venugopal (PW-130). At 04.30 p.m. he
arrested Ananda Kumar (accused No.11) at 37
th
Street, G.K.M. Colony,
Villiwakkam, Chennai and recorded the confession statement (relevant portion
Ex.P358) voluntarily given by A11, based on which, he seized knife (M.O-50),
one 500 rupee currency note (M.O-51), Nokia Cellphone No.9382207127 (M.O-
52) under cover of mahazar (Ex.P359) in the presence of the same witnesses.
He examined PW-129 and 130 and recorded their statements and he sent the
accused Nos.13 to 15 and A22 to the court for remand along with the records
and material objects.
9-29. Thereafter, on 07.11.2004, at 11.00 a.m. the Chief Investigating
Officer (PW-189) arrested Senthilkumar (accused No.24) at No.45/25, Balaji
Nagar, First Main Road, Ekattu Thangal and he recorded the confession
statement voluntarily given by him, based on which he seized Rs.50/- (M.O-53)
which was taken and handed over by him under cover of mahazar Ex.P360 in the
presence of the same witnesses (PWs-129 and 142). At 13.30 hours, he
25
arrested Ramachandiran (accused No.21) at Thiruverkadu and seized one 50
rupee currency note and one 10 rupee currency notes (M.O-54 series) from him
under cover of mahazar (Ex.P361), and on the same day, he sent both the
accused No.10 and 11 for remand.
9-30. On 09.11.2004 at 10.30 p.m., the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-
189) arrested Rajini Chinna (accused No.7) and Kathiravan (accused No.6)
opposite to Thangam Chettinad Hotel situated at the junction of Koyambedu
market, Sengundram Salai, Vadapalani, Chennai and at the same place, both A7
and A6 gave voluntary confession statements (the relevant admissible portions
are Ex.P362 and Ex.P363 respectively) which were recorded in the presence of
the same witnesses.
9-31. On 10.11.2004 at 05.00 a.m. at the place of arrest itself, the Chief
Investigating Officer (PW-189) seized a sketch Ex.P364, Nokia Cellphone
No.9840039313 (M.O-55) and cash of Rs.1,310/- (M.O-56-series currency
notes) handed over by the accused No.7 under cover of mahazar (Ex.P147); At
about 06.30 a.m. he seized one Hero Honda CD-100 red in colour motor cycle
bearing registration No. TN-09-T-9851 (M.O-57) and Yamaha RX-100 black in
colour motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-04-A-1013 (M.O-58) under cover
of seizure mahazar (Ex.P148) which were taken and handed over by the
accused No.7 in front of Indian Bank ATM Office, near Udayam Complex, Ashok
Nagar in the presence of the same witnesses.
9-32. At 09.00 a.m. on 10.11.2004 at No.32/54, Jeevanantham Street,
G.K.M. Colony, Chennai, the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) seized one
Yamaha RX-100 pink in colour motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-01-Z-1372
(M.O-59) under cover of mahazar (Ex.P150). Then P.W.189 seized a revolver
No.1302555 (M.O.60), thottas 7 in numbers (M.O.61 series), 3 numbers of 100
rupee currency notes (M.O.62- series), copy of final notice of Sankararaman
(Ex.P365) and one Nokia Cellphone in black and pink colour No.9444026062
(M.O.63) which were taken and handed over by A6-Kathiravan under cover of
26
mahazar Ex.P.152 in the presence of the same witnesses. At about 07.30 a.m.
A-6 Kathiravan handed over one Nokia Cellphone No.9840488588 (M.O-64), 60
Nos. of 500 rupee currency notes (M.O-65 series) amounting Rs.30,000/- which
were seized by P.W.189 under cover of mahazar (Ex.P153) in the presence of
the same witnesses. Then, he brought both the accused No.6 and 7 to his office
at Kanchipuram and sent them to the office of Tahsildar at Kanchipuram.
9-33. At 09.00 a.m. on 10.11.2004 at No.32/54, Jeevanantham Street,
G.K.M. Colony, Chennai, the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) seized one
Yamaha RX-100 pink in colour motor cycle bearing registration No. TN-01-Z-
1372 (M.O-59) under cover of seizure mahazar (Ex.P150) and according to the
office records, B register and Form No.24 at page No.156 (Ex.P113) which was
produced by Balaji (PW-79), the then Junior Assistant in the Regional Transport
Office, Vyasarpadi, Chennai said that the said vehicle stood in the name of
Vennila, D/o. Sugunan. At 09.30 a.m. at No.9-A, V.V.Giri Street, Sathiya
Thottam, Salikiramam, Chennai, he seized Nokia Cellphone No.9840488588
(M.O-64), 60 Nos. of 500 rupees currency notes (M.O-65 series) amounting
Rs.30,000/- which were handed over by the accused No.6 Kathiravan under
cover of seizure mahazar (Ex.P153) in the presence of the same witnesses.
Then, he brought both the accused No.6 and 7 to his office at Kanchipuram and
sent them to the office of Tahsildar at Kanchipuram.
9-34. Thiru Baskar (PW-161), the then Tahsildar, Kanchipuram recorded
the confession statements (Exs.P286 and P287) given by both the accused No.6
Kathiravan and Accused No. 7 Rajini Chinna respectively, in the presence of the
witnesses: Vimalkumar (PW-142) and Uthirakumar (PW-121) which was also
recorded through video (M.O-16) through Police Photographer (PW-169), and
sent copies of the same to him (PW-189) and the original of it was sent to the
court of J.M.-I, Kanchipuram.
9-35. On 10.11.2004 as per the order of J.M-I, Kanchipuram, the Chief
Investigating Officer (PW-189) took the accused No.6 and 7 on police custody
27
from 05.40 p.m. till 16.11.2004 at 10.30 a.m., and the witness Appandarajan
(P.W.124), Divisional Engineer, BSNL, Kanchipuram produced normal Call Billing
Records (Ex.P159) which was recovered by him and then he examined the
witnesses: T.A.Kannan (PW-30), R.Kannan, Head Constable (PW-154) and
Vasikaran Kumar (PW-32) who was the driver of Qualis Car No.TN-05-H-8263
(M.O-7) and recorded their statements. On 10.11.2004 at 09.00 p.m. he seized
one Toyotta Qualis Car No.TN-04-H-8263 (M.O-7) and its records (Ex.P58), four
numbers of photos of M.O.7 (Ex.P59), Travels note book (Ex.P61) and the
relevant entry No.480 at page 116 in Ex.P61 (Ex.P62) under cover of mahazar
(Ex.P151) in the presence of the said witnesses PW-141 and PW-121.
9-36. On 11.11.2004, after getting information that Jayendira Saraswathi
(accused No.1), Ravi Subramanian (Approver) and Appu (accused No.5) were in
Andhra Pradesh and after obtaining prior permission from the office of
Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram, he along with Thiru Davidsen,
Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram; Thiru Premkumar, Superintendent of
Police, Cuddalore District; Thiru Varadharajan, Superintendent of Police,
Thiruvallur District; and Thiru Srinivasan, Inspector of Police (PW-171) and with
video camera reached Hyderabad. With the help of local police at 10.00 p.m. at
Kudil, in the compound of Sooriya Lakshmi Cotton Mills, Mehaboob Nagar, the
Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189), after service of notice of reason for arrest,
arrested Subramanian @ Jayendira Saraswathi Swamigal (accused No.1), and
at 10.30 p.m. he seized Nokio Cellphone No.9894038005 (M.O-66) from his
possession under cover of mahazar (Ex.P366). Thiru Srinivasan (PW-171),
Inspector of Police videographed the proceedings of the arrest of the accused
No.1 Jeyandra Saraswathi Swamigal and he handed over the video cassette
(M.O-24) to the chief Investigating Officer. On 12.11.2004 at 03.30 a.m. he
brought the accused No.1 to Chennai Airport and at 06.20 a.m. he produced the
accused No.1 before J.M-I, Kanchipuram for remand.
28
9-37. During the night of 12.11.2004, N.Ravi (PW-53) gave two closed
covers to the Tahsildar, Kanchipuram (PW-161) and the original of the same
were sent to J.M-I Court, their copies were sent to P.W.189, and two letters
dated 10.9.2003 said to have been written by the deceased Sankararaman and
one letter dated 11.2.2004 said to have been written by Somasekara
Kanabadigal and three empty postal covers relating to the above said letters
(Exs.P367 series). On the basis of the requisition given by the Investigating
Officer, on 12.11.2004 the said Baskaran (PW-161), the then Tahsildar,
Kanchipuram recorded the statement of Ravi (PW-53) (Ex.P248); and similarly
on 13.11.2004 the statement of T.S.Thiagarajan (Ex.P288) in the presence of
Revenue Inspecor and Village Administrative Officer, Kanchipuram.
9-38. On 13.11.2004 at 07.00 a.m., the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-
189) seized Bill and register relating to the Cellphones No. 9894356789 and
9894038005 and application (Ex.P19) for change of second one instead of first
one (Ex.P91) in the presence of the witnesses: PW-142 and PW-129. The said
Tahsildar, Kanchipuram recorded the statement (Ex.P288) of Thiagarajan (PW-
52) and sent the same to J.M-I Court. On 14.11.2004, Thiru Muniappan (PW-
177), Inspector of Police, conducted search in the house of one Pasupathi and
prepared search list (Ex.P329) and seized photo (Ex.P330) in the presence of
Pasupathis son Kumaran and handed over the same to P.W.189 under Form-95
(Ex.P331). He sent the statements of Uthirakumar (PW-121), Thiruvengadam,
Kumaran and the documents to the court. As per order Ex.P369 Thiru Rajkumar
and Rajamani, Deputy Superintendents of Police, Thiru Samuthrakani, Inspector
of Police were nominated to him to assist the investigation in this case. On
summons at 04.00 p.m. Sundaresan (accused No.3) and witness Viswanathan
@ Kaladi Viswanathan were present, and at 18.00 hours he seized Reliance
Cellphone No.9364324348 (M.O-67) from Sundaresan (accused No.3) under
cover of mahazar Ex.P156 in the presence of the said witnesses PW-142 and
121. Then P.W.189 examined the witnesses: Veppathur Radhakrishnan,
29
Vimalkumar (PW-142), Uthirakumar (PW-121) and recorded their statements and
sent the same to the court.
9-39. Thiru A.Muniappan (PW-177), Inspector of Police, Sivakanchi
Police Station was appointed as one of the special Investigating officers as per
the appointment order dated 17.09.2004 (Ex.P326) in this case to function along
with the Chief Investigating Officer, Thiru Sakthivel, Additional Superintendent of
Police (PW-189. on 14.11.2004, on receipt of reliable information that there are
clues available in the house of Pasupathi, S/o. Mahadeva Mudaliar, Nellukara
Street, Kanchipuram, and on the direction of the Chief Investigating Officer, after
sending advance intimations (Ex.P327 and P328) for house search to the Court
of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kanchipuram, conducted house search at 05.00 p.m.
in the house of Pasupathi, in the presence of. Village Administrative Officers,
Uthirakumar (PW-121) and Thiruvengadam. Since Pasupathi (PW-132) was not
present in that house, after informing his son, Kumaran about the search to be
conducted and having asked him to be present during the house search,
concluded the house search at 06.00 p.m, seized Photo with the images of A1-
Jeyandra Saraswathi, A3-Sundaresa Iyer, Approver-Ravisubramanian and
Pasupathi (Ex.P330) under Form-95 (Ex.P331) in the presence of the said two
witnesses, prepared House Search report (Ex.P 329), and furnished a copy of
the House Search report to the said Kumaran, son of Pasupathi after getting the
signatures of the witnesses as well as Kumaran. Then he recorded the
statements of Kumaran, Uthirakumar (PW-121) and Thiruvengadam and sent the
report to the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kanchipuram.
9-40. On 15.11.2004 at 04.00 p.m. the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-
189) examined Prakash (PW-60), Reporter of Nakkeeran Weekly Magazine and
recovered three Nakkeeran Weekly issues, dated 25.09.2004, 04.11.2004 and
15.09.2004 (Exs.P100, P101 and P102 respectively) and Sony small audio
casette (M.O-15) from him in the presence of Uthirakumar (PW-121) and witness
Thiruvengadam and sent them to the court. On 16.11.2004 at 10.30 a.m. he
30
produced the accused No.6 and 7 before the court, after completion of police
custody and again, he got permission from the court concerned to keep them
under police custody for two days. On 05.11.2004 the accused No.9 Madu
Baskar and accused No.23 Silver Star Stalin surrendered before the District
Munsif Court cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvetriyur. He sent requisitions to all
banks at Kanchipuram requesting them to give particulars of the accounts
maintained by Sankara Mutt. On 17.11.2004 he sent the accused No.6-
Kathiravan to the court for remand. Further, he came to know that Ambi @
Ambigapathy (accused No.8) surrendered before the Court at Alandur.
9-41. On the same day, the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) gave a
requisition to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet to nominate a Judicial
Magistrate to conduct identification parade to identify the accused No.7 Chinna
@ Rajini Chinna by the witnesses: Uma Maithrayee (PW-2), Padma (PW-1),
N.S.Ganesh (PW-4), and Duraikannu (PW-5). He also gave a requisition to him
to nominate a Judicial Magistrate to record statement u/s. 164 of Cr.P.C. from the
accused No.6 Kathiravan. Again, he gave a requisition to him to nominate a
Judicial Magistrate for recording statements u/s. 164 of Cr.P.C. from the
witnesses: PW-154, T.A.Kannan (PW-30), Padma (PW-1), Uma Maithrayee
(PW-2), Ananda Krishna Sharma (PW-3), Bala @ Balakumar (PW-12),
S.Radhakrishnan Mandaveli (PW-20), N.Ravi (PW-53), Thiagarajan (PW-52),
Vasikaran Kumar (PW-32), N.S.Ganesh (PW-4), Duraikannu (PW-5).
Accordingly, Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kanchipuram was nominated to record the
statements of the accused No.6 and 17.
9-42. Thiru V.Damodaran, Judicial Magistrate-I, Puducherry who was the
then Judicial Magistrate-II, Kanchipuram (PW-160), on the direction of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet, vide Order No. 3989/2004 dt.17/11/2004, sent a
letter to the Superintendent of Jail, Kanchipuram for producing A6 before him on
18.11.2004 at 11.30 a.m for recording 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Kathiravan
(accused No.6) and accordingly, the accused No.6 was produced before him with
31
the assistance of Sairam and Gunasekaran, Gr.II Constables, after verifying the
name, address and other details of the accused, after closing the door of the
Court hall, only in the presence of Assistants Murugesan and Jayalakshmi and
A.6- Kathiravan, he questioned A6-Kathiravan as to whether he was willing to
make a confession for which A6 stated that he was willing to make a confession.
He informed him to think over about the confession to be given by him and he
was given 24 hours time and he was sent back to prison directing the above said
police constables to produce A6 on the next day. On the next day, i.e.
19.11.2004, Kathiravan (accused No.6) was produced before him at 11.00 a.m.
Court Staff Jayalakshmi and Murugesan were present in the Court. The
questions put to the accused and the replies given by the accused were recorded
u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. The 164 Cr.P.C. statement of A6 is Ex.P281 and he sent the
same to the Judicial Magistrate-I, Kanchipuram. Similarly, after following the
procedure, he recorded the 164 Cr.P.C. statement (Ex.P282) of Pandian @ Thil
Pandian (accused No.17) on 22.11.2004 and 23.11.2004. Ex.P283 is the
requisition given by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram to the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet on 03.11.2004. Ex.P284 is the Order of
the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 17.11.2004. Similarly, after following the
procedure, he recorded the confession statement of Approver, Subramanian @
Ravi Subramanian on 30.11.2004 and 31.11.204. The questions put to them and
the replies given by them were recorded by him.
9-43. The Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) collected the call details of
phone No. 0431-2433779 and Cellphone No. 9443282333 relating to one
Thiruchi Usha (PW-180) and Cellphone No. 9894356789 from 1.9.2004 to
23.9.2004 pertaining to the first accused. Investigating Officer (PW-189) sent the
cellphone belonging to the accused No.1 to the court concerned. Thereafter,
PW-189 filed an application before Judicial Magistrate No.1 for police custody of
the accused No.1. He took the accused No.1 Jayendirar under police custody
32
from 19.11.2004 at 12.05 noon to 22.11.2004 at 10.30 a.m. and examined him
and recorded his statement.
9-44. On 21.11.2004 at 15.00 hours, the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-
189) seized four letters (Exs.P370, P371, P372 and P373 all series), telephone
diary (Ex.P374) belonging to A1, one cellphone charger (M.O-68) through
Neyveli Krishnamoorthy as statted by Jayendira Swamigal (A1) under cover of
mahazar Ex.P375 in the presence of witnesses: Rajkumar (PW-136) and
Nagarajan (PW-137). Entire proceedings are recorded in Video and the same
was sent to the court concerned. Then, he examined Kalyanapuram
Vaithianathan (PW-67), Simson Vaithianathan (PW-20), Veppathur
Radhakrishnan, Ravi and Egambaram and recorded their statements. After
completion of police custody, he produced the accused No.1 Jayendirar to the
court for judicial custody. On 22.11.2004 the identification parade was
conducted in the Chennai Central Jail.
9-45. Tmt. S.Mahalakshmi (PW-159), Sub Judge, Madurantagam and
functioned as District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirukazhukundram, based
on the requisition Ex.P276 and as per the order (Ex.P275) dated 18.11.2004 of
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet, to conduct Test Identification Parade
in respect of A7-Rajnikant @ Rajni @ Rajni Chinna by witnesses, Uma Mythreyi,
Padma, N.S.Ganesan and K.Duraikannu, she sent letter of requisition (Ex.P280)
to the Superintendent of Central Jail for making necessary arrangement for
conducting Test Identification Parade on 22.11.2004 and she issued proceedings
(Ex.P279) to the Additional Superintendent of Police for production of witnesses
along with witness summons. On 22.11.2004 at 11.00 a.m along with her
Assistant, Uthirianathan, she proceeded to Central Jail, Chennai and she
selected the place for conducting Identification Parade in the Central Jail
premises, she ascertained that the witnesses summoned have been present,
after identifying Rajnikant @ Rajni @ Rajni Chinna (Accused No.7), she selected
14 inmates similar to the age, height, complexion and colour of suspect accused
33
No.7 and asked the inmates to stand in a row and asked the accused No.7 to
stand in the 7
th
place, thereafter, she brought the witness Mythreyi (PW-2)
through the Court staff to the place where the inmates and the suspect were
standing in the row, and she asked the witness to identify the suspect, the
witness Mythreyi (PW-2) correctly identified the suspect in the 7
th
place by
touching him. Thereafter, the witness was sent to a hidden place and the row
was shuffled. Thereafter, the witness was brought twice and was asked to
identify the suspect, and the witness identified the suspect, who was standing 8
th

place for the second time and at 10
th
place for the third time correctly by touching
him and thereafter, the witness was sent to the hidden place.
9-46. Further, Padma (PW-1), who was waiting outside Central Jail
premises was brought inside the prison and after following the same formalities,
the witness identified the suspect correctly in all the three times who was
standing at 10
th
, 15
th
and 6
th
place respectively. Thereafter, the witness was sent
to the hidden place. Subsequently, the witness N.S.Ganesh (PW-4), and
Duraikannau (PW-5) who were standing outside the Central Jail were brought to
the place where the Identification parade is being conducted and the witness
Ganesh was asked to identify the suspect and who correctly identified the
suspect who was standing at 6
th
, 14
th
& 11
th
place respectively. Similarly, the next
witness, Duraikannu (PW-5) was asked to identify the suspect and he correctly
identified the suspect Rajini Chinna (Accused No.7) who was standing at 15
th
,
11
th
and 1
st
place respectively. Then P.W.159 asked the accused, as to whether
he wants to say anything, for which the suspect stated that he was already
shown to the witnesses by the police and she recorded the same in her report.
Then the accused was sent to the cell. The Identification Parade was over at
12.30 hours. She sent the Test Identification Parade Report (Ex.P277) dated
22.11.2004 to the Judicial Magistrate-I, Kanchipuram along with her notes (Ex.P
278).
34
9-47. On 23.112004, the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) recovered
General Diary and Case Diary of Inspector of Police (PW-167) containing 68
pages for the period from 3.9.2004 to 30.9.2004 (Ex.P376) relating to Vishnu
Kanchi Police Station under cover of mahazar (Ex.P155) in the presence of the
witnesses PW-121, and PW-142.
9-48. On 24.11.2004 at 11.00 a.m. near Chennai Central Railway Station,
the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) arrested the accused Anil @ Anil Kumar
(A12), and at 13.00 hours he recorded his voluntary confession statement
(admissible portion Ex.P377) in the presence of the witnesses: Vimalkumar (PW-
142) and Subramani (PW-166), and thereafter, at door No.562-A, Thiru Mullai
Vayil Saraswathi Nagar, A12 has taken and handed over a blood stained knife
with wooden handle (M.O.25) which was used by Accused Madu Baskar (A9) at
the time of occurrence and the same was seized by him under cover of mahazar
(Ex.P378) in the presence of the witnesses: PWs-142 and 166. On 25.11.2004
he took the accused No.12 under Police custody and at 14.00 hours at Kothari
Finance shop belonging to Dinesh Kumar situated at Red Hills Road, Villiwakkam
he seized a Pulsar motor cycle black in colour bearing registration No. TN-02-S-
4479 (M.O-8) which was driven by the accused No.7 Rajini Chinna and its
records (Exs.P80 to 82) from Loonchand (PW-50) under cover of mahazar
(Ex.P83) in the presence of the same witnesses.
9-49. The Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) took the accused
Ambigapathi @ Ambi (A8) under police custody from 24.11.2004 at 05.00 p.m. to
26.11.2004 at 01.30 p.m.. On 24.11.2004 at 08.00 p.m. he recorded his
confession statement (admissible portion Ex.P379) voluntarily given by him, on
the basis of which, at 15.00 hours at door No.14, Onion Mandi, Pillaiyar Koil
Street, Maduravayil, Chennai, adjacent to the house of the accused, he seized a
knife (M.O-26) and one blood stained fullhand shirt blue in colour (M.O-27) which
were handed over by A8 under cover of mahazar (Ex.P380). Then at 04.00 p.m.
at door No.65, Rajan Main Road, Kulathur, Chennai, he seized a Suzuki motor
35
cycle red in colour bearing registration No.TN-02-L-0469 (M.O-69) hidden at the
back of the house of A10 Kumar which was identified by A8, under cover of
mahazar (Ex.P381). Then at 05.00 p.m. from the Pawn Broker shop of
Sunilkumar Jain (PW-49) at door No.28/2, Jambulingam Main Road, G.K.M.
Colony, Chennai, he seized child ring 2 in Nos. (M.O-70 series) and a child
bracelet. (M.O-71) both are weighing 5.8 Ml.Gram which were pledged byA8, and
receipt book (Ex.P78) under cover of mahazar (Ex.P79). Then at 06.00 p.m.
from the Pawn Broker shop of L.Harishkumar (PW-74), door No.1/105,
Poonamalli High Road, Nerkundram, he seized one chain (RmL Nu)
weighing 10 grams (M.O-72) and receipt (Ex.P110) from the shop of Kamalabai
under cover of mahazar (Ex.P111) all in the presence of the witnesses: PWs-142
and 166, and went to Kanchipuram along with material objects, witnesses and
the accused. He examined the witnesses: Loonchand (PW-50), Sunilkumar
(PW-49), Harishkumar (PW-74), Vimalkumar (PW-142) and Subramanian (PW-
166) and recorded their statements.
9-50. On 26.11.2004, the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) gave a
requisition to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to conduct identification parade to
identify the accused Madu Baskar (A9) and accused Ambigapathi (A8). Then he
produced both the accused before the Judicial Magistrate No.1 for remand.
Thereafter, he seized office records (Ex.P125) from the witness Ravikumar (PW-
114), Joint Commissioner, Velore under cover of mahazar (Ex.P382). On
27.11.2004 he examined witness Manimaran (PW-34) near Central Railway
Station, Elumalai (PW-35), and Mani (PW-36) at G.K.M. Colony and recorded
their statements. They confirmed the photographs of the accused No.7, 8, 9, 10,
11 and 12 by signing therein. On 28.11.2004 at 12.00 noon, he seized the
records Exs.P383 to 387 used and handled by the deceased Sankararaman
which were produced by Thiru Thirugnanasambandam (PW-10) under cover of
mahazar Ex.P388. Further he seized a letter written in English (Ex.P389) and a
file (Ex.P390) written in Tamil by the deceased Sankararaman in the presence of
36
witnesses: PWs-136 and 137. On 28.11.2004 at 11.00 a.m. he seized the files
(Exs.P90, P91 and P391) which were produced by Maharajan (PW-56) under
cover of mahazar (Ex.P392) in the presence of the same witnesses. He
examined the witnesses: Vaithianathan @ Ramesh, Ramu (PW-48),
Viswanathan (PW-55), Maharajan (PW-56), Rajkumar (PW-136), Nagarajan
(PW-137) and Jaganathan and recorded their statements. On the same day at
05.00 p.m. he collected sample signatures of Padma (PW-1), Uma Maithirayee
(PW-2), Ananda Krishna Sharma (PW-3), (Exs.P6 to Ex.P10, Ex.P12 and Ex.P13
respectively) Usha Srirangam (PW-180) and witness Jaganathan under cover of
seizure mahazar (Ex.P393) in the presence of the witnesses: Rajkumar (PW-
136) and Nagarajan (PW-137), he examined them and recorded their
statements. On 29.11.2004, he recovered a file containing application written by
the deceased Sankararaman and its enquiry report both dated 27.12.2001 and
1.2.2002 pages from 1 to 72 (Ex.P122) from Krishnamoorthy (PW-113), the then
Superintendent, in the office of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment,
Utthamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai, under cover of mahazar (Ex.P394). on
13.12.2004, he seized another correspondence file containing application given
by the deceased Sankararaman and Jaganathan and its enquiry report both
dated 3.7.2002 and 8.1.2003 (Ex.P123 series 5) from the said Thiru
Krishnamoorthy (PW-113), under cover of mahazar (Ex.P124), he examined the
witnesses: Krishnamoorthy (PW-113), Anuradha Ramanan and Tmt. Sivapriya
(PW-165), and recorded their statements.
9-51. Dr.V.Sivapriya (PW-165), Sceintific Officer, Forensic Science
Department, Chennai, on the requisition (Ex.P294) of Judicial Magistrate-I,
Kanchipuram examined M.Os 1 to 4 and she sent the blood examination report
No. S.E.R.No.282/4 (Ex.P295) to the Judicial Magistrate-I, Kanchipuram.
9-52. Thiru. R.Rajendiran (PW-158), Special Judge I in Jayamkondan
who was then functioned as Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chengalpet, based on the
requisition Ex.P271 and as per the proceedings (Ex.P272) of the Chief Judicial
37
Magistrate, Chengalpet, to conduct Test Identification Parade in respect of A9-
Baskar @ Madu Baskar and A8-Ambigapathy by witnesses, Uma Mythreyi,
Padma, N.S.Ganesan and K.Duraikannu, he sent letter of requisition (Ex.P273)
to the Superintendent of Central Jail for making necessary arrangement for
conducting Test Identification Parade on 29.11.2004 at 11.00 a.m. He issued
proceedings (Ex.P274) to the Additional Superintendent of Police for production
of witnesses along with witness summons. On 29.11.2004 at 11.00 a.m along
with Court staff Arunachalam, he proceeded to Central Jail, Chennai and
selected the place sketched as AB for conducting Identification Parade in the
Central Jail premises. Since the physical features, age, colour and complexion
of the accused persons are different, he has chosen to conduct the identification
parade separately for each of the accused. Then he selected eight inmates of
the prison similar to the complexion, height, physical features and age of suspect
Madu Baskar (accused No.9) and asked them to wait at the AB place. Similarly,
he selected another eight inmates with similar physical features, Colour, height,
age and complextion like suspect Ambigapathy (accused No.8) and asked them
to wait in the Thiana Mandapam shown in the sketch. Then, at the outside of the
jail premies, the Inspector of Police, Balu produced the witnesses, Mythreyi (PW-
2), Padman (PW-1), N.S.Ganesh (PW-4) and Duraikannu (PW-5) and he verified
them with reference to the summons, and then, he brought the witnesses inside
the Central Jail, asked them to wait in the Electric Room shown in the sketch,
closed the door and left them in the custody of Court staff, Arunachalam. He
made arrangement in such a way till the identification parade is over, others did
not have any access to the witnesses or make any signs or have any contact
with them. At 11.00 a.m., he started the Identification Parade in respect of the
suspect Baskar @ Madu Baskar (accused No.9), he asked A9 and eight inmates
to change their dress among themselves and asked them to stand in the place
'AB' from East to West, he asked A9 to stand in the place which he chosen, A9
stood at 7
th
place in the row, then the Court staff, Arunachalam brought the
38
witness Mythreyi (PW-2) and the name of the witness was informed to the
persons standing including the suspect in the row and the witness was asked to
identify by touching the suspect, accordingly, the witness correctly identified the
suspect Baskar @ Madu Baskar (accused No.9) by touching him. Thereafter, he
sent the witness Mythreyi (PW-2) to a hidden place shown as 'C' in the sketch.
Thereafter, he asked the persons standing in the row to change their dress and
asked the accused No.9 to stand in the row at the place of his choise, and the
witness Mythreye (PW-2) was brought twice and was asked to identify the
suspect by touching him, she correctly identified the suspect Baskar @ Madu
Baskar (accused No.9) by touching him in all times. Thereafter, the signature of
the accused was obtained and he was sent to wait in the hidden place.
9-53. Thereafter, by following the same procedure, he asked the witness
Padma (PW-1) to identify the suspect and accordingly, the witness Padma (PW-
1) identified the suspect Baskar @ Madu Baskar (accused No.9). Thereafter, he
asked the Witnesses: N.S.Ganesh (PW-4) and Duraikannu (PW-5) to identify the
suspect separately by following the same procedure and the witnesses did not
identify any one, and then, he asked them to wait in the place shown 'D' in the
sketch, and he directed the inmates of the jail to go to their cell. He asked
Baskar @ Madu Baskar (accused No.9) as to whether he wants to say anything
about the parade conducted and A9 stated that he was already shown to the
witnesses several times by the police and he recorded the same in his report and
obtained the signature of A9. The Test Identification Parade in respect of the
accused No.9 Baskar @ Madu Baskar was over by 12.15 hours.
9-54. Thereafter, the Test identification parade relating to suspect A8-
Ambigapathi was started at 12.30 hours. He asked each of the four witnesses to
identify separately three times each. All the four witnesses identified the suspect
Ambi @ Ambigapathy (accused No.8) correctly. He sent the witnesses to the
place 'D' and sent the inmates to the cell, and he asked the accused No.8 Ambi
@ Ambigapathi as to whether he wants to say anything about the Identification
39
Parade conducted. He stated that he was already shown to the witnesses by the
police and he recorded his reply in the Identification Parade Report. The
Identification Parade was over by 13.15 hours. He sent the Identification Parade
Report (Ex.P270) to Judicial Magistrate-I, Kanchipuram.
9-55. On 30.11.2004, the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) examined
the witnesses: Gajapathy (PW-7), Baskar (PW-14), Kasthuri (PW-13), Nadarajan
(PW-15), Kumar (PW-9), Atchudan @ Atchu (PW-8), Ravikumar (PW-114),
Rajkumar (PW-136 and Nagarajan (PW-137) and recorded their statements and
he confirmed the accused persons by showing their photographs to the above
said witnesses except PW-136 and PW-137 and obtained their signatures
therein. On 30.11.2004, Ravikumar (PW-114), the then Manager of Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowment, Vellore handed over the files relating to
the case (Ex.P125) to P.W.189, the Chief Investigating Officer.
9-56. On the basis of the 164 Cr.P.C. statements of the accused and
witnesses, the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) sent Tmt. Vittabai, Inspector
of Police, All Women Police Station, Kanchipuram to Srirangam and she stayed
there on 26.11.2004 and 27.11.2004 and she recorded the statement of Tmt.
Usha (PW-180) relating to her Indian Bank account No. 20977 wherein the
particulars of D.Ds. sent by Kanchimutt were available. On 01.12.2004 at 01.00
p.m. he (PW-189) seized the records containing 70 pages (Ex.P395) which was
produced by the said Usha (PW-180) under cover of mahazar (Ex.P396). At
02.00 p.m. he received the letter and statement of S.B. Account No.20977
(Ex.P397) sent by Indian Bank, Srirangam Branch through courier under cover of
mahazar (Ex.P398) in the presence of the witnesses: PW-136 and PW-137.
9-57. On 02.12.2004, the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) sent the
call details of the cellphones relating to the accused persons to Judicial
Magistrate No.1, Kanchipuram. At 10.00 a.m., he seized two computer sets
(M.O-9 and 14) from the shop of Senthilvel (PW-54) where the deceased used to
prepare the petitions, under cover of mahazar (Ex.P89) in the presence of the
40
witnesses: Rajkumar (PW-136) and Nagarajan (PW-137). He examined
Sivaraman (PW-133), Correspondent, Jayendirar Saraswathi Samy Training
School and recorded his statement, he seized a file containing 22 pages
regarding the money transaction relating to Jai Builders through letter (Ex.P399)
under cover of mahazar (Ex.P400) in the presence of the witnesses: PW-136 and
PW-137, and he examined the above said witnesses and recorded their
statements.
9-58. The Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) sent letters to the
Managers of Bank of India, Dena Bank, and Central Co-operative Bank
requesting them to furnish the details of the accounts relating to the Sankaramutt
and Trust, he also sent a letter to the Manager, Airtel requesting him to furnish
information regarding the call details pertaining to the cellphone No.9840024326
used by Swami Sankarachariar. On 03.12.2004, he examined Thiru
Sambasivam, Manager, Dena Bank; Thiru Rajendiran, Bank of India; and Thiru
Ramadass, Central Bank of India and recorded their statements. He submitted
an application to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet for recording the
statements u/s. 164 of Cr.P.C. of Usha (PW-180), Senthilvel (PW-54) and
witness Anuradha Ramanan. The Judicial Magistrate, Uthiramerur was
nominated for that purpose.
9-59. The Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) sent a letter to the
accused No.3 Sundaresan Iyyer, directing him to produce cash book, bank pass-
books, ledger from 1.4.2003 to 30.11.2004, Janakalyan Trust Minute Book, Bank
Balance sheet up to 31.3.2004 and auditor report, income-tax returns for 2004-
2005, copy of register given as per Section 12-A of the Income Tax Act,
Janakalyan Trust S.B. account No.8510, account and cash books, bank pass-
books, General ledgers. Further, he sent letters to Bharath Overseas Bank,
S.B.I., UCO bank, Union Bank of India, ICICI Bank, Bank of India, Kanchipuram
Co-op. Town Bank Ltd., Canara Bank, Central Bank of India, City Union Bank,
Dena Bank, Indian Bank, Indian Overseas Bank, Kanchi Central Co-op. Bank,
41
Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Punjab National Bank, Tamilnad Mercantile Bank, Karur
Vysia Bank, South Indian Bank, Vijaya Bank and Kanchipuram Post Office,
relating to the accounts of the Mutt. He examined the witness Ganapathy (PW-
110) and recorded his statement.
9-60. On 04.12.2004, the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) examined
Harigaran (PW-101), Madava Ganapadigal (PW-95), Tmt. Jayalakshmi (PW-25),
Tmt. Ramani (PW-99), Datchinamurthy (PW-100), Manickavasagam (PW-42),
Selvam (PW-102), Saravanan (PW-37) by showing the photographs of the
accused persons and after confirming the same as that of the accused who have
been seen by them on the dates of 02.09.2004 and 03.09.2004 at the place of
occurrence and then he recorded their statements and obtained their signatures.
He gave a requisition to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet to record 164
Cr.P.C. statements of the above said witnesses. Similarly, on 05.12.2004, he
examined the witnesses Subramanian, Tmt. Kanagammal, Gobichandiran,
R.Suresh, T.R.Baskaran (PW-14), Datchinamoorthy (PW-100), Govindan (PW-
21), Venkadachary (PW-94), Venkatesan (PW-28), and Srinivasan (PW-64) by
showing the photographs of the accused persons and after confirming the same
as that of the accused and thereafter, he recorded their statements.
9-61. Thiru G.Sri Rama Jeyam (PW-170), District Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate, Uthiramerur, as per the direction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Chengalpet, on the basis of a requisition given by the Inspector of Police, after
issue of summons to the witnesses viz. Padma (PW-1), Uma Maithireyee (PW-
2), Anandakrishna Sharma (PW-3), T.A.Kannan (PW-30), R.Kannan (PW-154),
Bala @ Balakumar (PW-112), on 23.11.2004, recorded the 164 Cr.P.C.
statements of PW1 to PW.3, P.W.30, P.W.154 and their 164 Cr.P.C. statements
are Ex.P4, Ex.P8, Ex.P11, Ex.P54 and Ex.P264 respectively and he also
recorded the 164 Cr.P.C.statement of Bala @ Balakumr (PW-112). On
24.11.2004 he recorded the 164 Cr.P.C. statements of witnesses: PW-4, PW-5,
PW-32, PW-52 and PW-53 and their 164 Cr.P.C.statements are Ex.P16, Ex.P17,
42
Ex.P60, Ex.P86 and Ex.P87 respectively. As per the requisition dated
03.12.2004 by the Investigating Officer and on the direction of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Chengalpet, after issuing summons to the witnesses, on 06.12.2004
he recorded the 164 Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses Anuradha Ramanan
and Senthilvel (PW-54) and P.W.54s 164 Cr.P.C. statement is Ex.P88, on
08.12.2004 he recorded the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Ambazhagan (PW-16)
which is Ex.P37, on 13.12.2004 he recorded the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Gobu
Shesha Sayee (PW-44) which is Ex.P76. Further, as per the requisition dated
16.12.2004 of the Investigating Officer and on the direction of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Chengalpet, after issuing summons to the witnesses, on 27.12.2004
he recorded the 164 Cr.P.C. statements of Sivalingam @ Srinivasan (PW-64)
and Saravanan (PW-37), which are Ex.P106 and Ex. P65 respectively, on
28.12.2004, he recorded the statements of Vaidyanathan (PW-67), Govindan
(PW-21), T.R.Baskaran (PW-31), Manickavasagam (PW-42), Lakshmanan
(PW-78), and Adikesavan (PW-38) which are Ex.P108, Ex.P48, Ex.P57,
Ex.P112 and Ex.P319 respectively and on the same day he also recorded the
164 Cr.P.C. statement of Selvi Reena. Similarly, as per the requisition dated
11.01.2005 given by the Investigating Officer and on the direction of the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet, on 17.01.2005, he recorded the 164 Cr.P.C.
statements of Vaidyanathan (PW-18), Subramanian @ Mani Iyyer (PW-24) and
Krishnan @ Bombay Krishnan (PW-19) which are Ex.P47, Ex.P51 and Ex.P320
respectively and on the same day he recorded the 164 Cr.P.C.statement of
Sambasiva Iyer. Similarly, on 20.01.2005, he recorded the 164 Cr.P.C.
statements of R.Krishnamoorthy, a member of Jana Kalyan Trust (PW-156),
Ramarathinam (PW-147), Dharmalingam (PW-175) and Murugesan (PW-176)
which are Ex.P267, Ex.P254, Ex.P249 Ex.P321 and Ex.P322 respectively and
soon after the recording of the 164 Cr.P.C. statements he sent all the statements
to Judicial Magistrate-I, Kanchipuram.
43
9-62. According to R.Nagaraj (PW-143), Chartered Accountant, he is the
Managing Trustee from October, 2000 in Shri Kanchi Kamokodi Peedam
Kadikashraman Trust and he was appointed as the Managing Trustee by A2-
Vijeyandra Saraswathi Swamigal, the Trust used to help students to learn
Sanskrit, Balasubramanian, Murthy, Neelakanda Iyer are the other Trustees. In
connection with the construction of Manimandapam for the senior
SankaraChariar (Maha Periavar) of Sankara Madam, donations were used to be
received from various persons by Kadikashram Trust and the donations thus,
received used to be transferred according to the bye-laws of the Kadikashram
Trust to S.S.S.M.M. Trust and for which audit would be conducted. In the above
Kadikashram Trust, Ramesh Kumar and witness Ganesan were staff. In
connection with Golden Jubilee Celebration and to commemorate the completion
of 50 years as SankaraChariar of Kanchipuram in respect of Accused No.1,
Rs.40 lakhs had been spent according to the bye-laws, and he gave statement
(Ex.P249) before Judicial Magistrate, Uthiramerur on 20.01.2005 in which he had
signed. On 29.10.2004 from Kadikashram Trust Rs.10 lakhs was withdrawn
through D.D.973266 from S.B. Account No.51495 for the purpose of construction
of Manimandapam, and S.S.S.M.M. Trust asked to give the D.D. without
mentioning the number of the bank account. But according to F.C.N.R rule,
when amount is transferred from one trust to another trust bank account number
has to be mentioned, and therefore, they returned the D.D (Ex.P250).
9-63. On 08.12.2004 the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) examined
Vaidyanathan (PW-67) who appeared before him and recorded his statement, at
that time he seized Ex.P109 records containing 30 pages from him under cover
of mahazar (Ex.P401) in the presence of the witnesses. At 11.45 a.m. Gopu
Seshasayee (PW-44) appeared and produced the bills relating to the cellphone
No.9884218735 (Ex.P84) and 9884222354 (Ex.P85) he seized the same under
cover of mahazar (Ex.P402) in the presence of the witnesses PW-129 and PW-
130. At 05.00 p.m., he seized lawyer's notice dated 12.11.01 (Ex.P36) issued by
44
Thiru Anbazhagan, Advocate (PW-16) on behalf of the deceased Sankararaman
to accused No.1 and 3 from him under cover of mahazar (Ex.P403) in the
presence of the said witnesses, examined him and recorded his statement. At
06.00 p.m., he recovered video casettes 7 in Nos. which were used for recording
of the interrogation of the accused persons, taken by Thirumoorthy (PW-169)
under Form-95. He examined PW-169 and recorded his statemen and sent the
same to the court. Again, he examined PW-120, Suresh and recorded his
statement.
9-64. On 09.12.2004, the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) examined
the witnesses S.Ramasamy, Veeraragavan, Ramachandiran, and recorded their
statements. He gave a requisition to Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kanchipuram for
sending the records to the Forensic Science Department for examination. He
gave an application to the Manager, Airtel, Santhome, Chennai, to produce the
application given for hiding the call numbers in the Cellphone No. 9840218735.
On 12.12.2004, he showed the photograph of the accused persons to Reena
(PW-39) and after confirming it, obtained her signature therein, examined her
and recorded her statement. He showed the photograph of the accused persons
to Lakshmanan (PW-78) who is running Guru Video Library and Adikesavan
(PW-38), after confirming it, obtained their signatures therein, he examined them
and recorded their statements. Then he examined K.Viswanathan (PW-55) to
speak about the relationship of Ravi Subramaniam with the Mutt,
Ravisubramanian (PW-40) and Chitra (PW-181) wife of Ravisubramanian and
recorded their statements. On 13.12.2004, at 12.00 noon in his house, he seized
final notice (Ex.P404) produced by Vaidyanathan (PW-67) under cover of
mahazar (Ex.P405), and at 01.00 p.m. he received a document (Ex.P406)
containing 18 pages sent by Rajesh Sankar (PW-51) through post under cover of
mahazar (Ex.P407). At 03.00 p.m., he seized five documents (Ex.P123)
produced by Krishnamoorthy (PW-113), Superintendent, Hindu Religious
Institution and Endowment Department under cover of mahazar (Ex.P124) in the
45
presence of the witnesses PW-129 and PW-130, examined the above witnesses
and recorded their statements.
9-65. On 14.12.2004, at about 09.00 a.m., at door No.36, C.I.D. Colony
Main Road, Azhvarpet, the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) seized Ford Icon
car bearing registration No. TN-05-E-2112 (M.O-28) along with its Invoice
(Ex.P408) under cover of mahazar (Ex.P335) in the presence of witnesses
Subramanian (PW-166) and Mani (PW-185).
9-66. On the same day, the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189)
examined the witness Sama Sastri, Sankaramutt and recorded his statement.
He gave a letter to the Managers of News Papers requesting them to give details
about the payment made for the advertisement dated 08.12.2004 given by
Kanchipuram District Registrar and Sankara Mutt Trust. He examined
R.Viswanathan, Accountant of Sankara Mutt (PW-55), witnesses Dr. Kathirvelu,
and Ramalingam and recorded their statements.
9-67. On 19.12.2004, at 03.30 p.m., Thiru Prem Kumar, Superintendent
of Police and Thiru Srinivasan (PW-171), Deputy Superintendent of Police
arrested the accused No.5 Appu @ Krishnasamy who hide himself in the middle
of the mountain at Balakrishnapuram, Chittoor District and produced him before
him at 09.00 p.m., he interrogated him and recorded his confession statement,
thereafter, he altered section of law into 194, 201, 205, 213, 214, 120-B of IPC
and prepared a report and sent it to the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kanchipuram
and at 02.15 p.m. he produced the accused No.5 before the J.M-1, Kanchipuram
who permitted him to examine the accused No.5 in the police custody from
20.12.2004 at 04.00 p.m. to 22.12.2004 at 05.00 p.m.. At 12.00 noon, he seized
five documents (Ex.P253) from R.P.Dharmalingam (PW-175) under cover of
mahazar (Ex.P409), he examined him and recorded his statement.
9-68. On 24.12.2004 at 07.15 p.m., the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-
189) arrested the accused No.3 Sundaresan and after interrogation, recorded his
confession (admissible portion Ex.P410) voluntarily given by him, and at 11.00
46
p.m. he seized Nokia cellphone No.9884222354 (M.O-29) which was used by the
accused No.1 and produced by one Ananda Narayanan under cover of mahazar
(Ex.P337) in the presence of the said witnesses Nagarajan (PW-137) and Mani
(PW-185).
9-69. On 25.12.2004 at 08.00 a.m., the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-
189) seized six documents, namely, 1) Xerox copy of Indian Bank cheque dated
6.10.04 for Rs. 5 lakhs signed by A3 (Ex.P339); 2) Jan Kalyan Trust voucher
dated 06.12.2004 (Ex.P340) in which A3 and Subramanian signed; 3) Cash
Register for 2004 05 of Sri Kanchi Jan Kalyan Trust (Ex.P266); 4) Sri
Kanchi Jan Kalyan Trust Deed (Ex.P341); 5) Memorandum of Sale Agreement
dated 02.02.2004 between M.Suresh, Managing Director, Bargav Foundation
and 8 others (Ex.P342); and 6) Canara Bank Cheque No.790206 for Rs.75
lakhs signed by Suresh, M.D. Bargav Foundation (Ex.P343) under cover of
mahazar (Ex.P338) from the accused No.3 in the presence of the above said two
witnesses, he examined them and recorded their statements. On the same day,
he sent the accused No.3 to the court concerned for remand along with the
records.
9-70. On the same day, at 06.00 p.m., the Chief Investigating Officer
(PW-189) recorded the confession given by the accused No.5 Appu @
Krishnasamy (admissibile portion Ex.P411) in the presence of the witnesses PW-
136 and PW-137, he examined them along with PW-185 and recorded their
statements. At 06.30 a.m. at No.6, Indira Gandhi Street, Iyyempakkam Town,
Chennai, he seized a document (Ex.P92) containing 8 pages produced by
Anthoni (PW-57) under cover of mahazar (Ex.P412). At 06.40 a.m. seized a
board (M.O-73) with name of Bharath Trading Company under cover of mahazar
(Ex.P413) in the presence of the accused No.5 and witnesses PW-129 and PW-
137. At 11.15 a.m. at door No.36, C.I.D. Colony main road, Chennai, he seized
the documents namely, 1) R.C. book relating to the car No. TN-05-E-2112
(Ex.P414), 2) a Passport of K.G.Krishnasamy No. N-263060 dated 12.01.2003,
47
3) Riffle Licence No. 4966 N.L.Dimapoor issued by Nagaland Government
(Ex.P415) and 4) copies of receipts, for the receipt of Rs.10 lakhs and 20 lakhs
respectively (Ex.P46) which were produced by the accused No.5 under cover of
mahazar (Ex.P417) in the presence of the same witnesses.
9-71. On 26.12.2004 at 01.00 p.m., in his office, the Chief Investigating
Officer (PW-189) seized the documents namely, Visiting Card of Krishna Ella
(Ex.P93), Receipt for the use of Credit Card of American Express Bank (Ex.P94),
'C' Form of Hotel Savera dated 03.09.2004 (Ex.P95), Hotel Bills (Ex.P96 series ),
Printed bills of Hotel Savera for stay of Krishna Ella (Ex.P97 series) produced by
Udayasankar (PW-58), Manager of Savera Hotel under cover of mahazar
(Ex.P98). According to PW-58 Udayasankar, room No.922 was allotted to one
Krishna Ella on 03.09.2004 and 04.09.2004.
9-72. On the same day, at 02.00 p.m., the Chief Investigating Officer
(PW-189) seized visiting card of Appu @ Krishnasamy (accused No.5)
(Ex.P418), Membership card with photograph of A5 (Ex.P419), photo copy of
receipt No.685 for enrolling of A5 as member (Ex.P420), register maintained by
the said hotel from 11.01.2004 to 28.09.2004 (Ex.P421) all produced by
Neelamegam (PW-59), Chola Hotel under cover of mahazar (Ex.P422) in the
presence of witnesses Bharathi (PW-129) and Nagarajan (PW-137). He
examined the above said witnesses and recorded their statements.
9-73. On 27.12.2004, after completion of police custody, the Chief
Investigating Officer (PW-189) sent the accused No.5 Appu @ Krishnasamy to
Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kanchipuram for remand. At 04.00 p.m., Srinivasan
(PW-171), Inspector of Police and his parties who arrested Ravisubramanian
(Approver) at Guruvayur on 26.12.2004 handed over to the Chief Investigating
Officer, in turn, he (PW-189) produced the said Approver before the Judicial
Magistrate No.1, Kanchipuram. Tthereafter, he took the approver under police
custody from 27.12.2004 at 04.00 p.m. to 29.12.2004 at 05.00 p.m.
48
9-74. Further, the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) seized the
documents 9 in Nos., namely, publication in Hindu, The Indian Express and
Thinamalar along with covering letter, publication invoice and publication models
(Exs.P263 series) produced by the witness S.Nagarajan (PW-152) who is doing
advertisement, under cover of mahazar (Ex.P423) in the presence of witnesses
Uthirakumar (PW-121) and Mani (PW-185). At 05.00 p.m., he recovered the
documents, namely, Receipt Book (Ex.P256), Statement of account for receipt of
money (Ex.P257), Statements of details of work executed for Sankara Madam
and its related Trusts (Ex.P258), and the Statement (Ex.P259) in respect of
amount received for the said construction activities mentioned in Ex.P258 from
the witness Rajappa (PW-150), Architect by profession under the name and style
of Residency Builders (P) Ltd. under cover of mahazar (Ex.P424) in the presence
of the witnesses Nagarajan (PW-137) and Subramanian (PW-166).
9-75. On 28.12.2004 at 07.00 p.m., after interrogation with the approver,
Ravisubramanian (PW-40), the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) recorded the
confession statement given by him (admissible portion Ex.P425) in the presence
of the witnesses Rajkumar (PW-136) and Nagarajan (PW-137). On 29.12.2004
at 09.15 a.m. at door No.20/128, Rameswaram Road, T.Nagar, he seized two
receipts for Rs.10 lakhs (Ex.P426) and Rs.20 lakhs (Ex.P427) given by the
accused No.5 Appu, Photo copy of air ticket going to Mumbai (Ex.P428),
Guruvayur Appan God picture (Ex.P429), and Notice for Pooja (Ex.P430) which
were produced by Ravisubramanian (Approver) taken from his bed-room under
cover of mahazar (Ex.P431) in the presence of the same witnesses. At 12.15
p.m., in his office he seized a cheque for Rs.5 lakhs (Ex.P72) which was
produced by the Manager, Indian Bank, under cover of mahazar (Ex.P432) in the
presence of the same witnesses. Again at 01.00 p.m., he seized List of Airlines
passengers traveled from Mumbai to Chennai containing 14 pages (Ex.P433)
produced by the Manager, Indian Airlines, under cover of mahazar (Ex.P434) in
the presence of the same witnesses. On 29.12.2004, after completion of
49
interrogation with the said approver Ravisubramanian, he produced him before
Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kanchipuram for remand.
9-76. On 30.12.2004 at 07.00 p.m., in his office, the Chief Investigating
Officer (PW-189) arrested M.K.Ragu (accused No.4), and he recorded his
confession statement from 09.00 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. in the presence of the above
said two witnesses, based on which, at 11.30 p.m. he seized Nokia Cellphone
with simcard No.9842331314 (M.O-74), produced by the said accused under
cover of mahazar (Ex.P435) in the presence of the same witnesses.
9-77. On 31.12.2004, the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) recovered
video cassettes (M.O22 and M.O23) which contains the enquiry conducted by
him with Appu @ Krishnasamy (accused No.5) and Ravisubramanian (Approver)
(PW-40) produced by Thirumurthy, Photographer (PW-169) under cover of
mahazar (Ex.P436) in the presence of the same witnesses. Thereafter, at 12.30
p.m. he seized the documents containing 30 pages (Ex.P437) standing in
different names of Trust of Sankara Mutt produced by Ramkumar, Manager,
I.C.I.C.I Bank (PW-118) under cover of mahazar (Ex.P438). Then at 05.00 p.m.,
in his office he seized a book containing vouchers and receipts (Ex.P261 series)
and cheque book (Ex.P262) in respect of the S.B. Account No. 01100060622 at
State Bank of India, Kanchipuram relating to S.S.S.V.S. Padasalai and Kamakodi
Kadikasram Trust along with the letter (Ex.P260) produced by Rameshkumar
(PW-151) under cover of mahazar (Ex.P439). Then, he obtained the sample
signatures of the accused No.4, M.K.Ragu (Ex.P440) in the presence of the
same witnesses. He examined the above said witnesses and recorded their
statements.
9-78. On 01.01.2005, the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) examined
K.M.Rajesh (PW-186), Driver M.Jayaprakash (PW-62), Simson Vaidyanathan
(PW-20), Vaidyanathan, retired Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious
Institution and Endowment Department (PW-23), Selvam (PW-168),
Krishnakumar, Advocate (PW-85), Suresh Arokianathan (PW-179),
50
Datchinamoorthy (PW-41), Superintendent, Chennai Central Prison (PW-179),
Ramamoorthy, Assistant Jailor, Chennai Central Prison (PW-182), R.Selvam
(PW-168), Savarimuthu, Ravi, Railway Contractor, Selvaraj, Mason, Sridhar @
Sridharan, Mosaic Contractor, Driver Padmanaban, R.Subramanian,
K.L.V.Ramarao, Builder and Thanigachalam and recorded their statements.
9-79. V.Krishnakumar (PW-85), and Thiru Suresh Arokianathan (PW-
179), Advocates, both practicing before the Honble High Court, and Egmore
courts, Madras, on 27.10.2004 have surrendered the accused persons, viz. (1)
Devaraj, S/o. Anandan (2) S.Arun, S/o. Umesh Balan (3) T.Pandian @ Thil
Pandian, S/o. Thangavel (4) P.Arumugam, S/o. Pazhanisamy and (5) K.Sathish,
S/o. Krishnamurthy in connection with Cr.No.914/2004 of Vishnu Kanchi PS u/s.
302 IPC, before the 15
th
Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai in
Cr.M.P.7039/2004, (Ex.P120 series), and the Memo of Appearance filed by PW-
85 (Ex.P121), they informed that at the request of somebody, they surrendered
the above said accused persons before the Court and the person who requested
them to surrender the five accused , is not present in the Court.
9-80. On 02.01.2005, the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) examined
Rajaraman (PW-72), Tmt. Anuradha, Sarma @ Siyama Krishnan, Tmt. Kamatchi,
Ramu Sasthrigal @ Ramachandira Sasthrigal, Ramakrishna Theetchidar and
A.C.Muthaiya and recorded their statements. Further, the Investigating Officer
(PW-189) seized a letter dated 30.12.2004 of N.Subramanian (Ex.P441), letter
dated 23.12.2004 of Dr. Egna Subramanian (Ex.P442) and letter dated
16.11.2004 written by Kanchi Kamakodi Peedam (Ex.P443) which were
produced by N.Subramanian (PW-24) under cover of mahazar (Ex.P444) in the
presence of the witnesses Nagarajan (PW-143) and Subramaniam (PW-166).
9-81. On 03.01.2005, the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) examined
Nagarajan, Managing Trustee, Kanchi Kamakodi Peedam Kadikasram Trust
(PW-143) and recorded his statement. On 07.01.2005, he examined the
witnesses: Seduram and on 08.01.2005, he examined Sankar @ Auditor Sankar
51
(PW-104), Bombay Krishnan @ Krishnan (PW-19), Rick Vaidyanathan @
Vaidyanathan (PW-18), Gopalapuram Mani Iyyer @ N.Subramanian (PW-24),
Sandanam (PW-68), Sundaram (PW-88), and witness Sambasivam and
recorded their statements. At 06.00 p.m. he recovered a demand draft for Rs.10
lakhs issued by ICICI Bank which was exchanged in the Account No. 51495 at
Canara Bank, Nungampakkam (Ex.P250) produced by the witness Nagarajan
(PW-143) under cover of mahazar (Ex.P445) in the presence of the said
witnesses PW-137 and PW-166.
9-82. On 09.01.2005 at 11.00 a.m. in his office, the Chief Investigating
Officer (PW-189) seized the documents containing 40 pages (Ex.P446) under
cover of mahazar (Ex.P447) in the presence of the witnesses PW-185 and PW-
186. At 12.00 noon, he seized the documents (Exs.P38 to P46) produced by the
witness Barnabas (PW-17) under cover of mahazar (Ex.P157) in the presence of
the witnesses PW-121 and PW-185. He examined the witnesses Barnabas (PW-
17), Govindaraj, Selvi Thilagavathi, Venkatesan, Rajasegar, Vinothkumar,
S.Gobi, Ramachandiran, Manikandan, M.S.Subramanian and recorded their
statements.
9-83. Thiru Barnabass (PW-17), in charge of Professional Courier
Service, Kanchipuram produced before the police the document shown to him in
the court, and stated that on 30.07.2004, Sankararaman booked one Thapal in
his Courier Office addressed to Sankara Madam and another addressed to
Neelakanta Iyer. On 06.08.2004, Sankararaman booked another thapal to
Madam. It was delivered on 07.08.2004. On 30.08.2004, Sankararaman booked
a thapal to Jeyendra Saraswathi Swami and another thapal to RBI
Vaithiyanathan. Both letters were delivered on 31.08.2004. Ex.P38 is the receipt
for the thapal booked by Sankararaman for delivery to Jeyandra Saraswathi
Swami on 30.07.2004. Ex.P39 is the receipt booked by Sankararaman for
delivery to Neelakanta Iyer. Ex.P40 is the delivery run sheet dated 31.07.2004
towards the proof of delivery of Ex.P38 & 39. Ex.P41 is the receipt for the
52
booking of letter on 6.8.2004 by Sankrararaman to Kanchimadam. Ex.P42 dated
7.8.2004 is the delivery run sheet towards the proof of delivery of Ex.P41.
Ex.P43 is the receipt for the booking of Thapal by Sankararaman to Kanchi
Kamakodi Peedathipathi on 30.08.2004. Ex.P44 dated 31.08.2004 is the
delivery run sheet towards the proof for the delivery of Ex.P43. Ex.P45 is the
receipt for the booking of thapal on 30.08.2004 by Sankararaman for delivery to
S.Vaithianathan, 2-B, Kamatchiamman Koil Street, Kanchipuram. Ex.P46 dated
31.08.2004 is the delivery run sheet towards the proof for the delivery of Ex.P45.
9-84. Govindaraj (PW-26), Assistant in Professional Courier Service, on
06.08.2004 booked a tapal given by Sankararaman under the booking slip
(Ex.P41). Thilagavathy (PW-27), Clerk in Professional Courier Service,
Kanchipuram stated that Ex.P43 was the entry relating to the despatch of a letter
from one Sankararaman to Jeyendra Saraswathi Swamigal of Kanchi Sankara
Madam. Ex.P45 is another entry showing despatch of letter by Sankararaman
addressed to S.Vaithiyanathan.
9-85. Venkatesan (PW-28), Courier boy, in Professional Courier
delivered the thapal (Exs.P38 and P39) on 31.07.2004 under the delivery run
sheet (Ex.P40) for the receipt of those letters by Sankara Madam. Similarly, he
delivered another letter to Sankara Madam on 7.8.2004 under the receipt dated
6.8.2004 (Ex.P41) and the delivery run sheet (Ex.P42). On 31.8.2004 he
delivered another letter booked on 30.8.2004 under Ex.P43 delivered under the
delivery run sheet (Ex.P44) maintained by the Courier Office. S.Rajasekar (PW-
29), another delivery staff in the Professional Courier, Kanchipuram delivered a
thapal to one Kumar on 31.08.2004 under the delivery run sheet.
9-86. On 10.01.2005, the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) examined
Ramarathinam, owner of Krishna Sweets (PW-147), Krishna Sweet Centre,
Vadapalani, witness Srinivasan, Head Constable 357 and T.A.Kannan (PW-30)
and recorded their statements. On the same day at 14.00 hours in his office, he
seized the Xerox copies of Gate Pass Book bearing Sl. No. from 90901 to 91000
53
dated 4.9.2004 and 5.9.2004 for delivery of things from the godown of V.P.Stores
(Ex.P255). Then at 20.25 hours, a book containing the detail under receipt No.
90908, and Complements Computer Bill No.483 for Rs.520.75 ps. (Ex.P448) and
Cash Chart No.740 (Ex.P449) both belongs to Krishna Sweets, Vadapalani,
Chennai, under cover of mahazar (Ex.P158). At 17.30 hours at No.1, Salai
Theru, Periya Kanchipuram, he arrested the accused No.2 Sankara Vijendira
Saraswathy Swamy @ Sankara Narayanan. On 11.01.2005, he examined the
witnesses: K.Sankaran, Tmt. Mythily, Narayanan, Sayad Mohammed
Inaiyadullah, K.Balaji and Namasivayam (PW-141) and recorded their
statements. At 14.00 hours, in his office, he seized nine documents relating to
Sankara Mutt Trust and Janakalyan (Exs.P224 to P227, P230 and P231 serial
No.1 to 3) under cover of mahazar (Ex.P450) produced by Namasivayam (PW-
141), and thereafter, he examined Tmt. Anuradha, Tmt. Mythili, Tmt. Chithra, and
Saraswathy and recorded their statements. He arranged to record the
statements u/s. 164 of Cr.P.C. of Rick Vaidya @ Vaidyanathan (PW-18),
Gopalapura Mani Iyyer @ N.Subramanian (PW-24), Bombay Krishnan @
Krishnan (PW-19) and witness Sambasiva Iyyer. He sent notices to the owners
of the vehicle calling them to produce the records of the vehicles.
9-87. On 12.01.2005, the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) examined
the witnesses: Revathy, Prema, Leela, Sornamaliya, Vijaya, Nalini, Vennila,
Kanthalakshmi, Kamatchi, and Juwa Vedammal and recorded their statements.
At 10.00 a.m. in his office, he seized photo copies of a Sri Kariyam letter dated
17.9.1995 (Ex.P451) and Notice of H.L.Usha and Adhi Sankara Sornavimana
Trust from pages 171 to 183 (Ex.P452) which was produced by A.C.Muthaiya
under cover of mahazar (Ex.P453) in the presence of the witnesses Mani (PW-
185) and Uthirakumar (PW-121).
9-88. On 13.01.2005, the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) examined
the witnesses: Vengadachala Reddiar (PW-83), Rajasekar (PW-82),
Chidambaram (PW-84) R.Saravanan (PW-86), M.Chakkravarthi (PW-87),
54
Maheswari (PW-178), Manimuthuvelan @ Velan (PW-96) and witness
Marimuthu and recorded their statements. He sent a requisition to the Judicial
Magistrate No.1, Kanchipuram for forwarding all the documents relating to this
case to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chennai. On the same day, at 11.00
a.m. in his office, he (PW-189) seized the documents, namely, Guest arrival
register (Ex.P116), Relevant entry in Ex.P116 at page 156 dated 05.09.2004
(Ex.P117), two bills No.50553 for room No.411 and No.50554 for room No.414
(Ex.P118 series), and Relevant entry for payment of tax at page 24 and 25
(Ex.P119) produced by the said witness Chidambaram (PW-84) under cover of
mahazar (Ex.P454) in the presence of the above said two mahazar witnesses.
According to the evidence of Chidambaram (PW-84), and based on the relevant
entry Ex.P117 in the register Ex.P116 dated 05.09.2004 , one Ravi
Subramaniam of Rameswaram Road, Chennai stayed in the hotel along with five
persons by taking two rooms No.411 and 414 from 18.15 hours and vacated on
06.09.2004 at 14.17 hours, and the signature of the customer was obtained.
9-89. On 14.01.2005, the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) examined
Kaladi Viswanathan @ Viswanathan (PW-155) a General Accountant in Sankara
Madam to speak about Jana Kalyan Trust account, witnesses S.Ganesan,
Varadharajan, Athmanathan and Rama Ramakrishnan and recorded their
statements. On 15.01.2005, he examined Selvam R.R.Gopalji and Kalyani and
recorded their statements. On 16.01.2005, he examined Sundaram,
Y.V.Venkadakrishnan, Suresh, Murugesan, Krishnamoorthy and Dr.
Deventhirakumar (PW-97), Director Drug Company and recorded their
statements. On 17.01.2005, he examined K.Vaidyanathan, S.Chandiran,
Mohanraj, Balasubramanian, Moorthy, S.Nagarajan, Saravanakumar, Mukundan,
R.Chandirasekaran, Kuppusamy, T.P.Rao, Mahendirakumar, and Ashok Kumar
and recorded their statements. On the same day, at 16.00 hours, in his office, he
seized the documents (Exs.P126 and 127) produced by Mohanraj (PW-116),
Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Kanchipuram under cover of mahazar
55
(Ex.P455) in the presence of the witnesses: Nagarajan (PW-137) and
Subramanian (PW-166). He gave a requisition to record the statements of
witnesses u/s. 164 of Cr.P.C. from the witnesses: Krishnamoorthy Murugan,
Chandiran, Nagarathinam, Dr. Kathirvel, Nagarajan and Dharmalingam.
9-90. On 18.01.2005, the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) examined
the witnesses: Dr. Kathirvel, Sellappa, Namasivayam, Neelakanda Theekshidar,
S.A.Balasubramanian, Meena Krishnamoorthy, Krishna Ella, R.Nagarajan,
M.Vengadesan, G.Kothandaraman, R.Ramamoorthy, D.Rajkumar Seduraman,
Sathish and Kalyanasundaram and recorded their statements. According to
Rajkumar (PW-135), his two wheeler, TVS Max 100 R bearing registration
No.TN-02-L-0469 was stolen and pertaining to that he lodged a complaint on
3.6.2004 with Korattur Police Station and a case was registered in Cr.No.286 of
2004 u/s 379 IPC.
9-91. At 11.00 a.m., in his office, the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189)
seized copies of cheques (Exs.P251 and 252) produced by Nagaraj (PW-144),
Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Rangarajapuram, Chennai under cover of
mahazar (Ex.P456) in the presence of the witnesses: Mani (PW-185) and
Rajkumar (PW-136). Thereafter, at 12.00 noon, he seized Nakkeeran weekly
magazines dated 25.12.2004, 36 pages (Ex.P457), and 29.12.2004, 36 pages
(Ex.P458) produced by the witness Kamarajan under cover of mahazar
(Ex.P459) in the presence of the witnesses Rajkumar (PW-136) and Mani (PW-
185). At 17.00 p.m., he seized the documents (Exs.P232 and 233) produced by
the witness Namasivayam under cover of mahazar (Ex.P46) in the presence of
the above said witnesses.
9-92. On 19.01.2005, the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) examined
P.Rajkumar, C.Mani, Malar Amuthan, R.Nagaraj, Padmanaban, Muralitharan,
V.Ganesan, Thirugnanasambandan, M.Manoharan, Sankararaman,
T.V.Ramamoorthy, Kamaraj and recorded their statements. He interrogated the
A2 - Vijayendira Saraswathy Swami @ Sankara Narayanan who was under the
56
police custody and recorded his confession. On the same day, at 12.00 hours,
he seized the documents (Ex.P346 series 1 to 6) produced by A.2 under cover of
mahazar (Ex.P345) in the presence of the above said two witnesses. At 13.00
hours, he seized the documents (Ex.P461 series) produced by the witness
S.Nagarajan under cover of mahazar (Ex.P462) in the presence of witness
Manirajkumar. He submitted a requisition to the court for sending the material
objects and blood stained shirts to the Forensic Science Laboratory for
examination.
9-93. On 20.01.2005, the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) examined
the witnesses Subramanian, Kathirvel, Ramkumar (PW-118) Manager, ICICI
Bank, Appandaraj (PW-124), Divisional Engineer, BSNL, Maharajan, Raja, Ajay
Subramanian, S.P.Srinivasan, R.Rajmohan, Harikaran, Prabu, Rajini Kamatchi,
Kiran Guptha, Sunilraj and Rajesh Sankar and recorded their statements.
Subsequently, he seized the original document (Ex.P159) produced by the said
witness Appandaraj. On the same day, at 18.00 hours, he seized the documents
(Exs.P128 and P129) produced by Ramkumar (PW-118) under cover of mahazar
(Ex.P463) in the presence of the witnesses: Nagarajan and Subramanian.
9-94. The Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) seized the registers for
incoming and outgoing calls relating to Cellphone No.9884084080 (two volumes)
(Ex.P464 series), Cellphone No.9840344445 (Ex.P465), Cellphone
No.9840488588 (Ex.P466), Cellphone No.9840108734 (Ex.P467), Cellphone
No.9894356789 (Ex.P468), Telephone No.04112223115 (Ex.P469), Cellphone
No.9842331314 (Ex.P470), Cellphone No.9894187410 (Ex.P471), Cellphones
Nos.9884425639, 9884031949 and 9884451431 (Ex.P472), Cellphone
No.9841275166 (Ex.P473).
9-95. On 09.09.2004, while Thiru M.Seenivasan (PW-172), Assistant
Director, was working in Chennai Forensic Laboratory, he received a requisition
from the Judicial Magistrate-I, Kanchipuram along with four items of case
properties, namely, white shirt (M.O-1), Dhothy (M.O-2) and mosaic tile pieces
57
(M.Os-3 and 4) sent through Thiru Gengan, Head Constable 320 for conducting
chemical examination and he conducted examination. He sent them for
serological report and he sent the biological report No.388/04 (Ex.P.293).
Further, on 20.01.2005, he received a forwarding note sent by the Judicial
Magistrate-I, Kanchipuram along with 1) 47 cm. long knife (M.O-25), 2) 60.5 cm
long Aruval (M.O-26), and 3) Blue colour full hand shirt (M.O-27) through Mani,
Head Constable 996 he conducted examination on them and sent the Biological
Report No.26/05 dated 24.01.2005 (Ex.P323). According to him (PW-172), he
knew the signanture of Thara, who signed in the Serological Report (Ex.P324),
9-96. According to Thiru Rajesh Shankar (PW-51), the then employee of
Hutch Cell Phone Company, Madras and now functioning as Voda Phone
S.R.South Limited, based on the invoice cum receipt and Bills for the period from
05.11.2003 to 05.08.2004 (Ex.P84), the Cell phone No.9884218735 had been
given in the name of one Gopu Seshayaee, No.13, Lake View Road, ITI Colony,
Chennai, and similarly, as per bills for the period from 05.09.2004 to 04.11.2004
(Ex.P85) another Cell phone 9884222354 was also given in the same name by
the Cell phone company. According to Maharajan (PW-56), the then Manager of
Balaji Communication (Cell phone Agency), the cell phone No.9894556789 was
purchased from Balaji Communications in the name of Sahi Exports Company.
As per the requisition (Ex.P91) (Xerox copy) for change of number to another
number, the said number was subsequently changed into 9894038005 at the
instance of Sahi Exports Company, under receipt dated 23.09.2004 (Ex.P90)
(Xerox copy).
9-97. According to Thiru Appandarajan (PW-124), Divisional Engineer,
BSNL, at the request of the police, he gave the call details (Ex.P159) made from
the Valajabath Public Telephone No.56903 on 03.09.2004, and in Ex.P159 at
Sl.No.30, the details of the call made to mobile number 09840488588 on
03.09.2004 at 17.50 hours for the duration of 1 minute 8 seconds (Ex.P160)
which bears the office seal along with signature and he also informed to PW189
58
the address relating to the telephone number 0411-2269773 in the BSNL office
is, No1, Salai Theru, Kanchipuram; and he also gave call details relating to the
phone number 0411-223115.
9-98. Thiru Prabu (PW-184), Manager in Legal Department of Reliance
Cellular Ltd. Nungampakkam, Chennai, on receipt of letter (Ex.P333) from
Additional Superintendent of Police requiring call details for the period from
01.08.2004 to 30.10.2004 in respect of the Cell phones: 1) 044 32735314, 2) 044
32507127, 3) 044 32642899, and 4) 044 31016306, sent the reply dated
10.11.2004 (Ex.P334) furnishing the above call details. According to Thiru
Hariharan (PW-126), the then Divisional Engineer, BSNL, on 14.11.2004 when
he was in his office at RK Mutt Salai, Chennai, he received a requisition letter
from the police asking the name and address and call details in respect of mobile
Nos.9444385855, 9444010550, 9444055534 and 9444281304, and he furnished
the details to the police, and Ex.P161 is the details in two volumes relating to
mobile No.9444055534, and Ex.P162 is the file containing details relating to
mobile No.9444385855.
9-99. According to Thiru Sunil Raj (PW-127), while he was the then Senior
Manager (Legal) in the office of AIRTEL situated at 101, Santhome Road,
Chennai, on 1
st
November, 2004, he received a letter No.691/ADSP/PW/KPM/04
from the police, calling for details of names and addresses in respect of following
AIRTEL mobile numbers 1) 9840515732, 2) 9840108734, 3) 9840488588, 4)
9840355566, 5) 9840033445, 6) 9840053883, 7) 9840039313, 8)
9840038847, 9) 9840344445, 10)9840024003, and 11) 9840218735, and he
furnished the details in two files (Ex.P163 - series).
9-100. According to Thiru Vijay (PW-128), Senior Executive, Tata Tele
Services Ltd., he knows S.Venkataraman who was the Senior Manager of his
company, and one Kiran Gupta who was the Assistant Manager, and he received
requisition from the police under letter No.691/ADSP/PW/KPM/04 calling for the
59
details of the mobile users with names and addresses, they furnished the details,
and Ex.P164 is the file in respect of mobile No.55877771 and 9282101773.
9-101. The Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189) showed the photograph of
Ravi Subramanian @ Subramanian (Approver) to the witnesses during their
examinations and after confirmation obtained their signatures therein (Ex.P474
series). Similarly, he showed the photographs of the following accused persons
to the respective witnesses and after confirmation, he obtained their signatures.
A5 Krishnasamy @ Appu (Ex.P475 series), A8 Ambi @ Ambigapathy (Ex.P476
series), A6 Kathiravan (Ex.P477 series), A7 Rajini Sinna (Ex.P478 series), A9
Madu Baskar (Ex.P479 series), A10 K.S.Kumar (Ex.P480 series), A12 Anilkumar
(Ex.P481 series), A11 Anandakumar (Ex.P482 series), A14 R.T.Palani (Ex.P483
series), A17 Thil Pandiyan (Ex.P484 series, A15 Kuruvi Ravi (Ex.P485 series),
A18 Sathish (Ex.P486 series), A13 Meenatchisundaram (Ex.P487 series), and
A16 Arumugam (Ex.P488 series).
9-102. On 18.01.2005, at 10.00 a.m., the Chief Investigating Officer (PW-
189) seized 4 items of documents viz. item No.1 photo copy of letter, item No.3
photo copy of statement of account regarding payments and receipts relating to
Sankaramadam dated 30.8.2004 (Exs.P489 series), item No.3 and 4 (Exs.P230
and 231 respectively) were produced by Namasivayam (PW-141) under cover of
mahazar (Ex.P490).
9-103. The chief Investigating Officer (P.W.189) gave a requisition to the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kanchipuram (P.W.160) to record the
confession of Subramaniam @ Ravisubramaniam u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. The learned
Magistrate recorded the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Subramaniam @
Ravisubramaniam on 30.12.2004. The Statement recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. is
Ex.P285.
9-104. Accordind to Thiru S.Rangaraju (PW-157), District & Sessions
Judge (Retired) and then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet, on 18.01.2005,
chief the Investigating officer filed an affidavit (Ex.P268) before him for grant of
60
pardon in respect of accused Subramanian @ Ravi Subramanian, and after
receiving it, he called for the statement of confession given by the said accused
to the Judicial Magistrate-II, Kanchipuram (PW-160), and on 19.01.2004, he
received the statement of confession of the said accused from the Judicial
Magistrate-II, Kanchipuram, thereafter, he sent proceedings (Ex.P70) to the
Superintendent of Sub Jail, Kanchipuram for production of the accused before
him on 20.01.2005 at 10.30 a.m. Accordingly, Ravi Subramanian was produced
before him on 20.1.2005 at 11.05 hours. He read out the statement of
confession given by him on 31.12.2004 before the Judicial Magistrate-II,
Kanchipuram. The accused stated before him that he gave confession
voluntarily and without any compulsion or force by any one. He tendered pardon
u/s 306(1) Cr.P.C. to the accused Ravi Subramanian on condition that he should
make a full and true disclosure of the details of the case within his knowledge in
respect of the each of the 7 accused persons whether principal or abettor in the
commission of the offences relating to the case and on condition that during the
course of trial, if it is considered that he failed to fulfil the condition on which the
tender was made, he would be tried for the offence in respect of which pardon
was tendered or for any other offence of which he appeared to have committed in
connection with the same matter and also for the offence of giving false
evidence. Accused Ravisubramanian accepted the conditional pardon tendered
to him. Ex.P269 is the Order dated 20.01.2005 in Cr.M.P.49 of 2005 for grant of
Tender of Pardon.
9-105. Thiru Thirumurthy (PW-169), Police photographer videographed the
arrest of the accused persons and their interrogation during investigation by the
chief Investigating Officer. Except the arrest of A1 at Hyderabad, the other part
of arrest and interrogation had been video graphed by him from 03.11.2004 to
09.12.2004, and the video cassette, thus taken was handed over by him to the
Chief Investigating Officer, Thiru Sakthivel (PW-189). M.O.16 is the video
cassette recorded by him during the interrogation of A6-Kathiravan. M.O.17 is the
61
video cassette recorded by him when A7, A10, A11 were interrogated. M.O.18 is
the video cassette recorded by him when A13, A14, A15 and A22 were
interrogated. M.O.19 is the video cassette when A16 to A20 were interrogated.
M.O.20 (series) is the video cassette recorded by him when A1 was interrogated.
M.O.21 is the video cassette recorded by him when witness Usha was examined.
M.O.22 is the video cassette recorded by him when Approver Ravi Subramanian
was examined. M.O.23 is the video cassette recorded by him when A5 was
interrogated. The video cassettes (M.Os 16 to 21) were recovered under Form
95 (Ex.P317) in which he signed, and similarly, the video cassettes (M.Os-22 and
23) were recovered under Form-95 (Ex.P318).
9-106. Thiru Kuppusamy (PW-106), Senior Manager, Canara Bank, gave
the details to the police that Kanchi Mutt had Savings Account No.6203 in his
branch wherein the balance amount was Rs.12,296/- and the Mutt also had an
F.D. of Rs.1,48,935/- and from the said F.D, Rs.500/- was sent to Annadhana
Choultries at Hyderabad and Kumbakonam every month.
9-107. Thiru Padmaragam (PW-107), then Manager Grade-I, IOB at
Gandhi Road Branch, as per the letter dated 03.12.2004, he gave the particulars
to the police that there was an account No.9267 in the name of Educational
Society in IOB Gandhi Road Branch wherein the balance amount was
Rs.4,65,388/-; and there was another account No.17640 wherein the balance
amount was Rs.7,930/-; and there was another account No.9011 in the name of
Principal, Teachers Training School and there was another account number
9000 at Eanathur wherein the balance amount was Rs.4,52,794/- and in the F.D.
Account, the balance amount was Rs.61,03,000/-.
9-108. According to Manoharan (PW-105), Manager of Syndicate Bank,
during the relevant period in the Kanchipuram Branch, "Kanchi Kamakodi
Peedam Sornam Mahorchavam" had an account No. 18804 in his bank wherein
the balance was Rs.1,08,498/- and as per the letter No.6101/S.P/1004 dated
03.12.2004, on 19.01.2005 he handed over the above particulars to the police.
62
9-109. According to Thiru Mohanraj (PW-116), the then Chief Manager,
State Bank of India, Kanchipuram Branch, S.S.S.V.S Padasalai Trust had an
account with State Bank under A/c No. 01100060622, and on 31.05.2004, cash
of Rs.3 lakhs was withdrawn by one Ramesh under self cheque No.0366565
(Ex.P126), and Ex.P127 is the statement of account in respect of the said
account of Padasalai Trust.
9-110. According to Thiru Vaithiyanathan (PW-117), the then Branch
Manager of Sankara Mutt, Kanchipuram, Sankara Mutt had account with his
branch, one Sri Hari Neela Kanda Iyer and one Sundaresa Iyer had operated the
said account jointly, on 07.05.2004, at about 01.28 p.m there was remittance of
cash of Rs.55 lakhs in respect of the A/c No.LOD 550/123, 124, 125 which was
received by the cashier, Pitchumani with the following denominations: 1000
rupee currency - Rs.10,00,000/-; 500 rupee currency - Rs.26,00,000/-; 100 rupee
currency - Rs.19,00,000/-; and totally Rs.55,00,000/-.
9-111. According to Thiru Ramkumar (PW-118), the then Manager of the
ICICI bank, among the customers, Shri Kanchi Kamakoti Kadikashram Trust-1
and SSSVS Padasalai Trust accounts are important and they are having both
the accounts of S.B and FD accounts, apart from that, there is another account
FCRA No.606601107609. Requisition was given for taking DD from the account
by giving cheques as detailed below: 1) Cheque No.562892 dated 30.07.2004 for
Rs.12,00,000/-, 2) Cheque No.562888 dated 02.08.2004 for Rs.5,00,000/-; and
3) cheque No.562892 dated 02.08.2004 for Rs.5,00,000/-; and 4) Cheque
No.125939 dated 29.10.2004 for Rs.10,00,000/-, and all of them were
transferable to SSSVS Trust payable at Canara Bank, Chennai under account
No.51495, and Ex.P-128 is the statement of account relating to SSSVS
No.606601109291 and Ex.P129 is the statement of account relating to A/c
No.606601107609.
9-112. According to Ganesan (PW-122), the then Branch Managar,
Kanchipuram, Sankara Mutt had account in his branch in the name of Bangaru
63
Kamatchiamman Nithiya Pooja since 03.04.1985 under A/c No.396, and on
03.12.2004 a total amount of Rs.1,33,000/- had been deposited received from
107 members.
9-113. According to Thiru Marimuthu (PW-138), then Accountant of
Canara Bank, one Suresh, Managing Director of Bargav Foundation opened an
account on 04.12.2003 under C.A.No.8499, he gave a self cheque for Rs.25
lakhs and withdrew the amount. He was examined by the Chief Investigating
Officer with reference to the statement of account of the said bank A/c for the
period 01.02.2004 to 20.12.2004.
9-114. According to Thiru Namachivayam (PW-141), the then Manager of
Indian Bank, Sankara Madam Branch, Kanchipuram during 2004, Sankara
Madam had several accounts in their branch; S.B. Account No.11756 was in the
name of Shri Jeyandra Saraswathi Swamigal Teachers Training Institute.
Ex.P224 is the statement of account in respect of the said account for the period
from 01.01.2004 to 01.01.2005. Current Account No.227 was in the name of Shri
Jai Builders and Ex.P225 is the statement of account in respect of the said
account for the period from 13.08.2004 to 24.10.04. S.B Account No.8510 was
in the name of Shri Kanchi Jan Kalayan Trust and Ex.P226 is the statement of
account in respect of the said account from 01.10.2003 to 04.11.2004. Credit
Account No.123 was in the name of Sri SankaraChariar and Ex.P227 is the
statement of account in respect of the said account from 16.01.2004 to
23.08.2004 and Credit Account Nos.124 and 125 were in the name of Sri
SankaraChariar Madam and Exs.P228 and P229 are the statements of account
in respect of the said accounts from 16.01.2004 to 07.05.2004. A sum of Rs. 55
lakhs was repaid to the above said three credit accounts under three chalans
(Ex.P231 series), and Ex.230 is the Certificate for the repayment. Through the
cheque No.725568 (Ex.P232) dated 28.10.2004 an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs in
respect of the S/B A/c No.11756 standing in the name of Shri Jeyanadra
Saraswathi Swamigal Teachers Training Institute was transferred to the current
64
A/c No.227 in the name of Jai Builders. The said amount had been disbursed to
one Selvam by withdrawal from the account of Shri Jai Builders through cheque
No.196510 dated 28.10.2004 (Ex.P233).
9-115. According to Thiru R.Nagarajan (PW-144), then Branch Manager,
Indian Bank, Rangarajapuram Branch, Chennai, one Dr.Kathirvel has S.B.
Account No.6278 from 05.02.1992 onwards, he gave statement of account
(Ex.P252) in respect of the said account for the period from 29.12.2003 to
31.10.2004 at the request of the police through letter dated 20.12.2004
(Ex.P251).
9-116. According to Thiru N.Saravanakumar (PW-145), the then Branch
Manager of Andhra Bank, Chaligramam Branch, Chennai for the period from
30.01.2001 to 2005, one R.P.Dharmalingam has S.B Account No.5265 in their
branch, on 27.02.2004, D.D. for Rs.14 lakhs was given from the said account to
Shri Jan Kalyan Trust, on 06.03.2004, the said amount related the above said
D.D. was sent to Shri Jan Kalyan Trust from Kanchipuram Sankaramadam
Branch.
9-117. According to NCVS.Mukundan (PW-146), the then Manager,
Andhra Bank, Adayar Branch, Chennai for the period from 13.12.2004, one
R.P.Dharmalingam has current account No.1724, at the request of
Dharmalingam, he gave the statement of account in respect of the said current
account from 13.01.2004 to 30.04.2004 (Ex.P253).
9-118. Thiru M.Kasi (PW-187), while he was working as Deputy Director
(Retired), Finger Print Bureau, Chennai, on 29.12.2004 and 05.01.2005 received
four documents along with requisition letters (Ex.P347 (series) and Ex.P348
(series)) from Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kanchipuram dated 28.12.2004 (2
letters), 5.1.2005 and 13.01.2005 through Head Constable 768, Madasamy. The
disputed documents are marked 1 to 81 and the hand writing and signatures are
marked Q1 to Q220. The hand writing of Sankararaman and his signatures
contained documents are marked as A.D.1 to A.D.32 and the hand writing and
65
the signatures are marked as A1 to A37. The signatures and handwriting
contained in the four sheets received from Padma Sankararaman are marked as
S1 to S22 and the documents in three sheets of model handwriting and
signatures obtained from Uma Mythreyi are marked as S23 to S40. Similarly, the
documents in three sheets of model hand writing and signature obtained from
Usharani are marked as S41 to S45. Similarly, the model handwriting and
signature obtained from Jeganathan in one sheet is marked as S46 to S76, and
the signatures obtained from Anand Sharma are marked as S77 and S78 and
that S79 to S108 are the model handwriting and signatures obtained from
Vaithianathan. Thiru M.Kasi (PW-187) examined the admitted and disputed
handwriting and signatures and submitted the report No.610/2004 dated
17.01.2005 (Ex.P349) with reasoning (Ex.P350).
9-119. The Chief Investigating Officer (PW-189), after a fullfledged
investigation, came to a positive conclusion that the accused No.1 to 24
committed the offences u/s. 120-B, 120-B r/w. 302, 449, 201, 109 and 34 of IPC;
Accused No.8 and 9 committed the offence u/s. 302 r/w. 34 IPC and 449 IPC;
Accused No.10 committed the offence u/s. 449 and 302 r/w. 109 IPC; Accused
No.7, 11 and 12 committed the offence u/s. 302 r/w. 109 IPC; Accused No.7, 9
and 13 to 15 committed the offence u/s. 214 r/w. 302, 109 r/w. 201 r/w. 302 of
IPC; Accused No.16 to 20 committed the offence u/s. 201 r/w. 302 and 213 r/w.
302 of IPC; and Accused No.21 to 24 committed the offence u/s. 109 r/w. 201
r/w. 302 of IPC and they should be punished for the said offences and he thereby
laid a positive final report u/s. 173 (2) of Cr.P.C. against the accused for the said
offences, before the committal court resulting to committal and trial before this
Court.
10. In order to afford an opportunity as mandated u/s. 313 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C. the
accused were questioned about the incriminating circumstances found against
the accused persons in the evidence of prosecution witnesses to which the
accused persons replied that the prosecution witnesses are telling lies.
66
11. On the side of the accused persons, none is examined.
12. The point that arises for consideration is:
Whether the charges framed against the accused for the offences
(1) u/s. 120-B(1) r/w. 302 of IPC against the Accused No.1 to 6;
(2) u/s. 120-B(1) r/w. 302 of IPC against the Accused No.7 to 12;
(3) u/s. 120-B(1) r/w. 302 of IPC against the Accused No.13 to 15 and
21 to 24;
(4) u/s. 120-B(1) r/w. 302 of IPC against the Accused No.16 to 20;
(5) u/s. 449 of IPC against the Accused No.8 to 10;
(6) u/s. 302 r/w. 34 of IPC against the Accused No.7 to 12;
(7) u/s. 302 of IPC against the Accused No.8 and 9;
(8) u/s. 114 r/w. 302 of IPC against the Accused No.7 and 10 to 12;
(9) u/s. 109 r/w. 302 of IPC against the Accused No.1 to 6;
(10) u/s. 201 (1) r/w. 302 of IPC against the Accused No.16 to 20;
(11) u/s. 201 (1) r/w. 302 r/w. 109 of IPC against the Accused No.1 to 7,
9 and 13 to 15;
(12) u/s. 213 of IPC against the Accused No.16 to 20;
(13) u/s. 213 r/w. 109 of IPC against the Accused No.21 to 24;
(14) u/s. 214 of IPC against the Accused No.1 to 7 and 13 to 15,
are proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

13. My learned predecessor questioned the accused u/s. 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C.
and during the pendency of the arugments, he was transfered. Subsequently I
assumed the office on 14.3.2012. Thereafter, as per the direction of Hon'ble
High Court, Madras in Crl.O.P.No.20551 of 2012 dated 6.9.2012, I proceeded to
hear the arguments.
14. THE POINT:
The learned counsel for A6 advanced and completed the arguments on
27.11.2012, subsequently A6 died on 21.3.2013. Therefore, the charges framed
67
against A6- Kathiravan are recorded as abates. Since A6 died after the
completion of the arguments and further since A6 alleged to have given a judicial
confession, considering Section 30 of the Evidence Act into consideration, this
court feels it is just and legal to discuss and consider the arguments advanced on
the side of A6-Kathiravan, while deciding the case. Further, for the sake of
convenience, deceased A6-Kathiravan will be referred hereunder as A6 or A6-
Kathiravan.
15. The charges framed against the accused are
(1) u/s. 120-B(1) r/w. 302 of IPC against the Accused No.1 to 6;
(2) u/s. 120-B(1) r/w. 302 of IPC against the Accused No.7 to 12;
(3) u/s. 120-B(1) r/w. 302 of IPC against the Accused No.13 to 15 and
21 to 24;
(4) u/s. 120-B(1) r/w. 302 of IPC against the Accused No.16 to 20;
(5) u/s. 449 of IPC against the Accused No.8 to 10;
(6) u/s. 302 r/w. 34 of IPC against the Accused No.7 to 12;
(7) u/s. 302 of IPC against the Accused No.8 and 9;
(8) u/s. 114 r/w. 302 of IPC against the Accused No.7 and 10 to 12;
(9) u/s. 109 r/w. 302 of IPC against the Accused No.1 to 6;
(10). u/s.201 (1) r/w. 302 of IPC against the Accused No.16 to 20;
(11) u/s. 201 (1) r/w. 302 r/w. 109 of IPC against the Accused No.1 to 7,
9 and 13 to 15;
(12) u/s. 213 of IPC against the Accused No.16 to 20;
(13) u/s. 213 r/w. 109 of IPC against the Accused No.21 to 24;
(14) u/s. 214 of IPC against the Accused No.1 to 7 and 13 to 15,
16. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit the following points
for consideration and pleaded to record an order of conviction against all the
accused.
(1) The First Information Report (Ex.P313) registered on the basis of
Ex.P14 complaint, based on which the prosecution case stands is well
68
proved by the evidence of the defacto complainant Ganesh (P.W.4),
Kuppuasamy (P.W.6) and Inspector of Police Kothandapani,
(P.W.167) who registered the F.I.R.
(2) The first and second accused are Sankarachariars of Kanchipuram
Mutt, both are influential personalities in the public at large and they
threatened and coerced the prosecution witnesses, thereby the
material prosecution witnesses failed to support the prosecution case
and also retracted their 164 Cr.P.C. statements. Under such
circumstances, their evidence in particular, the statements under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. need to be accepted in toto and acted upon, to
find a finding against the acused.
(3) The evidence of the hostile witnesses numbering 83 cannot be
rejected in toto, and their evidence are corroborated by reliable
evidence of the remaining witnesses.
(4) Statement of witnesses recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is
substantive evidence and the evidence of the said witnesses cannot
be discarded and based on the evidence of the said witnesses a
finding can be recorded in favour of the prosecution.
(5) The retracted judicial or extra-judicial confession may form the legal
basis of a conviction and in the present case, the extra-judicial
confession of Accused No.6 (Ex.P286), Accused No.7 (Ex.P287),
Accused No.10 (Ex.P247) and judicial confession of Accused No.6
(Ex.P281), Accused No.17 (Ex.P282) substantially proved the
prosecution case.
(6) The judicial confession of the approver recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C. before tendering pardon can be used as against the co-
accused under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, to substantiate the
prosecution case.
69
(7) The investigation in this case is fair and proper and therefore, the
evidence of the Chief Investigating Officer P.W.189 can be relied on to
prove the arrest, confession, recovery and seizure of material objects
in order to implicate the accused with the commission of the offence.
(8) An army of Investigation Officers participated in the investigation under
the leadership of the Chief Investigating Officer Thiru Sakthivel,
Superintendent of Police and placed all the materials before the court
which are collected and recorded during investigation, and thus
provided a fair trail to the accused.
(9) The motive alleged against the accused is well proved by the evidence
of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.113, P.W.187 and under Ex.P2-series of letters
and Ex.P123 series of letters.
(10) The judicial confession of Accused No.6-Kathiravan and Accused
No.17-Pandian @ Thilpandian are voluntary and truthful in nature and
the said confession also supported the prosecution case.
(11) The prosecution adduced evidence by examining different set of
witnesses to prove the respective charges against the accused under
14 heads and the evidence of the said witnesses proven the case of
the prosecution.
(12) Besides direct evidence, circumstantial evidence are also available on
record to prove the complicity of the accused at different stages of the
commission of the offence and thus, circumstantial evidence also
proved the case of prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.
FIRSTLY

17. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit the First Information
Report Ex.P313 based on Ex.P14 complaint lodged by P.W.4 is well proved by
the evidence of Ganesh (P.W.4), Kuppusamy (P.W.6) and Kothandapani
(P.W.167), the Inspector of Police, who received the complaint and registered the
First Information Report.
70
18. The learned counsels for the accused submitted the author of Ex.P14
complaint is P.W.4 and P.W.4 failed to support the prosecution case, and
therefore, the contention of the prosecution is not sustainable in law. Further
submitted before obtaining Ex.P14 complaint from P.W.4, the Inspector of Police,
Kothandapani (P.W.167) obtained the statements from Padma (P.W.1) and Uma
Maithireyee (P.W.2) and therefore, Ex.P.14 complaint is not first in point of time
and hence, Ex.P14 is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and cannot be relied upon.
19. The case of the prosecution is soon after the occurrence, upon information
Kothandapani (P.W.167), the Inspector of Police went to the place of occurrence
and Ganesh (P.W.4), the accountant of Varatharaja Perumal temple lodged
complaint (Ex.P14) with him at the place of occurrence and on the basis of the
said complaint, a case in Cr.No.914/2004 u/s. 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. was registered.
P.W.167 would depose soon after the occurrence on 03.09.2004 at about 05.45
p.m., upon information, he went to the place of occurrence and P.W.4 lodged
complaint Ex.P14 with him and thereafter he registered a case in Cr.No.914/2004
u/s. 302 r/w. 34 I.P.C. Kuppusamy (P.W.6) an another accountant of Varadaraja
Perumal temple and who is working along with P.W.4 would depose after the
occurrence at about 6.00 p.m. police force came to the place of occurrence and
P.W.4 lodged the complaint with the police. Therefore, on a well consideration of
evidence of P.W.167 with P.W.6 would manifest that at the place of occurrence
on 03.09.2004 at about 05.45 p.m. P.W.4 lodged Ex.P14, complaint with
P.W.167. But during evidence P.W.4 would depose as follows:
"
" Therefore, it is self evident from the evidence of
P.W.4 that as tutored and dictated by the police, P.W.4 written or scribed Ex.P14
71
complaint. Therefore, it cannot be said P.W.4 is the author of the averments
contained Ex.P14 complaint. Hence, the contention of the prosecution that
P.W.4 is the author of Ex.P14 complaint cannot be accepted and this court holds
that prosecution failed to prove Ex.P14 complaint. Further, Ex.P14 complaint,
resulting registration of Ex.P313, printed F.I.R. would manifest only five persons
participated in the commission of the offence and after commission of offence the
said five persons fled away from the scene of crime with the help of three motor
cycles. But the case of the prosecution is six persons participated in the
commission of offence and they fled away from the scene of crime in three motor
cycles. Therefore, if at all P.w.4 was actually present at the place of occurrence,
the discrepancy about the number of assailants ought not to have occurred.
Further it is already decided the prosecution failed to prove Ex.P14 complaint
and also the content of the complaint is disowned by P.W.4. Hence, on a well
consideration of the entire materials on record leaves this court with a positive
impression that Ex.P14 complaint is not proved by the prosecution.
20. The further contention of the accused is Ex.P14 complaint is not
first in point of time and hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and hence, it cannot be
relied upon. The testimony of Ganesh (P.w.4) reads as follows:
"
"
The evidence of P.W.4 extracted above manifest, after obtaining
statement from Padma (P.W.1) and Uma Maidrayee (P.W.2) the wife and
daughter of the deceased Sakararaman, P.W.167 obtained the statement of
P.W.4 resulting registration of Ex.P313 printed F.I.R. Since P.W.167 recorded
the statement of P.W.1 and P.W.2 prior to the recording of Ex.P14, complaint,
72
this court holds that Ex.P14 complaint is not first in point of time and hit by
Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and the same can be rejected from consideration.
SECONDLY:
21. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that the first
and second accused are Sankarachariars of Kanchipuram Mutt, both are
influential personalities in the public at large and they threatened and coerced the
prosecution witnesses, thereby the material prosecution witnesses failed to
support the prosecution case and also retracted their 164 Cr.P.C. statements.
Therefore, their evidence, in particular, the statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
need to be accepted and acted upon.
22. The learned counsels for the accused would submit, absolutely no
materials are on record to show that the accused threatened and coerced the
prosecution witnesses to depose against the prosecution case. Further, the
victims Padma (P.W.1), Uma Maidrayee (P.W.2) and Anandasharma (P.W.3)
never deposed that the accused threatened them at any point of time to depose
against the prosecution case, but on the contrary they would say that the
respondent's officials went against them and thus, urged the plea of the
prosecution is not sustainable in law.
23. The positive assertion of the prosecution is the accused threatened
and coerced the prosecution witnesses to depose against the prosecution case.
P.W.1 is the wife, P.W.2 is the daughter and P.W.3 is the son of deceased
Sankararaman. Out of the above three witnesses, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are ocular
witnesses. P.W.1 to P.W.3 are the proper and material witnesses to speak about
the plea of the prosecution as to whether the prosecution witnesses were
threatened and coerced by the accused. On a careful perusal of the evidence of
P.W.1 to P.W.3 would manifest that they never deposed, the accused have
threatened them at any point of time to depose against the prosecution case.
Further the victim Padma (P.W.1) filed Cr.M.P.No.551/2012 before this court for
a re-trial of the case. In para 23 of the said petition it is pleaded as follows:
73
"So pervasive was the influence wielded by the concerned individuals, that
witness after witness was coerced, bribed, and intimidated to turn hostile not
by the accused, but by the CBCID of Tamilnadu police."
Cr.M.P.No.551/2012 is dated 10.4.2012. The examination of witnesses in this
case was completed on 01.07.2011. Therefore, long after the examination of the
witnesses P.W.1 asserts that the accused never coerced nor bribed or
intimidated the prosecution witnesses to depose against the prosecution case.
Therefore, considering the averments in Cr.M.P.No.55/2012 averred by P.W.1
and the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, this court is of the view that the plea of the
prosecution that the accused threatened and coerced the prosecution witnesses
to depose against the prosecution is not acceptable one.
24. THIRDLY
On the side of the prosecution it is submitted that to speak about and to
prove the charges framed against the accused under fourteen heads, during trial
prosecution adduced evidence of independent as well as official witnesses and
during trial out of 189 prosecution witnesses 83 material witnesses failed to
support the prosecution case (hostile), but the evidence of hostile witnesses
cannot be rejected in toto and the evidence of hostile witnesses are corroborated
by other reliable evidence, and thereby, urged to accept and act upon the
evidence of hostile witnesses.
Per contra, the learned counsels for the accused would submit absolutely
no reliable evidence are available on record to corroborate the testimony of
hostile witnesses and thereby urged to reject the plea of the prosecution.
25. To prove the charges framed against the accused under fourteen
heads, the testimony of P.W.1 to P.W.189 are pressed into service. On a careful
perusal of the testimony of prosecution witnesses would manifest the prosecution
has chosen to adduce evidence through separate set of witnesses to prove the
charges framed under each head. Therefore, whether reliable evidence are
available on record or not, to corroborate the testimony of the hostile witnesses
74
can be decided while answering the charges independently. Hence, at this
juncture, the evidentiary value of hostile witnesses could be seen based on the
decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
EVIDENCIARY VALUE OF HOSTILE WITNESSES:
1. 1997 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 946
(BEFORE K. RAMASWAY AND D.P.WADHWA,JJ.)
STATE OF GUJRAT . . . Appellant
ANIRUDHSING AND ANOTHER . . . Respondents
"C. EVIDENCE Act, 1872 S.154 Hostile witness
Merely because a witness has turned hostile his evidence
cannot be rejected in its entirety Court must carefully
analyse his evidence and see whether that part of the
evidence which is consistent with the prosecution case is
acceptable or not Murder of a sitting MLA in the presence
of some responsible persons at the time of flag hoisting on
the Independence Day Most of them turning hostile
Held, court should scrutinize the evidence and come to a
conclusion whether the evidence brought on record even of
hostile witnesses would be sufficient to bring home the
guilt of the accused Criminal Trial Witnesses Hostile
witnesses."

2. (2010) 8 SUPREME COURT CASES 536
(BEFORE R.M. LODHA AND AK. PATNAIK, JJ.)
PRITHI . . . Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA . . . Respondents
H. Criminal Trial Witnesses Hostile witness _
Testimony of Admissibility Extent of Reiterated, testimony of
hostile witness is useful to the extent to which it supports the
prosecution case When a witness is declared hostile and
cross examined with permission of court, his evidence remains
admissible and there is no legal bar to record a conviction upon
75
his testimony, if corroborated by other reliable evidence
Evidence Act, 1972.S.154"
3. 2011 CRI. L.J.663
(SUPREME COURT)
(From : Uttarakahnd)
P. SATHASIVAM AND Dr.B.S.CHAUHAN, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No.1699 of 2007, d/-27.09.2010
Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma V. State of Uttarkhand
. . . . (c) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), Ss. 3, 154 Hostile
witness Evidence need not be rejected en bloc But
should be considered with caution Court should look
for corroboration."

The guidelines enumerated in the above cited decisions would manifest
the settled law is, evidence of hostile witnesses cannot be rejected in toto
and it can be accepted and acted upon if corroborated by other reliable
evidence."
FOURTHLY,
26. On the side of the prosecution it is contended the statement of the
witnesses recorded by the Judicial Magistrate u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. is substantive
evidence and their evidence cannot be discarded and based on their evidence a
finding can be recorded in favour of the prosecution.
27. The learned counsels for the accused submitted statement recorded
u/s.164 Cr.P.C. cannot be used as substantive evidence and can be used only to
contradict or corroborate the maker of the statement and further submitted the
retracted statement recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be acted upon and it has
no legal value at all, thus urged to reject the plea of the prosecution.
EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF SECTION 164 Cr.P.C. STATEMENT AND
RETRACTION OF STATEMNET OF THE WITNESS
76
1. "1998 SUPREME COURT CASES (CRI) 1232
(BEFORE M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.S.M.QUADRI, JJ.)
GEORGE AND OTHERS . . . Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER . . . Respondents
". . . I. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 S.164 Statement
recorded under Evidentiary value Held, cannot be used as
substantive evidence Can be used only to contradict or
corroborate the maker of the statement Evidence Act, 1872,
Ss.145 and 155)"

2. "(2010) 3 SUPREME COURT CASES (CRI) 222
(2010) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES 736
(BEFORE H.S. BEDI AND C.K.PRASAD, JJ.)
BAIJ NATH SAH . . . Appellant
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR . . . Respondent

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 S.164 Applicability -
Prosecutrix giving statement only under S.164 Prosecutrix
not giving any evidence in court During alleged crime other
accused bringing prosecutrix to appellant's house but nothing
on record to show appellant's involvement Effect Mere
S.164 Cr.P.C. statement of prosecutrix, held, is not enough to
convict appellant S. 164 Cr.P.C. statement is not substantive
evidence and can be utilized only to corroborate or contradict
the witness vis--vis statement made in court Penal code,
1860 Ss. 366-A or 363 Kidnapping Conviction under
Need of proper evidence regarding involvement of accused,
stressed"

77
3. "AIR 1972 SUPREME COURT 468
(V 59 C 90)
(From: Punjab and Haryana)
A.N. RAY AND D.G. PALEKAR, JJ.
Ram Kishan Singh, Appellant V. Harmit Kaur and another, Respondents"
" 8. A statement under Section 164 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is not substantive evidence. It can be
used to corroborate the statement of a witness. It can be used
to contradict a witness. The first information report was
considered by the Sessions J udge. Any special consideration
of the statement of Hazura Singh under Section 164 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure could not have produced a
different result by reason of the conclusions of the Sessions
J udge as to rejecting the oral evidence of Nihal Kaur, Harmit
Kaur and Hazura Singh as unreliable, untruthful and unworthy
of credence."
The above cited legal dictums manifest statement recorded u/s. 164
Cr.P.C. cannot be used as substantive evidence and therefore, this court rejects
the plea of the prosecution and hold that the settled law is statement recorded
u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. is not substantive evidence and it can be used only to
contradict or corroborate the maker of the statement.
28. The further contention of the accused is retracted statement of witnesses
recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be relied upon. In 2004 M.L.J. (Crl.) 935 the
Hon'ble High Court of Madras decided as follows:
"(2004) M.L.J. (Crl.935)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS.
Present: M. Karpagavinayagam and S.K. Krishnan, JJ,
Chinnasamy alias Chinnapaiyan . . . Appellant
V.
State, represented by Inspector of Police,
Poochamballi, North Arcot Ambedkar District . . . Respondent


78
(A) Criminal procedure Code (II of 1974), Sec. 164
Satements of witnesses recorded Retraction Not to be acted
upon."

The cited legal dictum mandates it would be an illegality in acting upon the
retracted statement of witnesses recorded under 164 Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is
evident, retracted 164 Cr.P.C. statement of witnesses cannot be accepted
and acted upon.
FIFTHLY:
29. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit, the retracted
judicial or extra-judicial confession may form the legal basis of a conviction and in
the present case, the extra-judicial confession of Accused No.6 (Ex.P286),
Accused No.7 (Ex.P287), Accused No.10 (Ex.P247) and judicial confession of
Accused No.6 (Ex.P281), Accused No.17 (Ex.P282) substantially proved the
prosecution case.
30. The learned counsels for the accused would submit the judicial
confession and extra-judicial confession recorded in this case are not at all
voluntary in nature but under threat and coercion the confessions were extracted
by the Investigating Officers from the witnesses and would further submit
absolutely no reliable evidence are available on record to corroborate the
retracted judicial and extra- judicial confession, thereby, urged to reject the plea
of the prosecution.
31. Whether the judicial or extra-judicial confession pressed into
service by the prosecution are voluntarily made or not, and whether the retracted
Judicial or extra-judicial confessions are corroborated by other reliable evidence
available on materials could be seen while answering the individual charges
framed against the respective accused. At this juncture, the evidentiary value of
the retracted judicial and extra judicial confession could be seen based on the
decisions of the Apex Court of India.
79
EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF RETRACTED JUDICIAL CONFESSION OR
EXTRA- JUDICIAL CONFESSION
1. AIR 1963 SC 1094
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(S.J. IMMAM K. SUBBA RAO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J.R.
MUTHOLKAR, JJ:)
PYARE LAL BHARGAVA . . . Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN . . . Respondent
(A) Constitution of India Art. 136 Criminal Law Theft
Temporary deprivation of property, if wrongful loss
Retracted confession Evidentiary Value
Corroboration Rule of practice."
"(C) . . . A retracted confession may from the legal basis
of a conviction if the court is satisfied that it was true
and voluntarily made. As a general rule of practice,
however, it is unsafe to rely upon a confession, much
less a retracted confession, unless the court is satisfied
that the retracted confession was true, voluntarily made
and corroborated in material particulars."

2. " (2008 (2) Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 264
(BEFORE S.B. SINHA AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.)
ALOKENATH DUTTA AND OTHERS . . . Appellants
Vs.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL . . . Respondent"
" . . . .J . Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 S. 164
Retracted judicial confession It is weak piece of
evidence Conviction cannot be solely based upon it
unless confession is voluntary, truthful and is
corroborated by independent and cogent evidence."

80
3. "1994 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 505
Sakharam Shankar Bansode V. State of Maharashtra
(BEFORE K. JAYACHADRA REDDY AND G.N.RAY, JJ.)
Sakharam Shankar Bansode . . . Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra . . . Respondent
Evidence Act, 1872 S. 24 Retracted extra - judicial
confession - Corroboration necessary Court must be
satisfied that alleged confession was true, reliable and
voluntary Conduct of accused and circumstances which
impelled him to make such confession must be above
suspicion On facts held, evidence of extra-judicial
confession unreliable Accused entitled to benefit of doubt."
The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited legal
dictums manifest that retracted judicial confession or the retracted extra-judicial
confession may form the legal basis of a conviction, if the court is satisfied that
the said confession was true, voluntarily made and corroborated in material
particulars. Therefore, the settled law with respect to a retracted judicial or extra-
judicial confession is that the retracted judicial confession or retracted extra-
judicial confession may form the legal basis of a conviction, if the court is
satisfied that it was true, voluntarily made and corroborated by material
particulars.
SIXTHLY:

32. The contention of the prosecution is, the judicial confession of the
approver under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded before tendering pardon can be
used as against the co-accused u/s. 30 of the Evidence Act to substantiate the
prosecution case.
33. The learned counsels for the accused submitted the approver
retracted his statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C. while tendering evidence before this
court and furthermore submitted Section 30 of the Evidence Act has got no
81
application since the approver is not tried along with the co-accused and urged to
dismiss the plea of the prosecution.
34. The approver Subramaniam alias Ravisubramaniam is examined
as P.W.40 before this Court on 21.01.2010. The 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the
approver, Ex.P69 was recorded by P.W.160 on 30.12.2004. The statement
u/s.306 (4) Cr.P.C., (Ex.P71) was recorded by Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Kancheepuram on 07.01.2005. The tender of pardon u/s. 306(1) Cr.P.C. was
accorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet (P.w.157) on 20.01.2005
and the order is Ex.P269. The contention of the prosecution is, since the
confession statement of accused u/s.164 Cr.P.C. was recorded before tendering
pardon, the said confession can be used as against the co-accused to record a
finding in favour of the prosecution.
Section 30 of The Indian Evidence Act reads as follows:
"consideration of proved confession affecting person
making it and others jointly under trial for same offence.-
When more persons than one are being tried jointly for
the same offence, and a confession made by one of such
persons affecting himself and some other of such
persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration
such confession as against such other person as well as
against the person who makes such confession"
Section 30 of The Indian Evidence Act manifest the confession of a co-
accused can be taken into consideration as against the other accused in a joint
trial. In the present case P.W.40 was granted tender of pardon and thereby, he
was examined as a prosecution witness during trial. Furthermore, he is not at all
tried as an accused along with the co-accused. Again the approver retracted the
confession u/s.164 Cr.P.C. during trial. Under such circumstances, I hold that
the contention of the prosecution that the statement recorded u/s.164 Cr.P.C. of
82
the approver can be taken into consideration to find a finding against the co-
accused is not sustainable in law.
35. Further, as soon as tender of pardon is granted to the approver
u/s.306 (1) Cr.P.C., the approver became a prosecution witness. The
prosecution is at liberty to examine the approver as a prosecution witness.
Therefore, this court is of the view that as soon as tender of pardon is accorded
or granted to the approver the confession statement of the approver recorded
u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. deems or turn to be a statement of a witness u/s.164 Cr.P.C.
P.W.40 retracted the statement recorded u/s.164 Cr.P.C. during trial. The
evidentiary value of the retracted 164 Cr.P.C. statement of a witness is decided
by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in (2004) M.L.J. (Cri.) 935.
"(2004) M.L.J. (Crl.) 935
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Present:- M. Karpagavinayagam and S.K. Krishnan,JJ
Chinnasamy alias Chinnapaiyan . . . Appellant
v.
State, represented by Inspector of
Police, Poochamballi, North Arcot
Ambedkar District. . . . Respondent

(A) Criminal Procedure Code (II of 1974), Sec. 164 Statements
of witnesses recorded Retraction Not to be acted
upon."
The above stated decision makes it clear it would an illegality in acting
upon the retracted statement of a witness made u/s.164 Cr.P.C., hence, in fine
this court holds that the confession of the approver recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C.
(Ex.P69) has got no legal value and again this court rejects the contention of the
prosecution as ill-founded in law.
36. The further contention of the prosecution is the expression "shall be
examined as a witness" as contemplated u/s.306 (4) Cr.P.C. manifest the
statement of the approver recorded by the Judicial Magistrate u/s. 306 (4)
83
Cr.P.C. is substantive evidence and further submitted in the present case the
examination of the approver Subramaniam @ Ravisubramaniam u/s. 306 (4)
Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate is subjected to cross examination of the
accused No.1 to 4 and therefore, since the statement is subjected to cross
examination, it can be treated as substantive evidence and the same can be
accepted and acted upon for a just and proper decision of the case.
37. Per contra, the learned counsels for the accused would submit the
expression "shall be examined as a witness" as contemplated u/s. 306 (4)
Cr.P.C. does not mean examination and cross examination of the witness and
would further submit the statement u/s. 306 (4) Cr.P.C. is recorded only for
limited purpose of tendering pardon, the proceedings u/s. 306 (4) Cr.P.C. is
neither an enquiry nor a trial, the accused has got no right to cross examine the
approver while he was examined by the Magistrate u/s. 306 (4) Cr.P.C., and
further if at all any cross examination was done by the accused it will not change
the character of the statement and no evidentiary value can be attached to the
statement recorded u/s. 306 (4) Cr.P.C., thus urged the plea of the prosecution is
ill-founded in law.
38. In the present case approver Subramaniam @ Ravisubramaniam was
examined before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram on 07.04.2005
and cross examined by Accused No.1 to 4. The contention of the prosecution is,
since the statement u/s. 306 (4) Cr.P.C. is subjected to cross examination it
becomes substantive evidence.
In 2000 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 587, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
as follows:
"2000 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 587
(BEFORE G.T. NANAVATI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.)
RANADHIR BASU . . . Appellant
Versus
STATE OF W.B. . . . Respondent.
84
A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 S. 306(4) Examination of
approver as a witness Object Magistrate can examine the
approver in his chamber S. 306(4) does not mandate that the
approver must be examined in open court in presence of the
accused and that accused must be given opportunity to cross
examine the approver."

Following the law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2000 S.C.C.
(Cri) 587, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in 2004-1-L.W.(Cri) 398 held as
follows:
"2004 -1-L.W.(Cri)398
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.
State by: Assistant Commissioner of Police Crime Record Bureau,
Chennai Inspector of Police, R8 Vadapalani Cr.No.1466/01Petitioner in all
the three Crl. R.Cs.
Vs.
Saravanan . . . Respondent (A2) in Crl. R.C.No.1112/03
Prakash Respondent (A1)/party-in-person in Crl. R.C.No.1113/03
Vijay alias Vijayakumar . . . Respondent (A3) in Crl. R.C.No.1114/03
Criminal P.C., Section 306(4), Information Technology
Act, Section 67, Arms Act, Section 27, Indecent Representation
of Women (Prohibition) Act (1986), Sections 4 and 6, Immoral
Traffic ( prevention) Act, Sections 9 and 6, I.P.C., Sections 120-
B, 506 and 397 Contention that the accused must be given
opportunity to cross examine in the committal court when the
approver is examined cannot be accepted Expression
examination of a witness' does not mean examination and
cross-examination of that witness Therefore it is clear that
the accused cannot claim as a right to cross-examination
Tender of pardon and its acceptance by the person concerned
is a mater entirely between the Court and the person
concerned pardon proceeding before the Magistrate is
neither an enquiry nor a trial where the accused has to be
given an opportunity to show to the Court that the statement of
85
the accused seeking pardon is not true Section 306 clearly
states that at the time of investigation or inquiry into an
offence, accused cannot claim any right The right arises only
at the time of trial."

Further again the Hon'ble Full Bench of Kerala High Court in 2005
CRI.L.J. 3848 held as follows:
"2005 CRI.L.J. 3848
(KERALA HIGH COURT)
FULL BENCH
K. PADMANABHAN NAIR: V. RAMKUMAR AND M.N. KRISHNAN, JJ.
L.S. Asokan, Appellant v. State of Kerala, Respondent
Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 33 Criminal P.C. (2 of
1974), S. 306 (4) Statement of approver Admissibility
Accused had no right to cross- examine the approver while
he was examined by Magistrate under S.306(4)(a) Death of
approver Statement of approver is not relevant or
admissible under S.33 of Evidence act."

39. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and followed by
the Hon'ble High Court manifest the following factors:
(a) The expression shall be examined as a witness does not mean
examination and cross examination of that witness.
(b) The accused has got no legal right to cross examine the witness
u/s.306(4) Cr.P.C.
(c) The proceeding before the Judicial Magistrate concern is only
for a limited purpose of tendering pardon.
(d) The proceeding before the Judicial Magistrate is neither an
enquiry nor a trial.
40. Further Section 308 (2) Cr.P.C. reads as follows:
"Section 308 Trial of person not complying with conditions of
pardon.-
86
"(2) Any statement made by such person accepting the
tender of pardon and recorded by a Magistrate under section
164 or by a Court under sub-section (4) of Section 306 may be
given in evidence against him at such trial"
The object of Section 306 (4) Cr.P.C. is to provide an opportunity to the
accused to show to the Court that the approver's evidence at the trial is not trust
worthy in view of the contradiction or improvements made by him during his
evidence at the trial.
41. The decisions cited above manifest the accused has no right to cross
examine the statement u/s. 306(4) Cr.P.C. and the said statement is recorded
only for the limited purpose of tendering pardon. Section 308 (2) ventilates the
statement recorded u/s. 306(4) Cr.P.C. may be given in evidence against the
approver if he is put in trial for the alleged offence. Under such circumstances
and as per the discussions made above, this court holds that the contention of
the prosecution that the statement recorded u/s. 306(4) Cr.P.C. is substantive
evidence since it is subjected to cross examination is untenable in law.
42. Further approver Subramaniam @ Ravisubramaniam is examined
as P.W.40. During trial he failed to support the prosecution case and hence, the
prosecution cross examined him in length. The evidentiary value of the approver
who failed to support the prosecution case is dealt by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in (2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1243.
(2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1243
(2010) 10 Supreme Court Cases 179
(BEFORE P. SATHASIVAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.)
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA . . . Appellant
Versus
ABUSALAM ABDUL KAYYUM ANSARI
AND OTHERS . . . Respondents.

A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Ss. 306, 307, 308 and
315 Approver Pardon withdrawn for failing to make
full disclosure Consequences Whether accused has
a right to cross-examine such accomplice approver
87
None of the provisions of Evidence Act, CrPC and
Constitution protect such approver from prosecution
On forfeiture of such pardon, he is relegated to position
of an accused However, he cannot be compelled to be
a witness His evidence is rendered useless for
purposes of trial of co-accused Thus, no occasion
arises for defence to cross examine him Designated
Court failed to consider that pardon was granted and
accepted by Respondent 3 approver on condition of
making a true and full disclosure of all facts concerning
commission of crime Not having done so, pardon
granted to him stood forfeited, and he did not remain a
witness Designated Court seriously erred in treating
Respondent 3 as hostile witness Criminal Trial
Witnesses accomplice/Approver Evidence Act, 1872
Ss. 114 III.(b), 132, 133 and 154 Constitution of India,
Art. 20 (3)."
The approver P.W.40 was examined on 21.01.2010 and on the very same
day the prosecution with the permission of the court, cross examined the witness
since he failed to support the prosecution case. After cross examination by the
prosecution, the witness is again cross examined by the accused. As per
Section 308 (1) Cr.P.C. if the approver failed to comply with the conditions of
pardon upon a certificate given by the Public Prosecutor, the approver is reverted
to the position of an accused and liable to be tried separately, the evidence given
by him, if any, has to be ignored in toto and does not remain legal evidence for
consideration in the trial against the co-accused. The learned Special Public
Prosecutor filed an application before this Court to proceed against the approver
u/s. 308(1) Cr.P.C. on 17.06.2010 after a lapse of nearly five months. The cited
legal dictum manifest during examination of the approver as a prosecution
witness if the Public Prosecutor came to know that the approver is not supporting
the prosecution case, then the prosecution is at liberty to stop the witness at that
stage and the public prosecutor can certify that the approver violated the
conditions of pardon and can be proceeded in accordance with Section 308(1)
88
Cr.P.C., and treating the witness as hostile is not sustainable in Law. But
any how, in the present case, the Special Public Prosecutor cross examined the
witness and the accused are also followed with their cross examination. The law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court manifests if the approver failed to
comply with the conditions on which the tender of pardon was made, his
evidence can be ignored in toto and does not remain legal evidence for
consideration in the trial against the co-accused. In the present case, the
approver P.W.40 failed to support the prosecution case and further the Special
Public Prosecutor filed a petition u/s.308(1) Cr.P.C. to proceed against him.
Under such circumstances, and in obedience of the Law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in [(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1243] this court holds that the evidence of
approver P.w.40 and also the statement recorded u/s.164 Cr.P.C. and 306(4)
Cr.P.C. are of no use to the prosecution and hence, the plea of the prosecution is
rejected.
SEVENTHLY:

43. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted though number of
witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution to prove the confession,
arrest, recovery and seizure, most of the witnesses failed to support the
prosecution case and the investigation in this case is fair and proper, hence,
evidence of the chief Investigating Officer (P.W.189) can be relied on to prove
the arrest, confession, recovery and seizure and further submitted, irregularity
and even illegality in investigation, if any, cannot be a ground to discard the
prosecution case and further submitted that in the present case Investigating
Officer (P.W.189) did investigation in a credible and cogent manner and the
investigation is fair and proper, resulting filing of positive final report u/s.173(2)
Cr.P.C. In support of the contention the following decisions are cited:
89
1. (2003) 10 Supreme Court Cases 414
(BEFORE DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.)
STATE OF M.P. . . . Appellant
Vs.
MANSINGH AND OTHERS . . . Respondents"
" . . .A Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 S. 164 Evidence of
witnesses cannot be discarded merely because their
statements were recorded under S.164-All that is required as a
matter of caution is careful analysis of the evidence."
" . . .H. Criminal Trial Investigation Deficiencies in
investigation Effect held, cannot be a ground to discard the
prosecution version which is authentic, credible and cogent
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 S.157."
2. 1999 STPL (LE) 26163 SC
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(K.T.THOMAS AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.)
LEELA RAM (D) THROUGH DULI CHAND . . . Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER . . . Respondents
(a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sections 156, 238,
225 Evidence Act, 1872 Section 45 Indian Penal Code,
1860 Section 302 Before however, proceeding with the
matter on two counts as above, it would be convenient to
note another aspect of the matter, namely the observations
pertaining to the investigation by the Investigating Agency.
It is now well settled principle that any irregularity or even
an illegality during investigation ought not be treated as a
ground to reject the prosecution case and we need not
dilate on the issue expecting referring a decision of this
Court [vide State of Rajasthan V. Kishore, AIR 1996 SC
3055: (1996 AIR SCW 1392: 1996 Cri LJ 2003)]"
90
44. The learned counsels for all the accused and in particular the
learned counsels for the first and sixth accused would vehemently contend
normally the issue of irregularity and illegality with respect to the question of
investigation will be of not much important and normally the issue will not be
addressed by the defence counsels at the first instance while arguing the case,
but this is a peculiar case in which materials on records will reveal the
investigation done by the Investigating Officer is Per se illegal in nature, thereby
the accused are entitled for an order of acquittal. Further would submit fair and
impartial investigation are the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of Indian
Constitution and in this case a fair and impartial investigation is not at all done by
the Investigating Agency and urged, the final report filed u/s.173 (2) Cr.P.C. and
the trial before this court based on the final report are not at all sustainable in
law. In support of the contention the following legal dictums are pressed into
service:
(2010) 6 Supreme Court Cases 1
(BEFORE P. SATHASIVAM AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.)
SIDHARTHA VASHISHT ALIAS MANU SHARMA Appellant
Versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) . . . Respondent
". . . .X. Constitution of India Arts. 21,19 and 20 Fair trial
Meaning and scope Rights of accused Fair and impartial
investigation and prosecution as well as fair trial, emphasized
Right against self-incrimination and double jeopardy Scope
Reiterated Maxims Contra veritatem lex nunquam aliquid
permittit - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Ss. 157, 173, 24
and 243 Criminology Object of criminal law."
91
2. (2012) 1 MLJ (Crl) 807 (SC)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Present: Dalveer Bhandari, J.,
T.S. Thakur and
Dipak Misra, JJ.
Kailash Gour and others . . . Appellants
Versus
State of Assam . . . Respondent"
" 30. . . . . . That an accused is presumed to be innocent
till he is proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is a
principle that cannot be sacrificed on the altar of inefficiency,
inadequacy or inept handling of the investigation by the
police. The benefit arising from any such faulty investigation
ought to go to the accused and not to the prosecution.. . ."
The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cited decisions
manifest fair and impartial investigation is the constitutional right of the accused
and if the accused are able to establish inefficiency and inadequacy or inept
handling of the investigation by the Investigating Officer then the accused are
entitled for the benefit arising out of such faulty investigation.
45. The learned counsels for the accused attacked the investigation
under the following heads:
(a) Thiru Premkumar, Superintendent of Police who is not an authorized
officer to do investigation, took an active role at every stage of the
investigation, done substantial investigation and acted as defacto
Investigating Officer.
(b) Thiru Sakthivel (P.W.189), the Chief Investigating Officer who filed the
final report u/s.173(2) Cr.P.C., never did independent investigation and
he acted upon the investigation done by other Police Officers as it is
92
and without doing further investigation or verifying the said
investigation, collected statements, records and dressed up the case,
and filed final report u/s. 173 (2) Cr.P.C. which is not sustainable in
law.
(c) Evidence on record reveals most of the statements of witnesses
recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. and further judicial and extra-judicial
confessions of the accused were recorded under threat and coercion.
(d) Numbers of witnesses are planted by the Investigating Officer to
depose against the accused.
(e) The statements and documents of special important collected during
investigation were not at all despatched to the Magistrate Court in
time, but with a long delay, which created a cloud in the investigation
of the case, resulting false implication of the accused.
(f) In Transfer petition (Crl) No.134/2005 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that the investigation is not fair and proper and the Investigating officer
is showing undue interest in doing the investigation and also taken
extraordinary efforts much beyond what is required under law.
46. The plea of the accused is the Chief Investigating Officer Thiru
Sakthivel (P.W.189) did the investigation under the direction of Thiru Premkumar,
Superintendent of Police and the said Thiru Premkumar took an active role and
taken undue interest during investigation though he was neither cited as a
witness nor cited as an Investigating Officer, under such circumstances it cannot
be said P.W.189 did independent investigation and filed final report u/s.173 (2)
Cr.P.C. in accordance with Law. The further contention is the said Thiru
Premkumar took an active role and undue interest during investigation in order to
foist a false case against the accused and thereby misdirected P.W.189 to file
93
the false final report u/s.173(2) Cr.P.C. against the accused for the alleged
offences.
47. Admitedly, Thiru Premkumar is neither cited as a witness nor cited
as an Investigating Officer. Ex.P353, Memorandum issued by Superintendent of
Police, Kanchipuram, says officers and constables numbering 29 are nominated
for assisting the Chief Investigating Officer Thiru S.P. Sakthivelu, A.D.S.P.,
Prohibition Wing, Kanchipuram District, during investigation of the case in B2
Vishnukanchi Police Station Crime No.914/2004 u/s. 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. Though
as many as 29 police officers took part in the investigation under the Chief
investigating Officer P.W.189, the said Thiru Premkukar was not at all appointed
or nominated as one among the Investigating Officers. To do the investigation
under P.W.189 three Deputy Superintendent of Police, four Inspectors, seven
Sub Inspector of Police, thirteen Head Constables, one Grade-I Constable and
another constable were deployed. The evidence of the Chief Investigating
Officer P.W.189 reads as follows:
"
"
Further during evidence P.W.189 deposed as follows:
"
"
48. At this juncture, the learned counsels for the first accused would
submit that most of the prosecution witnesses were examined by the
Investigating Officers in the forest bungalow situated near Kanchipuram. But
94
with an evil intention and undue interest over the prosecution, Thiru Premkumar
had chosen All Women Police Station to interrogate the first accused though the
first accused is a Sanyasi and therefore, his act would manifest, with an evil
intention and with an undue interest, such act was done by him. On going
through the evidence of number of prosecution witnesses it is seen the
Investigating Officer has chosen to examine the witnesses in a forest bungalow
situated at or near Kanchipuram. Murugesan(P.W.176) in his evidence has
deposed that he was tortured by the Police in forest bungalow situated at
Kanchipuram for a continuous period of three days to give statement before the
Judicial Magistrate. The evidence of P.W.176 is neither discredited nor disputed
by the prosecution. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.176 clinchingly proves that
he was illegally kept in the forest bungalow for a period of three days. Hence,
the contention that most of the witnesses are examined by the Investigating
Officer in the forest bungalow situated at or near Kanchipuram is proved.
Admittedly, the first accused is a Sanyasi and Thiru Premkumar who is not at all
the Investigating Officer in this case has chosen an All Women Police Station for
interrogating the first accused. Further, P.W.189 would depose that he was not
aware as to who had chosen the All Women Police Station to interrogate the 1
st

accused. This itself is evident, that P.W.189 got no control over the investigation.
This act of Thiru Premkumar cannot be appreciated and this act itself shows the
contention of the learned counsels for the 1
st
accused is with acceptable positive
materials and substance.
49. In M.O.20 series of video cassette recorded by the police
photographer Thiru K. Thirumoorthy (P.W.169) contained the recording of
statement of the accused, M.O.21 video cassette contained the recording of
statement of Usha (P.W.180), M.O.22 T.V. cassette contained the recording of
statement of Krishnamoorthy @ Appu, M.O.23 T.V. Cassette contained the
recording of statement of approver Ravisubramaniam (P.W.40) and M.O.24
95
video cassette containing the recording of the arrest of the first accused. In
M.Os.1 to 24 the presence of Thiru Premkumar is found a place.
Tmt. Padma, (P.W.1) is the wife of the deceased. She deposed as
follows;
"
"
Uma Maithrai (P.W.2) is the daughter of the deceased. She deposed as
follows:
"
Further the evidence of Anbazhagan (PW16) reads as follows:
"
S.P.
, A.D.S.P.
"
Further the evidence of Subramaniam @ Ravi Subramaniam (P.W.40)
reads as follows:
"27.12.2004
" "
96
" "
" "
"
Further the evidence of Lakshmanan (P.W.78) would reads as follows:
"
50. Further again the Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 134/2005 filed by
the first accused before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Thiru Premkumar,
Superintendent of Police is arrayed as third respondent. In the said transfer
petition Thiru Premkumar, Superintendent of Police is designated as the head of
the said Investigation team. Therefore, it is evident Thiru Premkumar,
Superintendent of Police was the head of the Investigation team. Further the
Transfer Petition was allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground the
prosecution agency headed by Thiru Premkumar has not only taken an undue
interest in doing the investigation but also shown extraordinary efforts much
beyond what is required under law.
Therefore, on a well consideration of the evidence of the witnesses
extracted above and as per the discussions made above in particular with regard
to the first accused, this court is of the firm and considered view Thiru
Premkumar, Superintendent of Police actually did the investigation, examined the
witnesses, directed the chief investigating officer (P.W.189) to do or not to do
97
investigation in a particular manner, took an active role and further took undue
interest over the prosecution case during investigation.
51. Further the learned counsels for the accused would submit u/s. 173
Cr.P.C. an Investigating Officer is expected to do independent investigation and
after completion of investigation he can file a final report u/s. 173(2) of Cr.P.C.
either positive or negative report. But in this case number of Investigating
Officers are deployed to do investigation and without doing further investigation
with respect to the investigation done by the said investigating officers or without
verifying the said investigation, the Chief Investigating officer (P.W.189) filed the
final report by colleting the materials from other investigating officers and acted
as post office and therefore, it cannot be said the final report u/s. 173(2) Cr.P.C.
is based on the independent investigation of the Chief Investigating Officer,
(P.W.189). In short the contention of the accused seems to be the Chief
Investigating Officer (P.W.189) never did independent investigation and he only
collected the materials from other investigating officers, bundled together and
filed the final report u/s. 173(2) Cr.P.C., which is not sustainable in Law.
52. Based on the evidence of Anbazhagan (P.W.16), Subramaniam @
Ravi Subramaniam (P.W.40), Lakshmanan (P.W.78), it is already decided Thiru
Premkumar took active role and undue interest over the investigation and did the
investigation along with others. Admittedly Thiru Premkumar is neither a witness
nor an investigating officer or an authorized person to do investigation. Under
what authority he took part in the investigation is not known. The Chief
Investigating Officer P.W.189 has deposed as follows:
"
"
Therefore, it is crystal clear from the evidence of P.W.189, Thiru
Premkumar actually did the investigation. But no scrap of document is produced
98
before this court with regard to the investigation done by Thiru Premkumar.
P.W.189 filed a final report as if he did the investigation independently. His
evidence itself makes it clear that he never did the investigation independently.
53. Further during examination the Chief Investigating Officer
(P.W.189) has deposed as follows:
"
" , " P.W.
". . . . ., "
", . . . . . . . "
".. "
"
The above extracted evidence of the Chief investigating officer- P.W.189
manifest he accepted the investigation done by the other investigating officers as
it is and forwarded the same to the court. Whether the investigation done by the
said officers with respect to the witnesses are correct or not, are not, known. It is
the duty of the investigating officer before filing final report to go through the
99
investigation done by other investigating officers and verify the same with the
witnesses and to record a record to find out whether the investigation done by
them is correct or not. Since because part of the investigation done by the other
investigating officers were accepted by theChief investigating officer P.W.189 as
it is and forwarded the same to the court, this court has got no hesitation to hold
that P.W.189 never did the investigation independently.
Hence, for the reasons and discussions made above this Court holds that
the plea of the accused that the final report laid u/s. 173(2) Cr.P.C. is not
sustainable in law is supported with sufficient positive materials and sustainable
in law.
54. The further contention of the accused is statements u/s. 164
Cr.P.C. of witnesses, judicial and extra-judicial confessions of the accused were
recorded under threat and coercion. From the extracted evidence of
Anbazhagan (P.W.16), Subramani @ Ravisubramani (P.W.40), Lakshmanan
(P.W.78) , it is already decided Thiru Premkumar along with the Investigating
Officer tortured the witnesses during investigation to obtain statements u/s.164
Cr.P.C. Further Duraikannu (P.W.5), Vaithianathan(P.W.18), Govindan(P.W.21).
T.A.Kannan (P.W.30), T.R.Baskaran (P.W.31), Vaseekaran Kumar (P.W.32),
Saravanan-(P.W.37), Gobuseshasayee (P.W.44), Diagarajan (P.W.52), Ravi
(P.W.53), Sivalogam @Srinivasan (P.W.64), Vaithianathan (P.W.67),
Santhanam (P.W.68), R. Kannan (P.W.154), Darmalingam (P.W.175),
Murugesan (P.W.176), Usha-(P.W.180) would depose under threat and coercion
and as directed by the investigating officers they gave 164 Cr.P.C. statement
before the Judicial Magistrate concern. Prosecution witnesses of various status
would depose that they never gave 164 Cr.P.C. statement before the Judicial
Magistrate neither voluntarily nor independently. R. Kannan (P.W.154) is
presently the Sub Inspector of Police attached with Kanchipuram Police Station
has deposed that he gave 164 Cr.P.C. statement before the Judicial Magistrate
which is marked as Ex.P264. During evidence he would depose after the
100
occurrence he was brought under the custody of the police for a period of 40
days and subsequently he was placed under suspension, thereby he was forced
to give a statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C. After 164 Cr.P.C. statement is recorded,
suspension was revoked and he was reinstated in service. The testimony of a
police officer (P.W.154) itself makes it clear the contention of the accused that
the statements recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. from the witnesses under threat and
coercion is with acceptable materials and the same is proved by the accused.
55. The Judicial confession u/s.164 Cr.P.C. of A6 Kathiravan was
recorded by the Judicial magistrate No.II, Kancheepuram on 19.11.2004. The
said confession recorded u/s.164 Cr.P.C. is Ex.P281. The accused Kathiravan
retracted the judicial confession before the Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Kancheepuram on 24.11.2004 within a short span of five days. Before the
Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kanchipuram, the accused Kathiravan would state as
follows:
"
"
The extracted statement of the A6-Kathiravan before the Judicial
Magistrate-I, Kanchipuram, manifest the A6 was harassed by the police to give
the judicial confession u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. Further Baskaran (P.W.161), the then
Tahsildar of Kanchipuram would depose that on 10.11.2004, the Chief
101
Investigating Officer, Additional Superintendent of Police Sakthivel brought the
accused Kathiravan and Rajini Chinna before him and asked him to record their
statements. The extra-judicial confession of A6 Kathiravan recorded by P.W.161
is Ex.P286 and that of A7 Rajini Chinna is Ex.P287. The contentions of both the
accused are they were threatened and tortured by the investigating officer to give
extra-judicial confession before P.W.161. Since both the accused were brought
by the Chief Investigating Officer himself before P.W.161 for recording extra-
judicial confession, this court holds the alleged confession is the tutored version
of Chief Investigating Officer and hence, the plea of the accused that they never
gave confession voluntarily, cannot be rejected. Further Vimal Kumar (P.W.142)
the then Dy. Tahsildar, Chengalpet would depose that he recorded the extra-
judicial confession from the 10
th
accused K.S.Kumar which is marked as
Ex.P247. During cross examination P.W.142 would depose that he recorded
Ex.P247 extra-judicial confession of A10 at the office of the Additional Dy.
Superintendent of Police that too, in front of Sakthivel (P.W.189). Therefore it is
evident from the evidence of P.W.142 the extra-judicial confession of A10 was
recorded by P.W.142 at the police Station that too, in front of the Chief
Investigating Officer (P.W.189). Hence, it cannot be said Ex.P247 extra-judicial
confession was given by A10 voluntarily before P.W.142. Hence, in fine this
court is of the considered view, the plea of the accused that most of the
statements u/s.164 Cr.P.C. of witnesses, judicial and extra-judicial confession of
the accused were recorded under threat and coercion is with materials and the
same is sustainable in law.
56. Further on the side of the accused it is contended most of the
prosecution witnesses are planted by the investigating officers and the evidence
of T.A.Kannan (P.W.30) itself is sufficient to prove the same and urged the
investigation is not fair and proper.
57. The case of the prosecution is during the night of 1.09.2004 the first
accused along with some other accused conspired together to commit murder of
102
Sankararaman and the said conspiracy was witnessed by T.A. Kannan (P.W.30)
among others. Admittedly, Inspector Kothandapani (P.W.167) did the
investigation in this case for the period from 03.09.2004 to 13.09.2004. He would
depose as follows:
" 12.09.2004
"
Further it is the admitted case of the prosecution that the investigating
officer was not aware of the accused and as to who committed the murder of
Sankararaman for the period up to 27.10.2004. P.W.167 admitted that he
conducted inquest on 03.09.2004 at about 08.45 p.m. and one of the
Panchayathar is T.A.Kannan (P.W.30). If P.W.30 actually witnessed the criminal
conspiracy of A1 and others, to the murder of Sankararaman, he ought to have
stated the same during inquest before P.W.167 on 03.09.2004. But he never
whispered nor stated anything to P.W.167. The legal and positive inference that
could be drawn is P.W.30 ought not to have witnessed the alleged criminal
conspiracy of A1 and others. The inquest report also never speaks about the
conspiracy of A1 and others. Under such circumstances without any hesitation
and iota of doubt, this court holds that the plea of the accused that T.A.Kannan
(P.W.30) never witnessed the alleged conspiracy and he was planted by the
prosecution subsequently, to speak about the alleged conspiracy is well proved
by the accused.
58. Again the further contention of the accused is for a fair and
impartial investigation and also to avoid false implication of the accused, the
Investigating Officer is duty bound to forward the materials colleted during
investigation then and there without any delay to the concerned Judicial
magistrate Court and in this case considerable delay is caused by the
Investigating Officer in sending those documents to the court, failed to follow the
103
guidelines enumerated in the decision reported in 1975 MLJ (Crl) 106 and under
such circumstances, it cannot be held the investigation is fair and proper.
In 1975 MLJ (Crl) 106 the Hon'ble Madreas High Court held as follows:
"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
PRESENT: - K.N. Mudaliyar and C.J.R. Pual, JJ.
Karunakaran and another . . . Prisoners."
(C) Criminal Trial Fair trial Instructions for guidance of
Magistrates issued Necessity for prompt dispatch of important
documents by investigating officers to Magistrates stressed
Such documents and precautions to be observed with regard to
them by investigating officers and Magistrates indicated
Desirability of preserving pocket diaries, entries in general
diaries and despatch book stressed.
Held: that to ensure that the really guilty may not escape
the clutches of law and the really innocent may not be falsely
implicated by the ingenuity of the prosecuting machinery, it is
imperative that documents of special importance should be
dispatched immediately without any delay by the investigating
officers to the magistrates. The Station House officer should
record the time of the actual dispatch of the various documents
in the various registers, particularly, the statement recorded
under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.- - - - - - - - -
- - - -
The following are the documents of special importance
which should be despatched by the investigating officers
without any delay to the Magistrates and they should bear the
initials of the Magistrate with reference to both the time and date
of their receipt:
(1) The original report or complaint under Section 154 of
Criminal Procedure Code.
(2) The printed form of the first information report prepared on
the basis of the said report or complaint.
(3) Inquest reports and statements of witnesses recorded
during the inquest.
104
(4) Memo, sent by the Station House Officers to doctors for
treating the injured victims who die in the hospital subsequently and
the history of the case treatment.
(5) Memo, sent by the doctor to the police when a person with
injuries is brought to the hospital, or the death memo sent by
the doctor to the police on the death of the person admitted
into the hospital with injuries.
(6) Observation mahazars for the recovery of material objects,
search lists and the statements given by the accused
admissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act, etc.,
prepared in the course of the investigation.
(7) The statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 (3),
of Criminal Procedure Code.
(8) Form No.91 accompanied by material objects."
59. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit there is no delay
in sending the materials to the court and even if there is a delay it will not
cause prejudice to the accused. The evidence of P.W.189 reads as follows:
"
"
Therefore, the contention of the prosecution that the statement and
records collected during investigation were despatched to the concerned
Magistrate Court then and there, is false. Hence on the basis of the evidence of
the Investigating Officer, this court holds that the Chief Investigating officer failed
to despatch the statements and documents collected during investigation then
and there to the concerned Magistrate court. Therefore, it is decided the plea of
the accused that the investigating officer never did the investigation as per the
guidelines enumerated in the cited legal dictum is well established and hence,
this court holds the contention of the accused is sustainable in law.
60. Further the learned counsels, in particular the counsels for the first
accused would submit the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Transfer Petition
(Crl.)No.134/2005 held that the investigation is not done in accordance with law
105
and thereby accepted the contention of the first accused and transferred the case
from Tamilnadu to Puducherry and the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
itself makes it clear, fair and proper investigation is not at all done in this case. In
the Transfer Petition on the side of the first accused several grounds are raised
and some of the grounds are:-
(a) The Special Investigating team headed by Sri Premkumar,
Superintendent of Police had shown extraordinary efforts much
beyond what is required under law in doing investigation.
(b) Concocted and false case have been registered against 16 co-
accused to invoke Goondas Act against the 16 co-accused.
(c) Advocates appearing for the petitioner and other co-accused have
been put under great threat on account of lodging false and
fabricated criminal cases.
(d) The mutt and other associated and connected Trusts have 183
account in banks which were all frozen by the Special Investigating
Team, which is unwarranted.
(e) Criminal cases have been lodged against some leading journalists of
the country and other prominent personality who written articles
criticizing the arrest of the petitioner.
(f) Sri Premkumar who is heading the Special Investigating team is not a
fair and upright officer.
Accepting the grounds stated above and considering the other grounds
raised by the 1
st
accused, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the transfer
petition. Therefore, the contention of the first accused that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court already decided that the investigation is not fair and proper is proved
during trial and the said contention is sustainable in Law and I do not find any
valid reason to reject the plea.
In fine as per the discussions made above, this court holds that the
contention of the accused that the investigation is neither regular nor legal
106
or fair or proper, is proved with acceptable positive materials and the plea
is sustainable in Law.
61. Further the contention of the prosecution is the Chief Investigating
Officer (P.W.189) arrested the accused and recorded voluntary confession from
them and consequent to the admissible portion of the confession, the material
objects were identified by the accused and thereafter seized by P.W.189. The
admissible portion in the confession statement of A3 is Ex.P410, A5 is Ex.P411,
Ex.A6 is Ex.P363, A7 is Ex.P362, A8 is Ex.P379, A10 is Ex.P356, A11 is
Ex.P358, A12 is Ex.P377, A13 is Ex.P143, A16 is Ex.P133, A17 is Ex.P131, A18
is Ex.P135, A19 is Ex.P137, A20 is Ex.P139, A22 is Ex.P145 and A15 is
Ex.P142. On a careful consideration of the evidence of P.W.189 manifests
P.w.189 never deposed before this court, the admissible portion of the
confession, as alleged to have been told by the respective accused. Therefore, it
is evident the admissible portion of the confession in terms of Section 27 of the
Evidence Act is not been deposed by P.W.189. Since the admissible portion of
the confession leading to recovery is not deposed by P.W.189 it cannot be said
the testimony of P.W.189 can be accepted and acted upon to prove the arrest,
confession and recovery.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows:
(2008) 3 MLJ (Crl)1187 SC)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Present: Dr. Arijit Pasayat and P. Sathasivam, JJ.
Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu . . . Appellant
Vs.
Balaprasanna . . . Respondent
(B) Indian Evidence Act (1 of 1872), Section 27 Scope and
ambit of Recovery of incriminating articles on the confession
made by accused Admissible in evidence only if confession
is voluntary Requirements of Section 27 summed up."

107
The various requirements of the section can be summed up as
follows:
(1) The fact of which evidence is sought to be given must be
relevant to the issue. It must be borne in mind that the
provision has nothing to do with the question of relevancy.
The relevancy of the fact discovered must be established
according to the prescriptions relating to relevancy of other
evidence connecting it with the crime in order to make the
fact discovered admissible.
(2) The fat must have been discovered.
(3) The discovery must have been in consequence of some
information received from the accused and not by the
accused's own act.
(4) The person giving the information must be accused of any
offence.
(5) He must be in the custody of a police officer.
(6) The discovery of a fact in consequence of information
received from an accused in custody must be deposed to.
(7) Thereupon only that portion of the information which
relates distinctly or strictly to the fat discovered can be
proved. The rest is inadmissible."
As discussed above, P.W.189 failed to depose the relevant portion of the
confession statement of the respective accused leading to the recovery of the
material objects and weapons of offence. In the above cited decision, in Point
No.6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India stated that the admissible portion of
the confession in terms of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, needs to be deposed
before the court. Since P.W.189 failed to depose the relevant portion to comply
the mandates of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, this court holds the admissible
portion is of no legal sanctity and cannot be relied upon against the accused.
Hence, in fine, as per the discussions made above, this court holds the
plea of the prosecution for proving the confession of the accused, arrest,
recovery and seizure, the evidence of Chief Investigating Officer (P.W.189) is self
sufficient, cannot be accepted and the same is not sustainable in law.
108
EIGHTHLY:

62. On the side of the prosecution it is submitted that an army of
Investigation Officers participated in the investigation under the head of the Chief
Investigating Officer Thiru Sakthivel, Superintendent of Police and placed all the
materials before the court which are collected and recorded during investigation,
and thus provided a fair trail to the accused.
63. The learned counsels for the accused submitted, soon after the
occurrence, The Government of Tamilnadu gave a solatium of Rs.5,00,000/- to
Tmt. Padma, (P.W.1) wife of deceased Sankararaman in order to falsely
implicate the accused, in particular A1, A2 and A4 with the murder of
Sankararaman and though the victims are paid a sum of Rs.5 lakhs, they never
deposed that the accused threatened them to depose in their favour and further
submitted the payment of Rs.5 lakhs towards solatium to victim Padma (P.W.1)
and her family is self evident that a fair investigation and trial is not provided to
the accused, resulting of prejudice to the accused.
64. Countering the arguments advanced by the accused, the learned
Special Public Prosecutor would submit it is the paramount duty of the Sovereign
Government of Tamilnadu to rehabilitate the victims of crime and with good
intention, the Government of Tamilnadu paid the said solatium to the deceased's
family and therefore, it cannot be said the payment of solatium to the victim soon
after the occurrence caused prejudice to the accused in any way.
65. The occurrence took place on 03.09.2004. It is an admitted fact that
the Sovereign Government of Tamilnadu paid the solatium of Rs.5 lakhs to victim
Padma (P.W.1) on 24.11.2004. Therefore, it is self evident soon after the
occurrence and soon before the completion of investigation, a sum of Rs.5 lakhs
was paid to the deceased's family towards solatium. The Scheduled Casts and
The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989) provides solatium to
109
the victim even before trial. The Victims Compensation Scheme under Section
357-A Cr.P.C. was introduced in the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment
Act 2008) ( 5 of 2009) with effect from 31.12.2009 onwards. Section 357-A
Cr.P.C. provides compensation to victims through Legal Services Authority
irrespective of the trial of the case. In the present case, the solatium was paid by
the Government of Tamilnadu on 24.11.2004. Therefore it is self-evident with
foresightedness, the Government of Tamilnadu implemented the Victim
Compensation Scheme even five years prior to the enactment of Section 357-A
of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the act of Government of Tamilnadu is to be appreciated
and this court appreciated the same. Every Government is duty bounded to
safeguard the life and liberty of its citizen. Therefore, since because a solatium
of Rs.5 lakhs was given to the victims' family, the accused are prejudiced with
respect to investigation and trial cannot be accepted and hence, this Court
rejects the plea of the accused as unsustainable in law.
66. Further, the learned counsels for the accused submitted for a just
and proper decision of the case, it is the duty of the prosecution to place all the
materials collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation and in this
case the Chief Investigating Officer P.W.189, failed to place entire materials
before this court, in order to allow the real accused to flee from justice and to
array the innocent persons as accused in the final report. In short the contention
of the accused is the non-placement of entire materials collected by the
Investigating Officers during investigation before this court has caused prejudice
to the accused. Further submitted Fair and impartial investigation and
prosecution are the constitutional rights of the accused as per the Law laid down
in (2010) 6 SCC 1 and inefficiency, in adequacy or inept handling of the
investigation leads to benefit of doubt to the accused as per the decision in
(2012) MLJ Cri 807 (S.C.) and thus urged to record an order of acquittal
67. The Initial investigation is done by Inspector Kothandapani
(P.W.167). He would depose as follows:
110
"04.09.2004
" "..
" "
"
Therefore, it is self evident from the evidence of P.W.167, the Additional
Superintendent of Police Bhavani Easwari, actually took part in the investigation,
seized documents from the house of the deceased and under her dictation
statements were recorded by constable Punniakodi. This factor itself is evident
that Additional Superintendent of Police Bhavani Eswari actually took part and
did the investigation.
Thiru Gnanasambadam (P.W.10), the then Asst. Commissioner-Executive
Trustee of kancheepuram Kamatchamman Temple would depose as follows:
"
" "..
"
The testimony of P.W.10 makes it clear the Superintendent of Police Thiru
Davidson also took part in the investigation and examined the witnesses.
111
68. Further it is evident from the evidence of Chief Investigating Officer
(P.W.189), Dy. Superintendent of Police Thiru K.K. Rajarathinam, Chengalpet
Town Inspector Thiru Rajarajan, Dy. Superintendent of Police Samuthirakani also
took part in the investigation. Again P.W.189 would depose
"
"
Therefore it is seen from the evidence of P.W.189 though Inspector
Srinivasan was not authorised to arrest the approver, the arrest of the approver
was made by the Inspector Srinivasan. How P.W.189 deployed the service of
Inspector Srinivasan without any authorization is not known.
From the above extracted materials and discussions made above, it goes
without saying that Superintendent of Police Davidson, Additional Superintendent
of Police Bhavani Easwari, Dy. Superintendent of Police Rajarathinam, Dy.
Superintendent of Police Samithrakani, Inspector Rajarajan, also took part in the
investigation and did investigation. But the said officers are neither cited as
witnesses nor the materials collected by them during their investigation are
placed before this court. No probable and acceptable explanation is offered on
the side of the prosecution for not citing them as a witness in the final report.
Further whether part of the investigation done by the said officers favoured the
prosecution or not is not known.
69. It is the paramount duty of the investigating officer to do fair and
proper investigation in order to provide a fair trial for those who are accused of
criminal offence. Prosecution cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own
wrong. Conducting a fair trial for those who are accused of a criminal offence is
the corner stone of our democratic society. A conviction resulting from an unfair
trial is contrary to our concept of criminal Justice system. Conducting a fair and
proper investigation and providing a fair trial, is both for the benefit of the society
112
as well as for an accused and that cannot be abandoned. In AIR 2010 Supreme
Court 2352 at para 82 it is held as follows:
AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 2352
P. SATHASIVAM AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma V. State (N.C.T. of Delhi)
Para 82 . . . "n the Indian Criminal Jurisprudence, the
accused is placed in a somewhat advantageous position
than under different jurisprudence of some of the
countries in the world. The criminal justice administration
system in India places human rights and dignity for
human life at a much higher pedestal. In our
jurisprudence an accused is presumed to be innocent till
proved guilty, the alleged accused is entitled to fairness
and true investigation and fair trial and the prosecution is
expected to play balanced role in the trial of a rime. The
investigation should judicious, fair, transparent and
expeditious to ensure compliance to the basic rule of law.
These are the fundamental canons of our criminal
jurisprudence and they are quite in conformity with the
constitutional mandate contained in Articles 20 and 21 of
the Constitution of India."

It is already decided that the plea of the accused the investigation done by
the Chief Investigating officer P.W.189 is neither fair nor proper is supported with
positive material. As per the discussions made above, it is decided prosecution
failed to place entire materials before this court for a just and proper decision of
the case. Hence, in obedience of the cited legal dictum, this Court hold that the
plea of the accused that a fair trial is defeated to them is, with positive materials
and the same cannot be rejected.
NINETHLY

70. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit the deceased
Sankararaman exposed the misdeeds as well as assassinated the personal
character and conduct of A1, A2 and A4 relating to the maladministration and
113
affairs of Sankaramutt, Kancheepuram through various letters addressed to the
first accused and Sankaramutt in his name and under the guise and name of
Somasekaraganapadigal and also sent final notice dated 30.08.2004 threatening
A1 and A2 to face serious consequences and thus humiliated, infuriated and
intimidated them is the motive to eliminate Sankara raman and the said motive is
proved through the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.113, P.W,187 and under
Ex.P2 series and Ex.P123 series of letters, thus pleaded motive is well proved by
the prosecution.
71. The learned counsels for the accused would submit motive is a
double edged weapon, it may be a motive for commission of the crime and also it
may be a motive for false implication, and in this case materials on record
reveals the first and second accused are falsely implicated for the reasons best
known to the prosecution and further submitted Ex.P2 series and Ex.P123 series
are planted by the prosecution for the purpose of the case, thus pleaded motive
is not at all proved by the prosecution. In support of their plea the following
decision is cited. In 2000 AIR SCW 2305, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
follows:
2000 AIR SCW 2305
(From: Patna)

S. SAGHIR AHMAD, A.P. MISRA AND Y.P. SABHARWAL, JJ.

Appellants: Suresh Rai and others
V.
Respondent: State of Bihar.

. . . " S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J. :- Enmity, undoubtedly, is a
double edged weapon: it may be a motive for
commission of crime; it may also be a motive for false
implication. If, as in the instant case, one edge of the
weapon of enmity is blunt, it cannot be sharpened by the
judicial process. The weapon of enmity in the instant
case, as well shall presently see, does not cut any ground
for the commission of crime"
114
72. The case of the prosecution is since the deceased Sankararaman
exposed the misdeeds as well as assassinated the personal character and
conduct of A1, A2 and A4 and relating to maladministration and affairs of
Sankaramutt, Kancheepuram, through various letters addressed to A1,
Sankaramutt and to various officials and the final notice dated 30.8.2004 sent by
the said Sankararaman threatening A1 and A2 to face serious consequences are
the motive to eliminate Sankararaman.
73. Thiru Krishnamoorthi (P.w.113) the then Superintendent of Hindu
Religious Charitable Endowment Board, Chennai would depose the investigating
Officer seized Ex.P122 and Ex.P123 series of documents from the office of
Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment Board, Chennai. On
perusal of Ex.P.122 and Ex.P123 documents manifest number of petitions were
sent by deceased Sankararaman to Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment
Board, Chennai, alleging that maladministration is going on in Sankaramutt,
Kancheepuram, the first accused is converting Sankaramutt into a business
institution, trying to sell the mutt's property for under value, the mutt is functioning
against the Hindu Charitable Endowment Act and Rules, by the act of the first
accused the income of the mutt is considerably reduced and further deceased
Sankararaman sought permission to remove the first accused from the hereditary
trusteeship of Sri Kamatchiamman Devasthanam, filed Writ Petition restraining
the first accused from going abroad and also assassinated the character and
conduct of the first accused. The learned counsels for the accused would submit
Ex.P122 and Ex.P123 series of documents cannot be taken into consideration
since those documents were not proved. It is evident from the evidence of
P.W.113 the documents were seized by the Investigating officer from the office of
the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment Board, Chennai. In
most of the letters, the sender is deceased Sankararaman and the addressee is
Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment Board, Chennai. The said letters are
seized by the Investigating officers from the addressee, namely, the
115
Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment Board, Chennai.
Therefore, this court is of the view that the contention of the accused that the
said documents cannot be relied on, is not sustainable in law. It is not in dispute
the deceased filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court, Madras in
W.P.NO.17759 of 2001, restraining the first accused not to go abroad. Further
on a well consideration of the materials available in Ex.P122 series and Ex.P123
series would manifest the deceased Sankararaman addressed letters to Hindu
Religious Charitable Endowment Board, Chennai and other higher officials
alleging that maladministration is going on in Sankaramutt, Kancheepuram, the
first accused is converting Sankaramutt into a business institution, trying to sell
the mutt's property for under value, the mutt is functioning against the Hindu
Charitable Endowment Act and Rules and by the act of the first accused, the
income of the mutt is considerably reduced. Therefore, materials in Ex.P122 and
Ex.P123 series of documents itself manifest the relationship of deceased
Sankararaman with Sankaramutt, Kancheepuram, especially the relationship of
deceased Sankararaman with the first accused Jayantherar is not at all cordial
but a strained one
74. Further under Ex.P2 series of documents numbering 81, the
prosecution claims the deceased Sankararaman assassinated the character and
conduct of A1, A2 and A4, published the maladministration of Sankaramutt,
Kancheepuram and also issuance of final threatening notice dated 30.8.2004 is
well proved through the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.167, and P.W.189 and in
particular through the evidence of Vaidyanathan (P.W.69) the seizure of final
threatening notice dated 30.8.2004 from the second accused and also from the
approver (P.W.40).
75. Thiru Kothandapani(P.W.167), Inspector of Police, Vishnu Kanchi
Police Station, Kancheepuram is the officer who did the initial investigation.
During evidence he deposed Ex.P2 series of documents were seized from
Padma (P.W.1), the wife of the deceased under Ex.P20 mahazar. The search is
116
conducted by P.W.167 at the house of the deceased Sankararaman on 4.9.2004.
It is seen from Ex.P1 search list, Ex.P2 series of documents were seized from
the house of the deceased on 4.9.2004. Uma Maithireyee (P.W.2), the daughter
of the deceased would depose Ex.P2 series of documents were seized from their
house. Her mother Padma (P.W.1) would depose, P.W.2 handed over Ex.P2
series of documents to the police. Therefore, it is seen, Ex.P2 series of
documents were seized from the house of the deceased on 4.9.2004 under
Ex.P1 search list by P.W.167. The evidence of P.W.167 reads as follows:
" 4.9.2004
"
"
"
" .
"
76. The prosecution claims that Ex.P2 series of documents were
seized by P.W.169 under Ex.P1 search list. During evidence P.W.167
categorically deposed those documents were seized by Additional
117
Superintendent of Police Bhavani Eswari. Before search was made in the house
of Sankararaman on 4.9.2004, admittedly neither search warrant was obtained
from concerned court nor advance intimation was sent. Therefore, the seizure of
Ex.P2 series of documents under Ex.P1 search list is not illegal but only irregular.
But it will not affect the validity of seizure and therefore, the documents seized
can be considered. Further the case of the prosecution is Ex.P2 series of
documents were seized from the house of Sankararaman on 4.9.2004 in front of
P.W.1 and P.W.2 by the Investigating Officer Kothandapani (P.W.167) under
Ex.P1 search list. P.W.1 and P.W.2 categorically deposed that the said
documents were seized from them on 4.9.2004 by P.W.167. But during cross
examination on the side of the accused, the seizure of Ex.P2 series of
documents from the house of P.W.1 on 04.09.2004 is not at all challenged.
Therefore, this court holds that the seizure of Ex.P2 series of documents were
seized from the house of the deceased on 4.9.2004 is proved. Thiru Kasi
(P.W.187) is the hand writing Expert who compared the hand writing and
signatures of deceased Sankararaman contained in number of letters in Ex.P2
series documents with the admitted signatures and hand writings. On a careful
reading of the evidence of P.W.187 leaves this court with a positive impression,
the documents No.4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 24, 27, 41, 42, and 43
are written by deceased Sankararaman. The addressee in most of the letters are
the first accused and the Sankaramutt. On a careful and well consideration of
the averments contained in the said letters would manifest the deceased
Sankararaman assassinated the character and conduct of A1, A2 and A4 and
also ventilated the maladministration of Sankaramutt by the first accused.
Therefore, on a careful consideration of the materials in the said documents
would manifest the plea of the prosecution that the deceased has exposed the
misdeeds as well as assassinated the personal character and conduct of A1, A2
and A4 relating to the maladministration and affairs of Sankaramutt,
118
Kancheepuram, thereby he humiliated, infuriated and intimidated them is
supported with acceptable positive materials.
77. Further again the contention of the prosecution is all along the
deceased Sankararaman has exposed the misdeeds as well as assassinated the
personal character and conduct of A1, A2 and A4 relating to the
maladministration and affairs of Sankaramutt, Kancheepuram through various
letters and final notice dated 30.8.2004 threatening A1 to face serious
consequences, resulted the final decision of eliminating Sankararaman by A1, A2
and A4 in consultation with other accused. Therefore, the contention of the
prosecution is the final notice dated 30.8.2004 sent by deceased Sankararaman
to A1 is the motive for the elimination of Sankararaman. The learned counsels
for the accused would submit absolutely no materials are available on record to
show that the final notice dated 30.8.2004 (document No.29 in Ex.P2 series) was
sent by Sankararaman and the same was received by the first accused. On
perusal of the materials on record would manifest there is no evidence to show
that the final notice dated 30.8.2004 was received by the first accused. But the
contention of the prosecution is the first accused conspired with other accused to
eliminate Sankararaman, in that process, the copy of the said notice was given
by A1 to A6-Kathiravan and Vaidyanathan (P.W.67) and the copies of the notice
were recovered form them and therefore, it is deemed the first accused received
final notice dated 30.8.2004. As I said earlier no material is adduced before this
court to show that the final notice dated 30.8.2004 was received by A1.
Admittedly, the said final notice was unsigned by the author. The said final
notice dated 30.8.2004 was published in Ex.D5 Nakkeeran Weekly magazine.
On a careful perusal of page 6 of the said magazine manifest the final notice of
Sankararaman dated 30.8.2004 was signed by him. The prosecution claims that
they have seized an unsigned final notice dated 30.8.2004. But Ex.D5 dated
20.11.2004 manifest Nakkeeran Weekly magazine was able to publish the
signed final notice of deceased Sankararaman dated 30.8.2004. Further, it is
119
the case of the prosecution the copies of unsigned final notice of deceased
Sankararaman were recovered from A6 Kathiravan and Vaidyanathan (P.W.67).
It is not the case of the prosecution the signed final notice of Sankararaman
dated 30.8.2004 was seized from anybody during investigation. P.W.189 who
laid the final report admits most of the documents and statements were sent to
the court belatedly. Further P.W.189 deposed as follows:
"

"
Further during cross examination, P.W.189 deposed as follows:
"
"
78. The prosecution attributed motive against A1, A2 and A4 to
eliminate Sankararaman based on document No.29 in Ex.P2. Admittedly, no
evidence is available on record to show that the addressee of the final notice
received the said notice. Ex.D5 dt. 20.11.2004 Nakkeeran Weekly published the
signed final notice of Sankararaman dated 30.8.2004. Though it is the prime
document to prove the motive of the case by the prosecution, this document is
sent belatedly to the court with a delay of 17 days and further it is very
unfortunate to note that the investigating officer has not made investigation with
120
respect to the said material document. The prosecution claims a copy of
unsigned final notice dated 30.8.2004 was seized from the house of
Sankararaman. But on the other hand Ex.D5- Nakkeeran weekly magazine
published signed final notice of Sankararaman dated 30.8.2004. If it is so, if at all
the deceased Sankararaman sent any final notice to the first accused, he ought
to have signed the same and sent it to the first accused. But it is not so.
79. The case of the prosecution is the final notice dated 30.08.2004
(document No.6 in Ex.P346 series) was seized from the second accused on
19.01.2005 under Ex.P345 mahazar. The contention of the learned counsels for
the second accused is, the alleged final notice was planted by the investigating
officer subsequently. Admittedly, Vijayaendra Saraswathi (A2) was arrested on
10.01.2005 and thereafter he was remanded to judicial custody. On 19.01.2005
the 2
nd
accused was taken from judicial custody to police custody. It is seen from
Ex.P345 mahazar, the final notice dated 30.8.2004 was seized from the 2
nd

accused on 19.01.2005. It is not the case of the prosecution the said document
was recovered from the 2
nd
accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is
also an admitted fact the 2
nd
accused does not wear regular apparels with
pockets. Under such circumstances it is unbelievable that the investigating
officer seized the final notice from the 2
nd
accused under Ex.P345 mahazar dated
19.01.2005. Therefore, the contention of the 2
nd
accused that the final notice
alleged to have been recovered from the 2
nd
accused was planted by the
investigating officer is acceptable one.
80. Further, the case of the prosecution is, Ex.P365 copy of final notice
was seized from A6-Kathiravan at the time of his arrest. The contention of the
learned counsels for the 6
th
accused is in the arrest memo Ex.D8 the alleged final
notice was not found place and therefore, the said final notice was subsequently
planted by the Investigating Officer. The evidence of P.W.189 reads as follows:
"
121
"
It is evident form the evidence of P.W.189 that he never seized the alleged final
notice from A6-Kathiravan at the time of arrest. Therefore, the contention of the
prosecution that the final notice was seized fromA6-Kathiravan at the time of
arrest is false and the plea of the counsels for the accused that the alleged final
notice was subsequently planted by the investigating officer is acceptable one.
81. Further Vaithiyanathan (P.W.67) would say that he never received
the alleged final notice dated 30.8.2004 and the police never seized any such
document from him. Hence, for the following reasons:-
(a) the final notice dated 30.8.2004 alleged to have been sent by A1 was
unsigned.
(b) Ex.D5 Nakkeeran Weekly magazine dated 20.11.2004 was able to
publish the signed final notice of Sankararaman dated 30.8.2004
(c) The material documents, namely the final notice was belatedly sent to
the court with a delay of 17 days.
(d) The investigating officer failed to do any investigation with respect to
the final notice dated 30.8.2004.
(e) It is improbable that Ex.D5 Nakkeeran Weekly magazine dated
20.11.2004 was able to publish the signed final notice but the first accused
was sent with unsigned final notice. The investigating officer failed to
examine the publisher of Ex.D5, Nakkeeran Weekly magazine to ascertain
about the signed final notice of Sankararaman dated 30.8.2004 and also
failed to seize the signed final notice of 30.8.2004 from the publisher of
Ex.D5 magazine,
(f) The materials on record (arrest of A2 and A6) reveals that the copy of
final notice was planted by the investigating officer in order to show that
the said notices were recovered from A2 and A6.
122
Hence, this court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove that the
deceased Sankararaman issued final notice (document No.29 in Ex.P2 series)
dated 30.8.2004 to the first accused and also failed to prove the said notice was
received by the first accused.
82. It is already decided the relationship between A1, A2 and A4 with
the deceased Sankararaman was strained one. Again it is already decided the
prosecution has failed to prove that the final notice dated 30.8.2004 was sent and
received by the first accused. Padma (P.W.1) is the wife, Uma Maitherayee
(P.W.2) is the daughter and Anand Krishna Sharma @ Anand Sharma (P.W.3) is
the son of deceased Sankararaman. During evidence P.W.1 deposed as follows:
"

Further P.W.3 deposed as follows:

"
It is seen from document No.38 in Ex.P2 series of documents the deceased
Sankararaman filed Writ Petition No.17759/2001 before the Hon'ble High Court,
Madras during 2001 for direction, restraining the first accused to go for abroad.
The proper witnesses to speak about the alleged motive, if any, are the wife and
children of the deceased Sankararaman, because the family of deceased
Sankararaman is closely associated with Sankara Mutt. Therefore, on the basis
of evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3, it can be concluded whether A1, A2 and A4 had
a motive to eliminate Sankararaman. Both the witnesses in clear and categorical
terms deposed after filing the Writ Petition during 2001 restraining the first
accused to go abroad, their relationship, particularly deceased Sankararaman's
123
relationship with Sankaramutt is very cordial. Further Anbazhagan (P.W.16)
deposed as follows:-
"
"
P.W.16 is an advocate having 15 years bar experience. Deceased
Sankararaman was a client to him. This court finds no reason to reject the
evidence of P.W.16 from consideration. Under such circumstances and as per
the discussions made above and relying on the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 and
P.W.16, this court holds that the contention of the prosecution that A1, A2 and A4
got motive to eliminate Sankararaman also cannot be accepted and hence, it is
decided motive is not proved by the prosecution.
TENTHLY

83. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit the judicial
confession of Kathiravan-A6 and Pandian @ Dhilpandian-A17 are voluntary and
truthful in nature and the said confession can be accepted and acted upon to
record a finding against the accused.
84. The learned counsel for the 6
th
accused would contend Kathiravan-
A6 was in illegal custody from 3.11.2004 onwards and under threat, coercion,
and under the influence of police, the 6
th
accused gave confession, Ex.P281
under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the same was recorded by Thiru Damodharan
(P.w.168), the then learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kancheepuram and further
the learned Magistrate failed to comply the legal principles enunciated under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. while recording the confession and thereby, urged the
judicial confession Ex.P281 is inadmissible in law.
85. Admittedly, the 6
th
and 7
th
accused were arrested at 10.30 p.m. on
9.11.2004. The chief Investigating Officer ( P.W.189) deposed as follows:-
"
"
124
The Chief Investigating officer (P.W.189) would admit after arresting A6 and A7
and after investigation he ascertained the phone No.256903 and Cell phone
No.9840488588 from a S.T.D. booth at Walajapad. During evidence P.W.189
would depose as follows:
"
"
Therefore, it is evident from the evidence of P.W.189 after the arrest of the 6
th

and 7
th
accused on 09.11.2004 at 10.30 p.m. he ascertained the phone
No.256903 and cell phone No.9840488588.
86. Further P.W.189 would depose as follows:
"
"
Therefore, it is evident from the evidence of P.W.189 on 06.11.2004 itself he
addressed to the Air tell office for collecting the call details of the cell phone
No.9840488588. Further, Ex.P159 is the normal call billing records (call details)
in respect of Walajabad S.T.D. PCO public phone No.256903, on 03.09.2004
given by P.W.124. Appandirajan (P.W.124), the Divisional Engineer of B.S.N.L.,
Kancheepuram would depose at the request of Investigating Officer, the call
details of the S.T.D. Booth under Ex.P159 was furnished to P.W.189. On a
careful perusal of Ex.P159 would manifest the call details of the computer print
was taken on 9.11.2004 at 10.47 a.m. On a well consideration of Ex.P159 and
Ex.P163 series would manifest the 6
th
and 7
th
accused were taken into police
custody prior to 9.11.2004 at 10.47 a.m. After the arrest of A6 and A7 only,
P.W.189 addressed to P.W.124 for call details. Admittedly, the letter addressed
by P.W.189 to P.w.124 was on 6.11.2004. Therefore, since P.W.189 addressed
letter on 6.11.2004 for collecting the call details of cell phone No.9840488588
125
(Ex.P163 series), without any hesitation, this court holds that the 6
th
accused
ought to have been apprehended by the police much earlier to 6.11.2004. In the
retracted confession the 6
th
accused would say he was taken to police custody
on 3.11.2004. Hence, the plea of the accused that the 6
th
accused was in
illegal custody of the police prior to 6.11.2004 is well proved.
87. The contention of the prosecution is judicial confession Ex.P281
recorded by P.W.160 was in accordance with law, voluntary and truthful in nature
and that can be accepted and acted upon to record the finding against the
accused. The contention of the learned counsel for the 6
th
accused is the
Judicial confession was not at all recorded by P.W.160 in accordance with the
established principles of Law. To substantiate the contention the following
decisions are cited.
In AIR 1957 SUPREME COURT -637 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
follows:
"AIR 1957 SUPREME COURT -637
B.JAGANNADHADAS, B.P. SINHA AND P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, JJ.
" (I) Criminal P.C.(5 of 1898), S.164 (3) Recording of
statement Time to be allowed before recording.
It would naturally be difficult to lay down any hard and
fast rule as to the time which should be allowed to an
accused person in any given case before recording his
confession under S.164. However, speaking generally, it
would be reasonable to insist upon giving an accused
parson at least 24 hours to decide whether or not he should
make a confession. Where there may be reason to suspect
that the accused has been persuaded or coerced to make a
confession, even longer period may to be given to him
before his statement is recorded."
In (2011) 2 MLJ (Crl) 236 the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the
following principles to be followed while recording confession under Section 164
of Cr.P.C.
126
(2011) 2 MLJ (Crl) 236 (SC)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Present: P. SATHASIVAM AND Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.
Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh Appellant
Versus
Republic of India Respondents"
" (B) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),
Section 164 Recording of confessions and statements
Confessional statements to be voluntary Enquiry by
Magistrate necessary to ascertain voluntary nature of
confession Confessional statements of co-accused
needs corroboration for procuring conviction of
accused based on such statements Remand of
accused to police custody on refusal to make
confessional statement illegal Confession to be
voluntary Non-compliance of Section 164 impairs
evidentiary value of confession.
Held: The folow9ing principles emerge with regard
to Section 164 Cr.P.C.:
(i) The provisions of Section 164 Cr.P.C. must be
complied with not only in form, but in essence.
(ii) Before proceeding to record the confessional
statement, a searching enquiry must be made from the
accused as to the custody from which he was produced
and the treatment he had been receiving in such
custody in order to ensure that there is no scope for
doubt of any sort of extraneous influence proceeding
form a source interested in the prosecution.
(iii)A Magistrate should ask the accused as to why he
wants to make a statement which surely shall go against
his interest in the trial.
(iv)The maker should be granted sufficient time for
reflection.
(v) He should be assured of protection from any sort of
apprehended torture or pressure form the police in case
he declines to make a confessional statement.
127
(vi)A judicial confession not given voluntarily is
unreliable, more so, when such confession is retracted,
the conviction cannot be based on such retracted
judicial confession.
(vii) Non-compliance of Section 164 Cr.P.C. goes to
the root of the Magistrate's jurisdiction to record the
confession and renders the confession unworthy of
credence.
(viii) During the time of reflection, the accused
should be completely out of police influence. The
judicial officer, who is entrusted with the duty of
recording confession, must apply his judicial mind to
ascertain and satisfy his conscience that the statement
of the accused is not on account of any extraneous
influence on him.
(ix)At the time of recording the statement of the
accused, no police or police official shall be present in
the open Court.
(x) Confession of a co-accused is a weak type of
evidence.
(xi)Usually the Court requires some corroboration from
the confession statement before convicting the accused
person on such a statement. "
88. The contention of the 6
th
accused is evidence of P.W.189 and the
learned Judicial Magistrate Thiru Damodharan (P.W.160) who recorded the
confession would manifest the confession recorded was not at all voluntary in
nature. During evidence P.W.189 would depose as follows:
"
128
"
It is evident from the evidence of P.W.189, the 6
th
accused was produced
at 5.15 p.m. on 10.11.2004 before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram
and remanded to judicial custody up to 24.11.2004. Materials on record reveals
the 6
th
accused was taken into police custody from 10.11.2004 to 16.11.2004 and
after, from 16.11.2004 5.00 p.m. to 17.11.2004. It is admitted by P.W.189 while
the 6
th
accused was in police custody he filed a petition on 17.11.2004 before
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet for recording confession of A6. Further it is
admitted by P.w.189 that he field a petition before Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Kancheepuram to keep the 6
th
accused in solitude in the sub-jail at
Kancheepuram and the learned Judicial Magistrate ordered accordingly.
89. The evidence of the learned Magistrate No.II, Kancheepuram Thiru
Damodharan (P.W.160) who recorded the confession statement of A6 reads as
follows:
"
"
"
"
"
."
129
"
"
It is seen from the confession of the 6
th
accused (Ex.P281) the 6
th
accused
was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kancheepuram on 18.11.2004
at about 11.30 a.m. and the confession was recorded on 19.11.2004 at about
11.30 a.m.
90. Admittedly at the request of P.W.189 6
th
accused was remanded to sub-
jail, Kanchipuram on 17.11.2004. 6
th
accused was produced from Sub-jail,
Kanchipuram to record his confession under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Upon the
written requisition of P.W.189, the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kancheepuram
remanded the 6
th
accused on 17.11.2004 in Kanchipuram Sub-jail. What was the
necessity for P.W.189 to choose and request the learned Magistrate to lodge the
6
th
accused in Sub-jail, Kanchipuram is not known. At this juncture, the learned
counsel for the 6
th
accused would vehemently contend P.W.189 being an
Additional Superintendent of Police Kanchipuram, can influence the Jail
Authorities, thereby, he can threaten A6 to give confession and that is why
P.W.189 has specifically chosen and filed a petition before the Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Kanchipuram, to lodge the 6
th
accused in Kanchipuram Sub- jail,
and therefore, 6
th
accused was under the influence of the police while he was
lodged in sub-jail, Kancheepuram from 17.11.2004 to 19.11.2004 before
recording the confession under Section 164 Cr.P.C., why P.W.189 has chosen
the particular jail for lodging A6 was not known and the same was not explained
by the prosecution. Having considering the fact that at the request of P.W.189,
Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kanchipuram, remanded the 6
th
accused to sub-jail,
Kanchipuram before recording the confession, hence, this court holds there is
130
valid and acceptable materials in the contention of the learned counsel for the 6
th

accused. Further on a careful consideration of the extracted evidence of the
learned Judicial Magistrate-Thiru Damodharan (P.W.160), who recorded the
confession under Section 164 Cr.P.C. would manifest that he never made
searching enquiry with the accused, as to the custody from which he was
produced, the nature of treatment he had been receiving in the said custody,
further he never questioned whether the accused was in illegal custody or not
and also he failed to inform the accused that if the accused failed to give
confession he will not sent to police custody. Considering the guidelines
enumerated in (2011) 2 MLJ (Crl) 236 (SC), with the evidence of P.W.160 leaves
this court with a positive impression that P.W.160 failed to follow the principles
enumerated in the said decision.
91. The learned counsel for the 6
th
accused would further submit before first
remand on 10.11.2004, the 6
th
and 7
th
accused were produced before Thiru
Baskaran (P.W.161), the Tahsildar, Kancheepuram to record the confession
statement of the 6
th
and 7
th
accused and the confession statement was recorded
with videograph in order to threaten and coerce the 6
th
accused to give a
confession before P.W.160, as tutored by P.W.189. P.W.161 would depose that
on 10.11.2004, P.W.189 brought the 6
th
and 7
th
accused before him and asked to
record their confession and the confession of the 6
th
accused is Ex.P286 and that
of 7
th
accused is Ex.P287. Since the confession statement was recorded by
Tahsildar (P.W.161) in the presence of the chief investigating officer P.W.189,
during investigation, it cannot be held the said statement is voluntary in nature
and hence, the confession statement cannot be relied on. The plea of the
learned counsel is in order to threaten and coerce the 6
th
accused to give
confession, videograph M.O.16 was taken and under threat of P.W.189, the
alleged statement was given by the 6
th
accused. It cannot be said P.W.189
being the cadre of Additional Superintendent of Police and that he was not aware
of the legal consequence if an extra-judicial confession was recorded in the
131
presence of a police officer. Under such circumstances, this court is of the view
that the plea of the 6
th
accused cannot be rejected in toto.
92. Further the contention of the learned counsel for the 6
th
accused is that on
10.11.2004 the 6
th
accused was brought before Baskaran (P.W.161) Tahsildar,
Kancheepuram and the extra-judicial confession was recorded with videograph in
order to threat and coerce the 6
th
accused to give confession before the Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Kancheepuram Thiru Damodharan (P.W.160), and the
recording of extra-judicial confession with videograph was illegal as per Section 5
of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920. Section 5 of said Act reads as
follows:
" 5. Power of Magistrate to order a person to be
measured or photographed. If a Magistrate is satisfied
that, for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding
under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, it is
expedient to direct any person to allow his
measurements or photograph to be taken, he may make
an order to the effect, and in that case the person to
whom the order relates shall be produced or shall attend
at the time and place specified in the order and shall
allow his measurements or photograph to be taken, as
the case may be, by a police officer:
Provided that no order shall be made directing
any person to be photographed except by a Magistrate
of the first class:
Provided further, that no order shall be made
under this section unless the person has at some time
been arrested in connection with such investigation or
proceeding."
Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act manifest the accused
cannot be photographed during investigation without an order of a Magistrate.
Here the extra-judicial confession was recorded with videograph by P.W.161.
Under such circumstances, this court holds that the recording of confession with
132
videograph by P.W.161 is not at all in accordance with Section 5 of the
Identification of Prisoners Act.
93. Further it is an admitted fact the judicial confession of the 6
th
accused was
recorded on 19.11.2004 at about 11.30 a.m. and the 6
th
accused retracted the
confession on 24.11.2004 itself within a short span of five days, that too, while
the accused was produced from judicial custody before the Magistrate for
extension of judicial custody. Since the 6
th
accused retracted the confession
within a short span of five days and that too while he was in judicial custody, this
court is of the view that the confession is neither voluntary nor truthful in nature.
In the retracted confession before the Judicial Magistrate, Kancheepuram, the
6
th
accused stated that (a) he was arrested on 3.11.2004, (b) he was subjected
to harassment at the hands of the police, (c) lodged in a hotel on 8.11.2004 and
the police obtained number of signatures from him, (d) under threat of the police
he was forced to give a statement before the Tahsildar, (e) while he was in Sub-
jail, Kancheepuram, for two days he was under the influence of the police,(f) the
police threaten him to give 164 Cr.P.C. statement before the Magistrate as
instructed and tutored by them and further he was not provided with medical
facilities. Hence, for the following reasons:-
(a) 6
th
accused was kept in illegal custody even prior to 6.11.2004.
(b) The Judicial Magistrate (P.W.160) who recorded the confession failed
to follow some of the guidelines enumerated in the decision reported in
(2011) 2 MLJ (Crl) 236 (SC).
(c) Knowing fully well it is illegal, even then P.W.189 produced 6
th
and 7
th

accused before Tahsildar (P.W.161) to record extra-judicial confession
and further videographed the same.
(d) Why P.W.189 himself has chosen sub-jail, Kanchipuram, to lodge the
6
th
accused before recording the confession, is not explained.
(e) 6
th
accused retracted the confession within a short span of five days.
(f) 6
th
accused retracted the confession while he was in judicial custody
133
(g) Content of the retracted confession manifest A6 was under the
influence of the threat of P.W.189 while the confession was recorded.
this court holds that the contention of the 6
th
accused that the confession under
Ex.P281 was neither voluntary nor truthful one, is sustainable in law. Hence, it is
decided the confession under Ex.P281 is unworthy of credence.
94. The learned counsel for the 17
th
accused Pandian @ Dhilpandian would
contend the confession of 17
th
accused was recorded by P.W.160, the then
Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kancheepuram and the confession was retracted by the
17
th
accused during examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and therefore it
cannot be taken into consideration to find a finding against the accused.
The learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that the confession
was not retracted at the earliest opportunity but retracted after the lapse of
several months, that too, during examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and
therefore, it cannot be said the confession was not voluntary in nature. In
support of his contention the following legal dictum is cited:
"AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT 1248
R.S.SARKARIA, N.L.UNTWALIA AND P.S. KAILASAM, JJ,
Shankara Appellant
V.
State of Rajasthan Respondent"
" (c) Criminal P.C. (1974) S. 164 confession
Whether voluntary Determination of (Evidence Act
(1872), S.24)
Where the confession was not retracted at earliest
opportunity but after lapse of several months and when
prosecution evidence was closed and during
examination of accused under S.313 Cr.P.C. the
circumstance reinforces the conclusion that confession
was voluntary."

134
The cited legal dictum manifest, if the confession was retracted by the
accused after the lapse of several months, that too, during examination under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., it cannot be said the confession is not voluntary in nature.
Admittedly, Ex.P282 confession was recorded by P.W.160 on 23.11.2004 and
the same was retracted by the 7
th
accused during examination u/s.313 Cr.P.C.
on 21.11.2011. Therefore, it is evident that the accused retracted the confession
after lapse of seven years. Under such circumstances, this court holds that the
plea of the accused that the judicial confession of 17
th
accused was not voluntary
in nature and the same cannot be accepted and acted upon, is not sustainable in
law. Therefore, it is decided the judicial confession of 17
th
accused was
voluntary in nature and the said confession can be accepted and acted upon.
95. Further, the confession statements of 6
th
accused Kathiravan and the 7
th

accused Rajinikanth @ Chinna @ Rajini Chinna were recorded by Tahsildar,
Thiru Baskaran (P.W.161). The confession statement of the 6
th
accused is
Ex.P286 and that of the 7
th
accused is Ex.P287. P.W.161 deposed the
Additional Superintendent of Police Sakthivel brought the 6
th
and 7
th
accused
before him to record their confession. As this court discussed earlier, since the
extra-judicial confession was recorded by P.W.161 in the presence of the Chief
Investigating officer P.W.189, that too, during investigation of the case, this court
holds that the extra-judicial confession under Ex.P286 and Ex.P287 are not
voluntary in nature and cannot be relied on. The confession of 10
th
accused
K.S.Kumar was recorded by Vimal Kumar (P.w.142) the then Dy. Tahsildar
attached with Chengalpet Division. The extra-judicial confession recorded by
P.W.142 from the 10
th
accused is Ex.P247. During evidence P.W.142 admitted
that he recorded the confession of the 10
th
accused in the office of Additional
Deputy Superintendent of Police and that too, in the presence of Additional
Superintendent of Police Sakthivel (P.W.189). Therefore, since the extra-judicial
confession of 10
th
accused is recorded by P.W.142 in the presence of Chief
Investigating officer P.W.189, that too in the office of P.W.189 and during the
135
investigation of the case this court is of the view that the said confession is a
tutored version, not voluntary in nature and hence, this court holds the extra-
Judicial concession of A10 (Ex.P247) is in admissible in Law.
Hence, in fine this court holds that the judicial confession of 6
th
accused
under Ex.P281, extra-judicial confession of 6
th
accused under Ex.P286, extra-
judicial confession of 7
th
accused under Ex.P287, extra judicial confession of 10
th

accused under Ex.P247 are inadmissible in law and the judicial confession of
the 17
th
accused under Ex.P282 recorded by P.W.160 is voluntary in nature.

ELEVENTHLY

96. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted charges for
various offences under 14 heads are framed against the accused and
prosecution has chosen to adduce evidence by examining different set of
witnesses to prove the respective charges under each head, and hence, urged
this court to answer the charges under each head independently.
97. The learned counsels for the 1
st
, 2
nd
and 4
th
accused would submit
charges u/s. 302 r/w 120(B) I.P.C. against A13 to A15 and A21 to A24, further
u/s. 302 r/w. 120 (B) I.P.C. against A16 to A20, u/s. 201 (1) r/w. 302 IPC against
A16 to A20, u/s. 201 (1) r/w. 302 r/w 109 I.P.C. against A1 to A7, A9 and A13 to
A15, are not maintainable in law and urged to decide the maintainability of the
said charges, before answering the charges under 14 heads.
98. The occurrence occurred on 17.45 hours on 3.9.2004 and F.I.R.
was registered at about 19.00 hours on the very same day. The chief
Investigating Officer after a full fledged investigation laid a final report u/s. 173 (2)
Cr.P.C. before committal court on 24.01.2005. Initially on 28.03.2006 after
hearing both sides charges were framed. Thereafter on 18.12.2008 my
Predecessor's Predecessor altered the charges and framed the charges under
14 heads. Trial started on 2.4.2009 and evidence of the prosecution witnesses
136
were over on 11.7.2011, thereafter, the accused were examined u/s. 313 of
Cr.P.C. on 21.11.2011. Hence, it is evident after conducting the trial based on
the charges framed on 18.12.2008, after lapse of nearly three years, that too,
after completion of the trial, the accused put forth a plea saying that some of the
charges are not maintainable in law. On the side of the prosecution it is
submitted only to drag on the case endlessly, such an argument is advanced by
the accused and further submitted the plea of the accused can be considered
while answering the charges under each head. It is not the plea of the defence
or the prosecution, additional charges to be framed. Hence, considering the
factors stated above and the stage of the case into consideration this court feels
neither harm nor prejudice will be caused to the accused if the maintainability of
the charges, if any, can be decided while answering all the charges under the
respective heads.
Upon considering the arguments and the written arguments submitted by
the Special Public Prosecutor and the defence counsels, the charges framed
under 14 heads are decided hereunder:
99. CHARGE NO.1

Under Section 120-B(1) r/w. 302 of IPC against A1 to A6:

Firstly, that since the deceased Sankararaman has exposed
the misdeeds assassinating the personal character and conduct of
A1, A2 and A4 relating to the mal-administration and affairs of
Sankara Mmutt, Kanchipuram through various letters sent under
the guise and name of Somasekaraganapadigal and thereby all the
three thought that he humiliated and infuriated them and after
receipt of final notice threatening that A1 and A2 have to face
serious consequences, due to that A1 and A2 have decided to
eliminate Sankaraman; and on 01.09.2004, A1 called A5 and A6
along with approver - Ravi Subramaniam to the Sankara Mmutt,
consulted in A1's room during the night hours along with A3 and all
of them informed the criminal conspiracy to A2 and A4 who were
then present at Sankara Mutt, and A2 and A4 accepted the criminal
conspiracy, and A2 undertook the expenditure for execution of the
murder, and A4 made arrangement in that regard, thereby, A1 to
A6 committed criminal conspiracy to do an offence of murder
punishable under section 120-B(1) r/w. 302 of IPC.

137
100. The motive for the alleged commission of the offence is A1, A2 and
A4 got enraged as a result of the letters written by the deceased Sankararaman,
exposing their conduct, misdeeds and administrative lapses of the Sankaramutt,
Kancheepuram and further, the immediate provocation to do away with the life of
deceased Sankararaman was the receipt of alleged final notice dated 30.8.2004
sent by the deceased to the first accused, warning that A1 and A2 would have to
face serious consequences.
101. Under the head motive, it is already decided, the prosecution failed
to prove the issue and receipt of final notice (document No.29 in Ex.P2 series)
dated 30.8.204 by the deceased Sankararaman to A1 and further relying upon
the evidence of the wife of the deceased, namely Padma (P.W.1) and daughter
of the deceased, namely Uma Maitherayee (P.W.2), it is decided motive is not
proven by the prosecution.
102. Further it is alleged based on the motive, on the night of 1.9.2004,
A1, A3, A5, A6 along with the approver Sumbramaniam alias Ravi Subramaniam
conspired together in the room of A1 to do away with the life of Sankararaman
and the conspiracy was subsequently conveyed to the 2
nd
and 4
th
accused and
they also accepted and act upon. To prove the act of conspiracy, the testimony
of T.A. Kannan (P.W.30), approver Subramaniam @ Ravisubramaniam
(P.W.40), M.S. Subramanin @ Thambaram Babu (P.W.77), Lakshmanan
(P.W.78) Bala @ Balakumar (P.W.112) R. Kannan (P.W.154) and the confession
of A6- Kathiravan (Ex.P281) are pressed into service by the prosecution.
103. The case of the prosecution is during the night of 1.9.2004 the
conspiracy took place in side the room of A1 and the said conspiracy was
witnessed by T.A. Kannan ((P.W.30) and others. During trial P.W.30 failed to
support the prosecution case. Admittedly, Inspector Kothandapani (P.W.167)
conducted the inquest on the body of the deceased Sankararaman on 3.9.2004
at about 8.45 p.m. and one of the panchayathar is T.A. Kannan (P.W.30). It is
also an admitted fact, the first investigating officer P.W.167 is not aware as to
138
who committed the murder of Sankararaman up to 27.10.2004 Therefore, if
P.W.30 actually witnessed the criminal conspiracy of A1 and others, he ought to
have stated the same before P.W.167 on 3.9.2004 itself. But he never
whispered nor stated anything to P.w.167. The legal and positive inference that
could be drawn is P.W.30 ought not have witnessed the alleged conspiracy and
he was planted by the prosecution subsequently. Further the 164 Cr.P.C.
statement of PW.30 is Ex.P54. P.W.30 would depose as follows:
The evidence of P.W.30 manifest the statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. is not at all
given by P.W.30 on his own accord and therefore, Ex.P54 will not improve the
prosecution case.
104. The approver Subramaniam @ Ravisubramaniam (P.W.40) is also
examined to speak about the conspiracy. During trial P.W.40 did not support the
prosecution case. The 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the approver is Ex.P285, the
statement u/s.306 (4) Cr.P.C. is Ex.P71 and the order of tender of pardon u/s.
306(1) Cr.P.C. is Ex.P269. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in 2010 S.C.C. page 179 it is decided since the approver failed to support
the prosecution case and further since he failed to comply with the conditions of
tender of pardon granted u/s.306 (1) Cr.P.C., his evidence, if any, can be ignored
in toto and does not remain legal evidence for consideration in the trial as against
the co-accused. Therefore, it is decided the testimony of P.w.40 is of no use to
the prosecution.
139
105. M.S. Subramanian @ Thambaram Subramanian (P.W.77) is
examined on the side of the prosecution to speak about the alleged fact that
deceased Sankararaman had sent the final notice to the first accused and also
he witnessed the conspiracy on 1.9.2004 at about 7.00 p.m. P.w.77 failed to
support the prosecution case and absolutely no evidence is available in the
evidence of P.W.77 about the alleged conspiracy.
106. Lakshmanan (P.W.78) is running a Milk shop opposite to
Sankaramutt, Kancheepuram. He would say that on 28.12.2004 he gave a
confession statement before the Judicial Magistrate and the statement is Ex.P12.
During the course of examination he stated as follows:
"
"
P.W.78 was not treated as hostile by the prosecution though he went
against the prosecution case. It is self evident from the evidence of P.w.78 the
statement before the Judicial Magistrate was neither voluntary nor truthful in
nature. Therefore, the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.78 i.e., Ex.P112 has got no
evidentiary value and the same can be rejected from consideration.
107. Bala @ Balakumar (P.W.112) is a Junior Assistant in the office of
Kancheepuram Mutt. He is also examined to speak about the alleged conspiracy
and other alleged act of the first accused. He also failed to support the
prosecution case. Therefore, the testimony of P.W.112 is of no use to the
prosecution.
108. R. Kannan (P.w.154), Head constable is the security attached with
Kancheepuram Sankaramutt. He would say that he gave statement u/s. 164
Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, Uthiramerur. The 164 Cr.P.C. statement
of P.w.154 is Ex.P264. It is seen from Ex.P264 the first accused and others
140
closed the room of the first accused and thereafter conspired together to do away
with the life of Sankararaman. When the room is closed, P.W.154 cannot hear
the alleged conspiracy from outside. It looks highly improbable that the
conspirators would discuss about the commission of the murder at such a time
and place where their discussion could be heard by total strangers. Furthermore
P.W.154 deposed, he was under the custody of police for a period of 40 days
and thereafter he was suspended from police service and after giving 164
Cr.P.C. statement i.e., Ex.P264 before the Judicial Magistrate he was again
reinstated into service. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.154 manifest for giving
statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C., P.w.154, the Head constable of police was placed
under illegal custody of the police for a period of 40 days and thereafter he was
suspended from service and after obtaining statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. he was
reinstated into service. Therefore, the evidence of P.w.154 manifest that 164
Cr.P.C. statement was given by him before the Judicial Magistrate under the
threat of his service and not on his own accord. Hence, considering the fact that
it is impossible to hear the conspiracy from outside the closed room and
considering the fact that the 164 Cr.P.C. statement was recorded from P.W.154
under threat of police, this court holds that the testimony of P.w.154 can be
rejected form consideration.
Therefore, on a well consideration of the evidence of T.A.Kannan
(P.w.30), Approver Subramaniam @ Ravi Subramaniam (P.W.40), M.S.
Subramaniam @ Tambaram Balu (P.w.77), Lakshmanan (P.W.78). Bala @
Balakumar (P.w.112) and R. Kannan (P.w.154) will clinchingly show, absolutely
there is no material available in their evidence to prove the alleged act of
conspiracy.
109. Further the case of the prosecution is that on 01.09.2004 between
7.00 p.m. and 9.00 p.m., A1, A3, A5, A6 along with the approver Ravi @
Ravisubramaniam (P.W.40) conspired together to do away with the life of
Sankararaman and the criminal conspiracy was conveyed to A2 and A4 and they
141
accepted the same. Absolutely no scrap of evidence is available on record or
produced by the prosecution to show that the conspiracy was conveyed to A2
and A4 at any point of time and they also agreed to act upon the conspiracy.
Again Ex.P281 is the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of A6 Kathiravan dated 18.11.2004.
In the confession statement A6 Kathiravan, he never whispered anything about
A2 and A4. Therefore, the plea of the prosecution that A2 and A4 took part in the
conspiracy is false and cannot be accepted.
110. Further the case of the prosecution is A5 and A6 along with others
took part in the conspiracy on 1.9.2004 between 7.00 p.m. and 9.00 p.m. inside
the room of A1 at Kancheepuram. Therefore, it is evident from the plea of the
prosecution in between 7.00 p.m. and 9.00 p.m. on 1.09.2004 A5 and A6 were
along with other conspirators and they were inside the room of the first accused
at Kancheepuram. It is claimed by the prosecution, the Cell phone
No.9444055534 was used by A5 and the Cell phone No.9840488588 was used
by the 6
th
accused at the time of the alleged occurrence. Ex.P71 is the statement
of the approver recorded u/s. 306 (4) Cr.P.C. wherein it was stated the Cell
Phone No. 9444055534 belongs to A5 and Cell Phone No.9840488588 belongs
to the 6
th
accused. Ex.P161 series No.2 is the Call details pertaining to Cell No.
9444055534 issued by S.K. Hariharan (P.W.126), Retired Divisional Engineer,
BSNL, Chennai. On perusal of Ex.P161 series No.2, it is seen, four calls were
made from Cell Phone No. 9444055534 to Cell Phone No.9840488588 on
1.9.2004 in between 19.03 to 20.38 hours i.e. at 19.03, 20.33, 20.37 and 20.38
hours. If actually, A5 and A6 took part in the alleged conspiracy, there is no need
for them to call each other at that point of time through the cell phones.
Therefore, considering Ex.P161 series No.2 call details of cell phone No.
9444055534, this court is of the firm and considered view, the theory of the
prosecution A5 and A6 took part in the conspiracy is absolutely false.
111. The judicial confession of A6-Kathiravan is Ex.P281. It is already
decided confession of A6 is unworthy of credence. Further, as per the
142
discussion made above, this court is of the view that the evidence of the
Prosecution witnesses examined to prove the alleged conspiracy only strengthen
the plea of the accused that Ex.P281 is nothing but a tutored version of the
police.
Hence, for the following reasons:
(a) P.W.30, P.W.40, P.W.77, P.W.78, P.W.112, the witnesses to
speak about the act of conspiracy failed to support the
prosecution case (hostile).
(b) Absolutely no scrap of evidence is adduced or produced by
the prosecution, the alleged conspiracy was conveyed to A2
and A4 at any point of time and they accepted and acted
upon.
(c) The call list of Cell phone No. 9444055534 Ex.P161 series
No.2 clinchingly prove A5 and A6 ought not have participated
in the alleged conspiracy on 1.9.2004 in between 7.00 p.m.
and 9.00 p.m.
(d) Further no reliable or acceptable evidence is on record neither
to corroborate nor to prove the plea of conspiracy.
this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the charge for the offences
u/s.120-B(1) r/w. 302 of IPC against A1 to A6.
112. SECOND CHARGE:
Under Section 120-B(1) r/w. 302 of IPC against A7 to A12:
Secondly, in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy of A1 to
A6 dated 1.9.2004, A5, A6 and Approver Ravi Subramaniam
procured A7 to A12, hirelings and accepted to have planed to
commit murder of Sankararaman on 03.09.2004 at 05.30 p.m. in
the office of Varadharaja Perumal Koil Devasthanam at Chinna
Kanchipuram, A7 to A12 committed murder of Sankararaman and
thereby, A7 to A12 took part in the act of criminal conspiracy for the
commission of an offence of murder punishable under section 120-
B(1) r/w. 302 of IPC.

The plea of the prosecution is in pursuance of the conspiracy A5, A6 and
the approver Ravi @ Ravisubramaniam procured A7 to A12, hirelings and they
143
accepted the conspiracy to commit murder of Sankararaman and accordingly
they committed murder of Sankararaman, thus, they took part in the act of
criminal conspiracy, thereby, they committed the offence punishable u/s. 120-
B(1) r/w. 302 of IPC.
Under the head Charge No.1 it is already decided criminal conspiracy of
A1 to A6 along with the approver is not proved by the prosecution beyond all
reasonable doubts. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said the charge
u/s.120 B (1) r/w. 302 I.P.C. against A7 to A12 is sustainable in law.
113. To prove the charge u/s.120 B (1) r/w. 302 I.P.C. against A7 to
A12, the testimony of Govindan (P.W.21), T.R. Baskaran (P.W.31),
Vasikarankumar (P.W.32), Dakshnamoorthy (P.W.33), A. Mani (P.W.36), R.
Saravanan (P..W.37), Venkatachary (P.W.94) and Madavaganapadigal (P.W.95)
are let in by the prosecution, besides the arrest and extra Judicial confession of
A7 Rajinikanth @ Chinna @ Rajinichinna, A10 K.S.Kumar, A11 Anandakumar @
Anand and seizure of cell phones.
114. Govindan (P.W.21) is a guide by profession and he is examined to
speak about the fact that on 2.9.2004, A6, A7, A8 and A9 visited Kanchipuram in
a Qualis Car (M.O.7) along with the approver to locate and to identify the
deceased. His statement u/s.164 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate,
Uthiramerur is Ex.P48. During evidence P.W.21 retracted the statement u/s. 164
Cr.PC. by saying that under threat and as tutored by police he gave the
statement. P.W.21 went against the prosecution case and therefore, treated
hostile.
115. T.R. Baskaran (P.W.31) is also examined to speak about the visit of
A7 to A9 in a Qualis car (M.O.7) to Kanchipuram one day prior to the occurrence.
He also gave 164 Cr.P.C. statement before the Judicial Magistrate and his 164
Cr.P.C. statement is Ex.P57. During evidence P.W.31 disowned the case of the
prosecution and also deposed under life threat, as tutored by police he gave 164
Cr.P.C. statement, thereby, retracted the statement and turned hostile.
144
116. Vasikarankumar (P.W.32) the driver of the Qualis Car (M.O.7) is
examined to speak about the fact the accused traveled in the Qualis car and
another car to Kanchipuram to have a topography of Kanchipuram on 2.9.2004.
His statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. is Ex.P60. P.W.32 retracted the statement u/s.
164 Cr.P.C. and said that it is the tutored version of the police. P.W.32 also
failed to support the prosecution case and turned hostile.
117. Dakshinamoorthy (P.W.33), the casual labour to collect vehicle
parking fees at Varadarajapermal Koil, Kanchipuram is examined to depose
about the arrival of the accused at Kanchipuram and issuance of fees receipt to
the Qualis Car (M.O.7) and Ford Ikon Car (M.O.28) on 2.9.2004 at the vehicle
parking place situated near Varatharadjaperumal temple and also to identify the
accused A8- Ambigapathy @ Ambi, A9- M. Baskar @ Madu Baskar but he failed
to support the prosecution case and thereby, he is also treated hostile.
118. A. Mani (P.W.36) who is running a tea shop at Viliwalkkam is
examined to depose the plea that on 3.9.2004 at 11.00 hours A7, A8, A10 and
A12 came to his shop in two motor cycles and at that time he heard their
conversation about their activities at Kanchipuram, but he went against the case
of the prosecution and treated hostile.
119. R. Saravanan (P.W.37) who is running a printing press at
Chinnakanchipuram is examined to speak about the arrival of the six accused in
three motor cycles on 3.9.2004 and their enquiry about the house of
Sankararaman and to identify six accused on the photographs (Ex.P22 series),
but he did not support the prosecution case and treated hostile.
120. Venkatachary (P.W.94) a guide at Kancheepuram is examined to
speak about the plea that four accused came in a Qualis car (M.O.7) and two
accused came in Ford Ikon Car (M.O.28) on 2.9.2004, a day prior to the date of
occurrence, but during evidence he disowned the case of the prosecution and
turned hostile.
145
121. Madhavaganapadigal (P.W.95) is a teacher, who knows about the
family of Sankararaman and he is examined to depose about the arrival of the six
accused to Kancheepuram in three motor cycles on 3.9.2004 and enquired him
about Sankararaman, but he went against the case of the prosecution and
treated hostile.
122. In toto, all witnesses namely Govindan (P.W.21), T.R. Baskaran
(P.W.31), Vasikarankumar (P.W.32), Dakshnamoorthy (P.W.33), A. Mani
(P.W.36), R. Saravanan (P..W.37), Venkatachary (P.W.94) and
Madavaganapadigal (P.W.95) examined to prove the charge u/s.120-B(1) r/w.
302 of IPC against A7 to A12 failed to support the prosecution case, thereby all
of them were treated hostile.
The settled law is evidence of hostile witnesses cannot be rejected in toto and it
can be accepted and acted upon if corroborated by other reliable evidence.
Absolutely, no reliable evidence is available on record to corroborate the
testimony of the hostile witnesses and therefore, the evidences of the above said
witnesses are of no use to the prosecution case.
123. The 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Govindan (P.W.21) is Ex.P48, T.R.
Baskaran (P.W.31) is Ex.P57, Vasikarankumar (P.W.32)is Ex.P60, R. Saravanan
(P.W.37) is Ex.P65. All the witnesses deposed due to threat and coercion, as
dictated by the police they gave 164 Cr.P.C. statements before the Judicial
Magistrates. Further all the witnesses failed to support the prosecution case and
they turned hostile. They retracted their statements u/s.164 Cr.P.C. during trial.
As per the decision in [ (2004) M.L.J. (Crl.) 935 in between Chinnasamy alias
Chinnapaiyan Vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police, Poochamballi,
North Arcot Ambedkar District] the retracted 164 Cr.P.C. statement of witness
cannot be acted upon. Therefore, their evidence also will not improve the
prosecution case.
124. Admittedly 6
th
and 7
th
accused were arrested at 10.30 p.m. on
9.11.2004. The contention of the 7
th
accused is he was arrested prior to 10.30
146
p.m. on 9.11.2004 which is proved by the evidence of Appandarajan (P.W.124),
the Divisional Engineer, BSNL (Telephones), Kanchipuram and Ex.P159 normal
call billing records (call details) in respect of Walajabad STD-PCO-Public phone
No.256903, on 3.9.2004 and Ex.P163 (2) file regarding the call details in respect
of mobile No.9840488588. The chief Investigating Officer ( P.W.189) deposed
as follows:-
"
"
The Investigating officer (P.W.189) would admit after arresting A6 and A7 and
after investigation, he ascertained the phone No.256903 and Cell phone
No.9840488588 from a S.T.D. booth at Walajapad. During evidence P.W.189
would depose as follows:
"
"
Therefore, it is evident from the evidence of P.W.189 after the arrest of the 6
th

and 7
th
accused on 09.11.2004 at 10.30 p.m. he ascertained the phone
No.256903 and cell phone No.9840488588.
Further P.W.189 would depose as follows:
"
"
125. It is evident from the evidence of P.W.189 on 06.11.2004 itself he
addressed to the Air tell office for collecting the call details of the cell phone
No.9840488588. Further, Ex.P159 is the normal call billing records (call details)
in respect of Walajabad S.T.D. PCO public phone No.256903, on 03.09.2004
given by P.W.124. Appandirajan (P.W.124), the Divisional Engineer of B.S.N.L.,
Kancheepuram would depose at the request of Investigating Officer, the call
147
details of the S.T.D. Booth under Ex.P159 was furnished to P.W.189. On a
careful perusal of Ex.P159 would manifest the call details of the computer print
was taken on 9.11.2004 at 10.47 a.m. On a well consideration of Ex.P159 and
Ex.P163 series would manifest the 6
th
and 7
th
accused were taken into police
custody prior to 9.11.2004 at 10.47 a.m. Therefore, this court holds that the 7
th

accused was in illegal custody prior to 10.30 p.m. on 9.11.2004. Further it is
alleged at the time of arrest Ex.P364 sketch was seized from A7 under Ex.P147
mahazar. The case of the prosecution is Ex.P364 sketch was all along with A7
till the time of arrest. But the Chief Investigating Officer P.W.189 in clear and
categorical terms deposed, in the arrest memo, the sketch Ex.P364 is not found
a place. If it is seized from A7, it ought to have found a place in the arrest memo.
Therefore, the case of the prosecution that Ex.P364 sketch, which show the
topography of Kanchipuram was seized from the 7
th
accused at the time of arrest
is false. The extra judicial confession of the 7
th
accused, Ex.P287 was recorded
by P.W.161. During evidence P.W.161 would depose that on 10.11.2004 the
Chief Investigating Officer (P.W.189) brought the 6
th
and 7
th
accused before him
and asked to record their confession statement. Since the confession statement
was recorded by Tahsildar (P.W.161) in the presence of the chief Investigating
Officer (P.W.189), this court holds the extra judicial confession of 7
th
accused
Ex.P287 is of no value and the same is illegal. Hence, as per the reasons and
discussions made above, this court holds that the contention of the prosecution
that the 7
th
accused was arrested on 9.11.2004 at about 10.30 p.m. and
recovered Ex.P364 sketch are false and therefore, the extra judicial confession
Ex.P287 is of no use to the prosecution.
126. Further it is alleged by the prosecution the 10
th
accused K.S. Kumar
was arrested on 6.11.2004 at 2.30 p.m. in the presence of Bharathi (P.W.129)
and Venugopal (P.W.130). But P.W.129 and P.W.130 turned hostile. On a
careful perusal of their cross examination by the prosecution would reveal no
scrap of evidence is elicited as to when and from where A10 was arrested.
148
Further the extra judicial confession recorded by zonal Dy. Tahsildar P.W.142
from A10 is Ex.P247. P.W.142 in clear and categorical term stated that he
recorded the extra judicial confession of A10 in the office of Chief Investigating
Officer (P.W.189). Since extra Judicial confession was recorded during
investigation, that too, in the office of Chief Investigating officer, this court holds
that Ex.P247 extra Judicial confession is of no legal value and the same is illegal.
127. Further it is alleged M.O.55 Cell phone No.9840039313 was seized
from A7 under Ex.P147 mahazar. Admittedly, M.O.55 belongs to one S.P.
Srinivasan. How M.O.55 went to the hands of A7 is not explained by the
prosecution. Since the owner of M.O.5 is not the 7
th
accused, it is the duty of the
prosecution to adduce evidence by examining S.P. Srinivasan, the owner of
M.O.55. But prosecution has not taken any steps to examine him, though, he
was cited as a witness. Under such circumstances, this court holds that M.O.55
was seized from the 7
th
accused cannot be accepted. Further it is alleged the
cell phone No.9444055534 was seized from the 5
th
accused. But it stands in the
name of M. Venkatesan (P.W.148). The prosecution failed to adduce any
evidence to show as to how it went to the hands of the 5
th
accused. Therefore,
the seizure of the cell phone 944055534 from A5 cannot be accepted. Hence,
this court holds the seizure of the cell phone from A5 and A7 will not improve the
prosecution case since those cell phones stand in the name of different persons.
Hence, in fine for the foregoing reasons, this court holds that absolutely no
positive evidence is available on record to hold that prosecution has proved the
charge for the offence u/s. 120B (1) r/w. 302 I.P.C. against A7 to A12, and thus,
this court answer the second charge accordingly.
128. THIRD AND FOURTH CHARGE:
THIRD CHARGE:
u/s.120-B(1) r/w. 302 of IPC against A13 to A15 and A21 to A24:
Thirdly, on 03.09.2004, in continuation of the murder of
Sankararaman, on the advice, inducement and plan of A1, A5,
A6, A7 and A8, abetted A13, A14, A15, A21 to A24 to take steps
149
to surrender the fake Accused No.16 to 20 before the 15
th

Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, with an
intention to save the real accused and to screen the real
evidence and therefore, A13 to A15 and A21 to A24 took part in
the act of criminal conspiracy to commit murder of Sankaraman
and thereby, A13 to A15 and A21 to A24 committed the offence
punishable under section 120-B(1) r/w. 302 of IPC.

FOURTH CHARGE :
Under Section 120-B(1) r/w. 302 of IPC against A16 to A20:
Fourthly, on 03.09.2004, in pursuance of the murder of
Sankararaman, on the advice, inducement and plan of A1, A5,
A6, A7 and A8, in the place of real accused at the instance of
A13, A14, A15, A21 to A24, the fake accused, A16 to A20 were
surrendered before 15
th
Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town,
Chennai, on 27.10.2004, with intention to save the real accused
and to screen the evidence of the case, and thereby, they took
part in the act of criminal conspiracy to commit the murder of
the Sankararaman; and thereby, A16 to A20 committed the
offence of murder punishable under section 120-B(1) r/w. 302 of
IPC.

129. The learned counsels for A1 and A13 to A24 would submit, A13 to
A15 and A21 to A24 came in to the picture only after murder of Sankararaman
and they were not at all parties to the conspiracy and therefore the allegation that
A13 to A15 and A21 to A24 were responsible to secure or induce A16 to A20 to
surrender before the court as real accused with an intention to save the real
accused from the charge of murder and accordingly, A16 to A20 surrendered
before the 15
th
Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai on 27.10.2004 is not at all
appealing to legal sense and hence, the charge u/s. 120B(1) r/w 302 I.P.C
against A13 to A15, A21 to A24 and A16 to A20 is not sustainable in law.
130. Admittedly, A13 to A15 and A21 to A24 never took part in the
alleged criminal conspiracy dated 1.9.2004. The said accused came into the
picture only after the lapse of nearly two months. The allegation is at the
instance of the conspirators A13 to A15 and A21 to A24 facilitated the fake
accused A16 to A20 to surrender before the 15
th
Metropolitan Magistrate, George
Town on 27.10.2004. Therefore, since the accused A13 to A15, A21 to A24 and
A16 to A20 came into the picture after the lapse of nearly two months, further
since there is no material to show that these accused met the conspirators at any
150
point of time prior to surrender of the fake accused A16 to A20 on 27.10.2004
and considering the fact that the accused are not parties to the conspiracy, this
court holds the charges for the offence u/s. 120 B(1) r/w. 302 I.P.C against A13
to A15, A21 to A24 and A16 to A20 is not sustainable in law. Further it is already
decided conspiracy is not at all proved by the prosecution. Hence, it is decided
the charge against A13 to A15, A21 to A24 and A16 to A20 for the offence u/s.
120 B(1) r/w. 302 I.P.C is not proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable
doubts and thus, this court answer the 3
rd
and 4
th
charges accordingly.

FIFTH, SIXTH, SEVENTH AND EIGHTH CHARGES


131. FIFTH CHARGE :
Under Section 449 of IPC against A8 to A10:
Fifthly, in pursuance of the above said criminal
conspiracy dated 01.09.2004 and in prosecution of common
object of commission of murder of the Sankararaman, on
03.09.2004 at about 05.30 p.m. A7 to A12 went to Kanchipuram
Varadharaja Perumal Koil in three motor cycles and parked the
motor cycles in front of the western gate of the temple; as A7
came to know about the presence of Sankararaman in the
office of the temple and after confirmation about the presence
of the Sankararaman in the office of the temple, with an the
intention to commit murder of Sankararaman, A7, A11 and A12
were standing near the motor cycles which were parked in
front of the temple, A8 to A10 committed house trespass by
entering into the building of Varadharaja Perumal Koil and
office armed with aruval, thereby A8 to A10 have committed
the offence punishable under section 449 of IPC.

SIXTH CHARGE :
Under Section 302 r/w. 34 of IPC against A7 to A12:
Sixthly, that in continuation of the criminal conspiracy
dated 01.09.2004, and with the common intention to commit
the murder of Sankararaman, on 03.09.2004 at about 05.30 p.m.
A7 to A12 went to Kanchipuram Varadharaja Perumal Koil in
three motor cycles and parked the motor cycles in front of the
western gate of the temple; A7, A11 and A12 were standing
near the motor cycles which were parked in front of the
temple, A8 to A10, committed house trespass by entering into
the building of Varadharaja Perumal Koil and office each
armed with aruval, and A8 cut near right ear, back of the head
and neck of Sankararaman with aruval while he was sitting in
the office room and A9 cut him on his head and neck with
aruval and both of them caused the death instantaneously,
151
and thereby A7 to A12 committed the offence of murder
punishable under section 302 r/w. 34 of IPC.

SEVENTH CHARGE:
Under Section 302 of IPC against A8 and A9:
Seventhly, that in continuation of the criminal
conspiracy dated 01.09.2004, and with common intention of
commission of murder of the Sankararaman, on 03.09.2004 at
about 05.30 p.m. A8, A9 and A10 committed house trespass by
entering into the office of the building of Varadharaja Perumal
Koil each armed with aruval, and A8 cut near right ear, back of
the head and neck of Sankararaman with aruval while he was
sitting in the office room, and A9 cut him on his head and neck
with aruval and caused the fatal injury and also caused the
death instantaneously, and thereby A8 and A9 have committed
the offence of murder punishable under section 302 of IPC.

EIGHTH CHARGE:
Under Section 114 r/w. 302 of IPC against A7, A10, A11 and A12:
Eighthly, that with a common intention of commission of
murder of the Sankararaman, on 03.09.2004 at about 05.30 p.m. A7,
A11 and A12 were standing near the three motor cycles which were
parked in front of the western gate of Kanchipuram Varadharaja
Perumal Koil i.e. near the toilet, A10 was standing on the footstep of
the office of the Varadharaja Perumal Koil building, and after A8 and
A9 committed murder of Sankararaman, A7, A10, A11 and A12 aided,
facilitated and abetted A8 and A9 to escape them from the place of
murder with the help of three motor cycles, and thereby A7, A10, A11
and A12 aided, facilitated and abetted to commit the offence of
murder of Sankararaman which is punishable under section 114 r/w.
302 of IPC.


132. To prove the above said four charges, the testimony of P.W.1,
P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.7, P.W.8, P.W.9, P.W.13, P.W.14, P.W.15, P.W.22,
P.W.25, P.W.31, P.W.34, P.W.35, P.W.36, P.W.37, P.W.38, P.W.42, P.W.64,
P.W.95, P.W.100, P.W.101, P.W.102, P.W.158 and P.W.159 are adduced by the
prosecution.
Padma (P.w.1) is the wife and Uma Maithireyee (P.W.2) is the daughter of
deceased Sankararaman. The alleged occurrence took place on 03.09.2004 at
about 05.45 p.m. It is seen from the evidence of P.W.1, soon before the
occurrence at about 05.00 to 05.15 p.m. two persons came in a red colour motor
cycle and a person having curling hair enquired about Sankararaman and she
152
replied that he had gone to the temple. P.W.2 would depose soon before the
occurrence at about 04.00 to 04.30 p.m. three persons were talking outside their
house and one black person alone came to her house and enquired about her
father. The case of the prosecution is A7 and A8 came to Sankararaman's
house and enquired about the availability of Sankararaman at Kanchipuram. But
during cross examination P.W.1 and P.W.2 would depose that they could not
identify any of the accused. Further they would depose, before identification
parade, the photographs of A7, A8 and A9 were shown to them by the police and
as per which and as directed by the police they have identified A7, A8 and A9 in
the identification parade conducted by P.W.158 and P.W.159. Further they
would depose they gave 164 Cr.P.C. statements Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 respectively
before the Judicial Magistrate as directed and dictated by the police. The
evidence of P.W.1 reads as follows:

Further the evidence of P.W.2 reads as follows:
"
" It is self evident from the
extracted evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 they never gave 164 Cr.P.C. statements
before Magistrate on their own accord but as directed and tutored by the police.
Since P.W1 and P.w.2 retracted their 164 Cr.P.C. statements and hence, Ex.P4
and Ex.P5 cannot be relied upon. Further both of them failed to identify A7, A8
and A9. Though in the chief examination they tried to depose in favour of the
prosecution and in the cross examination both of them went against the
153
prosecution case. The evidence in the chief and cross examination of both
witnesses materially contracts each other and therefore, both witnesses are
untrustworthy witnesses. Under such circumstances, this court holds that the
evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is of no use to the prosecution case.
133. Further to speak about the presence of A7 to A12 soon before
the occurrence, that too, near the place of occurrence, the testimony of P.W.,
25, P.W.37, P.W.38, P.W.42, P.W.64, P.W.95, P.W.101 and P.W.102 are
pressed into service.
Jayalakshmi (P.W.25) is examined to speak about that on 03.09.2004 at
about 05.00 p.m. six persons came in three motor cycles and they stopped their
motor cycles in front of her shop situated opposite to Anchaneyar temple,
Chinnakanchipuram and they enquired about something to one Saravanan
brother of Anbazhagan and thereafter they went away. During trial, she failed to
support the case and turned hostile.
134. R. Saravanan (P.W.37) is examined to speak about that on
03.09.2004 soon before the occurrence, the accused were found near the place
of occurrence in three motor cycles. But during evidence he failed to support the
prosecution case and also failed to identify the accused before the court, hence,
treated hostile.
135. Adikesavan (P.W.38) is examined to speak about the presence of
A7 to A12 at the Government wine shop, situated near the place of occurrence.
But during evidence he failed to support the prosecution case, thereby, treated
hostile.
136. Manickavasagan (P.W.42) is examined to speak about the alleged
fact that he is running a grocery shop near the place of occurrence and soon
before the occurrence, four accused came to him and enquired about the
whereabouts of Sankararaman. P.W.42 also failed to support the prosecution
case, thereby treated hostile.
154
137. Sivalingam @ Srinivasan (P.W.64) is examined to speak about the
fact that he is collecting fees in public toilet situated near the place of occurrence
and on 03.09.2004 at about 05.00 p.m. six persons came in three motor cycles.
During evidence P.W.64 failed to support the prosecution case, thereby, treated
hostile.
138. Madavaganapadigal (P.W.95) is examined to speak about the fact
that he witnessed the presence of six persons in three motor cycles near the
place of occurrence and they ascertained him about the whereabouts of
Sankararaman. P.W.95 also failed to support the case of prosecution, thereby,
treated hostile.
139. Hariharan (P.W.101) is examined to speak about the fact that on
03.09.2004 during business hours, six persons were roaming in three motor
cycles at South Mada Street of Chinnakanchipuram. During evidence P.W.101
also failed to support the prosecution case, thereby, treated hostile.
140. Selvam (P.W.102) is examined to speak about the fact that he is
running a shop near the place of occurrence at Chinnakanchipuram and on
03.09.2004 at about 05.45 p.m. he witnessed that six persons came in three
motor cycles. P.W.102 also failed to support the case of the prosecution,
thereby, treated hostile.
141. Hence, P.W.37, P.W.38, P.W.42, P.W.64, P.W.95, P.W.101 and
P.W.102 were examined to speak about the presence of A7 to A12 near the
place of occurrence soon before the occurrence failed to support the prosecution
case and turned hostile. Further P.W.37 and P.w.64 would depose that they
gave 164 Cr.P.C. statements Ex.P65 and Ex.P106 before the learned Judicial
Magistrate as tutored and dictated by the police., thus, they retracted their
statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. Again P.W.37, P.W.38, P.W.42 and P.W.64 would
depose they identified the photographs of the accused as instructed by the
police. The said witnesses never identified any of the accused before the court
during trial. Hence, as per the discussions made above, this court holds the
155
testimony of P.W.37, P.W.38, P.W.42, P.W.64, P.W.95, P.W.101 and P.W.102 is
of no use to the prosecution case.
142. To prove the occurrence, the testimony of ocular witnesses
Ganesh (P.W.4), Duraikannu (P.W.5) and Kuppusamy (P.W.6) are pressed into
service. P.W.4, P.W.5, and P.W.6 were worked along with the deceased
Sankararaman at the time of occurrence. The case of the prosecution is, when
P.W.4 to P.W.6 were in the office along with deceased Sankararaman, A8 and
A9 trespassed into the office, armed with weapons and inflicted cut injuries on
the body of Sankararaman and caused his death. P.W.4 is the complainant as
well as one of the ocular witnesses. During evidence he would depose he
lodged Ex.P14 complaint as dictated by the police and he was not aware of two
persons who ran away from the place of occurrence soon after the occurrence.
Evidence of P.W.4 reads as follows:
"
Ex.P14. "
The case of
the prosecution is after committing murder of Sankararaman A8 and A9 fled
away from the scene of crime and P.W.4 chased both of them along with others.
It is not the case of the prosecution P.W.4 witnessed the occurrence at the time
of commission of murder. But P.W.4 disowned the complaint lodged by him
before the police and also deposed that he was not aware of those two persons
who fled away from the scene of crime soon after the occurrence. The 164
Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4 is Ex.P16. In Ex.P16 also P.W.4 stated that he
156
chased two persons from the scene of crime soon after the commission of
murder. But P.W.4 retracted the same during evidence and he would say that he
was not aware of that two persons. Further P.W.4 failed to identify any of the
accused before this court. Therefore, testimony of P.W.4 is of no use to the
prosecution case. Further during evidence, P.W.5 failed to support the
prosecution case and turned hostile. The 164 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5 is
Ex.P17. During evidence P.W.5 retracted the Cr.P.C. statement (Ex.P17) and
deposed that due to the threat of police and as tutored by the police he gave 164
Cr.P.C. statement. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.5 will not improve the case of
the prosecution. P.W.6 would depose that at the time of occurrence he was not
present at the place of occurrence but subsequently he heard about the
occurrence. Again P.W.4 and P.W.5 would depose that the police shown the
identity of A7 to A9 through photographs and directed them to identify A7 to A9
before the learned Judicial Magistrates P.W.158 and P.W.159 during
identification parade. Further, none of the witnesses identified any accused
before the court during trial. Therefore, as per the discussions made above, this
court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the occurrence through the
evidence of P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W. 6.
143. Further to speak about the presence of A7 to A12 near and
around the scene of crime, at the time of occurrence, the testimony of
Natarajan (P.W.15), R. Thanigachalam (P.W.16), A. Mani (P.W.36) and Selvi
Reena (P.W.39) are adduced on the side of the prosecution.
144. Natarajan (P.W.15) is examined to speak about the presence of
Ambigapathy (A8), Basker @ Madubasker (A9) and K.S.Kumar(A10) with knives
soon after the occurrence. But during examination P.w.15 failed to support the
prosecution case and turned hostile.
145. Thanigachalam (P.W.22) is examined to speak about the presence
of three accused ( A7, A11 and A12) along with three motor cycles M.O.57,
M.O.58 and M.O.59 at the time of occurrence near Varatharaja Perumal temple
157
and also to identify them. The case of the prosecution is at the time of
occurrence on 03.09.2004 at about 05.30 p.m. A7, A11 and A12 were standing
by the side of three motor cycles which were parked in front of the western gate
of Varatharajaperumal temple, Kanchipuram. But during evidence P.W.22 went
against the prosecution case, thereby treated hostile.
146. Mani (P.W.36) is examined to speak about that the presence of two
accused on 3.9.2004 at about 11.00 a.m. in front of his shop situated at G.K.M.
Colony, Villivakkam, Chennai. But P.W.36 failed to support the prosecution case
and treated hostile.
147. Selvi Reena (P.W.39) is examined to speak about the fact that out
of A7 to A12, two of the accused came to her S.T.D. booth at about 6.00 p.m. on
03.09.2004 situated at Walaja road junction and telephoned to somebody and
further to speak about the blood stain found in the shirt (blue colour) worn by one
of the accused. During evidence she turned hostile. Further she deposed that
she is not aware of the contents of the 164 Cr.P.C. statement Ex.D1 which was
given by her before the Judicial Magistrate. She also stated that she identified
the accused in the photographs as directed by the police. Since P.W.39 turned
hostile, disowned her 164 Cr.P.C. statement and never identified the accused
independently, this court is of the view, that her evidence is also of no use to the
prosecution case. Further, none of the witnesses identified any accused before
the court. Hence, considering the evidence of P.W.15, P.W.22, P.W.36 and
P.W.39, this court holds that absolutely no incriminating evidence is available in
their evidence as against A7 to A12.
148. Further to prove the facilitation and abetment of A7, A10, A11
and A12 to the commission of murder by A8 and A9, on the side of prosecution,
in addition to the evidence of Saravanan (P.W.37), Adhikesavan (P.W.38),
Manickavasagam (P.W.42), Sivalingam @ Srinivasan (P.W.64),
Madavaganapadigal (P.W.95), Hariharan (P.W.101), Selvam (P.W.102),
Thanikachalam (P.W.22) and Selvi Reena, the testimony of Gajapathy (P.W.7),
158
Achu @ Achudan (P.W.8), Kumar (P.W.9), Kasthuri (P.W.13), Baskaran
(P.W.14), Selvam (P.W.61) are brought on record. The evidence of P.W.37,
P.W.38, P.W.42, P.W.64, P.W.95, P.W.101, P.W.102, P.W.22 and P.W.39 are
already discussed above and all of them failed to support the prosecution case,
and turned hostile. Further no incriminating evidence is available in their
evidence as against the accused.
149. Gajapathi (P.W.7) is a worker of Varatharajaperumal temple, and
he would say that on 03.09.2004 at about 05.45 p.m. he saw four or five persons
are running on the footsteps of the temple and somebody was shouting "catch
them", "catch them". Further he deposed that he affixed his signatures in the
three photographs of the persons shown by the police and he is not aware of the
whereabouts and identity of the persons in the photographs. P.W.7 never
identified any of the accused before the court. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.7
is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.
150. Achu @ Achuthan (P.W.8) would depose that he is working in
Varatharajaperumal temple, Kanchipuram and on 03.09.2004 at about 06.00
p.m. P.W.7 informed him about Sankararaman's murder. He further deposed he
affixed his signatures on three colour photographs of some persons, shown by
the police. P.W.8 also not identified any of the accused before the court during
trial. Therefore, the testimony of P.W.8 is also no use to the prosecution case.
151. Kumar (P.W.9) is a coolie by profession working in a Toyshop
situated near Varatharajaperumal temple and he is examined to identify the
accused present soon after the commission of murder and also to speak about
the presence of P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.7. He also neither identified the
accused nor supported the prosecution case and he turned hostile.
152. Kasthuri (P.W.13) is running a petty shop near Varatharajaperumal
temple, Kancheepuram and she is examined to identify A8, A9, A10 at the place
of occurrence. But she failed to identify the accused before the court during trial.
159
Since P.W.13 failed to identify A8, A9 and A10 before the court and her evidence
is rejected from consideration.
153. Baskar (P.W.14) is also examined to prove the fact that soon after
the occurrence three persons armed with aruval were running away from the
temple and thereafter they fled away with the help of three motor cycles. He
admitted his signature in the photographs of A8, A9 and A10. But he failed to
identify A8, A9 and A10 before the court during trial, thereby, treated hostile.
154. Selvam (P.W.61) is examined to speak about the fact that on
03.09.2004 at about 04.30 p.m. six persons arrived in front of
Varatharajaperumal temple in three motor cycles and out of them, three persons
were concealed some weapons in their body and after sometime they fled away
from the place of occurrence with the weapons in three motor cycles. Further he
is examined to identify the accused with the help of photographs but he neither
identified the accused nor supported the prosecution case and hence, treated
hostile.
Hence, on a well consideration of the testimony of the witnesses
examined to prove the facilitation and abetment of A7, A10, A11 and A12 to
commit murder of Sankararaman by A8 and A9, manifest that they failed to
support the prosecution case, failed to identify the accused and absolutely no
reliable evidence is available in their evidence as against the accused.
155. Further the case of the prosecution is while A8, A9 and A10 armed
with weapons, went inside Varatharajaperumal tempe to commit murder of
Sankararaman, and at that time A7, A11 and A12 were waiting outside the
temple with three motor cycles and soon after the commission of murder, A8, A9
and A10 fled away from the scene of crime with the help of A7, A11 and A12 in
three motor cycles. During trial neither the ocular witnesses nor the witnesses to
circumstantial evidence, identified the accused, or identified M.O.57, M.O.58 and
M.O.59 motor cycles. The Chief Investigating Officer, P.W.189 would depose
that on 10.11.2004 at about 06.30 p.m., the 7
th
accused Rajini Chinna @ Chinna
160
Rajini @ Rajini identified M.O.57 and M.O.58 near Indian Bank A.T.M. office
situated at Ashok Nagar,Uthayam complex and he seized both the motor cycles
under Ex.P148 seizure mahazars in front of Uthirakumar (P.W.121) and
Vimalkumar (P.W.142) and further seized M.O.59 motor cycle near GKM Colony,
Jeevanantham Street under Ex.P150 seizure mahazar in front of Uthirakumar
(P.W.121) and Vimalkumar (P.W.142). But P.W.142 failed to support the
prosecution case and thereby he treated hostile. During evidence P.W.121
deposed as follows:
"
"
156. It is evident from the evidence of P.W.121 that P.W.189 seized M.O.57,
M.O.58, and M.O.59 from A7 on the basis of his confession under mahazars
Ex.P148 and Ex.P150. But P.W.121 failed to depose the admissible portion of
the confession of A7 in accordance with Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.
Further the Chief Investigating Officer who seized M.O.57, M.O.58 and M.O.59
also failed to depose that, on the basis of the confession of A7 he recovered the
said material objects. M.O.57 is Hero Honda Red colour Motor cycle bearing
Registration No.TN-09-D-9851, M.O 58 is Yamaha black colour motor cycle
bearing Registration No.TN-04-A-1013 and M.O.59 is Yamaha pink colour motor
cycle bearing Registration No.TN-01-Z-1372. Further, evidence of P.W.189
reads as follows:
"
"
Therefore, it is seen from the evidence of P.W.189, soon after the
commission of the offence, the accused fled away from the scene of crime with
161
the help of three motor cycles and all the three motor cycles are without
registration numbers. P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the prime witnesses who witnessed
the occurrence. Therefore, whether M.O.57, M.O.58 and M.O.59 are used for
the commission of the offence or not, is only a question. Further as this court
discussed earlier none of the witnesses, neither identified the accused nor
identified the motor cycles M.O.57, M.O.58 and M.O.59 which were alleged to
have been used for the commission of murder. Hence, this court holds that there
is no connecting link between the alleged seizure of motor cycles and the
commission of offence by the accused.
157. Again the case of the prosecution is M.O.25, M.O.26 and M.O.50
were the weapons used by the accused for the commission of murder. M.O.25
was recovered from A12 pursuant to the statement under Section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act and seized under Ex.P378 recovery mahazar dated
24.11.2004 in front of Vimalkumar (P.W.142) and Subramanian (P.W.166).
M.O.26 is recovered on the basis of the admissible portion of the confession of
A8 (Ex.P379) under recovery mahazar Ex.P380 dated 25.11.2004 in front of
Vimalkumar (P.W.142) and Subramanian (P.W.166). M.O.50 is recovered on the
basis of admissible portion of the confession of A11 (Ex.P358) under Ex.P359
recovery mahazar dated 06.11.2004 in front of Bharathi (P.w.129) and
Venugopal (P.W.130). During evidence P.W.129, P.W.130, P.W.142, and
P.W.166 went against the prosecution case and thereby they are treated hostile.
Furthermore, none of the prosecution witnesses identified the weapons of
offence M.O.25, M.O.26 and M.O.50 during trial. Whether M.O.25, M.O.26 and
M.O.50 were used for the commission of the offence or not is not at all proved by
the prosecution. On the side of the accused it is submitted, the occurrence took
place on 03.09.2004 and it is highly unbelievable that the weapons alleged to
have been used by the accused for the commission of murder was kept by them
for more then a period of two months. Since the weapons were recovered after a
lapse of more than two moths and the fact that none of the prosecution witnesses
162
identified the weapons of offence, this court is of the view that there is valid and
acceptable materials in the arguments advanced on the side of the accused.
Further, it is already decided the investigation in this case is not fair and proper.
Further none of the witnesses including the Chief Investigating Officer deposed
about the admissible portion of the confession leading to recovery as per Section
27 of Evidence Act. Hence, the seizures of all the material objects are not in
accordance with law. Therefore, on the basis of the testimony of P.W.189 it
cannot be said the seizure of the weapons of offence M.O.25, M.O.26 and
M.O.50 are proved by the prosecution. Under such circumstances, this court
holds that the seizure of material objects and the identification of the materials
used by the accused for the commission of the offence are not at all proved by
the prosecution.
158. Further on the side of the prosecution it is argued Thiru Rajendiran
(P.W.158), the then Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpet and Tmt. Mahalakshmi
(P.W.159), the then District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirukazhukundram,
conducted identification parade to identify Rajinikanth @ Chinna @ Rajinichinna
(A7), Ambigapathi (A8) and Baskar @ Madubaskar (A9) by the witnesses Padma
(P.W.1), Uma Maithirayee (P.W.2), Ganesh (P.W.4) and, Duraikannu (P.W.5).
and they identified A7, A8 and A9 during test identification parade. Therefore,
the test identification parade can be used as a corroborative statement with the
evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.5 and that itself is sufficient to prove
the participation of A7, A8 and A9 with the commission of the offence. To testify
that, the test identification can be used as a corroborative statement in court, the
following decision is cited:
163
2008 STPL (LE) 39927 SC
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM JJ.)
KALAM @ ABDUL KALAM Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.489 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4178 of
2006) Decided on 14.3.2008 from Rajasthan)
Evidence Act, 1872, Section 9 Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973, Section 162 Test identification parade Object
Nature and Scope Principles Case law discussed:
(a) It does not constitute substantive evidence.
(b) Primarily meant for the purpose of holding the investigating
agency with an assurance that their progress with
investigation into the offence is proceeding on the right
lines.
(c) Identification can only be used as corroborative of
statement in court.
(d) Object of holding an identification parade, during
investigation stage, is to test the memory of the witness
based upon first impression Enable the prosecution to
decide whether all or any of them could be cited as
eyewitnesses for the crime.
(e) It should be conducted as soon as after the arrest of
accused Delay beyond control cannot be fatal to the
prosecution.
(f) Substantive evidence of witness is the statement made in
court Evidence of mere identification of accused person at
the trial for the first time is from its very nature inherently of
weak nature.
(g) Identification parades belonging to the stage of
investigation No provision in the Code which obliges the
investigating agency to hold or confers a right upon the
accused to claim a test identification parade.
164
(h) Failure to hold it would not make inadmissible the evidence
of identification in court Weight to be attach to such
identification should be a matter for the courts of fact In
appropriate cases it may accept the evidence of identification
even without insisting on corroboration.
(i) Evidentiary value cannot be attached to the identification of
accused in court where identifying witness is a total stranger
who had just a fleeing glimpse of persons identified or who
has no particular reason to remember the person concerned,
if the identification is made for the first time."
159. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused would submit the
said witnesses Padma (P.W.1), Uma Maithirayee (P.W.2), Ganesh (P.W.4) and,
Duraikannu (P.W.5) never identified the accused during trial before the court and
therefore the decision has no application to the facts of the present case. During
cross examination P.W.1 deposed as follows:
"
Further during cross examination P.W.2 deposed as follows:
"
"
Further during cross examination P.W.4 deposed as follows:
"
165
"
Further during cross examination P.W.5 deposed as follows:
"
"
Therefore, on a well consideration of the testimony of P.W.1, P.W.2,
P.W.4 and P.W.5 manifest the said witnesses identified the accused with the
help of the photographs of the accused, not on their own but as directed by the
police. Identification of the accused before court amounts to substantive
evidence. But none of the witness identified the accused before the court during
trial. Therefore, it cannot be held the identities of the accused are established
and proved by the witesses. Hence, this court holds the test identification parade
and the report Ex.P270, Ex.P277 and Ex.P278 is of not helpful to the prosecution
case. Hence, the plea of the prosecution that the test identification parade
conducted by P.W.158 and P.W.159 is in support of the prosecution, cannot be
accepted and the same is not sustainable in law.
160. Further the case of the prosecution is P.W.7, P.W.8, P.W.9,
P.W.13, P.W.14, P.W.15, P.W.21, P.W.25, P.W.34, P.W.35, P.W.37, P.W.38,
P.W.39, P.W.42, P.W.64, P.W.94 and P.W.99 identified A7 to A12 in the
photographs and affixed their signatures before the investigating officer during
investigation and therefore, the evidence of the said witnesses is also another
substantial piece of evidence with regard to the identity of accused which is
infavour of the prosecution.
161. The learned counsel for the accused would submit when the
witnesses did not describe any identifying characteristics of the accused showing
166
of photographs to the said witnesses to identify the accused would lead the
Investigating Officer to arrive at a wrong conclusion and therefore, the plea of the
prosecution is not sustainable in law. In support of the plea, the following
decision is cited:
AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 4965
(From: Bombay)
K.G.BALAKRISHNAN AND Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ
Criminal Appeal Nos.1197-1203 of 1998, D/-15-10/-2004.
D. Gopalakrishnan, Appellant
Vs.
Sadanand Naik and others Respondents.
(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.9 Identification of
accused Showing of photographs to witnesses for purpose
of identification Witnesses giving identifying features of
assailants during course of investigation Same could be
confirmed by Investigating Officer by showing photographs
of suspects However when witness did not describe any
identifying characteristics of accused Showing of
photograph to such witness would lead Investigating Officer
to make wrong conclusion Also when suspect is available
for identification, photograph should never be shown to
witness in advance. "
On a careful perusal of the evidence of P.W.7, P.W.8, P.W.9, P.W.13,
P.W.14, P.W.15, P.W.21, P.W.25, P.W.34, P.W.35, P.W.37, P.W.38, P.W.39,
P.W.42, P.W.64, P.W.94 and P.W.99 would manifest neither the witnesses
described the identifying characteristics of the accused and further none of them
identified the accused before the court. They only admitted their signatures in
the photographs and they would say that they are not able to identify the accused
before the court. Further it is self-evident from the materials on record none of
the prosecution witnesses identified any of the accused before the court. Under
such circumstances and in obedience of the cited legal dictum, this court holds
167
that the plea of the prosecution is not sustainable in law and in fine, it is decided
the prosecution failed to prove and fix the identity of A7 to A12.
162. Further again to link the accused each other with respect to the
commission of the alleged offence, number of cell phones were seized and call
details were also collected and produced by the prosecution. M.O.39, the cell
phone No.9840108734 is seized form Meenatchisundaram (A13) under Ex.P144
mahazar dated 06.11.2004. But M.O.39 stands in the name of one Kannan.
M.O.55 cell phone No.9840039313 was seized from Rajinikanth @ Chinna @
Rajinichinna (A7) under Ex.P147 mahazar dated 10.11.2004. The owner of
M.O.55 is S.P. Srinivasan. M.O.64 cell number 9840488588 was seized from
Kathiravan (A6) under Ex.P153 mahazar dated 10.11.2004. But M.O.64 stands
in the name of K. Ravi. M.O.29 Cell phone Number 9884222354 was seized
from Sundaresan (A3) under Ex.P337 mahazar dated 24.12.2004. But the owner
of M.O.29 is the first accused. M.O.74 Cell phone Number 9842331314 was
seized from Ragu (A4) under Ex.P435 mahazar dated 30.12.2004. But M.O.74
stands in the name of Shri Ramakrishna Home Needs. M.O.37 cell phone
Number 9840515732 was seized from Ravi @ Kuruviravi (A15) under Ex.P142,
mahazar dated 06.11.2004. But M.O.37 stands in the name of one Karthick.
The call details of M.O.39 (cell phone No.9840108734) are Ex.P467. The call
details of M.O.55 (cell phone No.9840039313) are Ex.P163 (1) series. The call
details of M.O.63 (cell number 9840488588) are Ex.P466 and Ex.P163 (2)
series). The call details of M.O.74 (Cell phone Number 9842331314) are
Ex.P470. The call details of M.O.37 (cell phone Number 9840515732) are
Ex.P163 (1) series. Though numbers of cell phones were seized by the
Investigating Officer from the accused, it is evident that the cell phones seized
were stands in the names of some other persons. How the cell phones came in
the hands of the accused from the owner of the cell phones is not explained and
proved by the prosecution. Since the cell phones seized from the accused
stands in the names of other persons, it cannot be said the calls made from one
168
cell phone to another cell phone is a piece of evidence to link the accused with
the commission of the offence. Further Thiagarajan (P.W.52) is examined to
show that cell phone No.9894356789 used by the 1
st
accused. During evidence
he turned hostile and he deposed under threat and coercion by the police he
gave 164 Cr.P.C. statement Ex.P86 before the learned Judicial Magistrate.
Since P.W.52 turned hostile and he never gave 164 Cr.P.C. statement on his
own accord, this court holds evidence of P.w.52 is of no use to the prosecution.
Hence, this court holds the seizure of the cell phones and the call details will not
help the prosecution case.
163. Therefore, for the following reasons:-
(a) The house trespass made by A8 to 10 is not proved.
(b) The commission of murder by A8 and A9 is not proved.
(c) The facilitation and abetment of A7, A10, A11 and A12 is not proved.
(d) The witnesses who gave 164 Cr.P.C. statements retracted their
statements and deposed that they gave statements as instructed and
dictated by the police.
(e) The recovery of M.O.57, M.O.58 and M.O.59(motor cycles) used for
the commission of offence is not proved.
(f) The recovery of weapons of offence M.O.25, M.O.26 and M.O.50
(knives) is not proved.
(g) P.W.1, P.W.2, `P.W.4 and P.W.5 identified the accused in the test
identification parade with the help of the photographs shown and
tutored by the police and not on their own.
(h) None of the witnesses identified the accused before the court.
(i) The cell phones seized from the possession of the accused stand in
the name of other persons which are not explained and proved. The
link between accused and the cell phone is not proved.
169
(j) No reliable evidence is available in the evidence of witnesses
examined by the prosecution to prove the 5
th
, 6
th
, 7
th
and 8
th
charges
as against the accused.
(k) Neither acceptable nor reliable evidence is available in the evidence of
the witnesses to corroborate the testimony of the hostile witnesses.
this court holds the prosecution failed to prove the 5
th
, 6
th
, 7
th
and 8
th
charges as
against the accused.
164. NINTH CHARGE

U/s.109 r/w 302 I.P.C. against A1 to A6

Ninthly that in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, on 03.09.2004 at
about 05.30 p.m. A7 to A12, at the inducement of A5, A6 and approver
Ravisubramaniam, committed murder of Sankararaman, and A2 on his own
paid Rs.5 lakhs to A1 through A4 and A1 on his own paid Rs.15 lakhs to the
murderers through A3 and in turn through A5, A6 and approver
Ravisubramaniam, thus A1 to A6 abetted the commission of murder,
punishable u/s. 109 r/w 302 I.P.C.
165. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit the evidence
of P.W.117, P.W.120, P.W.123 and P.W.141 and the seizure of the receipts
from the 5
th
accused for the payment of money and also the recovery of money
recovered from the accused are very strong circumstances and also established
a complete chain of circumstantial evidence pointing the guilt of the accused for
the offence u/s.109 r/w 302 I.P.C. against A1 to A6 and thereby, urged to record
a finding in favour of the prosecution.
166. Per contra, the learned counsels appearing for the accused would
submit motive for the murder, conspiracy, conspiracy conveyed to A2 to A4,
acceptance of the conspiracy by A2 and A4, source of income to A1 and A2 are
not proved and further absolutely no evidence is available on record to hold that
A1, A2 paid money through A3 to the murderers, and thereby, urged the plea of
the prosecution is ill-founded in law.
170
In support of the contention the following legal dictum is cited:
(2013) 1 MLJ(Crl) 541
Vasanthi
Vs.
State, rep by Inspector of Police, Chinnamannor Police Station, Theni District.
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), Sections 302 and 201
Murder Conviction and sentence - Criminal appeal
Circumstantial evidence Held, no complete chain of
evidence pointing guilt of accused Prosecution failed to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt Possibility of
other alternative hypothesis Possibility not ruled out by
prosecution Prosecution failed to establish its case by
circumstantial evidence Conviction and sentence set
aside Appeal allowed.

The cited legal dictum mandates, to record a finding against the accused
based on circumstantial evidence, a complete chain of circumstantial evidence
pointing the guilt of the accused need to be proved by the prosecution.
167. The case of the prosecution is that, humiliated and infuriated by the act of
deceased Sankararaman and after receipt of final notice dated 30.08.2004 A1
and A2 decided to eliminate Sankararaman and on 01.09.2004, A1, A3, A5 A6
and approver Ravisubramaniam conspired together to put an end to the life of
Sankararaman and the same was conveyed to A2 and A4, A2 and A4 accepted
the same and in pursuance to that A2 paid a sum of Rs.5 lakhs and A1 paid a
sum of Rs.15 lakhs through the co-accused to the murderers. It is already
decided conspiracy for the commission of murder is not proved by the
prosecution. Further absolutely no evidence is adduced on the side of the
prosecution to show and prove that the alleged conspiracy between A1, A3, A5
and A6 was conveyed to A2 and A4 and both of them accepted the criminal
conspiracy.
171
168. The contention of the prosecution is the payment of Rs.20 lakhs to
the murderers was paid by A1 and A2 out of the funds belong to Sankara Mutt,
Kanchipuram. It is alleged that after receipt of final notice dated 30.08.2004 on
01.09.2004, A1 to A6 and approver Ravisubramaniam conspired together to put
an end to the life of Sankararaman. The specific plea of the prosecution is with a
view to eliminate Sankararaman and to pay the money to the offenders, funds
were drawn from the Bank account of Sankara mutt, in particular Indian Bank
and ICICI Bank. It goes without saying if at all A1 to A6 conspired together with
approver Ravisubramaniam to do away with the life of Sankararaman after the
receipt of final notice dated 30.08.2004, A1, A2 ought to have raised funds in
between 30.08.2004 and 03.09.2004, the date of alleged murder. Therefore, the
prosecution is duty bound to prove the amount of Rs.20 lakhs or more was drawn
out of the bank accounts maintained by Sankara Mutt.
169. M. Manoharan (P.W.105) would depose that he is the then
Manager of Syndicate Bank, Kanchipuram Branch and Kanchipuram Sankara
Mutt is maintaining a savings Bank account No.18804 in the name of
Kamakodipeedam Sornamahotchavam and the outstanding amount in the
account is Rs.1,08,498/-. But the statement of account is not produced to
support the case of prosecution.
170. Kuppusamy ((P.W.106) the then Manager of Canara Bank,
Kanchipuram branch, he would depose that Sankar Mutt is maintaining a
Savings Bank account with Canara Bank and the account Number is 6203. The
statement of account is not produced by the prosecution.
171. Vaithianathan (P.W.117), the Branch Manager of Indian Bank,
Sankaramadam Branch would depose Kanchi Sanakaramadam is having L.O.D.
account No.550/123, 124, 125 and in that account an amount of Rs.55 lakhs was
deposited on 7.5.2004. This transaction is prior to the receipt of final notice
dated 30.08.2004. Since the transaction is prior to the date of receipt of final
notice, this court holds the evidence of P.W.117 is of no use to the prosecution.
172
172. Ramkumar (P.W.118) would depose that he was the then manager
of ICICI Bank, Kancheepuram Branch and the Sankara mutt is maintaining
savings bank account in the name of Sri Kamakodi Ghalikasaramam Trust and
the Account Number is 606601107609 and the statement of account for the
period from 1.1.2004 to 31.12.2004 is Ex.P129 series.
173. Suresh (P.W.120) the Managing Director of Bhargo foundation Real
Estate is examined to speak about the sale agreement with respect of fifty acres
of land belongs to Sri Varatharajaperumal temple and the payment of the
advance amount of Rs.50 lakhs. But he failed to support the prosecution case
and turned hostile.
174. Gobi (P.W.123), the Director of Bhargo Foundation would depose
that an agreement was entered in between Kanchipuram Janakalyan Trust for
the purchase of land and the sale consideration is at Rs.5 crores. But during
cross examination he would depose that on the instructions of the police he
deposed as above and he has no direct knowledge with the alleged transaction.
Therefore, since P.W.123 confessed that he deposed as instructed by the police
and he has no direct knowledge about the alleged transaction, this court holds
the testimony of P.W.123 is of no use to the prosecution case.
175. Ganesan (P.W.122) deposed that he was the then manager of City
Union Bank, Kanchipuram branch and the Sankar mutt is maintaining a savings
Bank account with them in the name of Bangarukamtchiamman Nithiyapadi Trust
and the account number is 396 but the statement of account is not produced.
176. Namachivayam (P.W.141), Manager of Indian Bank,
Sankaramadam Branch would depose number of accounts are maintained by
Sankaramutt with their branch and the statement of account Ex.P224 (three
papers) is the savings Bank Account No.11756 pertaining to the period from
01.01.2004 to 01.01.2005 which stands in the name of Sri
Jayanthirasaraswathiswamigal Teacher Training School Institute. The statement
of account pertaining to Sri Jayabuilders (A/c No.227) for the period from
173
13.08.2004 to 28.10.2004 is Ex.P225. The statement of account pertaining to
savings Bank Account No.8510 of Sri Kanchijanakalayan Trust for the period
from 01.01.2003 to 04.11.2004 is Ex.P226. The statement of accounts Ex.P224,
Ex.P225 and Ex.P226 speak about the savings Bank account of Sankara mutt.
177. The seven Savings Bank Account maintained by Sankara Mutt are
as follows:
1. Syndicate Bank - Savings Bank account No.18804 in the name
of Kamakodipeedam Sornamahotchavam.
2. Canara Bank - Savings Bank account and the account Number
is 6203.
3. ICICI BANK - Savings bank account in the name of Sri
Kamakodi Ghalikasaramam Trust and the Account Number is
606601107609.
4. City Union Bank- Savings Bank account in the name of
Bangarukamtchiamman Nithiyapadi Trust and the account
number is 396.
5. Indian Bank - Savings Bank Account in the name of Sri
Jayanthirasaraswathiswamigal Teacher Training School Institute
and the Account Number is 11756
6. Indian Bank Savings bank Account in the name of Sri
Jayabuilders and the Account Number is 227
7. Indian Bank - Savings Bank Account in the name of Sri
Kanchijanakalayan Trust and the Account Number is 8510.
178. The statements of accounts pertaining to Savings Bank account
No.18804 in the name of Kamakodipeedam Sornamahotchavam with Syndicate
Bank, Savings Bank account Number 6203 with Canara Bank, Savings Bank
account 396 in the name of Bangarukamtchiamman Nithiyapadi Trust with City
Union Bank are not produced before the court for consideration. But the
remaining statements of accounts are produced. Further no oral evidence is
174
adduced on the side of the prosecution through P.W.105, P.W.106 and P.W.122
to prove that the amount of Rs.20 lakhs or more was drawn by Sankara Mutt in
and around the period from 30.08.2004 to 3.09.2004.
179. On perusal of the statement of accounts related to - Savings bank
Account Number 606601107609 (ICICI BANK) in the name of Sri Kamakodi
Ghalikasaramam Trust, Savings Bank Account No.11756 (Indian Bank) in the
name of Sri Jayanthirasaraswathiswamigal Teacher Training School Institute,
Savings bank Account No.227( Indian Bank) in the name of Sri Jayabuilders, -
Savings Bank Account No.8510 (Indian Bank) in the name of Sri
Kanchijanakalayan Trust would also manifest an amount of Rs.20 lakhs or above
was not at all drawn in and around the period from 30.08.2004 to 03.09.2004.
Therefore, it is self evident from the seven bank accounts maintained by Sankara
Mutt in different banks, an amount of Rs.20 lakhs or more have not been drawn
by Sankara Mutt during the relevant period from 30.08.2004 to 03.09. 2004.
180. At this juncture the learned counsels for the accused would submit
that Kanchipuram Sankaramutt is running number of institutions and also doing
various charitable activities, therefore, even if any amounts are drawn from the
Banks account maintained by Sankaramutt it cannot be held the said amount is
drawn by the Sankaramutt to pay the murders A7 to A12. It is not in dispute
Kanchipuram Sankaramutt is an important Hindu Religious Institution maintaining
various Trusts, institutions and doing various charitable activities. Therefore, this
court finds, there is a valid and acceptable material in the arguments advanced
by the learned counsels and the same is in favour of the accused.
Hence, as per the discussions made above, this court holds that the
prosecution failed to prove the source of money alleged to have to paid to the
murderers
181. Further it is alleged Ex.P416 (series) 2 receipts were seized from
the house of the 5
th
accused on 26.12.2004 in front of Bharathi (P.W.129) and
Venugopal (P.W.130) which reflect the receipt of money by the accused. On
175
perusal of Ex.P416 series, it is seen A5 received an amount of Rs.10 lakhs and
Rs.20 lakhs. The receipts are Xerox copies, non-dated, from whom and for what
purpose the amount was received are not found place in the alleged receipt.
Ex.P416 (series) of receipts are seized by the Chief Investigating Officer P.w.189
under Ex.P417 mahazar dated 26.12.2004 in front of Bharathi (P.W.129) and
Nagarajan (P.W.137). But Bharathi (P.W.129) and Nagarajan (P.W.137) failed to
support the prosecution case and turned hostile.
182. The learned counsels for the accused would submit it is highly
imaginary that one person will issue receipt, for the amount received to do an
illegal act that too murder. I find valid substance in the arguments advanced by
the learned counsels for the accused. Further it is already decided the
investigation done by P.W.189 is not fair and proper, therefore, on the basis of
the evidence of P.w.189 it cannot be held that Ex.P417 mahazar and material
documents Ex.P416 (series) seized are proved by the prosecution. Further
more, the independent witnesses Bharathi (P.W.129) and Nagarajan (P.W.137)
turned hostile, under such circumstances, this court holds that the alleged
seizure of two receipts Ex.P416 (series) are not proved by the prosecution.
183. Further it is alleged the original two receipts of Ex.P416 (series) is
Ex.P426 and Ex.P427 and the same were seized under Ex.P431 mahazar dated
29.12.2004 from the house of the 5
th
accused in front of Rajkumar (P.W.136) and
Nagarajan (P.W.137). As this court discussed earlier, it is unbelievable for the
money received for an illegal act, receipt will be issued and further P.W.136 and
P.w.137 did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. As this court
discussed earlier, since investigation is not fair and proper it is not legal to accept
the sole testimony of the chief Investigating Officer P.w.189 to record a finding
against the accused. Further, since P.W.136 and P.w.137 failed to support the
prosecution case, this court holds the plea of the prosecution that Ex.P426,
Ex.P427 were seized from the house of A5 cannot be accepted and the plea of
the prosecution is hereby rejected.
176
Hence in fine, as per the discussions made above, this court holds that the
alleged seizure of receipts from A5 for the alleged payment of money to the
murderers is not proved by the prosecution.
184. Further on the side of the prosecution it is argued an amount of
Rs.300/- (M.O.62- series) was recovered from A6 and an amount of Rs.30,000/-
(M.O.65- series) was recovered from A6's house, an amount of Rs.1,310/-
(M.O.56- series) was recovered from A7, an amount of Rs.1000/- (M.O.48-
series) was recovered from A10, an amount of Rs.500/- (M.O.51) was recovered
from A11 and the money recovered from A6, A7, A10, and A11 are part and
parcel of the money paid by A1 and A2 to do away with the life of Sankararaman
and the recovery is also a substantial piece of evidence in favour of the
prosecution.
185. The Chief Investigating Officer P.W.189 would depose A6
Kathiravan was arrested on 10.11.2004 at 06.30 a.m. near Thangam Chettinad
Hotel, situated at the junction of Koyembedu market on Vadapalani
Chengundram road, Chennai and on the basis of the confession 3 hundred rupee
notes (M.O.62 series) were recovered under Ex.P152 mahazar in front of
Uthirakumar (P.W.121) and Vimal Kumar (P.W.142) from A6. Further from the
house of Kathiravan (A6) an amount of Rs.30,000/- (60 fifty rupee notes
M.O.65 series) were also seized in front of the said witnesses P.W.121 and
P.W.142 under Ex.P153 seizure mahazar. Again P.W.189 would depose at the
very same place Rajini china @ Chinna @ Rajini was arrested at 05.00 a.m. on
10.11.2004 and from him an amount of Rs.1,310/- (M.O.56 series) were seized
under Ex.P147 seizure mahazar in front of P.W.121 and P.W.142. It is seen
from the evidence of P.W.189 on the basis of the confession of A6, P.W.189
recovered an amount of Rs.300/- (M.O.62 series) and the amount of Rs.30,000/-
(M.O.65 series) from him. The admissible portion of the confession of A6 is
Ex.P363 and that of A7 is Ex.P362. Uthirakumar (P.W.121) would say on the
basis of the confession of A6 and A7 the chief Investigating Officer recovered
177
articles from them. Vimalkumar (P.W.142) failed to support the prosecution case
and turned hostile. On a careful perusal and consideration of the testimony of
P.W.189 and P.W.121 manifest they never deposed the admissible portion of the
confession in terms of Section 27 of Evidence Act. The information gathered
from the accused leading to the recovery is not been spoken by both the
witnesses. Again P.W.121 never deposed about the material objects recovered
from A6 and A7 and further he admits for a number of days he stayed along with
the police and his expenses were borne by the police officials. Since P.W.121
never deposed the admissible portion of the confession to comply the mandates
of Section 27 of the Evidence Act and also failed to depose about the material
objects seized from A6 and A7, this court rejects the evidence of P.W.121 from
consideration. Further since P.W.189 also never deposed the admissible portion
of the confession as contemplated under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to
recover the material objects from A6 and A7 and therefore, this court holds that
the seizure of material objects from A6 and A7 is not in accordance with law.
Again it is already decided A6 and A7 are in illegal custody of police prior to the
date of arrest for a number of days. Therefore, it is very unsafe to act upon the
arrest, confession and seizure to lend support to the prosecution case.
Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the recovery of M.O. 62 series, M.O. 65
series and M.O. 56 series.
186. Further P.W.189 would depose on 6.11.2004 at about 02.30 p.m.,
Mohanavel, Inspector of Police (P.W.173) arrested Kumar (A10) and produced
before him. During investigation A10 gave a confession before P.W.189 and the
said confession was recorded in front of Bharathi (P.W.129) and Venugopal
(P.W.130) and the admissible portion of the confession is Ex.P356. On the basis
of the admissible portion of the confession P.W.189 recovered two 500 rupee
currency notes (M.O.48 series) under Ex.P357 seizure mahazar, in front of the
witnesses P.W.129 and P.w.130. Further on the same day at about 04.30 p.m.
in front of Kanchi lodge situated near Kanchipuram bus stand, P.W.189 arrested
178
Anand @ Anandakumar (A11) and recorded his confession in front of P.W.129
and P.W.130, the admissible portion of the confession is Ex.P358 and on the
basis of the admissible portion of the confession, one five hundred rupee
currency note (M.O.51) was seized by P.W.189 under Ex.P359 mahazar, in front
of P.W.129 and P.W.130. P.W.129 and P.W.130 failed to support the
prosecution case and turned hostile. It is seen from the evidence of P.W.189,
that P.W.189 failed to depose the admissible portion of the confession in terms of
Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Further P.W.129 and P.W.130 failed to support
the prosecution case. Under such circumstances, again this court holds that no
reliance can be placed on the recovery of M.O.48 (series) from A10 and M.O.51
from A11.
187. Again, the case of the prosecution is A2 on his own paid an amount
of Rs.5 lakhs through A4 to A1 and A1 on his own paid a sum of Rs.15 lakhs and
the total amount of Rs.20 lakhs was paid by the first accused through A3, A5, A6
and approver Ravi @ Ravisubramanian (P.W.40). But P.W.40 failed to support
the prosecution case and turned hostile. Absolutely no materials are available on
record to show that the amount of Rs.20 lakhs was distributed to A7 to A12
through A3, A5, A6 and P.W.40. Therefore, it cannot be said the amount of
Rs.20 lakhs was paid by A1 through A3, A5, A6 and P.W.40 to the real assailants
A7 to A12.
Hence, this court holds that the plea of the prosecution, the material
objects recovered from A6, A7, A10 and A11 are also a substantial piece of
evidence in favour of the prosecution, cannot be accepted.
188. Therefore, for the following reasons:
(a) source of money to a tune of Rs.20 lakhs or more to A1 and A2
is not proved.
(b) Seizure of receipts for the alleged payments to the murderers is
not proved.
179
(c) Recoveries of material objects from the accused are not
proved.
(d) Recovery of material objects are not in accordance with law.
this court holds that A1 to A6 abetted the commission of murder of
Sankararaman, punishable u/s. 109 r/w 302 I.P.C. is not proved by the
prosecution.
189. TENTH CHARGE:

Under Section 201 part-1 r/w. 302 I.P.C. against A16 to A20

Tenthly, that in continuation of the criminal conspiracy and murder,
A16 to A20, after getting commission of Rs.60,000/- each, knowing fully
well they never committed the murder of Sankararaman and they came to
know that A7 to A12 murdered Sankararaman and on the arrangement of
A7, A9, A13, A14 and A15, on 27.10.2004 A16 to A20 pretended to be the
real accused, surrendered before the 15
th
Metropolitan Magistrate, George
Town, Chennai and with the intention to cause disappearance of evidence
and with a view to screen the real accused from legal punishment, and
thereby A16 to A20 committed the offence punishable under Section 201
Part 1 r/w. 302 I.P.C.

190. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit, evidence of
Advocate Suresh Arokianathan (P.W.179) and Advocate Krishnakumar (P.W.85)
who surrendered the Accused 16 to A20 under Ex.P120 surrender petition before
the 15
th
Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai is self evident that the
accused A16- A20 were having knowledge about the murder of Sankararaman,
voluntarily surrendered before the 15
th
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George
Town, Chennai in order to cause disappearance of evidence and with an
intention to screen the real offenders from legal punishment, thereby urged the
offence u/s.201 part 1 r/w. 302 I.P.C. is proved by the prosecution.
191. Per contra, the learned counsels for the accused would contend
A16 to A20 were made to surrender by the police under coercion, compulsion
and undue influence by giving false promise and further submitted the said
180
accused have no knowledge neither about the commission of the murder nor
about the real assailants to the murder and thus, urged to reject the plea of the
prosecution.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 1994 Supp (2) Supreme Court
Cases -39 held as follows:
"(BEFORE DR. A.S ANAND AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.)
HANUMAN AND OTHERS . . . Appellants
Vs.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN . . . Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.860 of 1985, decided on November 25, 1993.
Penal Code, 1860 S.201 Ingredients of Knowledge
of the offence having been committed and intention of
screening the offender from legal punishment essential In
absence of a finding to the effect that the deceased had been
murdered by some known or unknown assailants and that
the appellants were either the assailants themselves or knew
the assailants Section 201 could not be pressed into service -
On facts held, circumstances relied upon by the prosecution,
either taken individually or collectively, do not lead to the
only conclusion of the guilt of the accused Criminal Trial
Circumstantial evidence."
Again the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in (1979) 3 Supreme Court
Cases 574 held as follows:
"(BEFORE L. UNTWALIA AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.)
NATHU AND ANOTHER . . . Appellants
Vs.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH . . . Respondent
Penal Code, 1860 Section 201 Ingredients of
Accused with the knowledge of or having reason to believe
the commission of offence must try to screen the offender
proper evidence in this regard essential Charge of
disposing of dead body No direct or circumstantial
evidence to establish presence of accused at the time of
181
murder No presumption of knowledge can be drawn from
mere fact that the accused are brothers of the murderer and
living in the same village Conviction and sentence against
the accused set aside."
The decisions cited above would manifest to find the accused guilty for the
offence u/s. 201 I.P.C prosecution is bound to prove the following:
a) the accused have knowledge about the commission of the offence.
b) they should have the intention to screen the real offenders from legal
punishment.
192. The contention of the accused is that till 26.10.2004 the
Investigating officers are not able to trace out the real culprits and due to heavy
pressure from various corners, the police, under coercion, compulsion and by
giving false promise to A16 to A20, made them to surrender before the 15
th

Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, as real assailants.
The testimony of P.W.189 reads as follows:
"
Therefore the plea of the accused till 26.10.2004 the chief Investigating officer
was not able to trace out the real assailants is proved. The judicial confession of
17
th
accused recorded by Thiru Damodaran (P.W.160), the then Judicial
Magistrate No.2, Kanchipuram is Ex.P282. It is already decided the judicial
confession of 17
th
accused is voluntary in nature and that can be accepted and
acted upon. The extracted portion of Ex.P282 is as follows:
"
" "
" "
182
" .
It is self evident from Ex.P120 surrender petition, A16 to A20 were surrendered
before the 15
th
Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai on 27.10.2004.
A17 in his judicial confession in clear and categorical terms stated that he was
not aware of the murder of Sankararaman and also not aware of the real
assailants. Further he stated that the learned Magistrate who accepted the
surrender never enquired him while accepting the surrender. It is seen from
Ex.P121, surrender petitions, Advocate Thiru M.V. Krishnakumar (P.W.85) and
advocate Thiru C.M.Suresh Arokianathan (P.W.179) surrendered A16 to A20
under Ex.P120 surrender petition before the 15
th
Metropolitan Magistrate,
George Town, Chennai. The evidence of Advocate Thiru Krishnakumar (P.W.85)
reads as follows:
"
"
"
Further the testimony of Advocate Thiru Suresh Arokianathan (P.W.179)
reads as follows:
"
"
193. P.W.85 and P.W.179 are practicing Advocates before the Hon'ble
High Court, Madras and other criminal courts. Both of them in clear and
183
categorical terms stated at the instructions of the unknown person, they
surrendered the accused and they were not aware of the facts of the case while
surrendering. The case of the prosecution is A7, A9, A13 to A15 made
arrangement to surrender the fake accused A16 to A20. But P.W.85 and
P.W.179 failed to identify the accused and thereby, failed to support the
prosecution case. Also P.W.85 never denied the suggestion that he surrender
A16 to A20 at the instructions of police, but simply stated that he is not
remembering the same. Further while the accused were questioned u/s.313 (1)
(b) Cr.P.C., A16 to A20 in clear and categorical terms stated that on 27.10.2004
the police harassed them and made them surrender before the 15
th
Metropolitan
Magistrate, George Town, Chennai with an undertaking that they will make
arrangements to release them on bail within two or three days. Considering the
statements of the accused with the evidence of P.W.85 and P.W.179, this court
finds there are valid materials in the plea of the accused. Further on perusal of
Ex.P120 and Ex.P121, it is evident the learned Magistrate never made any
enquiry with the accused before accepting the surrender and therefore, whether
A16 to A20 aware of the facts of the case at the time of surrender is highly
doubtful. It is already decided on the basis of the confession of A17, at the time
of surrender, he was not aware of the murder of Sankararaman and about the
real accused who committed the murder. Therefore, it is seen from the evidence
of P.W.85 and P.W.179 and Exs.P.120, Ex.P121 and Ex.P.282 documents the
accused have no knowledge about the commission of murder and about the real
assailants who committed the murder and hence, it cannot be said that their
surrender was with an intention to screen the real offenders from legal
punishment. Under such circumstances and as per the discussions made above,
this court holds the prosecution failed to adduce positive evidence or the
evidence adduced are insufficient to find the accused guilty of the offence
u/s.201 part I r/w 302 I.P.C. and thereby, failed to prove the charge for the
offence u/s. 201 part I r/w 302 I.P.C. as against A16 to A20.
184
194. ELEVENTH CHARGE:
Under Section 201 part-1 r/w. 302 r/w. 109 of IPC against A1 to A7,
A9, A13 to A15:
Eleventhly, that in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy and murder,
A16 to A20 knowing fully well that they did not involve in the murder of
Sankararaman and knowing that A7 to A12 murdered Sankararaman with
plan, on the arrangement of A7, A9, A13, A14 and A15, and approved by A1
to A6 on 27.10.2004 A16 to A20 surrendered before 15
th
Metropolitan
Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, with the intention to cause
disappearance of evidence with a view to escape the real accused from the
legal punishment and for the surrender of A16 to A20, A2 gave Rs.10 lakhs
to A1 through A4 and A3 received that amount and with A1's share amount
Rs.10 lakhs totaling Rs.20 lakhs and gave it to the Approver Ravi
Subramaniam, and in turn, A5 and A6 received that amount from the
Approver, and again, that amount was handed over to A13 to A15 through
A7, and thus A1 to A7, A9, A13 to A15 gave the amount as gratification to
A16 to A20, and thereby, A1 to A7, A9, A13 to A15 committed the offence
punishable under section 201 part-1 r/w. 302 r/w. 109 of IPC.

195. On the side of the prosecution it is urged there are reliable
materials in the evidence of prosecution witnesses Subramanian @ Ravi
Subramanian (P.W.40), Ravi (P.W.53), Jayaprakash (P.W.62), Santhanam
(P.W.68), Vinothkumar (P.W.69), Gopi (P.W.76), Subramanian @ Thambaram
Babu (P.W.77), Saravanamoorthy (P.W.86), Chakravarthi (P.W.87), Bala @
Balakumar (P.W.112) and Pasupathi (P.W.132) to prove the charge under
Section 201 part-1 r/w. 302 r/w. 109 of IPC against A1 to A7, A9, A13 to A15.
196. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused would submit
absolutely neither materials nor incriminating evidence are available in the
evidence of the above said witnesses to prove the link between approver
Subramanian @ Ravi Subramanian (P.w.40) with A5 and A6, and further no
scrap of evidence is available to hold that gratification of Rs.20 lakhs was
received by P.w.40, thus urged, the 11
th
charge is not proved by the prosecution.
185
197. To prove the 11
th
charge, prosecution examined Subramanian @
Ravi Subramanian (P.W.40), Ravi (P.W.53), Jayaprakash (P.W.62), Santhanam
(P.W.68), Vinothkumar (P.W.69), Gopi (P.W.76), Subramanian @ Thambaram
Babu (P.W.77), Saravanamoorthy (P.W.86), Chakravarthi (P.W.87), Bala @
Balakumar (P.W.112) and Pasupathi (P.W.132).
198. Approver Subramaniam @ Ravi Subramaniam (P.w.40) is
examined to speak about the receipt of gratification amount of Rs.20 lakhs from
A1 and handing over to A5 and A6 besides other factors. But P.W.40 did not
support the prosecution case and turned hostile.
199. Ravi (P.W.53) is examined to speak about the relationship between
the first accused and P.W.40. But during evidence he deposed that he was not
aware of any relationship of first accused with approver Subramaniam @
Ravisubramaniam (P.W.40) and turned hostile.
200. Jayaprakash (P.W.62) is examined to speak about the conspiracy
on 26.10.2004 at the defence colony, Chennai for production of fake accused in
Sankararaman murder case and also the payment of Rs.60,000/- each to A16 to
A20. But during evidence he deposed that he was not aware of anything and
turned hostile.
201. Santhanam (P.W.68) is examined to speak about the fact that he is
working under approver Subramaniam @ Ravisubramanian (P.W.40) and he
took a contract to a tune of Rs.50 lakhs from Sankaramadam to construct a
building at Thiruvatriyur and also to speak about the relationship between
Kathiravan (A6) and Appu @ Krishnasamy (A5) with P.W.40. But he failed to
support the prosecution case and turned hostile.
202. Vinothkumar (P.W.69), an Assistant to A1 is examined to speak
about the relationship between A1 with P.W.40, Kathiravan A6, Appu @
Krishnasamy-A5. P.W.69 also not supported the case of prosecution and turned
hostile.
186
203. Gopi (P.W.76) is a cook attached with Sankaramadam and cooking
food to A1 is examined to speak about the link between Appu @ Krishnasamy-
A5, Subramaniam @ Ravi Subramaniam (P.W.40) and Kathiravan-A6. During
evidence P.W.76 disowned the case of prosecution and turned hostile.
204. Subramanian @ Thambaram Babu (P.W.77) is an Assistant
accompanying the first accused while he was on tour (pilgrimage) is examined to
speak the presence of Subramaniam @ Ravi Subramaniam (P.W.40), Appu @
Krishnasamy-A5, Kathiravan A6 and first accused at Sankaramadam on
01.09.2004. But he failed to support the case of prosecution and turned hostile.
205. Saravanamoorthy (P.W.86) is resident of Velacherry, a porter by
profession at Chennai airport is examined to speak about the fact that he is
known to P.W.40 and also to speak about the relationship between A1, A5 and
P.W.40, he also failed to support the prosecution case and turned hostile.
206. Chakravarthy (P.W.87) one of the Board of Directors of Savera
Hotel, Chennai is examined to speak about the relationship between Appu @
Krishnasamy-A5 and the first accused. He also failed to support the case of
prosecution and turned hostile.
207. Bala @ Balakumar (P.W.112) is examined to speak about the link
between the first accused and Subramaniam @ Ravi Subramaniam (P.W.40),
Kathiravan-A6 and also about the secret meeting with respect the activities of
deceased Sankararaman. But he never supported the prosecution case and
turned hostile.
208. Pasupathi (P.W.132), the President of Janakalyan movements is
examined to speak about the link and relationship between the first accused,
second accused, approver Subramainam @ Ravisubramaniam (P.W.40) and
Appu @ Krishnasamy-A5. During evidence he has stated the he knew A1 and
A2 but he was not aware of the relationship of A1, A2 with P.W.40 and A5.
Further he has deposed that he was not aware of the link between P.W.40 and
187
Appu @ Krishnasamy A5 with A1 and therefore, the evidence of P.W.132 is of
no use to the prosecution.
Hence, it is evident that none of the witnesses examined to prove the 11
th

charge supported the prosecution case. Absolutely no acceptable and reliable
evidence is available in the evidence of the above said witnesses neither to
prove the link between the approver (P.W.40) with A5 and A6 nor the link
between P.W.40, A5 and A6 with A1 and also no scrap of evidence is available
about the payment of gratification to A16 to A20, thereby this court holds that the
prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 201 part-1 r/w. 302 r/w. 109
of IPC against A1 to A7, A9, A13 to A15 beyond reasonable doubt.
209. TWELFTH CHARGE:
Under Section 213 of IPC against A16 to A20:
Twelfth, that in continuation of the criminal conspiracy and murder, A16 to
A20 knowing fully well that they did not involve in the murder and knowing that
A7 to A12 murdered Sankararaman on the arrangement of A7, A9, A13, A14 and
A15, and on 27.10.2004 for surrendering A16 to A20 before 15
th
Metropolitan
Magistrate, George Town, Chennai pretending to be the real accused, with a
view to cause disappearance of the evidence to the offence of murder and with a
view to escape the real accused from the legal punishment, A16, A17 and A18
obtained Rs.60,000/- each as gratification, and A19 and A20 have accepted to
receive Rs.60,000/- each as gratification and for that, received Rs.5,000/- each
and have accepted to receive in future the balance amount of Rs.55,000/- each,
and thereby A16 to A20 committed the offence punishable under section 213 of
IPC.

THIRTEENTH CHARGE:
Under Section 213 r/w 109 of IPC against A21 to A24:
Thirteenthly, that in continuation of the criminal conspiracy, and the
murder, A16 to A20 with an intention to screen the evidence in the case of
murder, to escape the real accused from the legal punishment, and surrendered
to be the real accused before the above said Metropolitan Magistrate and to
receive Rs.60,000/- each as gratification, A21 to A24 and Black Balu were
received the money on behalf of A16 to A20 and to give the above said amount
to the family of the said accused, and thereby, A21 to A24 committed the offence
of abetting to accept the gratification amount punishable u/s. 213 r/w 109 of IPC.


210. As per the answer laid down in charge No.10 it is already discussed
and decided that A16 to A20 have no knowledge about the commission of
murder of Sankararaman and the real assailants who committed the murder at
188
the time of surrender before the XV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town,
Chennai, thereby it is decided that prosecution failed to prove the charge u/s. 201
Part-I r/w 302 I.P.C. against A16 to A20.
211. Further, the case of the prosecution is A16, A17 and A18 obtained
Rs.60,000/- each and A19 and A20 have accepted Rs.5,000/- out of Rs.60,000/-
and agreed to receive the balance amount of Rs.55,000/- each as gratification
and the said amount of gratification was received by A21 to A24 and one Black
Balu far and on behalf of A16 to A20 in order to give the same to the family of
A16 to A20.
212. The contention of the prosecution is to execute the common design
of conspiracy and also to make payment to the fake accused, the first and
second accused drawn the amount out of the account maintained by
Sankaramutt with Indian Bank, Kanchipuram and ICICI Bank, Kanchipuram by
way of demand draft and cash. To prove that, prosecution examined Ramkumar
(P.W.118), the then Manager of ICICI Bank, Kanchipuram Branch and
Namachivayam (P.W.141) another manager of Indian Bank, Sankaramutt
Branch.
213. Ramkumar (P.W.118) would depose he was the then Manager of
ICICI Bank, Kanchipuram Branch and he further deposed Sankaramutt is
maintaining Savings Bank Account in the name of Sri Kamakodikaligasramam
Trust and the Account Number is 606601107609 and the statement of account
for the period from 1.1.2004 to 31.12.2004 is Ex.P129 (series).
214. Namachivayam (P.W.141), the manager of Indian Bank,
Sankaramutt Branch would depose numbers of accounts are maintained by
Sankaramutt with their branch and the statement of accounts for the period from
1.1.2004 to 1.1.2005 pertaining to the savings bank account Number 11756,
stands in the name of Jayenthirasaraswathi Teacher Training Institute, is
Ex.P224. Further the statement of account for the period from 13.8.2004 to
28.10.2004 pertaining to the account No.227 stands in the name of Sri
189
Jayabuilders is Ex.P225, the statement of account pertaining to Sri Kanchikalyan
Trust Savings Bank Account No.8510 for the period from 1.1.2003 to 4.11.2004
is Ex.P226. The statement of accounts in Ex.P224, Ex.P225 and Ex.P226
speak about the savings bank account of Sankaramutt with Indian Bank
Sankaramutt Branch. The statement of account pertaining to ICICI Bank and
Indian Bank speak about the transaction with respect to the accounts to the
period from 01.09.2004 (date of conspiracy) to 27.10.2004 (the date of surrender
of fake accused). On a careful perusal of statement of accounts pertaining to
both the Bank would reveal number of transactions took place in the said
accounts on very many days. The transactions are ranging from Rs.1,000/- to
more than Rs.10 lakhs involving both deposits and withdrawals. At this juncture
the learned counsel for the accused would submit that the prosecution has no
definite case as to when the amount was withdrawn from the bank for making
payment to the fake accused and would further submit Kanchipuram
Sankaramutt is running number of institutions and doing various charitable
activities and therefore, it cannot be said, since because amounts are drawn from
the accounts of Sankaramutt from both banks during the period from 1.9.2004 to
27.10.2004, the said amounts were drawn to make payments to the fake
accused. Admittedly, Kanchipuram Sankaramutt is an important Hindu Religious
Institution, running various trusts, institutions and doing various charitable
activities. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused since
because the amount is drawn from the account maintained by Sankaramutt
either in ICICI Bank or Indian Bank, it cannot be said that the money is used to
make payment to the fake accused is appealing to reasons and with acceptable
materials. Hence, this court is of the view that on the basis of evidence of
P.W.118 and P.W.141 and the statements of account Ex.P129, Ex.P224,
Ex.P225 and Ex.P226 it cannot be held, out of the amount drawn from the Bank
accounts of Sankaramutt, the fake accused are paid is proved by the
prosecution.
190
215. Admittedly, the case of the prosecution is A16 to A20 never
received the gratification amount from A1, A7, A9, A13 to A15 directly, but the
prosecution claims the said amount was received by A21 to A24 and one black
Balu for and on behalf of A16 to A20 in order to give the same to the family of
A16 to A20. Therefore, the prosecution is bound to prove that A21 to A24 along
with one black Balu received the gratification amount and parted the same with
the family of A16 to A20.
216. The contention of the prosecution that A21 to A24 along with one
Black Balu received the gratification amount for and on behalf of A16 to A20 from
A1 to A7, A9, A13 to A15 is proved by the evidence of Anandayee (P.W.45), the
mother of Arumugam-A16, Thangavelu (P.W.63), the father of Pandian @ Thil
Pandian A17, Saroja (P.W.46), the mother of Satheesh -A18, Muniammal
(P.W.89), the wife of Devaraj A19 and Lakshmiammal (P.W.47), the mother of
Arun A20.
217. Anandayee (P.W.45), the mother of Arumugam-A16 is examined to
speak about the receipt of Rs.20,000/- (M.O.31 series) for and on behalf of her
son Arumugam A16 from A24. But during trial she failed to support the
prosecution case and turned hostile.
218. Thangavelu (P.W.63), the father of Pandian @ Thil Pandian-A17 is
examined to speak about the receipt of Rs.20,000/- (M.O.30 series) for and on
behalf of his son Pandian @ Thil Pandian-A17 from Black Balu. This witness
also during examination failed to support the prosecution case and turned
hostile.
219. Saroja (P.W.46), the mother of Satheesh -A18 is examined to
speak about the receipt of Rs.20,000/- (M.O.32 series) for and on behalf of her
son Satheesh -A18 from Arumugam-A21. But P.W.46 failed to support the
prosecution case and turned hostile.
220. Muniammal (P.W.89), the wife of Devaraj A19 is examined to
speak about the receipt of Rs.4,500/- (M.O.33 series) for and on behalf of her
191
husband Devaraj A19 from Silverstar @ Stalin-A23. But P.W.89 failed to
support the prosecution case and turned hostile.
221. Lakshmiammal (P.W.47), the mother of Arun A20 is examined to
speak about the receipt of Rs.5,000/- (M.O.34 series) for and on behalf of her
son Arun A20 from Silverstar @ Stalin-A23. But P.W.47 also failed to support
the prosecution case and turned hostile.
A careful perusal and consideration of the testimony of P.W.45, P.W.63,
P.W.46, P.W.89 and P.W.47 would manifest absolutely no incriminating evidence
is available in the evidence of the said witnesses as against the accused.
Therefore, the evidence of the said witnesses is not at all useful to the
prosecution.
222. Further the chief Investigating Officer P.W.189 would depose that
on 3.11.2004 he took police custody of Arumugam A16, Pandian @ Thil
Pandian A17, Satheesh A18, Devaraj- A19 and Arun-A20 and recorded their
confession in front of Uthirakumar (P.W.121) and Vimalkumar (P.W.142).
Further deposed
(a) on the basis of admissible portion of the confession of Arumugam
A16, Ex.P133 dated 3.11.2004, P.W.189 recovered Rs.20,000/-
M.O.31 (series) from Anandayee (P.w.45), the mother of A16 in front
of P.W.121 and P.W.142 under Ex.P134 recovery mahazar dated
4.11.2004.
(b) on the basis of admissible portion of the confession of Pandian @ Thil
Pandian A17, Ex.P131 dated 3.11.2004, P.W.189 recovered
Rs.20,000/- M.O.30 (series) from Thangavelu (P.W.63), the father of
Pandian @ Thil Pandian-A17, in front of P.W.121 and P.W.142 under
Ex.P132 recovery mahazar dated 4.11.2004.
(c) on the basis of admissible portion of the confession of Satheesh
A18, Ex.P135 dated 3.11.2004, P.W.189 recovered Rs.20,000/-
M.O.32 (series) from Saroja (P.W.46), the mother of Satheesh-A18, in
192
front of P.W.121 and P.W.142 under Ex.P136 recovery mahazar
dated 4.11.2004.
(d) on the basis of admissible portion of the confession of Devaraj A19,
Ex.P137 dated 4.11.2004, P.W.189 recovered Rs.4,500/- M.O.33
(series) from Muniammal (P.W.89), the wife of Devaraj-A19, in front of
P.W.121 and P.W.142 under Ex.P138 recovery mahazar dated
4.11.2004.
(e) on the basis of admissible portion of the confession of Arun A20,
Ex.P139 dated 4.11.2004, P.W.189 recovered Rs.5,000/- M.O.34
(series) from Lakshmiammal (P.W.47), the mother of Arun-A20, in
front of P.W.121 and P.W.142 under Ex.P140 recovery mahazar
dated 4.11.2004.
223. The recording of confession statements and consequential
recoveries are made by P.W.189 in front of Uthirakumar (P.W.121) and
Vimalkumar (P.W.142). Vimalkumar (P.W.142) failed to support the prosecution
case and turned hostile. Uthirakumar (P.W.121) during evidence deposed as
follows:
"
Therefore, it is evident from the evidence of P.W.121 that he is not able to
recognize the identity of the person who gave confession, from whom the
193
material objects recovered and at which place the statement of the accused were
recorded. Further it is pertinent to note P.W.121 failed to identify A16 to
A20 before the court. Under such circumstances, considering the extracted
portion of the above evidence of P.W.121 and the fact that P.W.121 failed to
identify the accused before the court, without any hesitation this court holds that
the testimony of P.W.121 has no legal sanctity, unreliable and the same cannot
be accepted and acted upon. Therefore, the prosecution is left with the testimony
of the Chief Investigating Officer (P.W.189) with respect to the recording of
confession and recovery of material objects. It is pertinent to note neither
P.W.121 nor P.W.189 deposed the statement or admissible portion of the
confession leading to discovery of facts which are presumably in the exclusive
knowledge of A16 to A20. In short, P.W.189 and P.W.121 failed to depose the
admissible portion of the confession of A16 to A20 in terms of Section 27 of
Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence of P.W.189 it
cannot be held the recoveries made by P.W.189 from Anandayee (P.W.45), the
mother of Arumugam-A16, Thangavelu (P.W.63), the father of Pandian @ Thil
Pandian A17, Saroja (P.W.46), the mother of Satheesh -A18, Muniammal
(P.W.89), the wife of Devaraj A19 and Lakshmiammal (P.W.47), the mother of
Arun A20 are proved by the prosecution. Further it is already decided, the
investigation done by P.W.189 is not fair and proper. Therefore, in fine, this
court holds that the testimony of P.W.189 is also not reliable with respect to
recording of confessions and recovery of material objects.
Hence, as per the discussions made above, this court holds the
prosecution has failed to prove the case against A16 to A20 under Section 213 of
IPC and under Section 213 r/w 109 of IPC against A21 to A24.
224. FOURTEENTH CHARGE:
u/s.214of IPC against A1 to A7 and A13 to A15:
Fourteenthly, that in continuation of the criminal conspiracy
and murder, A16 to A20 with an intention to cause disappearance of
194
evidence and to escape the real accused from the legal punishment,
and surrendered themselves to be the real accused before the
Metropolitan Magistrate, A2 gave Rs.10 lakhs to A1 through A4, and
along with that amount A1 gave Rs.10 lakhs being A1's share totaling
Rs.20 lakhs to the Approver Ravi Subramaniam through A3, and in
turn, A5 and A6 received that amount from the Approver, and again,
A13 to A15 received that amount through A7, and thus they gave it to
A16 to A20 as gratification, and thereby, A1 to A7 and A13 to A15
committed the offence punishable under section 214 of IPC.
225. While answering the 6
th
and 7
th
charges it is already decided the
prosecution failed to prove the offences u/s.302 r/w 34 I.P.C. against A7 to A12
and u/s. 302 against A8 and A9. Therefore the participation and commission of
murder by A7 to A12 is not proved by the prosecution. Further, it is decided
under the head 12
th
charge that A16 to A20 received gratification through A21 to
A24 in order to cause disappearance of the evidence and with a view to escape
the real accused from the legal punishment by surrendering themselves before
the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai on 27.10.2004 is not
proved by the prosecution. Further again under the head 11
th
charge it is already
decided the prosecution failed to prove the link and relationship between the
approver Subramaniam @ Ravisubramaniam (P.W.40), A5 and A6 and also
failed to prove the link and relationship between P.W.40, A5 and A6 with A1.
The case of the prosecution is the total amount of Rs.20 lakhs was paid by A1
through A3 to Approver Subramaniam @ Ravisubramaniam (P.W.40) and in turn
A5 and A6 received that amount from the Approver Subramaniam @
Ravisubramaniam and A13 to A15 received that amount through A7, thus they
gave the amount to A16 to A20 as gratification. Since the link between P.W.40,
A5 and A6 is not proved and also the link between P.W.40, A5 and A-6 with A1 is
not proved it cannot be held A1 to A7 and A13 to A15 gave the gratification
amount to A16 to A20, thereby, they committed the offence in order to found
them guilty under Section 214 I.P.C. is proved.
195
It is already decided the judicial confession of 17
th
accused under Ex.P282
dated 23.11.2004 recorded by Thiru Damodaran (P.W.160), Judicial Magistrate
No.II, Kanchipuram, is voluntary in nature. In Ex.P282, confession statement,
A17 speaks about the payment of money for surrendering himself along with
other fake accused before the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town,
Chennai. Admittedly in Ex.P282, confession statement, there is no mention
about the name of the deceased or the real assailants, which clearly shows that
he has no knowledge about the commission of murder and the accused who
committed the murder. Furthermore, the Chief Investigating Officer P.W.189
never recovered any amount from A17. The contention of the prosecution is the
gratification amount pertaining to A16 to A20 was handed over to the relatives of
A16 to A20 through A21 to A24. It is already decided, the prosecution failed to
prove the handing over of the gratification money to the relatives of A16 to A20
namely, Anandayee (P.W.45), the mother of Arumugam-A16, Thangavelu
(P.W.63), the father of Pandian @ Thil Pandian A17, Saroja (P.W.46), the
mother of Satheesh -A18, Muniammal (P.W.89), the wife of Devaraj A19 and
Lakshmiammal (P.W.47), the mother of Arun A20. Further the prosecution
failed to prove the alleged recovery of money from them.
226. Hence for the following reasons:
(a) Conspiracy is not proved.
(b) Murder by the alleged accused A7 to A12 is not proved.
(c) The link between Approver Subramaniam @ Ravisubramaniam
(P.W.40), A5 and A6 is not proved and also the link between P.W.40,
A5 and A6 with A-1 are not proved.
(d) Payments of gratification by A1 to A7 and A13 to -15 are not proved.
(e) The alleged payments of gratification through A21 to A24 to the
relatives of the fake accused A16 to A20 are not proved.
196
(f) The recoveries of alleged gratification amount from the relatives of A16
to A-20 namely Anandayee (P.W.45), Saroja (P.W.46), Lakshmiammal
(P.W.47), Thangavelu (P.W.63), Muniammal (P.W.89), are not proved.
this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the charge for the
offence u/s.214of IPC against A1 to A7 and A13 to A15.
227. Lastly, the learned Special Public prosecutor submitted, besides
direct evidence, overwhelming circumstantial evidence are available on record
and the circumstances forming a chain of events without any missing link, proven
the complicity of the accused at different stages of the commission of the offence
and urged, to record an order of conviction.
In support of the contention the following decisions are pressed into
service.
1. (2007) 3 Supreme Court Cases 1
(BEFORE B.N. AGARWAL AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.)
RAM SINGH . . . Appellant
Vs.
SONIA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents
C. Criminal Trial Circumstantial evidence
Passing conviction on the basis of circumstantial
evidence Law relating to Held, each and every
incriminating circumstance must be clearly established
by reliable and clinching evidence Circumstances so
proved must form a chain of events from which the only
irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused
can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against
the guilt is possible Reasonable likelihood of
innocence of accused must be ruled out Court to be
watchful and avoid danger of allowing the suspicion to
take the place of legal proof Evidence Act, 1872, S.3
Words and Phrases "May be true" and "must be true".

197
2. (2008) 3 MLJ (Crl) 1187 (SC)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Present : Dr. Arijit Pasayat and P. Sathasivam, JJ.
Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu . . . Appellant
Versus
Balaprasanna . . . Respondent.
"(A) Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), Section 302 Indian
Evidence Act (1 of 1872), Section 27 Murder Charge
Conviction on basis of circumstantial evidence
Requirements Circumstances should be consistent only
with the guilt of accused Should be inconsistent with his
innocence. Prosecution relying on recovery of
incriminating article on the confession by the accused
Alleged confession found not voluntarily Recoveries made
in pursuance thereof not reliable Acquittal by High Court -
upheld Appeal dismissed."

The cited decisions manifest in cases where the evidence is circumstantial
in nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn, must in
the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be
consistent only with the guilt of the accused. There must be a chain of evidence
so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused. It is already, the prosecution failed
to prove the following facts and events:
(i) motive for the murder
(ii) conspiracy, resulting murder
(iii) commission of murder
(iv) the presence of the murderers soon before and soon after the
murder of Sankararaman at the place of occurrence
(v) payment to murderers and hirelings
(vi) identity of the accused.
198
Under such circumstances, this court holds that the plea of the prosecution that
there are overwhelming circumstantial evidence to find the accused guilty for the
offences framed cannot be accepted and the same is not sustainable in law.
228. Hence, for the following reasons
(1) Motive for the commission of murder is not proved, since
Padma (P.W.1), the wife and Anandha Sharma (P.W.3), the son
of deceased Sankararaman failed to support the prosecution
case. Further the chief Investigating officer admittedly failed to
do investigation with respect to the final letter dt.30.8.2004
(letter of motive) alleged to have been sent by deceased
Sankararaman.
(2) The act of conspiracy is not proved, since A5 and A6 are
elsewhere at the time of conspiracy is proved by the accused.
(3) The defacto-complainant Ganesh (P.W.4) who worked along
with deceased Sankararaman and who witnessed the murder
failed to support the prosecution case.
(4) The ocular witnesses and also the witnesses who worked along
with deceased Sankararaman at the time of occurrence,
namely Ganesh (P.w.4) Duraikannu (P.w.5) and Kuppusamy
(P.W.6) not supported the case of prosecution and turned
hostile.
(5) The wife of deceased Sankararaman, Padma (P.W.1) and
daughter Uma Maithierayee (P.W.2) who identified the accused
during identification parade, failed to support the prosecution
case.
(6) The witnesses examined to prove the presence and identity of
A7 to A12 soon before and after the occurrence, that too, at and
near the place of occurrence failed to support the prosecution
case and turned hostile.
199
(7) The murder of Sankararaman is not proved since more than 20
prosecution witnesses examined to prove the commission of
murder by A7 to A12 turned hostile and some of them though
not turned hostile but failed to support the prosecution case.
(8) The witnesses who identified the accused in the identification
parade failed to identify the accused before the court during trial
and turned hostile.
(9) 83 material witnesses examined to prove the charges turned
hostile, and no incriminating evidence is available in their
evidence as against the accused.
(10) 17 material witnesses who gave 164 Cr.P.C. statements to
substantiate the prosecution case, turned hostile. Further, no
incriminating evidence is available in their evidence as against
the accused.
(11) The material objects seized from the accused are not proved.
The weapons of offence M.Os.25, 26 and 50 used for the
commission of murder are not identified by the witnesses.
(12) The payment of gratification to the murderers A7 to A12 and to
the fake accused A16 to A20 are not proved. The 10 witnesses
examined to prove the payment of gratification to the fake
accused turned hostile and hence, the said payment of
gratification is not proved.
(13) The learned Advocates P.W.85 and P.W.179 who surrendered
the fake accused (A16 to A20) before the XV Metropolitan
Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, failed to support the
prosecution case and turned hostile.
(14) Neither substantive nor reliable evidence is available on record
to corroborate the testimony of hostile witnesses or the
200
evidence of P.W.158 and P.W.159 who conducted the
identification Parade in order to fix the identity of the accused.
(15) The observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
bail order of A1 that Sri Premkumar, Superintendent of Police
took undue interest and active participation much beyond what
is required under law, during investigation, is proved by the
prosecution witnesses.
(16) Due to the intervention of Sri Premkumar, S.P., in the
investigation, a fair and proper investigation is not done by the
Chief Investigating Officer (P.W.189).
(17) The chief investigating officer failed to do independent
investigation and further, failed to place all the materials
collected by some of the investigating officers other than who
assisted him.
(18) During investigation some of the witnesses were planted, some
of the witnesses were placed under threat to give 164 Cr.P.C.
statements and some of the accused (A6 and A7) are kept in
illegal custody.
(19) Thiru R. Kannan, Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.154) is
suspended from service to give 164 Cr.P.C. statement and
reinstated in service after obtaining the statement speaks much
about the 164 Cr.P.C. statements in this case.
and further as per the decisions arrived under each charges this court holds that
the prosecution failed to prove the charges for the offences
(1) u/s. 120-B(1) r/w. 302 of IPC against the Accused No.1 to 5; (2) u/s. 120-B(1)
r/w. 302 of IPC against the Accused No.7 to 12; (3) u/s. 120-B(1) r/w. 302 of IPC
against the Accused No.13 to 15 and 21 to 24; (4) u/s. 120-B(1) r/w. 302 of IPC
against the Accused No.16 to 20; (5) u/s. 449 of IPC against the Accused No.8 to
10; (6) u/s. 302 r/w. 34 of IPC against the Accused No.7 to 12; (7) u/s. 302 of
201
IPC against the Accused No.8 and 9; (8) u/s. 114 r/w. 302 of IPC against the
Accused No.7 and 10 to 12; (9) u/s. 109 r/w. 302 of IPC against the Accused
No.1 to 5; (10) u/s. 201 (1) r/w. 302 of IPC against the Accused No.16 to 20; (11)
u/s. 201 (1) r/w. 302 r/w. 109 of IPC against the Accused No.1 to 5, 7, 9 and 13
to 15; (12) u/s. 213 of IPC against the Accused No.16 to 20; (13) u/s. 213 r/w.
109 of IPC against the Accused No.21 to 24; (14) u/s. 214 of IPC against the
Accused No.1 to 5, 7 and 13 to 15 beyond all reasonable doubt and further the
charges against the 6
th
accused (deceased) for the offences u/s. 120- B (1) r/w.
302 I.P.C., u/s. 109 r/w. 302 I.P.C, u/s. 201 (1) r/w. 302 r/w. 109 I.P.C. and u/s.
214 I.P.C. are recorded as abated, thus this court answer the point accordingly.
229. In the result, the charges framed for the offences (1) u/s. 120-B(1)
r/w. 302 of IPC against the Accused No.1 to 5; (2) u/s. 120-B(1) r/w. 302 of IPC
against the Accused No.7 to 12; (3) u/s. 120-B(1) r/w. 302 of IPC against the
Accused No.13 to 15 and 21 to 24; (4) u/s. 120-B(1) r/w. 302 of IPC against the
Accused No.16 to 20; (5) u/s. 449 of IPC against the Accused No.8 to 10; (6) u/s.
302 r/w. 34 of IPC against the Accused No.7 to 12; (7) u/s. 302 of IPC against
the Accused No.8 and 9; (8) u/s. 114 r/w. 302 of IPC against the Accused No.7
and 10 to 12; (9) u/s. 109 r/w. 302 of IPC against the Accused No.1 to 5; (10)
u/s. 201 (1) r/w. 302 of IPC against the Accused No.16 to 20; (11) u/s. 201 (1)
r/w. 302 r/w. 109 of IPC against the Accused No.1 to 5, 7, 9 and 13 to 15; (12)
u/s. 213 of IPC against the Accused No.16 to 20; (13) u/s. 213 r/w. 109 of IPC
against the Accused No.21 to 24; (14) u/s. 214 of IPC against the Accused No.1
to 5, 7 and 13 to 15 as against the accused are not proved by the prosecution
beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, the accused are acquitted thereof in
terms of Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. and the bail bonds executed by them stand
discharged.
The charges framed as against A6-Kathiravan for the offences u/s. 120- B
(1) r/w. 302 I.P.C., u/s. 109 r/w. 302 I.P.C, u/s. 201 (1) r/w. 302 r/w. 109 I.P.C.
and u/s. 214 I.P.C. are abated.
202
The approver Subramaniam @ Ravisubramaniam is directed to be
released forthwith u/s. 306 Cr.P.C., if his custody is no longer required in any
other case.
Further when the accused is granted tender of pardon u/s. 306 Cr.P.C.,
the said accused is no longer an accused but turns to be a prosecution witness.
Section 306 (4) (b) provides while granting tender of pardon, if the accused is on
bail he can continue to be on bail and if he is in judicial custody, he should be
kept in judicial custody till the termination of the trial. There is no bail provision in
the Criminal Procedure Code enabling the approver who is kept in judicial
custody as per Section 306 (4)(b) Cr.P.C. After granting tender of pardon, the
accused turns to be a prosecution witness and therefore, this court is of the view
that the said witness need not be kept in judicial custody and the witness can be
released after granting tender of pardon and hence, Section 304 (4)(b) Cr.P.C.
needs reconsideration by the appropriate Authority.
The Material Objects No.1 to 6, 25 to 27, 29, 37 to 39, 41, 45, 49, 50, 52,
55, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 73 and 74 are ordered to be destroyed, M.Os.15 to 24 are
ordered to be kept with case records, M.Os.(30 to 36, 40, 48, 56, 62, 65) series,
M.Os.46, 51, 53 and 54 are ordered to be confiscated to State, M.Os., 8, 28, 47,
57, 58, 59 and 69 are ordered to be returned to the respective R.C. owners,
M.Os.9 to 14 are ordered to be returned to P.W.54, M.Os.42 to 44 are ordered to
be returned to A13, M.O.70 (two rings) and M.O.71 (bracelet) are ordered to be
returned to P.W.49 and M.O.72 (chain) is ordered to be returned to P.W.74,
M.Os.60 and 61 are directed to hand over to the Regiment Center, Avadi
Chennai, that too, after the expiry of the appeal time. M.O.7. Toyota Qualis car
was already returned to the R.C.owner on bond and the bond get cancelled after
the appeal time is over.
230. Before parting, this Court appreciates the foreseeing act of the Sovereign
Government of Tamilnadu, in implementing Victims Compensation Scheme
provided under Section 357 (A) Cr.P.C., five years prior to the enactment of
203
Section 357(A) Cr.P.C. by paying a solatium of Rs.5,00,000/- to the family of the
deceased.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 27
th
day of November, 2013.

(C.S. MURUGAN)
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PUDUCHERRY

LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PROSECUTION:

PW1 02.04.2009 Padma
PW2 02.04.2009 Uma Maithireyee
PW3 02.04.2009 Anandakrishna Sharma @ Ananda Sharma
PW4 02.04.2009 Ganesh
PW5 02.04.2009 Duraikannu (Hostile)
PW6 03.04.2009 Kuppusamy
PW7 03.04.2009 Gajapathy
PW8 03.04.2009 Achu @ Achudan
PW9 03.04.2009 Kumar (Hostile)
PW10 09.09.2009 Gnanasambandam
PW11 09.09.2009 Chitti Babu
PW12 09.09.2009 Sundararajan
PW13 09.09.2009 Kasthuri
PW14 09.09.2009 Basker (Hostile)
PW15 09.09.2009 Natarajan (Hostile)
PW16 10.09.2009 Anbazhegan (Advocate)
PW17 10.09.2009 P. Barnabass
PW18 10.09.2009 Vaidyanathan
PW19 10.09.2009 Krishnan @ Bombay Krishnan (Hostile)
PW20 10.09.2009 Vaidyanathan @ Vaidhya
PW21 16.12.2009 Govindan (Hostile)
204
PW22 16.12.2009 R. Thanigachalam (Hostile)
PW23 16.12.2009 Vaithiyanathan Retired Assistant Commissioner in HR &
CE, Tamil Nadu. (Hostile)
PW24 17.12.2009 Subramanian @ Mani Iyyer
PW25 17.12.2009 Jayalakshmi (Hostile)
PW26 17.12.2009 Govindaraj
PW27 17.12.2009 Thilakavathi
PW28 17.12.2009 Venkatesan
PW29 17.12.2009 S. Rajasekar
PW30 17.12.2009 T.A.Kannan (Hostile)
PW31 17.12.2009 T.R.Baskaran (Hostile)
PW32 17.12.2009 Vasikarankumar (Hostile)
PW33 20.01.2010 Dakshnamoorthy (Hostile)
PW34 20.01.2010 Manimaran (Hostile)
PW35 20.01.2010 Elumalai (Hostile)
PW36 20.01.2010 A. Mani (Hostile)
PW37 20.01.2010 R. Saravanan (Hostile)
PW38 20.01.2010 Adikesavan (Hostile)
PW39 20.01.2010 Selvi Reena (Hostile)
PW40 21.01.2010 Subramanian @ Ravi Subramanian
PW41 11.02.2010 Dakshinamoorty (Retired Additional Superintendent of
Police, Central Prison, Chennai, Tamilnadu
PW42 11.02.2010 Manickavasagam (Hostile)
PW43 11.02.2010 Narayanan (Hostile)
PW44 11.02.2010 Gopu Seshasayee (Hostile)
PW45 11.02.2010 Anandayee (Hostile)
PW46 11.02.2010 Saroja (Hostile)
PW47 11.02.2010 Lakshmi Ammal (Hostile)
PW48 11.02.2010 Ramu
PW49 11.02.2010 Sunilkumar (Hostile)
PW50 11.02.2010 Loonchand (Hostile)
205
PW51 12.02.2010 Rajeshshankar
PW52 12.02.2010 Thiagarajan (Hostile)
PW53 12.02.2010 . Ravi (Hostile)
PW54 12.02.2010 Senthilvel
PW55 12.02.2010 Viswanathan
PW56 12.02.2010 Maharajan
PW57 12.02.2010 Anthony
PW58 12.02.2010 Uthayasankar
PW59 12.02.2010 Neelamegam (Hostile)
PW60 25.03.2010 D. Prakash (Chief Reporter & Kanchipuram District
incharge of Nakkeeran Weekly)
PW61 25.03.2010 Selvam (Hostile)
PW62 25.03.2010 Jayaprakash (Hostile)
PW63 25.03.2010 Thangavel (Hostile)
PW64 25.03.2010 Sivalogam @ Srinivasan (Hostile)
PW65 25.03.2010 Ashok Kumar (Hostile)
PW66 25.03.2010 R. Mahendra Kumar (Hostile)
PW67 25.03.2010 S. Vaidyanathan (Hostile)
PW68 26.03.2010 Santhanam (Hostile)
PW69 26.03.2010 Vinothkumar (Hostile)
PW70 26.03.2010 Ajai Subramaniam (Hostile)
PW71 26.03.2010 Saraswathi (Hostile)
PW72 26.03.2010 Rajaram
PW73 22.04.2010 Ramamoorthy (Hostile)
PW74 22.04.2010 L. Harishkumar
PW75 22.04.2010 A. Raja (Hostile)
PW76 22.04.2010 S. Gopi (Hostile)
PW77 22.04.2010 M.S.Subramanian @ Tambaram Babu (Hostile)
PW78 22.04.2010 Lakshmanan
PW79 22.04.2010 Balaji
206
PW80 22.04.2010 Mythili
PW81 22.04.2010 Syed Mohamed @ Inayathulla
PW82 22.04.2010 Rajasekar
PW83 22.04.2010 Venkatesan (Hostile)
PW84 23.04.2010 Chidambaram
PW85 23.04.2010 Krishnakumar (Advocate) (Hostile)
PW86 23.04.2010 Saravanamoorthy (Advocate) (Hostile)
PW87 23.04.2010 Chakravarthy (Hostile)
PW88 23.04.2010 V.Sundaram (Hostile)
PW89 17.06.2010 Muniammal (Hostile)
PW90 17.06.2010 Sadasivam
PW91 17.06.2010 K.G.Narasimhan
PW92 17.06.2010 P.V.Sampath
PW93 17.06.2010 Swaminathan
PW94 17.06.2010 Venkatachary (Hostile)
PW95 17.06.2010 Madavaganapadigal (Hostile)
PW96 27.09.2010 Manimuthu Velan @ Velan (hostile)
PW97 21.10.2010 Devendira
PW98 21.10.2010 T.P.Rao (Hostile)
PW99 21.10.2010 Ramani (Hostile)
PW100 21.10.2010 Dakshinamurthy (Hostile)
PW101 21.10.2010 Hariharan (Hostile)
PW102 21.10.2010 Selvam (Hostile)
PW103 21.10.2010 S.V.Govindarajan
PW104 01.11.2010 Sankar
PW105 01.11.2010 M. Manoharan, Senior Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank,
Villupuram.
PW106 01.11.2010 Kuppusamy, Senior Manager, Canara Bank,
Thiruvanmiyur
PW107 01.11.2010 A.V.Pathmaraagam, Chief Manager, Indian overseas
Bank, Saidapet Branch, Chennai.
PW108 01.11.2010 Narayanasamy (Hostile)
207
PW109 01.11.2010 Govindarajan
PW110 01.11.2010 Ganapathy (Hostile)
PW111 01.11.2010 Chellappa
PW112 01.11.2010 Bala @ Balakumar (Hostile)
PW113 01.11.2010 Krishnamurthy
PW114 29.11.2010 Ravikumar
PW115 29.11.2010 Sathiskumar (Hostile)
PW116 29.11.2010 Mohanraj (Senior Manager, State Bank of India,
Kanchipuram, Retired)
PW117 29.11.2010 Vaithiyanathan (Retired Assistant Manager, East Bank,
Tambaram)
PW118 29.11.2010 Ramkumar, Branch Manager, ICICI, Chennai
PW119 30.11.2010 Selvam (Hostile)
PW120 30.11.2010 Suresh (Hostile)
PW121 30.11.2010 J. Uthirakumar, the then Village Administrative Officer,
(Retired).
PW122 21.12.2010 Ganesan, Chief Manager, City Union Bank, Hyderabad.
PW123 21.12.2010 Gopi
PW124 21.12.2010 A.Appandarajan, Divisional Engineer, BSNL (Telephone),
Kancheepuram
PW125 21.12.2010 Sridhar (Hostile)
PW126 24.01.2011 S.K.Hariharan, Retired Divisional Engineer ( C & A)GSM,
BSNL, Chennai.
PW127 24.01.2011 Sunilraj, General Manager, Airtel, Head South Hub (Legal
& Regulatory) Bangalore.
PW128 24.01.2011 Vijay, Senior Executive, Tata Teleservices Ltd.,
PW129 24.01.2011 Bharathi, Retired Village Administrative Officer (Hostile)
PW130 24.01.2011 Venugopal, Village Assistant (Hostile)
PW131 25.01.2011 Ravi (Hostile)
PW132 25.01.2011 Pasupathi
PW133 25.01.2011 Sivaraman (Hostile)
PW134 25.01.2011 Selvaraj (Hostile)
PW135 25.01.2011 D. Rajkumar s/o M.Darmaiah
PW136 25.01.2011 Rajkumar (Retired Tahsildar)
208
PW137 25.01.2011 Nagarajan, Deputy Tahsildar
PW138 07.02.2011 K. Marimuthu, Branch Manager, Canara Bank,
Medavakkam, Chennai.
PW139 07.02.2011 R. Sankaran @ Auditor Sankar
PW140 07.02.2011 Meenakrishnamoorthy
PW141 07.02.2011 D.Namasivayam, Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Vellore.
PW142 07.02.2011 Vimalkumar, Deputy Tahsildar, Chengalpet, (Hostile)
PW143 08.02.2011 Nagarajan s/o Ramamoorthy (Chartered Accoutant)
PW144 08.02.2011 Nagarajan, s/o A.V.Ramanathan, Credit Manager, Indian
Bank, Coimbatore Branch.
PW145 08.02.2011 Saravanakumar, Branch manager, Andhra Bank,
Mugaperi Branch.
PW146 08.02.2011 Mugunthan
PW147 08.02.2011 Ramarathinam
PW148 08.02.2011 M. Venkatesan (Hostile)
PW149 08.02.2011 C. Maharajan (Advocate) (Hostile)
PW150 09.02.2011 Rajappa
PW151 09.02.2011 Rameshkumar
PW152 21.02.2011 S.Nagarajan
PW153 21.02.2011 S. Chandiran
PW154 21.02.2011 R. Kannan
PW155 22.02.2011 Viswanathan @ Kaladi Viswanathan
PW156 22.02.2011 R.Krishnamurthy
PW157 23.02.2011 Thiru Rangarajan (Retired District & Sessions Judge,
Salem)
PW158 23.02.2011 Thiru Rajendiran, the then Judicial Magistrate-I,
Chengalpet (Presently working as Special Judge No.I,
Jayakondam)
PW159 23.02.2011 Tmt. Mahalakshmi, the then District Munsif-cum-Judicial
Magistrate, Thirukazukundram.(Presently working as Sub
Judge of Madurandagam)
PW160 23.02.2011 Thiru Damodaran, the then Judicial Magistrate No.2,
Kancheepuram (Presently Judicial Magistrare-I,
Puducherry)
PW161 23.02.2011 B. Baskaran, Deputy Collector on deputation, IOC,
Chennai.
PW162 23.02.2011 Gangan, Sub Inspector of Police, Control Room,
Kancheepuram.
209
PW163 24.02.2011 Dr. G. Muralikrishnan, the then Assistant Surgeon,
Government Hospital, Kancheepuram (Presently Lecturer,
Department of Anotomy, Vellore Medical College)
PW164 24.02.2011 Banumathi, Assistant Director, Forensic Science
Department, Chennai.
PW165 24.02.2011 V. Sivapriya, Scientific Officer, Forensic Sciences
Department, Chennai.
PW166 25.02.2011 Subramanian (Village Administrative Officer)
PW167 25.02.2011 C.Kothandapani (Retired Deputy Superintendent of Police)
PW168 07.03.2011 Selvam (Hostile)
PW169 07.03.2011 K.A.Thirumoorthy, Police Photographer, Kancheepuram
PW170 07.03.2011 Sri Ramajeyam, the then District Munsif-cum-Judicial
Magistrate, Uthiramerur (Presently District Munsif,
Sankagiri, Salem District).
PW171 08.03.2011 Srinivasan, Deputy Superintendent of Police.
PW172 09.03.2011 Srinivasan, Assistant Director, Forensic Sciences
Department, Cuddalore.
PW173 09.03.2011 A.Mohanavel, Inspector of Police, Crime Branch,
Kancheepuram.
PW174 11.03.2011 Alagesan, Assistant Director, Regional Forensic Science
Lab., Salem.
PW175 21.03.2011 Dharmalingam
PW176 21.03.2011 Murugesan
PW177 23.03.2011 A.Muniappan, the then Inspector of Sivakanchi Police
Station (Presently Deputy Superintendant of Police in
Social Justice & Human Rights)
PW178 09.04.2011 Maheswari
PW179 09.04.2011 C.M.Suresh Arokiyanathan (Advocate) (treated as hostile
on a particular portion of his evidence)
PW180 09.04.2011 Usha (Hostile)
PW181 09.04.2011 Chitra (Hostile)
PW182 09.04.2011 Ramamoorthy (Retired Assistant Jailor)
PW183 09.04.2011 Kothandaraman (Airtel Simcard Distribution Business)
PW184 09.04.2011 Prabu (Manager Customer Care Service Legal
Department, Reliance Cellular Ltd., Chennai.
PW185 09.04.2011 C. Mani (Village Administrative Officer)
PW186 18.04.2011 Rajesh (Hostile)
PW187 18.04.2011 Kasi (Retired Assistant Director (Documents) Forensic
Science Department, Chennai.
210
PW188 06.06.2011 Kalyanasundaram
PW189 06.06.2011 S.P.Sakthivelu, Superintendent of Police, (Retired)

LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE DEFENCE: -NIL-

LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF PROSECUTION:


Ex.P1 02.04.2009 Search List dt.04.09.04 (with list of documents (9 pages)
(total 10 pages) for the documents seized during search at
the house of the deceased marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (1)
02.04.2009 Letter by the deceased to the Manager Sundaresan of Sri
Kanchi Kamakoti Sangara Madam, Kancheepuram (3
pages) marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (2)
02.04.2009 Letter by the deceased to the Manager Sundaresan of Sri
Kanchi Kamakoti Sangara Madam, Kancheepuram (4
Pages) marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (3)
02.04.2009 Reply notice dated 15.11.2001 given by Sri Jayendra
Saraswathi Swamigal & Manager Sundaresan through
counsels to the lawyer of the deceased marked through
PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (4)
02.04.2009 Letter dated 17.01.2002 by the deceased to the Secretary to
Government & Special Commissioner & Commissioner of
HR & CD, Chennai (2 pages) marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (5)
02.04.2009 Computer typed letter in Tamil dated 06.05.02 by the
deceased to Sri Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal marked
through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (6)
02.04.2009 Letter dated 09.12.2002 by the deceased to Dr. Kalaignar
Avl., Chennai, marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (7)
02.04.2009 Draft letter prepared by the deceased addressing to Sri
Jayendrar regarding 69
th
Peedapathi- Violation- taking of
action, marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (8)
02.04.2009 Computer typed letter in Tamil dated 25/11 by the deceased
to Sri Jayandra Saraswathi Swamigal, Periyakanchipuram,
marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (9)
02.04.2009 Computer typed letter in Tamil (in the letter pad of
deceased) addressed to Hon'ble Chief Minister Avl. In which
corrections are made in red ink, marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (10)
02.04.2009 Computer typed letter in Tamil by the deceased to Sri
Jayendra Saraswarthi Swamigal dated 29.05.2003 marked
through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (11)
02.04.2009 Reply letter dated 31.05.03 by the Secretary Sri Sankara
Bhaktha Jana Sabha Trust, Kancheepuram to the deceased
marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (12)
02.04.2009 Computer typed letter in English by the deceased to
G.Vaidyanathan, Secretary, Sri Sankara Bhaktha Jana
Sabha Trust, Abiramapuram, Chennai dated 29.05.2003.

Ex.P2
Series (13)
02.04.2009 Letter in rules Sheets starting with "Poojiya Sri Sri Sri Maha
Periavalin Paktharkalayum Sri Kanchi Kamakodti Peedathin
211
Seedarkalayum Irukkum Asthiga Anbargal Anaivarukkum Sri
Maan Anandakrishna Iyyer Kumaran Sankararaman
Vanakkathudan Ezhuthum Pagiringa Kaditham" (total 18
pages) with Computer typed letter in Tamil dated 10.09.03 (
7 pages), marked through PW1.
Ex.P2
Series (14)
02.04.2009
Computer typed letter in Tamil "j;fSf;F Xu; ew;bra;jp"
from address is Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Sri Madam Pakthargal
Kanchipuram addressed to the deceased marked through
PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (15)
02.04.2009 Computer typed letter in Tamil dated 21.10.03 by the
deceased with publication in newspaper about the political
activities of Jayendrar and the news given by the deceased
40 Thozil Vaniga Malar September 2003 (3 pages), marked
through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (16)
02.04.2009 Computer typed letter in Tamil dated 1.11.03 by the
deceased (3 pages) marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (17)
02.04.2009 Letter written by the deceased to Thiruvalar G.Vaidyanathan
(4 pages) & Computer typed letter in Tamil with corrections
in red ink (3 pages) and computer letter in Tamil dated
22.12.2003 by the deceased to Tvl.G.Vaidyanathan (2
Pages) marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (18)
02.04.2009 Written letter dated 20.05.2004 (with computer typed letter in
Tamil) by the deceased addressed to the Commissioner HR
& CD Chennai 34 ( total 2 pages) marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (19)
02.04.2009 Computer typed letter in Tamil by the deceased to the
Assistant Commissioner HR & CD, Kanchipuram dated
17.06.04 marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (20)
02.04.2009 Computer typed letter in Tamil by the deceased to Sri
KanchiKamakoti Peedathipathi Sri Jayendra Saraswathi
Swamigal, dated. 16.07.2004 (2 pages) marked through
PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (21)
02.04.2009 Computer typed letter in Tamil by the deceased to the
Assistant Commissioner /Executive Officer Arulmigu
Kamatchi Amman Thirukoil, Kanchipuram dated 19.07.2004
marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (22)
02.04.2009 Letter written by the deceased starting with "Sri Kanchi
Kamakoti Peedathipathi Jayendrar Avargalukku
;Namaskaram" (8 pages) & Computer typed letter in Tamil
(Reminder & Showcause letter) with correction in red ink
with computer fresh typed letter in Tamil addressed to Sri
Kamakodi Peedathipethi Jayendrar Avargalukku (2 pages)
marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (23)
02.04.2009 Letter written by the deceased addressed to Sri Jayendra
Saraswathi Swamigal ( 4 pages) marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (24)
02.04.2009 Computer typed letter in Tamil dt.06.08.2004 by the
deceased to Sri Kanchikamakoti Peedathipathi Sri Jayendra
Saraswathi Swamigal marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (25)
02.04.2009 Letter written by the deceased starting with "Parvai
Neenaivuttum Kaditham Sri Jayendra Saraswathi
Swamigalukku marked through PW1.

212
Ex.P2
Series (26)
02.04.2009 Computer typed letter in Tamil by the deceased addressed
to Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peedathipathi Sri Jayandra
Saraswathi Swamigal with correction in blue ink marked
through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (27)
02.04.2009 Computer typed letter in Tamil by the deceased to the
"Asiriyar" Thinamlar, Chennai dt.14.08.04 marked through
PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (28)
02.04.2009
Letter written by the deceased starting with ,Wjp mwptpg;g["
marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (29)
02.04.2009 Computer typed letter in Tamil (proof corrections with blue
& red ink) by the deceased to Sri Kanchi Kamakoti
Peedathipathi Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal with
Computer fresh typed letter ,Wjp mwptpg;g[" dt. 30.08.2004
( 2 Pages) marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (30)
02.04.2009 Letter written by the deceased to the Sri Kanchi Sri
Kamakoti Peedathipathi Sri Jayendera Saraswathi Swamigal
(2 pages) marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (31)
02.04.2009 Computer typed letter in Tamil starting with "Sri Kamakoti
Peedathin Asthiga Anbargalukkum Seedargal
Anaivarukkum, Sri Madam Sri Anandhakrishna Sharma
Magan Sankaraman Panivudan Ezhuthum Moonravathu
Pagiranga Kaditham" (with correction in Red ink) (3 pages)
marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (32)
02.04.2009
Letter written in Red ink starting with jpUthLJiw
jpUklj;jpy; ele;njwpa epfH;t[fs;" with Computer typed in
Tamil (total 2 pages) marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (33)
02.04.2009 Letter by N. Subramanian to the deceased dated 02.03.02 (2
pages) marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (34)
02.04.2009 Computer Tamil typed letter of V. Panneer addressed to
Hon'ble Chief Minister, Chief Secretariate, Chennai dated
04.06.04 (2 pages) marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (35)
02.04.2009 Computer typed letter in Tamil in letter pad by the Assistant
Commissioner/Executive Officer of Sri Kamatchi Ambal
Devasthanam, Kancheepuram to the deceased dt.16.06.04
marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (36)
02.04.2009 Telephone bill for the month of July, 2004 in respect of the
deceased (6 sheets) with calculation sheets (2 sheets) (one
in written) marked through PW1

Ex.P2
Series (37)
02.04.2009
A sheet containing the words "!;lhUld; xU ehs;" with
notes written in Tamil & with English & Hindi Signatures
marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series( 38)
02.04.2009 Copy of the Affidavit of deceased in WP.17759/01 filed
before the Hon'ble High Court Madras against the
Government of Tamil Nadu, the Commissioner HR & CE
(Administration Department) Chennai & Sri Jayendra
Saraswathi Swamigal ( 8 pages) marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (39)
02.04.2009 Xerox copy of the order in Writ Petition No.17759/01 and
WMP No.26204/01 dt.5.10.2001 of the Madras High Court
reported in 2002-2-LW pages 29 & 30 (2 Nos.) marked
through PW1.

213
Ex.P2
Series (40)
02.04.2009 Letter written in English by the deceased to the Secretary to
Government HR & CE Department, Chennai (3 pages)
marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (41)
02.04.2009 Computer typed letter in Tamil dated 14.08.01 by the
deceased and his wife to the Special Commissioner &
Commissioner HR & CE Department, Chennai (3 pages)
marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (42)
02.04.2009 Computer typed letter in Tamil dated 27.12.2001 by the
deceased to the Secretary to Government & Special
Commissioner & Commissioner of HRCE Deparment,
Chennai (4 pages) with computer typed petition U/s 59(1) of
HR & CE Act by the deceased to the Special Commissioner
& Commissioner HRCE (Administration Department),
Chennai & Computer typed letter in Tamil by the deceased
to the Secretary to Government & Special Commissioner &
Commissioner HRCE Department, Chennai dated
27.12.2001 (4 Nos.)
,Wjp mwptpg;g[ Computer typed letter in Tamil by the
deceased to the Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal dated
23.01.02 (2 pages) marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (43)
02.04.2009 Computer typed letter in Tamil dated 01.02.02 by the
deceased to the Special Commissioner & Commissioner
HRCE (Administration Department) Chennai, (2 pages)
marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series 44)
02.04.2009 Computer typed letter in Tamil dated 07.02.02 by the
deceased to Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal & Sri
Sankara Vijayendra Saraswathi Swamigal (with enclosures)
( Total 7 pages) marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (45)
02.04.2009 Computer typed letter in Tamil by the deceased addressed
to Secretary to Government and Special Commissioner and
Commissioner, HR & CE (Administration Department)
Chennai, (4 pages) marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (46)
02.04.2009 Xerox copy of the "Sri Jagathguru Divya Saritharam" (10
pages) marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (47)
02.04.2009 Copy of the petition u/s 59(1) of the TN HR & CE Act filed by
the deceased and C.Jagannathan against Sri Jayandra
Saraswathi Swamigal & K.S.Chellappa before the
Commissioner for HR & CE (Administration Department),
Chennai in January 2003 ( 4 pages) marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (48)
02.04.2009 Copy of the order in OA 33/1960 dated 12.04.62 of the
Deputy Commissioner HR & CE (Administration Madras (2
pages marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (49)
02.04.2009 Copy of the petition (proof) U/s 59(1) of the TNHR& CE Act
in which corrections & writings made in red ink (3 pages)
marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (50)
02.04.2009 Copy of the Petition u/s. 59 of HR & CE Act by the deceased
and C.Jeganathan to the Special Commissioner and
Commissioner HR & CE (Administration Department)
Chennai ( 3 pages) (with proof petition in which corrections
are made in red ink 3 pages) marked through PW1.


214
Ex.P2
Series (51)
02.04.2009 Copy of the Petition u/s. 59(i) of the TN HR & CE Act filed by
the deceased and C.Jeganathan against Sri Jayandra
Saraswathi Swamigal and K.S.Chellappa before the
Commissioner for HR & CE (Administration Department)
Chennai dated 08.01.2003 ( 4 pages) & Copy of the order in
O.A.33/1960 dt.12.04.62 of Deputy Commissioner HR & CE,
Administration Department, Madras, ( 2 pages) & copy of
,Wjp mwptpg;g[ letter dated 23.01.02 by the deceased
addressed to Sri Jayandra Saraswathi Swamigal (2 pages)
Copy of the letter dated 01.02.02 by the deceased to Special
Commissioner and Commissioner HR & CE Administration
Department, Chennai.
Copy of the letter dated 05.08.02 by the deceased to Special
Commissioner & Commissioner HR & CE Administration
Department, Chennai, with enclosures (3 pages) marked
through PW1

Ex.P2
Series (52)
02.04.2009
Written letter starting with "bgWeu; tzf;fk;// bghUs;
_fh;rp fhknfhogPlk; ? 70MtJ gPlhjpgjp ? jFjp ,Hg;g[ ?
bjhlu;ghf" (2 pages) marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (53)
02.04.2009 Letter written by Somasekara Kanapadigal to Jayandrar
dated. 03.09.02 in Blue d& Red ink. (4 pages) marked
through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (54)
02.04.2009 Letter written by Somasekara Kanapadigal to Sri Kanchi
Kamakoti Madathin Abimanigalukkum & Visvasikalukkum
dated 04.2003 (10 pages) marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (55)
02.04.2009 Computer typed Letter in Tamil of Somasekara Kanapadigal
dt.04.2003 (3 pages) & another computer typed letter in
Tamil (3 pages) and 1 page was written for Sri Kanchi
Kamakoti Madathin Abimanigal & Visvasikalukku ( 7 pages)
marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (56)
02.04.2009 Computer typed Letter in Tamil of Somasekara Kanapadigal
dt. 13.05.04 for Sri Kamakoti Peedathin Abimanigalukkum &
Visvasikalukkum marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (57)
02.04.2009 Letter written by Somasekara Kanapadigal dt.26.06.03 for
Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Madathu Abimanigal & Visvasigal (6
pages) with the computer typed version (5 pages) marked
through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (58)
02.04.2009 Letter written by Somasekara Kanapadigal dt.18.07.03 for
Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Madathu Abimanigal & Visvasigalukku
(7 pages) with the computer typed version (2 pages) marked
through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (59)
02.04.2009 Letter written by Somasekara Kanapadigal dt11.02.04 to Sri
Kanchi Kamakoti Peedathipathi Sri Jayendra Saraswathi (6
pages) with computer typed version (2 pages) marked
through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (60)
02.04.2009 Computer typed Letter in Tamil (proof) by Somasekara
Kanapadi to Sri Jayandrar ( 2 pages) with fresh computer
typed letter dated 20.03.04 (2 pages) marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (61)
02.04.2009 Computer typed Letter in Tamil under the heading "Asiriyar
Pakkam" by Somasekara Kanapadigal (3 pages) marked
through PW1.

215
Ex.P2
Series (62)
02.04.2009 Computer typed Letter in Tamil by Somasekara Kanapadigal
for Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Visvasigal & Abimanigalukku
marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (63)
02.04.2009 Letter written by Somasekara Kanapadi to Thirunelveli
Seemaiyil Vasikkum Asthikothamargalukku (2 pages)
marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (64)
02.04.2009 Computer typed Letter in Tamil with the Jayandirar picture
by Somasekara Kanapadi to Thirunelveli Seemaiyil
Vasikkum Asthikothamargalukku(1 page) marked through
PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (65)
02.04.2009 Letter written by by Somasekara Kanapady to Sri Kanchi
Kamakoti Peedathipathi (2 pages) with computer typed
version (2 Pages) (in which corrections are made) marked
through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (66)
02.04.2009 Computer typed letter in Tamil starting with the heading
" ghy(h) g[uhzk; " pages) in which corrections are
made in Red & Black ink (4 pages) marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (67)
02.04.2009 Letter written by Somasekara Kanapady to Sri Kanchi
Kamakoti Peedathin Abimanigal & Visuvasigalukku
(4 pages) (one in computer typed page corrections are
made) through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (68)
02.04.2009 Computer typed letter in Tamil by Somasekara Kanapadi to
Sri Kamakoti Peedathin Abimanigalukkum
&Visvasigalukkum (4 pages) ( in which corrections are made
with black ink) marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (69)
02.04.2009 Letter written with blue & Red ink starting with the words "Sri
Kamakoti Sankara Madathin Abimanigal." (6 pages)
marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (70)
02.04.2009 Letter written by Somasekara Kanapadi to Sri Kamakoti Sri
Madathu Abimanigalukku (1 page) marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (71)
02.04.2009 Letter written by Somasekara Kanapadigal to Sri Kanchi
Kamakoti Peedathu Amimanigalukkum & Visvasigalukkum
(4 pages) marked through PW1.


Ex.P2
Series (72)
02.04.2009 Computer typed letter in Tamil by Somasekara Kanapadigal
to Kanchi Madathipathi Jaynderarukku (4 pages) marked
through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (73)
02.04.2009
Letter starting with the heading "ghy (h) g[[uhzk;
_fhknfho gPlj;J tp!;th!pfSf;F)" (5 pages) with computer
typed version with the picture of Jayanderar (3 Pages)
marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (74)
02.04.2009 Xerox copy of Letter starting with "Sri Kamakoti
Sankaramadathu Abimanigal Anaivarukkum" marked
through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (75)
02.04.2009 Letter starting with "Sri Kanchi Sri Kamakoti Sri Madam
Sishayarkalayum Abimanakalayum Ullavarkalukku."
Marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series(76)
02.04.2009 Letter starting with "Sri Sankara Paktha Janasabha Ennum
Amaippu ..(2 pages) marked through PW1.

216

Ex.P2
Series (77)
02.04.2009 Letter starting with "Sri Kamakoti Sankaramadathin
Abimanigal Anaivarukkum Ananda Kodi Namaskaram" (4
pages) marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series(78)
02.04.2009 Computer typed Letter in Tamil starting with the heading
"Krishnasarpam" (2 pages) with an opened empty cover
addressed to the deceased marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (79)
02.04.2009 Computer typed letter in Tamil by Krishnasarpam to Sri
Kanchi Kamakoti Peedathin Unmaiyana Athmarthamana
Visvasigalukkum & Abimanigalukkum (2 Nos.) (total 8
pages) marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (80)
02.04.2009 Computer typed letter in Tamil by Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Sri
Madam Pakthargal Kanchipuram to the deceased (2 pages)
marked through PW1.

Ex.P2
Series (81)
02.04.2009
Computer typed letter in Tamil under the heading "g;uharpj;j
ghpfhu ru;f;fk;" with cartoon pictures (3 Pages) marked
through PW1.

Ex.P3

02.04.2009 "LIMBRA' plastic executive file (bag) marked through PW1.

Ex.P4

02.04.2009 164 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1, dated 23.11.04 (6 pages)
marked through PW1.

Ex.P5

02.04.2009 Signature of PW1 in the list of witnesses participated in 2
nd

identification parade marked through PW1.

Ex.P6
(Series1 & 2)
02.04.2009 Two sheets containing the sample signatures of PW1
marked through PW1.

Ex.P7
(Series1 & 2)
02.04.2009 Two sheets containing the sample writings of PW1 marked
through PW1.

Ex.P8

02.04.2009 164 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2, dt.23.11.2004 (4 pages)
marked through PW2.

Ex.P9

02.04.2009 A sheet containing the sample signature of PW2 marked
through PW2.

Ex.P10

02.04.2009 A sheet containing the sample writings of PW2 marked
through PW1.

Ex.P11

02.04.2009 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3, dated 23.11.2004 marked
through PW3.

Ex.P12

02.04.2009 A sheet containing the sample signature (in Samaskritham)
of PW3 marked through PW3.

Ex.P13

02.04.2009 A sheet containing the sample writings of PW3 marked
through PW3.

Ex.P14

02.04.2009 Complaint dated 03.09.2004 given by PW4 to the Inspector
of Police, Vishnukanchi Police Station, Chinnakanchipuram
marked through PW4.

Ex.P15

02.04.2009 Signature of PW4 in the First Information Report marked
through PW4.

217
Ex.P16

02.04.2009 164 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW4, dt.24.11.2004 (4 pages)
marked through PW4.

Ex.P17

02.04.2009 164 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW5, dt.24.11.2004 marked
through PW5.

Ex.P18
(Series 1 to 3)
03.04.2009 Signatures (3 Nos.) of PW7 in the Colour Xerox photos (at
page Nos.2451, 2515 & 2481 of Vol.No.5 of vernacular
records marked through PW7.

Ex.P19
(Series 1 to 3)
03.04.2009 Signatures (3 Nos.) of PW8 in the Colour Xerox photos (at
page Nos.2413, 2453 & 2497 of Vol.No.5 of vernacular
records marked through PW8.

Ex.P20
(Series 1 to 3)
09.09.2009 Mahazar dated 04.09.2004 for the Seizure of documents
(Ex.P2 series) and file (Ex.P3) marked through PW10.

Ex.P21
(9 sheets)

09.09.2009 Letters and explanation corresponding to the complaint of
one Vijayalakshmi president of "bgz;fs; chpik fhg;g[
kd;wk;" in respect of publication of an interview of
Sankaraman in Kalki on 16.02.02 marked through PW10.

Ex.P22
(11 sheets)
09.09.2009 File relating to Auction proceedings in respect of Sri
Devaraja Swami Thirukoil marked through PW10.

Ex.P23
(19 sheets)

09.09.2009 File containing the letters correspondence in respect of the
complaint of Sankararaman in the matter of Arulmigu
Kamatchiamman Temple marked through PW10.

Ex.P24

09.09.2009 Mahazar dated 03.09.04 for seizure of Mos.3 to 6 marked
through PW11.

Ex.P25

09.09.2009 Signature of PW11 (in the observation mahazar dated
03.09.04 ) marked through PW11.

Ex.P26

09.09.2009 Signature of PW12 (in the observation mahazar dated
03.09.04) marked through PW12.

Ex.P27

09.09.2009 Signature of PW13 (in the Colour Xerox Photo of A8
Ambigapathi) marked through PW13.

Ex.P28

09.09.2009 Signature of PW13 (in the Colour Xerox Photo of A9 - Madu
Basker ) marked through PW13.

Ex.P29

09.09.2009 Signature of PW13 (in the Colour Xerox Photo of A10
K.S.Kumar) marked through PW13.

Ex.P30

09.09.2009 Signature of PW14 (in the Colour Xerox Photo of A8
Ambigapathi) marked through PW14.

Ex.P31

09.09.2009 Signature of PW14 (in the Colour Xerox Photo of A9 Madu
Baskar) marked through PW14.

Ex.P32

09.09.2009 Signature of PW14 (in the Colour Xerox Photo of A10
K.S.Kumar) marked through PW14.

Ex.P33

09.09.2009 Signature of PW15 (in the Colour Xerox Photo of A8
Ambigapathi) marked through PW15.

Ex.P34 09.09.2009 Signature of PW15 (in the Colour Xerox Photos of A9
218
Madu Basker) marked through PW15.
Ex.P35

09.09.2009 Signature of PW15 (in the Colour Xerox Photo of A10
K.S.Kumar) marked through PW15.

Ex.P36 10.09.2009 Lawyer's notice dt.12.11.2001 issued by PW16 on behalf of
A.Sankaraman to A1 & A3 marked through PW16.

Ex.P37 10.09.2009 164 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW16 dated 13.12.04 marked
through PW16.

Ex.P38 10.09.2009 Booking receipt dated.30.07.2004 issued by the Professional
Couriers, Kancheepuram for the tapal sent by Sankaraman
to A1 (carbon copy) marked through PW17.

Ex.P39

10.09.2009 Booking receipt dated.30.07.2004 issued by the Professional
Couriers, Kancheepuram for the tapal sent by Sankaraman
to P. Neelakanda Iyer (carbon copy) marked through PW17.

Ex.P40 10.09.2009 Delivery run sheet of the Professional couriers Kanchipuram
dated 31.07.04 towards the proof for the delivery of Ex.P.38,
P39 to the consignee (Sl.No.56, 54) marked through PW17.

Ex.P41


10.09.2009 Booking receipt dated 06.08.2004 issued by the Professional
Couriers, Kancheepuram for the tapal sent by Sankaraman
to Sri Kanchikamakodi Peedathipathi (carbon copy) marked
through PW17.

Ex.P42


10.09.2009 Delivery Run sheet dated 07.08.04 of the Professional
Couriers, Kancheepuram towards the proof for the delivery
of Ex.P41 to the consignee (Sl.No.54) marked through
PW17.

Ex.P43


10.09.2009 Booking receipt dat.30.08.2004 issued by the Professional
Couriers, Kancheepuram for the tapal sent by Sankaraman
to Sri Kanchi Kamakodi Peedathipathi (carbon copy) marked
through PW17.

Ex.P44


10.09.2009 Delivery Run sheet dated 31.08.04 of the Professional
Couriers, Kancheepuram towards the proof for the delivery
of Ex.P43 to the consignee (Sl.No.19) marked through
PW17.

Ex.P45


10.09.2009 Booking receipt dated.30.08.2004 issued by the Professional
Couriers, Kancheepuram for the tapal sent by Sankaraman
to S. Vaidyanathan (carbon copy) marked through PW17.

Ex.P46


10.09.2009 Delivery Run sheet dated 31.08.04 of the Professional
Couriers, Kancheepuram towards the proof for the delivery
of Ex.P45 to the consignee (Sl.No.3) marked through PW17.

Ex.P47 10.09.2009 164 Cr.P.C.Statement of PW18 dated.17.01.2005 marked
through PW18.

Ex.P48 16.12.2009 164 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW21dated.28.12.2004 marked
through PW21.

Ex.P49
(Series 1 to 5)

16.12.2009 Signatures (5 Nos.) of PW21 in the Colour Xerox Photos (at
Page No.2363, 2381, 2411, 2427 & 2493 of Vol.No.5 of
Vernacular records marked through PW21.

Ex.P50
(Series 1 to 5)
16.12.2009 Signatures (6 Nos.) of PW22 in the Colour Xerox Photos (at
Page No.2407, 2417, 2485, 2509, 2533 & 2553 of Vol.No.5
219
of Vernacular records marked through PW22.
Ex.P51 17.12.2009 164 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW24 dated17.01.2005 marked
through PW24.

Ex.P52 17.12.2009 Summon to Panchayatars for inquest in which PW30 has
signed marked through PW30.

Ex.P53 17.12.2009 Signature of PW30 in the Inquest report dated 03.09.2004
marked through PW30.

Ex.P54 17.12.2009 164 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW30 dated 23.11.2004 marked
through PW30.

Ex.P55
(Series 1 to 3)
17.12.2009 Signatures (3 Nos.) of PW30 in the Colour Xerox Photos (at
page No.2361, 2367 & 2379 of Vol.No.5 of Vernacular
records marked through PW30.

Ex.P56
(Series 1 to 5)
17.12.2009 Signatures (5 Nos.) of PW31 in the Colour Xerox Photos (at
page No.2365, 2371, 2373, 2383 and 2459 of Vol.No.5 of
Vernacular records marked through PW31.

Ex.P57 17.12.2009 164 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW31 dated 28.12.2004 marked
through PW31.

Ex.P58 17.12.2009 Xerox copy of R.C. for the vehicle (Toyota Qualis Car)
No.TN 05 H 8263 dated 30.10.02 marked through PW32.

Ex.P59 17.12.2009 Photos (4 Nos.) of the Vehicle (Toyota Qualis Car) bearing
Registration No.TN 05 H 8263 in different angles marked
through PW32.

Ex.P60 17.12.2009 164 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW32 dated 24.11.2004 marked
through PW32.

Ex.P61 17.12.2009 Travels Note book maintained by PW32 marked through
PW32.

Ex.P62 17.12.2009 Relevant entry No.480 at page 116 in Ex.P61 marked
through PW32.

Ex.P63
(Series 1 to 2)
20.01.2010 Signatures (2 Nos.) of PW34 in the Colour Xerox Photos (at
page No.2397 & 2495) of Vol.No.5 of vernacular records
marked through PW34.

Ex.P64
(Series 1 to 2)
20.01.2010 Signatures (2 Nos.) of PW35 in the Colour Xerox Photos (at
page No.2409 & 2491) of Vol.No.5 of vernacular records
marked through PW35.

Ex.P65
(Series 1 to 2)
20.01.2010 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW37 dated 27.12.04 marked
through PW37.

Ex.P66
(Series 1 to 6)
20.01.2010 Signatures (6 Nos.) of PW37 in the Colour Xerox Photos (at
page No.2401, 2445, 2475, 2521, 2539 & 2559) at Vol.No.5
of vernacular records marked through PW37.

Ex.P67
(Series 1 to 6)
20.01.2010 Signatures (6 Nos.) of PW38 in the Colour Xerox Photos (at
page No.2405, 2421, 2483, 2513, 2555 & 2535) at Vol.No.5
of vernacular records marked through PW38.

Ex.P68
(Series 1 to 2)
20.01.2010 Signatures (2 Nos.) of PW39 in the Colour Xerox Photos (at
page No.2389 & 2433) at Vol.No.5 of vernacular records
marked through PW39.

Ex.P69

21.01.2010 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW40 dated 31.12.04 recorded by
Judicial Magistrate I, Kancheepuram, marked through
PW40.

220
Ex.P70

21.01.2010 Tender of pardon proceedings (Questions & Answers)
recorded by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu on
20.01.2005 in respect of PW40 marked through PW40.

Ex.P71

21.01.2010 Deposition of Approver (PW40) given before Judicial
Magistrate I, Kancheepuram u/s 306(4) Cr.P.C. dated
07.04.2005 marked through PW40.

Ex.P72 21.01.2010 Indian Bank Sankara Mutt Branch, Kancheepuram Cheque
(No.280033) dated 06.10.2004 for Rs.5,00,000/- marked
through PW40.

Ex.P73 11.02.2010 Certificate/letter dated 30.10.04 given by PW41 to the
Additional Superintendent of Police, Kanceepuram about the
particulars of accused Thilpandian @ Pandian who was at
Central Prison, Chennai as U.T.Prisoner and his release on
bail marked through PW41.

Ex.P74
(Series 1 to 6)
11.02.2010 Signatures (6 Nos.) of PW42 in the Colour Xerox Photos (at
page No.2391, 2435, 2463, 2531, 2547 & 2567 of Vol.No.5
of vernacular records marked through PW42.

Ex.P75
(Series 1 to 5)
11.02.2010 Signatures (5 Nos.) of PW44 (in the 164 Cr.P.C. statement
dated 13.12.04 marked through PW44.

Ex.P76

11.02.2010 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW44 dated 13.12.04 marked
through PW44.

Ex.P77


11.02.2010 Signatures of PW44 (in the Mahazar dated 08.12.04 for the
seizure of Invoice-cum-Receipt and Hutch Bills in respect of
Cell Phone) marked through PW44.

Ex.P78 11.02.2010 Counterfoil of Pawn receipt No.008390 dated 20.09.04 in
respect of the shop of PW49 marked through PW49.

Ex.P79

11.02.2010 Mahazar dated 25.11.04 for seizure of Ex.P78 (and Ring
and Bracelet) marked through PW49.

Ex.P80


11.02.2010 Registration Certificate dated 27.07.04 for the vehicle Bajaj
Pulsar bearing No.TNO2S 4479 marked through PW50.

Ex.P81

11.02.2010 Insurance certificate for the above vehicle dated 30.07.04
marked through PW50.

Ex.P82 11.02.2010 Life time tax for the above vehicle marked through PW50.

Ex.P83

11.02.2010 Mahazar dated 25.11.04 for seizure of Ex.P.80 to P82
marked through PW50.

Ex.P84
(Series 1 to 4)
12.02.2010 Invoice cum-receipt and Bills relating to cell phone No.98842
18735 for the period from 05.11.2003 to 05.08.04 marked
through PW51.

Ex.P85
(Series 1 to 6)
12.02.2010 Bills relating to cell phone No.98842 22354 for the period
from 05.09.04 to 04.11.04 marked through PW51.

Ex.P86

12.02.2010 164 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW52 dated 24.11.04 marked
through PW52.

Ex.P87

12.02.2010 164 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW53 dated 24.11.04 marked
through PW53.

221
Ex.P88

12.02.2010 164 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW54 dated 06.12.04 marked
through PW54.

Ex.P89 12.02.2010 Mahazar dated 02.12.04 for seizure of MOs.9 to14 marked
through PW54.

Ex.P90 12.02.2010 Xerox of copy of the receipt for Rs.500/-issued by the Balaji
Communications, Kanchipuram towards the change of
mobile number from 9894356789 to 9894038005 marked
through PW56.

Ex.P91 12.02.2010 Xerox copy of the letter of request for change of mobile
number by the Shahi Export House Kancheepuram marked
through PW56.

Ex.P92

12.02.2010 Rental Agreement, dated 06.08.03 executed between PW57
and Accused No.5 marked through PW57.

Ex.P93

12.02.2010 Visiting card Krishna M.Ella (Bharat Biotech International
Limited) Hyderabad marked through PW58.

Ex.P94

12.02.2010 American Express Bank Credit card receipt marked through
PW58.

Ex.P95 12.02.2010 Savera Hotel (Form No.192002) marked through PW58.

Ex.P96
(Series 1 )
12.02.2010 Savera Hotel Bill No.12008 date 03.09.2004 marked
through PW58

Ex.P96
(Series 2 )
12.02.2010 Savera Hotel Receipt for Rs.875/- date 04.09.2004 marked
through PW58

Ex.P96
(Series 3 )
12.02.2010 Savera Hotel Receipt for Rs.22/- date 04.09.2004 marked
through PW58

Ex.P96
(Series 4 )
12.02.2010 Savera Hotel Receipt for Rs.55/- date 04.09.2004 marked
through PW58

Ex.P96
(Series 5 )
12.02.2010 Savera Hotel Receipt for Rs.199/- date 04.09.2004 marked
through PW58

Ex.P96
(Series 6)
12.02.2010 Savera Hotel Receipt for Rs.309/- date 04.09.2004 marked
through PW58

Ex.P96
(Series 7)
12.02.2010 Savera Hotel Receipt for Rs.55/- date 04.09.2004 marked
through PW58

Ex.P96
(Series 8 )
12.02.2010 Savera Hotel Receipt for Rs.656/- date 03.09.2004 marked
through PW58

Ex.P97
(Series 1 )
12.02.2010 Savera Hotel Receipt/Visit details (No.24043) dated
25.12.04 marked through PW58

Ex.P97
(Series 2 )
12.02.2010 Savera Hotel Guest /More details (No.24043) dated
25.12.04 marked through PW58

Ex.P97
(Series 3 )
12.02.2010 Savera Hotel Receipt/Visit details (No.6750) dated
25.12.04 marked through PW58

Ex.P97
(Series 4 )
12.02.2010 Savera Hotel Guest more details (No.6750) dated 25.12.04
marked through PW58

Ex.P97
(Series 5 )
12.02.2010 Savera Hotel Receipt/Visit details (No.13369) dated
25.12.04 marked through PW58

222
Ex.P97
(Series 6)
12.02.2010 Savera Hotel Guest more details (No.13369) dated
25.12.04 marked through PW58
(in respect of M. Krishna Ella, who stayed at the Hotel)

Ex.P98 12.02.2010 Mahazar dated 26.12.04 for seizure of Ex.P93 to P97 series
marked through PW58

Ex.P99 12.02.2010 Signature of PW59 (in the mahazar dated 26.12.04 for
seizure of visiting card, membership card and receipt and
Health club register) marked through PW59

Ex.P100 25.03.2010 Nakeeran weekly dated 25.09.04 marked through PW60

Ex.P101 25.03.2010 Nakeeran weekly dated 11.09.04 marked through PW60

Ex.P102 25.03.2010 Nakeeran weekly dated 15.09.04 marked through PW60

Ex.P103 25.03.2010 Mahazar dated 15.11.04 for seizure of Ex.P100 to P102
and MO 15 marked through PW60

Ex.P104
(Series 1 to 6)
25.03.2010 Signatures (6 Nos.) of PW61 in the colour Xerox photos ( at
page No.2399, 2443, 2473, 2523, 2541 and 2561 of
Vol.No.5 of Vernacular records marked through PW61

Ex.P105
(Series 1 to 6)
25.03.2010 Signatures (6 Nos.) of PW62 in the colour Xerox photos ( at
page No.2573, 2575, 2577, 2579, 2581 and 2583 of
Vol.No.5 of Vernacular records marked through PW62

Ex.P106

25.03.2010 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW64 dated 27.12.04 marked
through PW64

Ex.P107
(Series 1 to 5)
25.03.2010 Signatures (5 Nos.) of PW64 in the colour Xerox photos ( at
page No.2429, 2461, 2505, 2551 and 2571 of Vol.No.5 of
Vernacular records marked through PW64

Ex.P108

25.03.2010 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW67 dated 28.12.04 marked
through PW67

Ex.P109

25.03.2010 Specimen writings of PW67 in 15 sheets (30 pages) marked
through PW67.

Ex.P110

22.04.2010 Counterfoil of Pawn ticket receipt No.002186 dated
29.09.04 issued by Kamala Bai Pawn Broker marked
through PW74

Ex.P111

22.04.2010 Mahazar dated 25.11.2004 for seizure of Ex.P110 and
(Thambukayiruchain) marked through PW74

Ex.P112

22.04.2010 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW78 dated 28.12.04 marked
through PW78

Ex.P113

22.04.2010 Relevent sheet No.156 in respect of particulars of the
vehicle No.TN-01Z1372 in the 'B" Register of the Office of
RTO Madras (Central) Perambur Unit marked through
PW79

Ex.P114

22.04.2010 "B" Register extract in respect of the vehicle No.TN 04 A
1013 issued by RTO Chennai (East) on 10.01.2005 marked
through PW80

Ex.P115 22.04.2010 Copy of "B" Register particulars in respect of the vehicle
TN09D 9851, issued by RTO, Chennai (West) 78 dated
21.04.10 marked through PW81.

Ex.P116 23.04.2010 Arrival Register of Hotel Anand Tiruchi for the period from

223
28.08.04 to 12.09.04 marked through PW84
Ex.P117

23.04.2010 Relevant entry (3
rd
entry) at page No.156 in Ex.P.116 dated
05.09.04 marked through PW84

Ex.P118
(Series No.1)
23.04.2010 Payment Bill No.50553 dated 06.09.04 for Room No.411
A/c, issued by Hotel Anand, Tiruchi marked through PW84

Ex.P118
(Series No.2)
23.04.2010 Payment Bill No.50554 dated 06.09.04 for Room No.414
A/c, issued by Hotel Anand, Tiruchi marked through PW84

Ex.P119

23.04.2010 Form -2 (daily account of occupancy of rooms and
collection taxes dt.06.09.04 of Hotel Anand, Trichy, marked
through PW84

Ex.P120

23.04.2010 Petitions (2 sheets) (Cr.M.P.No.7039/04) for
surrendering the five accused persons (A16 to A20) fileD
before XVth Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai
on 27.10.2004 marked through PW85

Ex.P121

23.04.2010 Memo of appearance for five accused persons A16 to A20
filed before XVth Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town,
Chennai on 27.10.04 marked through PW85.
(filed in Miscellaneous papers Vol.I at page Nos.19 to 24)

Ex.P122

01.11.2010 Correspondence file of Hindu Religious & Charitable
Endovement (Administration Department) Chennai in
respect of deceased Sankaraman (Xerox Copies) containing
pages 1 to 172 marked through PW113.

Ex.P123
(Series No.1)
01.11.2010

Record return slip of HR & CE (Administration Department)
Chennai marked through PW113.

Ex.P123
((Series No.2)
01.11.2010 Correspondence file regarding the alienation & Rescue
operation in respect of lands belonging to Sri Kamakoti Sri
Sankara Madam containing pages 1 to 60 (with notes
containing 4 pages) marked through PW113.

Ex.P123
(Series No.3)
01.11.2010 Correspondence file regarding the Writ proceedings of
Hon'ble High Court in respect of Sankara Madam initiated
by (deceased) Sankaraman & C. Jagannathan (total 60
pages) marked through PW113.

Ex.P123
((Series No.4)
01.11.2010 Correspondence file of HR & CE (Administration
Department) Chennai in respect of proceedings initiated by
Sankaraman & C. Jagannathan regarding the trust
irregularities and sale of lands etc. of Sri Kamakshi Amman
Temple and Sankaramadam (containing 136 pages (with
notes 16 pages) marked through PW113.


Ex.P123
(Series No.5)
01.11.2010 Correspondence file regarding the sale of lands belonging
to Kancheepuram Sri Kamakodi Sankarachariyar Swamigal
Madam (containing 114 pages including docket/cover)with
notes 8 pages) marked through PW113.

Ex.P124

01.11.2010 Mahazar dt. 13.12.2004 for Ex.P123 series marked through
PW113.

Ex.P125

29.11.2010 File No. 16858/01 containing 1 to 44 pages
File No.1954/02 containing 1 to 8 pages of HR & CE,
Jr.Commr.Office, Vellore with copy of Police summon &

224
covering letters (total 60 pages) marked through PW114.
Ex.P126 29.11.2010 Cheque No.0366565 dt.31.05.04 of State Bank of India,
Kancheepuram for Rs.3,00,000/- marked through PW116.

Ex.P127 29.11.2010 Statement of Savings Bank A/c No.01100/060622 in the
name of SSSVS PATASALA TRUST, BIG KANCHIPURAM
given by the State Bank of India, Kancheepuram (total 9
sheets) marked through PW116

Ex.P128 29.11.2010 Statement of A/c No.606601109291 in the name of M/s.
SSSVS PATASALA TRUST, KANCHIPURAM for the period
from 1.1.04 to 30.06.04 given by the ICICI Bank Ltd.,
Kancheepuram, (total 15 pages) marked through PW118.

Ex.P129 29.11.2010 Statement of A/c.No.606601107609 in the name of M/s. Sri
Kamakoti Ghattikasramam Trust, Kanchipuram for the
period from 01.01.04 to 30.06.04 given by ICICI Bank,
Kancheepuram (total 11 sheets) marked through PW118.

Ex.P130 30.11.2010 Signature of PW120 (Suresh) in the cheque No.790206 for
Rs.75,00,000/- of Canara Bank, T.Nagar, Chennai -17
marked through PW120.

Ex.P131 30.11.2010 Relevant portion in the confession statement of Thilpandian
(A17) dated 03.11.2004 marked through PW121.

Ex.P132 30.11.2010 Mahazar dated 04.11.04 for the properties (Cash of
Rs.20,000/-) seized as per Ex.P131 marked through
PW121.
Ex.P133 30.11.2010 Relevant portion in the confession statement of
Arumugam (A16) dated 03.11.2004 marked through
PW121.
Ex.P134 30.11.2010 Mahazar dated 04.11.04 for the properties (Cash of
Rs.20,000/-) seized as per Ex.P133 marked through
PW121.
Ex.P135 30.11.2010 Relevant portion in the confession statement of Sathish
(A18) dated 03 & 04.11.04 marked through PW121.
Ex.P136 30.11.2010 Mahazar dated 04.11.04 for the properties (Cash of
Rs.20,000/-) seized as per Ex.P135 marked through
PW121.
Ex.P137 30.11.2010 Relevant portion in the confession statement of Devaraj
(A19) dated 04.11.04 marked through PW121.
Ex.P138 30.11.2010 Mahazar dated 04.11.04 for the properties (Cash of
Rs.4,500/-) seized as per Ex.P137 marked through
PW121.
Ex.P139 30.11.2010 Relevant portion in the confession statement of Arun (A20)
dated 04.11.04 marked through PW121.
Ex.P140 30.11.2010 Mahazar dated 04.11.04 for the properties (Cash of
Rs.5,000/-) seized as per Ex.P139 marked through
PW121.
Ex.P141 30.11.2010 Mahazar dated 05.11.04 for the properties (Cash of
Rs.7,000/- & Nokia cell phone) seized as per the
confession statement of R.T.Palani (A14) marked through
PW121.
Ex.P142 30.11.2010 Mahazar dated 06.11.04 for the properties (Nokia Cell
phone & Cash of Rs.6,000/-) seized as per the confession
225
statement of Ravi @ Kuruvi Ravi (A15) marked through
PW121.
Ex.P143 30.11.2010 Relevant portion in the confession statement of
Meenatchisundaram @ Sundar (A13) dated 06.11.2004
marked through PW121.
Ex.P144 30.11.2010 Mahazar dated 06.11.04 for the properties (Cash of
Rs.10,000/- & other articles) seized as per Ex.P143
marked through PW121.
Ex.P145 30.11.2010 Relevant portion in the confession statement of Segar
(A22) dated 06.11.2004 marked through PW121.
Ex.P146 30.11.2010 Mahazar dated 06.11.04 for the properties (Sony Ericsson
Cell phone & Cash of Rs.500/-) seized as per Ex.P145
marked through PW121.
Ex.P147 30.11.2010 Mahazar dated 10.11.04 for the properties (Sketch picture,
Cell phone & Cash of Rs.1310/- ) seized as per the
confession statement of Rajinichinna (A7) marked
through PW121.
Ex.P148 30.11.2010 Mahazar dated 10.11.04 for the properties (Hero Honda &
Yamaha Motor Cycle) seized as per the confession
statement of Rajinichinna (A7) marked through PW121.
Ex.P149 30.11.2010 Mahazar dated 10.11.04 for the properties (records)
seized as per the confession statement of Rajinichinna
(A7) marked through PW121.
Ex.P150 30.11.2010 Mahazar dated 10.11.04 for the properties (Yamaha Motor
Cycle Pink colour) seized as per the confession
statement of Rajinichinna (A7) marked through PW121.
Ex.P151 30.11.2010 Mahazar dated 10.11.04 for the properties (Toyota Qualis
Omni Bus & other records) seized as per the confession
statement of Rajinichinna (A7) marked through PW121.
Ex.P152 30.11.2010 Mahazar dated 10.11.04 for the properties (Revolver,
Bullets & Cash of Rs.300/- Nokia Cell phone & a
document) seized as per the confession statement of
Cadiravan (A6) marked through PW121.
Ex.P153 30.11.2010 Mahazar dated 10.11.04 for the properties (Nokia Cell
Phone & Cash of Rs.30,000/-) seized as per the
confession statement of Cadiravan (A6) marked through
PW121.
Ex.P154 30.11.2010 Mahazar dated13.11.04 for the records (receipt & control
register) seized which was handed over by PW52 marked
through PW121.
Ex.P155 30.11.2010 Mahazar dated 23.11.04 for the seizure of records which
was handed over by Rajarathinam, DSP, Kanchipuram
marked through PW121.
Ex.P156 30.11.2010 Mahazar dated 14.11.04 for the seizure of Reliance Cell
Phone, which was handed by Sundaresan (A3) marked
through PW121.
Ex.P157 30.11.2010 Mahazar dated 09.01.05 for the seizure of records
(Ex.P38 to 46) which was handed over by Barnabas
(PW17) marked through PW121.
Ex.P158 30.11.2010 Mahazar dated 10.01.05 for the seizure of records which
226
was handed over by Rajarathinam marked through
PW121.
Ex.P159 21.12.2010 Normal call Billing records (call details) in respect of
Walajabad STD PCO- Public phone No.256903, on
03.09.04 given by PW124 marked through PW124.
Ex.P160 21.12.2010 Relevant entry at Sl.No.30 in Ex.P.159 in respect of called
phone No.09840488588 on 03.09.04 at 17.50 with
duration of 1.08 seconds marked through PW124.
Ex.P161
(Series
No.1)
24.01.2011 File regarding the call details in respect of Mobile No.
9444055534 (Vol. I) given by BSNL, Chennai Telephones
marked through PW126.
Ex.P161
(Series
No.2)
24.01.2011 File regarding the call details in respect of Mobile No.
9444055534 (Vol. II) given by BSNL, Chennai Telephones
marked through PW126.
Ex.P162

24.01.2011 File regarding the call details in respect of Mobile No.
9444385855 given by BSNL, Chennai Telephones marked
through PW126.
Ex.P163
(Series
No.1)
24.01.2011 File regarding the call details in respect of Mobile Nos.
9840515732, 9840108734, 9840355566, 9840038847,
9840039313, 9840053883 & 9840033445 given by
AIRTEL, Cellular Ltd., Chennai marked through PW127.
Ex.P163
(Series
No.2)
24.01.2011 File regarding the call details in respect of Mobile No.
9840488588 given by Airtel Cellular Ltd.,Chennai marked
through PW127.
Ex.P164

24.01.2011 File regarding the call details in respect of Telephone No.
55877771 given by TATA TELESERVICES Ltd., Chennai
marked through PW128.
Ex.P165

24.01.2011 Signature of PW129 in the confession statement of
accused Anandakumar @ Anand dated 06.11.04 marked
through PW129.
Ex.P166

24.01.2011 Signature of PW129 in the Mahazar dated 06.11.04 (for the
seizure of Yamaha Motor Cycle & other articles) from
accused Anandakumar @ Anand marked through PW129.
Ex.P167 24.01.2011 Signature of PW129 in the Mahazar dated 08.12.04 for the
seizure of sample signatures of RBI S. Vaidyanathan)
marked through PW129.
Ex.P168 24.01.2011 Signature of PW129 in the Mahazar dated 08.12.04(for the
seizure of documents in respect of Gopuseshayee) marked
through PW129.
Ex.P169 24.01.2011 Signature of PW129 in the Mahazar dated 08.12.04 (for the
seizure of documents from Anbazhagan Advocate) marked
through PW129.
Ex.P170 24.01.2011 Signature of PW129 in the Mahazar dated 13.12.04 (for the
seizure of ",Wjp mwptpg;g[") marked through PW129.
Ex.P171 24.01.2011 Signature of PW129 in the Mahazar dated 13.12.04 (for the
seizure of Cell phone details from Rajeshsankar Manager
Legal Hutchison Essar Allwarpet, Chennai) marked
through PW129.
Ex.P172 24.01.2011 Signature of PW129 in the Mahazar dated 26.12.04 (for the
227
seizure of Bharath Trading Company (Name Board)
marked through PW129.
Ex.P173 24.01.2011 Signature of PW129 in the Mahazar dated 13.12.04 (for the
seizure five items of documents from G.Krishnamoorthy
HR & CE Department, Chennai) marked through PW129
Ex.P174 24.01.2011 Signature of PW129 in the Mahazar dated 26.12.04 (for the
seizure of Bond & Rental agreement from the office of
Anthonisamy, marked through PW129
Ex.P175 24.01.2011 Signature of PW129 in the Mahazar dated 26.12.04 (for the
seizure of Material objects from Accused Krishnasamy @
Appu) marked through PW129
Ex.P176 24.01.2011 Signature of PW129 in the Mahazar dated 26.12.04 (for the
seizure of documents from the accused Krishnasamy @
Appu) marked through PW129
Ex.P177 24.01.2011 Signature of PW129 in the Mahazar dated 26.12.04 (for the
seizure of documents from the accused Krishnasamy @
Appu) marked through PW129
Ex.P178 24.01.2011 Signature of PW129 in the Mahazar dated 26.12.04 (for the
seizure of documents from Neelamegam), marked through
PW129
Ex.P179 24.01.2011 Signature of PW130 in the Mahazar dated 06.11.04 (for the
seizure of Yamaha Motor Cycle & other articles from the
accused Anandakumar @ Anand) marked through PW130.
Ex.P180 24.01.2011 Signature of PW130 in the Mahazar dated 08.12.04 (for the
seizure of sample signatures of RBI S. Vaidyanathan)
marked through PW130.
Ex.P181 24.01.2011 Signature of PW130 in the Mahazar dated 08.12.04 (for the
seizure of documents in respect of Gobu Seshayee)
marked through PW130
Ex.P182 24.01.2011 Signature of PW130 in the Mahazar dated 08.12.04 (for the
seizure of documents from Anbazhagan, Advocate)
marked through PW130
Ex.P183 24.01.2011 Signature of PW130 in the Mahazar dated 13.12.04 (for the
seizure of ",Wjp mwptpg;g[") marked through PW130.
Ex.P184 24.01.2011 Signature of PW130 in the Mahazar dated 13.12.04 (for the
seizure of cell phone details from Rajeshsankar, Manager
Legal Hutchison Essar, Allwarpet, Chennai) marked
through PW130.
Ex.P185 24.01.2011 Signature of PW130 in the Mahazar dated 13.12.04 (for the
seizure of five items of documents from G.Krishnamoorthy
HR & CE Department, Chennai) marked through PW130.
Ex.P186 25.01.2011 Signature of PW136 in the confession statement of
Subramanian @ Ravisubramanian, dated 28.12.04 marked
throughPW136.
Ex.P187 25.01.2011 Signature of PW136 in the confession statement of A1
Jayendrasaraswathi @ Subramanian dated 21.11.04
marked through PW136.
Ex.P188 25.01.2011 Signature of PW136 in the confession statement of A2
Sankaranarayanan @ Vijayendra Saraswathi dated
228
19.01.05 marked through PW136.
Ex.P189 25.01.2011 Signature of PW136 in the confession statement of A4
Ragu dated 30.12.04 marked through PW136
Ex.P190 25.01.2011 Signature of PW136 in the confession statement of A5
Krishnasamy @ Appu dated 25.12.04 marked through
PW136
Ex.P191 25.01.2011 Signature of PW136 in the Mahazar dated 29.12.04 (for the
seizure of documents from Subramanian @ Ravi
Subramanian) marked through PW136.
Ex.P192 25.01.2011 Signature of PW136 in the Mahazar dated 29.1.204 ( for
the seizure of document handed over by Indian Bank
Sankara Madam Branch Manager) marked through PW136
Ex.P193 25.01.2011 Signature of PW136 in the Mahazar dated 29.12.04 (for the
seizure of document from the Manager Indian Airlines,
Chennai, Airport) marked through PW136.
Ex.P194 25.01.2011 Signature of PW136 in the Mahazar dated 30.11.04 ( for
the seizure of documents/property from Neyveli
Krishnamoorthy) marked through PW136
Ex.P195 25.01.2011 Signature of PW136 in the Mahazar dated 30.12.04 (for the
seizure of case property Nokia cell phone with sim card
from A4 Ragu) marked through PW136.
Ex.P196 25.01.2011 Signature of PW136 in the Mahazar dated 31.12.04 (for the
seizure of document handed over by ICICI Bank Manager,
Kanchipuram marked through PW136
Ex.P197 25.01.2011 Signature of PW136 in the paper (containing sample
signatures obtained from A4 Ragu) marked through
PW136
Ex.P198 25.01.2011 Signature of PW136 in the Mahazar dated 19.01.05(for the
seizure of documents handed over by A2-
Sankaranarayanan @ Vijayendra Saraswathi) marked
through PW136
Ex.P199 25.01.2011 Signature of PW137 in the confession statement of
Subramanian @ Ravi Subramanian dated 28.12.04
marked through PW137.
Ex.P200 25.01.2011 Signature of PW137 in the confession statement of A1
Jayendrasaraswathi @ Subramanian dated 21.11.04
marked through PW137
Ex.P201 25.01.2011 Signature of PW137 in the confession statement of A3
Sundaresan dated 24.12.04 marked through PW137
Ex.P202 25.01.2011 Signature of PW137 in the confession statement of A4
Ragu dated 30.12.04 marked through PW137.
Ex.P203 25.01.2011 Signature of PW137 in the confession statement of A5
Krishnasamy @ Appu dated 25.12.04 marked through
PW137.
Ex.P204 25.01.2011 Signature of PW137 in the Mahazar dated 29.12.04 (for the
seizure of documents from Subramanian @ Ravi
Subramanian) marked through PW137
Ex.P205 25.01.2011 Signature of PW137 in the Mahazar dated 29.12.04 (for the
seizure of document handed over by Indian Bank Sankara
229
Madam Branch Manager) marked through PW137
Ex.P206 25.01.2011 Signature of PW137 in the Mahazar dated 29.12.04 (for the
seizure of document from the manger Indian Air Lines,
Chennai Airport) marked through PW137.
Ex.P207 25.01.2011 Signature of PW137 in the Mahazar dated 21.11.04 (for the
seizure of documents /property from Neyveli
Krishnamoorthy) marked through PW137.
Ex.P208 25.01.2011 Signature of PW137 in the Mahazar dated 24.12.04 (for the
seizure of case property from the son-in-law of A3-
Sundaresan) marked through PW137.
Ex.P209 25.01.2011 Signature of PW137 in the Mahazar dated 25.12.04 (for the
seizure of documents from A3 Sundaresan) marked
through PW137.
Ex.P210 25.01.2011 Signature of PW137 in the Mahazar dated 3012.04 (for the
seizure of case property from A4 Ragu) marked through
PW137.
Ex.P211 25.01.2011 Signature of PW137 in the Mahazar dated 31.12.04 (for the
seizure of case properties from A.Thirumoorthy) marked
through PW137.
Ex.P212 25.01.2011 Signature of PW137 in the Mahazar dated 31.12.04 (for the
seizure of document handed over by ICICI Bank Manager,
Kanchipuram) marked through PW137.
Ex.P213 25.01.2011 Signature of PW137 in the Mahazar dated 31.12.04 (for the
seizure documents from Rameshkumar) marked through
PW137.
Ex.P214 25.01.2011 Signature of PW137 in the paper (containing sample
signatures obtained from A4 Ragu) marked through
PW137
Ex.P215 25.01.2011 Signature of PW137 in the Mahazar dated 2.01.05 (for the
seizure of documents from N.Subramanian) marked
through PW137.
Ex.P216 25.01.2011 Signature of PW137 in the Mahazar dated 08.01.05 (for the
seizure of document from R. Nagarajan) marked through
PW137.
Ex.P217 25.01.2011 Signature of PW137 in the Mahazar dated 26.12.04 (for the
seizure of case property-Bharath Trading Company (name
Board) from A5 K.G.Krishnasamy @ Appu) marked
through PW137.
Ex.P218 25.01.2011 Signature of PW137 in the Mahazar dated 26.12.04 (for the
seizure of case properties from A5 K.G.Krishnasamy @
Appu) marked through PW137.
Ex.P219 25.01.2011 Signature of PW137 in the Mahazar dated 26.12.04 (for the
seizure of documents from A5 K.G.Krishnasamy @ Appu)
marked through PW137
Ex.P220 25.01.2011 Signature of PW137 in the Mahazar dated 26.12.04 (for the
seizure of documents from Udayasankar Manager,
Savera Hotel, Chennai) marked through PW137.
Ex.P221 25.01.2011 Signature of PW137 in the Mahazar dated 26.12.04 (for the
seizure of documents from Neelamegam) marked through
PW137
230
Ex.P222 25.01.2011 Signature of PW137 in the Mahazar dated 27.12.04 (for the
seizure of documents from Rasappa) marked through
PW137.
Ex.P223 25.01.2011 Signature of PW137 in the Mahazar dated 2612.04 (for the
seizure of documents from the office of Anthony) marked
through PW137.
Ex.P224 07.02.2011 Statement of SB A/c No.11756 in the name of Sri Jayendra
Saraswathi Swamigal Teacher Tranining Institute for the
period from 01.01.04 to 01.01.05 given by Indian Bank,
Sankara Mutt Branch, Kanchipuram (3 sheets) marked
through PW141.
Ex.P225 07.02.2011 Statement of A/c No.227 in the name of M/s. Sree Jay
Builders for the period from 13.08.04 to 28.10.04 given by
Indian Bank, Sankara Mutt Branch, Kanchipuram marked
through PW141.
Ex.P226 07.02.2011 Statement of A/c No.8510 in the name of M/s. Sree
Janakalyan Trust for the period from 01.10.03 to 04.11.04
given by Indian Bank, Sankara Mutt Branch, Kanchipuram
( 8 sheets) marked through PW141.
Ex.P227 07.02.2011 Statement of LOD A/c No.123 in the name of Sri
Sankaracharya Swami for the period from 16.01.04 to
23.08.04 given by Indian Bank, Sankara Mutt Branch,
Kanchipuram marked through PW141.
Ex.P228 07.02.2011 Statement of LOD A/c No.124 in the name of M/s. Sree
Sankaracharyar Madam for the period from 16.01.04 to
07.05.04 given by Indian Bank, Sankara Mutt Branch,
Kanchipuram marked through PW141.
Ex.P229 07.02.2011 Statement of LOD A/c No.125 in the name of Sri
Sankaracharyar Madam for the period from 16.01.04 to
07.05.04 given by Indian Bank, Sankara Mutt Branch,
Kanchipuram marked through PW141
Ex.P230 07.02.2011 Certificate dated 06.01.05 regarding the amount of
Rs.55,000/- remitted towards adjournment of LOD facility
availed under A/c No.123, 124 & 125 issued by Indian
Bank, Sankara Mutt Branch, Kanchipuram marked through
PW141
Ex.P231
(Series
No.1)
07.02.2011 Chalan for payment of loan amount of Rs.4,90,297/- dated
07.05.04 towards credit of loan A/c.No.123 of SS Mutt,
marked through PW141.
Ex.P231
(Series
No.2)
07.02.2011 Chalan for payment of loan amount of Rs.28,24,225/-
dated 07.05.04 towards credit of loan A/c.No.124 of SS
Mutt, marked through PW141.
Ex.P231
(Series
No.3)
07.02.2011 Chalan for payment of loan amount of Rs.21,85,478/-
dated 07.05.04 towards credit of loan A/c.No.125 of SS
Mutt, marked through PW141.
Ex.P232

07.02.2011 Indian Bank, Sankara Mutt, Kancheepuram, cheque
No.725568 in respect of A/c.No.11756 dated 28.10.04
Rs.3,00,000/- issued by Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamiji
Teacher Tranining Institute infavour of Sri Jay Builders,
marked through PW141.
Ex.P233 07.02.2011 Indian Bank, Sankara Mutt, Kancheepuram, Cheque
231
No.296510 in respect of A/c.No.227 dated 28.10.04 for
Rs.3,00,000/- issued by Sri Jay Builders in favour of
K.Selvam, marked through PW141.
Ex.P234

07.02.2011 Signature of PW142 in the confession statement of A12
Anil @ Anilkumar dated 24.11.04 marked through PW142.
Ex.P235

07.02.2011 Signature of PW142 in the Mahazar dated 24.11.04 (for
the seizure of case property from A12) marked through
PW142.
Ex.P236

07.02.2011 Signature of PW142 in the Mahazar dated 25.11.04 (for
the seizure of case properties/documents from
Loonchand) marked through PW142.
Ex.P237

07.02.2011 Signature of PW142 in the confession statement of A8
Ambigapathy @ Ambi dated 24.11.04 marked through
PW142.
Ex.P238

07.02.2011 Signature of PW142 in the Mahazar dated 25.11.04 (for
the seizure of case properties handed over by accused
No.8) marked through PW142.
Ex.P239

07.02.2011 Signature of PW142 in the Mahazar dated 25.11.04 (for
the seizure of case property identified by A8) marked
through PW142.
Ex.P240

07.02.2011 Signature of PW142 in the Mahazar dated 25.11.04 (for
the seizure of case properties/documents from D.
Sunilkumar Jain) marked through PW142.
Ex.P241

07.02.2011 Signature of PW142 in the Mahazar dated 25.11.04 (for
the seizure of case property/document from L.
Harishkumar) marked through PW142.
Ex.P242

07.02.2011 Signature of PW142 in the confession statement of A24
Senthilkumar dated 0711.04 marked through PW142.
Ex.P243

07.02.2011 Signature of PW142 in the Mahazar dated 07.11.04 (for
the seizure of case property - Cash of Rs.50/- from A24)
marked through PW142.
Ex.P244 07.02.2011 Signature of PW142 in the confession statement of A21
Arumugam dated 07.11.04 marked through PW142.
Ex.P245

07.02.2011 Signature of PW142 in the Mahazar dated 07.11.04 (for
the seizure of case property-cash of Rs.60/- from A21)
marked through PW142.
Ex.P246

07.02.2011 Letter dated 06.11.04 by PW142 to the Inspector of Police
Vishnu Kanchi Police Station, Kanchipuram, marked
through PW142.
Ex.P247

07.02.2011 Statement of Accused Kumar son of Sankar dated
06.11.04 recorded by PW142 marked through PW142.
Ex.P248

07.02.2011 Statement of N.Ravi (PW53) dated 12.11.04 marked
through PW142.
Ex.P249

08.02.2011 164 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW143 dated 20.01.05 (4
sheets) marked through PW143.
Ex.P250 08.02.2011 Demand Draft No.973266 for Rs.10,00,000/- dt.29.10.04
to in favour of SSSMM Trust, Canara Bank, SB
232
A/c.No.51495 marked through PW143.
Ex.P251

08.02.2011 Letter dated 20.12.04 by PW144 regarding furnishing of
Statement of Account in respect of State Bank Account
6278 in the name of Dr.Kathirvelu, to the ADSP, SIT
Office, Kanchipuram marked through PW144.
Ex.P252 08.02.2011 Statement of SB A/c.No.6278 in the name of Dr.Kathirvelu
for the period from 29.12.03 to 31.10.04 (3 sheets) given
by Indian Bank, Rangarajapuram, Chennai marked
through PW144.
Ex.P253

08.02.2011 Statement of A/c.No.1724 in the name of
R.P.Dharmalingam for the period from 13.01.04 to
30.04.04 given by Andhra Bank, Adyar Branch (5 sheets)
marked through PW146.
Ex.P254

08.02.2011 164 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW147 dated 20.01.05 marked
through PW147.
Ex.P255

08.02.2011 Gate Pass book (containing carbon copies of bills) for the
period from 04.09.04 to 05.09.04 of Sri Krishna Sweets
Centre, Vadapalani marked through PW147.
Ex.P256

09.02.2011 Receipt book of Residency Builders Pvt., Ltd., Alwarpet,
Chennai marked through PW150.
Ex.P257

09.02.2011 Statement of particulars of payment received from SSSVS
Patasala Trust given by PW150 as Director for Residency
Builders Pvt.Ltd., marked through PW150.
Ex.P258

09.02.2011 Statement showing the details of work executed for
Sankara Mutt & Related Trusts, dated 17.12.04 given by
PW150 as Director for Residency Builders Pvt.Ltd.,
marked through PW150.
Ex.P259

09.02.2011 Statement showing the payment details of works executed
for Sankara Mutt & Related Trust, dated 17.12.04 given by
PW150 as Director for Residency Builders Pvt.Ltd.,
marked through PW150.
Ex.P260

09.02.2011 Letter dated 31.12.04 by PW151 regarding production of
vouchers receipt with details to the Investigation Officer,
DFO Bungalow, Kancheepuram, marked through PW151.
Ex.P261
(Series No.1)
09.02.2011 Voucher dated 31.05.04 for Rs.3,00,000/- given by
SSSVS Patasala Trust, Kancheepuram, marked through
PW151.
Ex.P261
(Series No.2)
09.02.2011 Cheque payment Voucher dated 25.07.04 given by Sri
Kamakoti Ghatikasramam Trust, Kancheepuram, marked
through PW151.
Ex.P261
(Series No.3)
09.02.2011 Cheque payment Voucher dated 29.07.04 for
Rs.5,00,000/- given by Sri Kamakoti Ghatikasramam
Trust, Kancheepuram, marked through PW151.
Ex.P261
(Series No.4)
09.02.2011 Voucher dated 03.09.04 for Rs.5,00,000/- given by
SSSVS Patasala Trust, Kancheepuram, marked through
PW151.
Ex.P261
(Series No.5)
09.02.2011 Cheque payment Voucher dated 02.08.04 for
Rs.5,00,000/- given by Sri Kamakoti Ghatikasramam
Trust, Kancheepuram, marked through PW151.
233
Ex.P261
(Series No.6)
09.02.2011 Cheque payment Voucher dated 29.10.04 for
Rs.10,00,000/- given by Sri Kamakoti Ghatikasramam
Trust Kancheepuram, marked through PW151.
Ex.P261
(Series No.7)
09.02.2011 Receipt dated 04.09.04 for Rs.5,00,000/- issued by
Residency Builders Pvt., Ltd., Chennai, marked through
PW151.
Ex.P262 09.02.2011 Cheque book of State Bank of India, Kancheepuram, for
State Bank A/c.No.01100060622 marked through PW151.

Ex.P263
(Series No.1)
21.02.2011 Letter dated 15.12.04 by the Chief Advertisement
Manager "The Hindu" Chennai to ADSP, SIT,
Kanchipuram marked through PW152.
Ex.P263
(Series No.2)
21.02.2011 Photocopy of the publication release order (R.O.No.2107)
dated 06.12.04 marked through PW152.
Ex.P263
(Series No.3)
21.02.2011 A full copy of the English issue published in the Hindu,
dated 07.12.04 marked through PW152.
Ex.P263
(Series No.4)
21.02.2011 Letter dated 16.12.04 by the Deputy General Manager
(Tamil Nadu) Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd., to
ADSP, SIT, Kanchipuram, marked through PW152.
Ex.P263
(Series No.5)
21.02.2011 Photocopy of publication Release Order (R.O.No.2108)
dated 06.12.04 marked through PW152.
Ex.P263
(Series No.6)
21.02.2011 Copy of the bill dated 07.12.04 issued by Express
Publications (Madurai) Ltd., marked through PW152.
Ex.P263
(Series No.7)
21.02.2011 Copy of the English Newspaper published in "THE NEW
INDIAN EXPRESS" on 07.12.04 marked through, marked
through PW152.
Ex.P263
(Series No.8)
21.02.2011 Copy of the Tamil News paper "Dina Malar" published on
07.12.04 marked through PW152.
Ex.P263
(Series No.9)
21.02.2011 Letter dated 17.12.04 by General Manager Imageads
Services Pvt. Ltd., to ADSP, SIT, Kanchipuram, marked
through PW152.
Ex.P263
(Series
No.10)
21.02.2011 Copy of the voucher (2 Nos.) Invoice No.DEC/16/AD
dated 09.12.04 of Imageads Services Pvt., Ltd., marked
through PW152.
Ex.P263
(Series
No.11)
21.02.2011 Copy of the letter dated 06.12.04 by Imageads &
Communication Pvt., Ltd to Dinamalar, Chennai marked
through PW152.
Ex.P263
(Series
No.12)
21.02.2011 Letter dated 15.12.04 by Editor Dinamalar to ADSP, SIT,
Kancheepuram marked through, marked through PW152.
Ex.P263
(Series
No.13)
21.02.2011 TAMIL NEWSPAPER "Dina Malar" published on 08.12.04
marked through, marked through PW152.
Ex.P264

21.02.2011 164 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW154 dated 23.11.04 (4
sheets) marked through PW154.
Ex.P265
(Series)
22.02.2011 File containing the Xerox copies of Passbook of Union
book of India SB A/c.3746, Pass book of Indian bank SB
A/c 171 Pass book of Post Office SB A/c 3000153 Pass
book of Indian Bank SB A/c 8030 and (Statement of A/c in
234
respect of Sankara Madam of Indian Bank (for the period
from 25.08.04 to 09.09.04) (total 15 sheets) marked
through PW155.
Ex.P266

22.02.2011 Day book of Sri Kanchi Janakalyan Trust for the period
2004 -2005 marked through PW155.
Ex.P267

22.02.2011 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW156 dated 20.01.05 (3
sheets) marked through PW156.
Ex.P268

23.02.2011 Affidavit and petition dated 17.01.05 filed u/s.306 Cr.P.C.
by Chief Investigation Officer, S.P.Sakthivelu to the Chief
Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengalpattu marked through
PW157.
Ex.P269

23.02.2011 Order dated 20.01.2005 in Cr.M.P.49/05 of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Chengalpattu (PW157) regarding tendering of
pardon to approver Subramanian @ Ravi Subramanian,
marked through PW157.
Ex.P270

23.02.2011 Identification Parade Report/proceedings dated 29.11.04
of PW158 conducted in respect of A8, A9 at Central
Prison, Chennai (total 59 sheets) marked through PW157.
Ex.P271

23.02.2011 Requisition dated 26.11.04 by ADSP, SIT, Kancheepuram
filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu for to
conduct identification Parade in respect of A8, A9 (3
sheets) marked through PW158.
Ex.P272

23.02.2011 Proceedings dated 26.11.04 by Chief Judicial Magistrate,
order
Chengalpattu, to PW158 to conduct Identification Parade
marked through PW158.
Ex.P273

23.02.2011 Copy of letter dated 26.11.04 by PW158 to the
Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai marked through
PW158.
Ex.P274

23.02.2011 Copy of the Memorandum dated 26.11.04 by PW158 to
ADSP, PEW, Kancheepuram for to serve the summons on
the witnesses marked through PW158.
Ex.P275

23.02.2011 Proceedings dated 18.11.04 of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Order
Chengalpattu to PW159 to conduct Identification Parade
in respect of A7 marked through PW159.
Ex.P276

23.02.2011 Requisition dated 17.11.04 by ADSP, PEW
Kancheepuram filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Chengalpattu for to conduct identification parade in
respect of A7 ( 3 sheets) marked through PW159.
Ex.P277

23.02.2011 Identification parade notings dated 22.11.04 of PW159
conducted in respect of A7 at Central Prison, Chennai (15
Sheets) marked through PW159.
Ex.P278

23.02.2011 Typed Identification Parade notings dated 22.11.04 of
PW159 (11 sheets) marked through PW159.
Ex.P279

23.02.2011 Copy of the Letter dated 19.11.04 by PW159 to the ADSP,
PEW Kancheepuram for to produce the witnesses for
Identification Parade marked through PW159.
235
Ex.P280

23.02.2011 Copy of the letter dated 19.11.04 by PW159 to the
Superintendent of Central Prison, Chennai marked
through PW159.
Ex.P281

23.02.2011 164 Cr.P.C. proceedings and statement of A6 Kathiravan
dated 18.11.04 and 19.11.04 recorded by PW160 (11
Sheets) marked through PW160.
Ex.P282

23.02.2011 164 Cr.P.C. proceedings and statement of A17 Pandian
@ Thilpandian dated 22.11.04 and 23.11.04 recorded by
PW160 (8 Sheets) marked through PW160.
Ex.P283

23.02.2011 Requisition dated 03.11.04 by ADSP, PEW
Kancheepuram filed by Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Chengalpattu for to record the confession statement of
Pandian @ Thiilpandan (A17) marked through PW160.

Ex.P284

23.02.2011 Proceedings dated 17.11.04 of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Order
Chengalpattu to PW160 for to record 164 Cr.P.C.
statement of A17 marked through PW160.
Ex.P285

23.02.2011 164 Cr.P.C. Proceedings dated 30.12.04 in respect of
Approver Subramanian @ Ravi Subramanian recorded by
PW160 (3 sheets) marked through PW160.
Ex.P286

23.02.2011 Statement of Accused No.6 Kathiravan recorded by
PW161 on 10.11.04 (3 sheets) marked through PW161.
Ex.P287

23.02.2011 Statement of Accused No.7 Rajinikanth @ Chinna @
Rajini Chinna recorded by PW 161 on 10.11.04 (3 sheets)
marked through PW161.
Ex.P288

23.02.2011 Statement of T.S.Thiyagaraj, recorded by PW161 on
13.11.04 marked through PW161.
Ex.P289

23.02.2011 List of property (Form 95) dated 04.09.04 for MO1 & MO2
marked through PW162.
Ex.P290

24.02.2011 Post Mortem Certificate dated 07.09.04 given by PW163
marked through PW163.
Ex.P291

24.02.2011 True copy of viscera report dated 16.11.04 marked
through PW163.
Ex.P292

23.02.2011 Chemical Examination report (TNo.6161/04
(CHEM.383/2004) dated 08.10.04 sent by PW164 to the
Court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Kancheepruam marked
through PW164.
Ex.P293

24.02.2011 Biology report (TNo.6168/04 BIOL 388/04) dated 06.10.04
in respect of MOs.1 to 4 of Forensic Sciences Department,
Chennai marked through PW164.
Ex.P294

24.02.2011 Copy of letter dated 08.09.04 sent by the Court of Judicial
Magistrate I, Kancheepuram to the Director, TNFSL,
Chennai, for Chemical Examination of MOs.1 to 4 marked
through PW164.
Ex.P295

24.02.2011 Serology report (TNo.6161/04 SER/282/04) dated
29.11.04 sent by PW165 to the Court of Judicial
Magistrate I, Kancheepuram marked through PW165.
236
Ex.P296

25.02.2011 Signature of PW166 in the confession statement of A12
Anil @ Anilkumar dated 24.11.04 marked through PW166.
Ex.P297

25.02.2011 Signature of PW166 in the Mahazar dated 24.11.04 (for
the seizure of case property from A12) marked through
PW166.
Ex.P298

25.02.2011 Signature of PW166 in the Mahazar dated 25.11.04 (for
the seizure of case properties from Loonchand) marked
through PW166.
Ex.P299

25.02.2011 Signature of PW166 in the confession statement of A8
Ambigapathy @ Ambi dated 24.11.04 marked through
PW166.
Ex.P300

25.02.2011 Signature of PW166 in the Mahazar dated 25.11.04 (for
the seizure of case property (Knife and shirt) from A8)
marked through PW166.
Ex.P301

25.02.2011 Signature of PW166 in the Mahazar dated 25.11.04 (for
the seizure of case property (Motorcycle -
TVS Suzuki TN 02 L 0469) identified by A8) marked
through PW166.
Ex.P302

25.02.2011 Signature of PW166 in the Mahazar dated 25.11.04 (for
the seizure of case property from D.Sunilkumar Jain)
marked through PW166.
Ex.P303

25.02.2011 Signature of PW166 in the Mahazar dated 25.11.04 (for
the seizure of case property from L. Harishkumar) marked
through PW166.
Ex.P304

25.02.2011 Signature of PW166 in the Mahazar dated 14.12.04 (for
the seizure of case properties from A6 -Kathiravan)
marked through PW166.
Ex.P305

25.02.2011 Signature of PW166 in the Mahazar dated 27.12.04 (for
the seizure of case properties from Rasappa (PW150)
marked through PW166.
Ex.P306

25.02.2011 Signature of PW166 in the Mahazar dated 31.12.04 (for
the seizure of case properties from Rameshkumar
(PW151) marked through PW166.
Ex.P307

25.02.2011 Signature of PW166 in the Mahazar dated 02.01.05 (for
the seizure of case properties from N.Subramanian)
marked through PW166.
Ex.P308

25.02.2011 Signature of PW166 in the Mahazar dated 08.01.05 (for
the seizure of case property from R.Nagarajan) marked
through PW166.
Ex.P309

25.02.2011 Signature of PW166 in the Mahazar dated 11.01.05 (for
the seizure of case properties from Namasivayam, Branch
Manager, Indian Bank, Kanchi Sankara Mutt Branch)
marked through PW166.
Ex.P310 25.02.2011 Signature of PW166 in the Mahazar dated 17.01.05 (for
the seizure of case properties from Mohanraj, Chief
Manager, State Bank of India, Kanchipuram Branch)
marked through PW166.
Ex.P311 25.02.2011 Signature of PW166 in the Mahazar dated 18.01.05 (for
the seizure of case properties from Namachivayam,
Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Kanchipuram) Sankara
237
Mutt Branch) marked through PW166.
Ex.P312 25.02.2011 Signature of PW166 in the Mahazar dated 20.01.05 (for
the seizure of case properties from Ramkumar Rathinam,
Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Kanchipuram marked
through PW166.
Ex.P313 25.02.2011 FIR.No.914/04 dated 03.09.04 of B2 Vishnu Kanchi Police
Station, Kanchipuram marked through PW167.
Ex.P314 25.02.2011 Rough sketch of the place of occurrence prepared by
PW167 on 03.09.04 marked through PW167.
Ex.P315 25.02.2011 Observation Mahazar dated 03.09.04 marked through
PW167.
Ex.P316 25.02.2011 Inquest report dated 03.09.04 marked through PW167.
Ex.P317 07.03.2011 Form 95 dated 08.12.04 for MOs.16 to 21 marked through
PW169.
Ex.P318 07.03.2011 Form 95 dated 31.12.04 for Mos.22 & 23 marked through
PW169.
Ex.P319 07.03.2011 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW38 (Adikesavan) dated
28.12.04 recorded by PW170 marked through PW170.
Ex.P320 07.03.2011 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW19 (Krishnan @ Bombay
Krishnan) dated 17.01.05 recorded by PW170 marked
through PW170.
Ex.P321 07.03.2011 164 Cr.P.C. Statement of R.P.Dharmalingam dated
20.01.05 recorded by PW170 marked through PW170.
Ex.P322 07.03.2011 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Murugesan dated 20.01.05
recorded by PW170 marked through PW170.
Ex.P323 09.03.2011 Biology report (T.No.428/2005 BIOL-26/2005) dated
24.01.05 in respect of MOs.25 to 27 of FSD, Chennai,
given by PW172 marked through PW172.
Ex.P324 09.03.2011 Serology report (T.No.428/2005 SER-21/2005) dated
27.01.05 in respect of MOs.25 to 27 of FSD, Chennai,
given by K. Thara, Scientific Assistant Gr.II marked
through PW172.
Ex.P325 11.03.2011 (Viscera) Report No.Tox.H.No.1850/2004 dated 21.09.04
of FSD, Chennai, given by PW174 marked through
PW174.
Ex.P326 23.03.2011 Proceedings of Superintendent of Police Kancheepuram
District dated 17.09.04 reg. nomination of PW177 as one
of the officer to assist the investigation team headed by
Additional Superintendent of Police, PEW Chief
Investigation Officer marked through PW177.
Ex.P327 23.03.2011 Requisition dated 14.11.04 given by ADSP, PEW,
Kancheepuram/Chief Investigation Officer to Judicial
Magistrate, Kancheepuram, authorising PW177 to search
the premises of PW132 Pasupathy marked through
PW177.
Ex.P328

23.03.2011 Requisition (Advance Intiamation) u/s.165 Cr.P.C. given
by ADSP, PEW Kanchipuram/CIO to Judicial Magistrate I
Kanchipuram for to carry out search in the premises of
PW132 marked through PW177.
238
Ex.P329 23.03.2011 Search list dated 14.11.04 regarding the document (Photo
seized during the search conducted at the premises of
PW132 marked through PW177.
Ex.P330 23.03.2011 Photo of A1, with A3 Ravi & PW132 marked through
PW177.
Ex.P331 23.03.2011 Form 95 for Ex.P330 sent to the court of Judicial
Magistrate-I, Kancheepuram marked through PW177.
Ex.P332 09.04.2011 164 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW180 dated 08.12.04
marked through PW180.
Ex.P333 09.04.2011 Copy of letter dated 06.011.04 of Additional
Superintendent of Police, PEW Kancheepuram addressed
to PW184, calling for the details of calls received from the
five Reliance Cellular phone numbers for the period from
01.08.04 to 31.10.04 marked through PW184.
Ex.P334 09.04.2011 File containing the letter dated 10.11.04 with details of
Mobile numbers requested in Ex.P.333 furnished by
Reliance Info Communication Ltd., Chennai to the
Additional Superintendent of Police, PEW, Kanchipuram
marked through PW184.
(Note: Ex.P333- enclosed in this file)
Ex.P335 09.04.2011 Mahazar dated 14.12.04 for MO28 (and other items)
marked through PW185.
Ex.P336 09.04.2011 Signature of PW185 in the confession statement of A3-
Sundaresan dated 24.12.04 marked through PW185.
Ex.P337 09.04.2011 Mahazar dated 24.12.04 for MO29 marked through
PW185.
Ex.P338 09.04.2011 Mahazar dated 25.12.04 for Ex.P339,P340, Ex.P266,
P341, P342 and P343 marked through PW185.
Ex.P339 09.04.2011 Xerox copy of Cheque of Indian Bank, Sankara Mutt,
Kancheepuram for Rs.5,00,000/- dated 06.10.04 which is
signed by A3-Sundaresan marked through PW185.
Ex.P340 09.04.2011 Sri Kanchi Janakalyan Trust voucher No.156, dated
06.10.04 for Rs.5,00,000/- signed by A3 and
P.Subramanian marked through PW185.
Ex.P341 09.04.2011 Xerox copy of the Sri Kanchi Janakalyan Trust dated
30.01.97 (7 pages) marked through PW185.
Ex.P342 09.04.2011 Memorandum of Sale Agreement dated 02.02.04
executed between M.Suresh, Managing Director, Bhargav
Foundation Pvt.Ltd., and Abayakumar and 7 others
marked through PW185.
Ex.P343 09.04.2011 Cheque No.790206 for Rs.75,00,000/- of Canara Bank,
T.Nagar, Chennai in which M.Suresh has signed for
Bhargav Foundation Private Limited marked through
PW185.
Ex.P344 09.04.2011 Signature of PW185 in the confession statement of A2,
Vijeyandra Saraswathi Swamigal dated 19.01.05 marked
through PW185.
Ex.P345 09.04.2011 Mahazar dated 19.01.05 for EX.P346 series marked
through PW185.
239
Ex.P346
(Series No.1)
09.04.2011 Letter titled Thanga (m) Mahotsava Priya Jayendirar
Vijayam letter marked through PW185
Ex.P346
(Series No.2)
09.04.2011 Thamizaha Arasin Aranilai Thuraikku oru Vendukol
Subtitled "Kanchpuram Devaraj Swami Devasthanathin
Avala Nilai" marked through PW185.
Ex.P346
(Series No.3)
09.04.2011
Letter starting with the words "_ fh;rp fhknfho klj;jpd;
mgpkhdpfSf;Fk; nrhknrfu fdghoapd; mde;j nfho
ek!;fhu;fs;" marked through PW185.
Ex.P346
(Series No.4)
09.04.2011 _ fh;rp fhknfho gPlhjpgjp ? me;ju;f fojk; marked
through PW185.
Ex.P346
(Series No.5)
09.04.2011 "rjhrpt rkhuk;ghk; r;fuhrhu;a kj;akhk; " vdj; bjhl;Fk;
fojk; marked through PW185.
Ex.P346
(Series No.6)
09.04.2011 _ fh;rp fhknfho gPlhjpgjp $ae;jpuu; mtu;fSf;F ,Wjp
mwptpg;g[ ehs; 30.08.04 fojk; marked through PW185.
Ex.P347
(Series No.1)
18.04.2011 Copy of letter dated 28.12.04 of Judicial Magistrate -1
Kancheepuram regarding the documents sent to the
Assistant Director, Document Division, FSD Chennai for
comparison & opinion report marked through PW187.
Ex.P347
(Series No.2)
18.04.2011 Copy of list of documents sent along with Ex.P.347 series
No.1 (4 sheets) marked through PW187.

Ex.P348
(Series No.1)
18.04.2011 Copy of letter dated 05.01.05 of Judicial Magistrate I,
Kancheepuram regarding the documents sent to the
Assistant Director Document Division FSD, Chennai for
comparison and report marked through PW187.
Ex.P348
(Series No.2)
18.04.2011 Copy of list of documents sent along with Ex.P.348 series
No.1 (2sheets) marked through PW187.
Ex.P349

18.04.2011 Report (T.No.8761/04 DOC 610/04 dated 17.01.05 of
Forensic Sciences Department, Chennai (3 pages)
marked through PW187.
Ex.P350

18.04.2011 Reasoning sheet (5 sheets/pages) dated 17.01.05
enclosed with Ex.P349 marked through PW187.
Ex.P351

18.04.2011 Report (T.No.432/05 DOC 43/05 dated 27.01.05 of
Forensic Sciences Department, Chennai (3 pages)
marked through PW187.
Ex.P352

18.04.2011 Reasoning sheet (2 pages/Sheets) dated 27.01.05
enclosed with Ex.P.351 marked through PW187.
Ex.P353

06.06.2011 Memorandum dated 20.09.04 issued by Superintendent of
Police, Kancheepuram District regarding .the nomination
of Special Team to assist PW189 marked through PW189.
Ex.P354

06.06.2011 File of B1 Sivakanchi Police Station containing the
complaint papers in respect of Bala @ Balakumar (6
sheets) marked through PW189.
Ex.P355

06.06.2011 Mahazar dated 05.10.04 for Ex.P.265 series & Ex.P.266
which was handed over by PW155 and seized from him
marked through PW189.
240
Ex.P356 08.06.2011 Relevent portion in the confession statement of A10
Kumar, dated 06.11.04 marked through PW189.
Ex.P357 08.06.2011 Mahazar dated 06.11.04 for MO47, MO48 series MO.49
seized from A10 Kumar marked through PW189.
Ex.P358 08.06.2011 Relevent portion in the confession statement of A11
Kumar, dated 06.11.04 marked through PW189.
Ex.P359 08.06.2011 Mahazar, dated 06.11.04 for MOs.50 to 52 seized from
A11 Anandakumar marked through PW189.
Ex.P360 08.06.2011 Mahazar dated 07.11.04 for MO53 from A24
Senthilkumar marked through PW189.
Ex.P361 08.06.2011 Mahazar dated 07.11.04 for MO54 series from A21
Arumugam marked through PW189.
Ex.P362 08.06.2011 Relevant portion in the confession statement of A7 dated
10.11.04 marked through PW189.
Ex.P363 08.06.2011 Relevant portion in the confession statement of A6, dated
10.11.04 marked through PW189.
Ex.P364 08.06.2011 Sketch (Seized from A7) marked through PW189.
Ex.P365 08.06.2011
r;fuuhkdpd; ,Wjp mwptpg;g[ efy; marked through
PW189.
Ex.P366 08.06.2011 Mahazar dated 11.11.04 (Seized from A1) (for M066)
marked through PW189.
Ex.P367
(Series No.1)
08.06.2011 Xerox copy of the letter dated 10.09.03 written by
(deceased) Sankaraman marked through PW189.

Ex.P367
(Series No.2)
08.06.2011 Xerox copy of the letter dated 10.09.03 written by
(deceased) Sankaraman marked through PW189.
Ex.P367
(Series No.3)
08.06.2011 Xerox copy of the letter dated 11.02.04 stated to have
been written by Somasekara Ganapadigal marked through
PW189.
Ex.P367
(Series No.4)
08.06.2011 Empty postal cover without mentioning the address of
sender marked through PW189.
Ex.P367
(Series No.5)
08.06.2011 Empty postal cover without mentioning the address of
sender marked through PW189.
Ex.P367
(Series No.6)
08.06.2011 Empty postal cover addressed to Sri Kanchi Sri Kamakotti
Peedathipathy by Somasekara Ganapadigal marked
through PW189
Ex.P368

08.06.2011 Control Register containing 258 pages marked through
PW189.
Ex.P369

08.06.2011 Order dated 14.11.04 by Superintendent of Police
Kancheepuram District regarding the nomination of Police
Officers as Assistant Investigating Officers to assistant
marked through PW189.
Ex.P370
(Series No.1)
09.06.2011
j;f(k;) kn\hj;!;!t g;hpa $nae;jpuu; tp$ak; rkh;gzk;
fz;zhd fz;kzpfSf;F !;k;ghjfu; nrhknrfu fdgho ?
$k;g[nf!;tuk; vd;W vGjg;gl;l 8 gf;f;fs; cs;s rpwpa
g[j;jfk; marked through PW189.
241
Ex.P370
(Series No.2)
09.06.2011
_ fh;rp _ fhknfho gPlhjpgjp vd;W bgau; kw;Wk;
tpyhrkpl;l ftu; marked through PW189.
Ex.P371
(Series No.1)
09.06.2011
Rjhrpt rkhuk;ghk; r;fuhrhu;a kj;akhk; ? m!;kj; re;unrfu
Mrhu;a gu;ae;jhk; te;nj FU guk;guhk; vd;W Muk;gpj;J
,g;gof;F nrhknrfu fdghofs; vd;W mr;rpl;l ypfpjk;
marked through PW189.
Ex.P371
(Series No.2)
09.06.2011
_ fh;rp _ fhknfho gPlhjpgjp vd;W bgau; kw;Wk;
tpyhrkpl;l ftu; marked through PW189.
Ex.P372
(Series No.1)
09.06.2011
marked
through PW189.
Ex.P372
(Series No.2)
09.06.2011
marked through PW189.
Ex.P373
(Series No.1)
09.06.2011
marked through PW189.
Ex.P373
(Series No.2)
09.06.2011 P.
marked through PW189.
Ex.P374

09.06.2011 Index
marked through PW189.
Ex.P375

09.06.2011 Mahazar dated 21.11.04 for Ex.P370 series to 374 and
MO68 marked through PW189.
Ex.P376

09.06.2011 General case diary in respect of B2 Vishnukanchi Police
Station for the period from 03.09.04 to 30.09.04 marked
through PW189.
Ex.P377

09.06.2011 Relevant portion in the confession statement of A12 dated
24.11.04 marked through PW189.
Ex.P378

09.06.2011 Mahazar dated 24.11.04 for MO25 seized at the residence
of A12 which was identified and handed over by him and
marked through PW189.
Ex.P379

09.06.2011 Relevant portion in the confession statement of A8, dated
24.11.04 marked through PW189.
Ex.P380

09.06.2011 Mahazar dated 25.11.04 for MOs.26 & 27 seized from A8
marked through PW189.
Ex.P381

09.06.2011 Mahazar dated 25.11.04 for MO69 (which was identified
by A8 and seized at the back side of the house of A10
marked through PW189.
Ex.P382

09.06.2011 Mahazar dated 30.11.04 for Ex.P.125 seized from PW114
marked through PW189.
Ex.P383

09.06.2011 marked
through PW189.
Ex.P384

09.06.2011
marked through PW189.
Ex.P385

09.06.2011 marked
through PW189.
242
Ex.P386

09.06.2011 Miscellaneous Demand Register marked through PW189.
Ex.P387

09.06.2011
marked through PW189.
Ex.P388

09.06.2011 Mahazar dated 28.11.04 for Ex.P.383 to 387 & 389 and
390 (seized from PW10) marked through PW189.
Ex.P389

09.06.2011 Admitted English writing letter of Sankararaman marked
through PW189.
Ex.P390

09.06.2011 File containing the admitted Tamil writings and signatures
of Sankararaman (34 sheets) marked through PW189.
Ex.P391

09.06.2011 Airtel Balaji Communication (total 72 pages)
correspondence file (relating to papers (copies) Subscriber
enrolment form, plan form, identity proof (Election card)
declaration form, Form 60 and call details marked through
PW189
(in which page No.19-22 marked as Ex.P90 & Ex.P91)
Ex.P392

09.06.2011 Mahazar dated 28.11.04 for Ex.P391 seized from PW56
marked through PW189.
Ex.P393

10.06.2011 Mahazar dated 28.11.04 for Ex.P6 series, Ex.P7 series
P9, P10, P12, P13 marked through PW189.
Ex.P394

10.06.2011 Mahazar dated 29.11.04 for Ex.P122 seized from PW113
marked through PW189.
Ex.P395

10.06.2011 File containing the Xerox copy of the documents regarding
the relationship of P.Usha with A1, in respect of money
transaction (pages 1 to 70) marked through PW189.
Ex.P396

10.06.2011 Mahazar dated 01.12.04 for Ex.P395 seized from PW180
P.Usha marked through PW189.
Ex.P397

10.06.2011 Letter dated 30.11.04 by Senior Manager, Indian Bank, Sri
Rangam, Trichy with statement of A/c.No.20977 in respect
of P.Usha ( 6 pages) marked through PW189.
Ex.P398

10.06.2011 Mahazar dated 01.12.04 for Ex.397 which was received
through courier from Trichy Sri Rangam, Indian Bank
marked through PW189.
Ex.P399

10.06.2011 File containing the documents relating to the money
transactions between Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamiji
Teacher training Institute, Enathur, Kanchipuram and Sri
Jay Builders, North "T" Nagar, Chennai along with letter of
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram (Pages 1
to 22) marked through PW189.
Ex.P400

10.06.2011 Mahazar dated 02.12.04 for Ex.P399 which was produced
by DSP, KPM after seizure from PW133 Sivaraman
marked through PW189.
Ex.P401

10.06.2011 Mahazar dated 08.12.04 for Ex.P109 seized from PW167
marked through PW189.
Ex.P402

10.06.2011 Mahazar dated 08.12.04 for Ex.P84 series & P85 series
seized from PW44 which was handed over by him marked
through PW189.
Ex.P403 10.06.2011 Mahazar dated 08.12.04 for Ex.P36 seized from PW16
243

Anbazhagan marked through PW189.
Ex.P404

10.06.2011 Copy of Final notice dated 20.08.04 by Sankararaman
(deceased) to Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peedathipathi Sri
Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal marked through PW189.
Ex.P405

10.06.2011 Mahazar dated 13.12.04 for Ex.P404 seized from PW51
Rajeshsankar marked through PW189.
Ex.P406

10.06.2011 Xerox copy of the documents of Hutch relating to change
of Mobile (from 9884018735 No.9884218735 and then to
9884222354) which was used by A1 with covering letter
dated 10.12.04 (Pages 1 to 18) marked through PW189.
Ex.P407

10.06.2011 Mahazar dated 13.12.04 for Ex.P406 which was received
from PW51 through post and seized marked through
PW189.
Ex.P408

10.06.2011 Invoice (No. CRI A 40432 8 BL) dated 13.09.04 for MO.28
marked through PW189.
Ex.P409

10.06.2011 Mahazar dated 20.12.04 for Ex.P253 seized from PW175
Dharmalingam marked through PW189.
Ex.P410

10.06.2011 Relevant portion in the confession statement of A3, dated
24.12.04 marked through PW189.
Ex.P411

10.06.2011 Relevant portion in the confession statement of A5, dated
25.12.04 marked through PW189.
Ex.P412

10.06.2011 Mahazar dated 26.12.04 for Ex.P92 which was handed
over by PW57 and seized from him marked through
PW189.
Ex.P413

10.06.2011 Mahazar dated 26.12.04 for MO73 which was taken out by
A5 from the place where it was hidden and handed over
the same and seized from him marked through PW189.
Ex.P414

10.06.2011 Xerox copy of R.C. for the vehicle (TN 05 E 2112 (MO28)
in the name of A5 marked through PW189.
Ex.P415

10.06.2011 Gun Licence No.4966 NL-DMR in the name of A5, issued
by office of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur,
Nagaland marked through PW189.
Ex.P416
(Series No.1)
10.06.2011 Xerox copy of Receipt for Rs.10 lakhs marked through
PW189.
Ex.P416
(Series No.2)
10.06.2011 Xerox copy of Receipt for Rs.20 lakhs marked through
PW189.
Ex.P417

10.06.2011 Mahazar dated 26.12.04 for Ex.P.414, P415, P416 series
and passport which was handed over by A5 at his rental
house and seized from him marked through PW189.
Ex.P418

13.06.2011 Visiting Card of Accused No.5 K.G.Krishnasamy marked
through PW189.
Ex.P419

13.06.2011 Membership card of A5 K.G.Krishnasamy with photo
marked through PW189.
Ex.P420

13.06.2011 Xerox copy of receipt No.685 towards membership
Registration marked through PW189.
Ex.P421

13.06.2011 The Health Club signing in Register for the period from
11.01.04 to 28.09.04 marked through PW189.
244
Ex.P422

13.06.2011 Mahazar dated 26.12.04 for Ex.P.418 to P421 seized from
PW59 Neelamegam marked through PW189.
Ex.P423

13.06.2011 Mahazar dated 26.12.04 for Ex.P263 series seized from
PW152 S.Nagarajan marked through PW189.
Ex.P424

13.06.2011 Mahazar dated 27.12.04 for Ex.P256 to P259 seized from
PW150 Rajappa marked through PW189.
Ex.P425

13.06.2011 Relevant portion in the confession statement of Approver
P.Subramanian @ Ravi Subramanian (PW40) dated
28.12.04 marked through PW189.
Ex.P426

13.06.2011 Receipt for Rs.10 lakhs given by A5- K.G.Krishnasamy
marked through PW189.
Ex.P427

13.06.2011 Receipt for Rs.20 lakhs given by A5 K.G.Krishnasamy
marked through PW189.
Ex.P428

13.06.2011 Xerox copy of Indian Airlines Air ticket of Ravi
Subramaniam for Mumbai marked through PW189.
Ex.P429 13.06.2011 Guruvayurappan Swamy Photo marked through PW189.
Ex.P430

13.06.2011 "Sri Chandira Mouleeswarar" Pooja Invitation marked
through PW189.
Ex.P431

13.06.2011 Mahazar dated 29.12.04 for Ex.P.426 to P.430 which was
taken by Approver from his bed room Almirah and handed
over and seized from him marked through PW189.
Ex.P432 13.06.2011 Mahazar dated 29.12.04 for Ex.P72 which was handed
over by Branch Manager Indian Bank Sankara Mutt and
seized from him marked through PW189
Ex.P433

13.06.2011 List of Airlines passengers who have arrived Chennai from
Mumbai (Pages 1 to 14) marked through PW189.
Ex.P434

13.06.2011 Mahazar dated 29.12.04 for Ex.P.433 which was produced
by the Manager Indian Air lines Ltd., Chennai & seized
from him marked through PW189.
Ex.P435

13.06.2011 Mahazar dated 30.12.04 for MO74 which was seized from
A4 M.K.Ragu marked through PW189.
Ex.P436

13.06.2011 Mahazar dated 31.12.04 for MOs 22 & 23 seized from
PW169 Thirumoorthy (Police Photographer) marked
through PW189.
Ex.P437

13.06.2011 Documents (cheques & correspondence regarding DD)
relating to Sankara Mutt in Various names of Trust
(Kamakoti Kadikasramam Trust, SSSVS Patasala Trust)
(Pages 1 to 30) marked through PW189.
Ex.P438

13.06.2011 Mahazar dated 31.12.04 for Ex.P.437 which was handed
over by PW118 & seized from him marked through
PW189.
Ex.P439

13.06.2011 Mahazar dated 31.12.04 for Ex.P260, P261 series and
P262 seized from PW151 Rameshkumar marked through
PW189.
Ex.P440

13.06.2011 Sample signatures of A4 M.K.Raaghu marked through
PW189.
(marked in the Tamil Vernacular Records Vol.3 at page
245
l447)
Ex.P441

13.06.2011 Letter of N.Subramanian dated 30.12.04 addressed to
Nagarajan regarding construction of Mani Mandapam at
Orirukkai and returning of D.D.marked through PW189.
Ex.P442

13.06.2011 (Fax) letter copy of Dr.S.Yegnasubramanian dated
23.12.04 addressed to the Managing Trustee, Sri Kanchi
Kamakoti Ghatikasramam Trust regarding
Manimandapam Project marked through PW189.
Ex.P443

13.06.2011 Fax letter copy from main identity by Sri Kanchi Kamakoti
Peetam to Yegnasubramanian dated 16.11.04 marked
through PW189.
Ex.P444

13.06.2011 Mahazar dated 02.01.05 for Ex.P441 to P.443 seized from
PW24 Subramanian @ Mani Iyyer marked through
PW189.
Ex.P445 13.06.2011 Mahazar dated 08.01.05 for Ex.P250 seized from PW143
R. Nagarajan marked through PW189
Ex.P446 13.06.2011 Xerox copy of the documents (Letter dated 07.01.04
written by Sankara Mutt Camp Manager to R.Sethuraman,
Rickveda Jada Parayana 18 Ganapadigal with name and
address, Indian Overseas Bank Sastra Branch Debit &
Credit statement from 1.3.04 to 31.03.04, Form 10-B Audit
report U/s.12 A(b) of the Income Tax Act given by for
S.Venkatram & Company Chartered Accoutant
S.Sundararam partner with ---Shanmuga Arts Sciences
Technology & Research Academy details of Receipts &
payments from 1.3.04 to 4.3.04, Shanmuga Arts Science
Technology and Research Academy details of Receipts &
payments from 08,03,04 to 109.03.04 marked through
PW189
Ex.P447 13.06.2011 Mahazar dated 09.01.05 for Ex.P446 seized from
R.Sethuraman marked through PW189
Ex.P448 24.06.2011 Compliments computer bill (No.63189) S.No.483 dated
04.09.04 of Sri Krishna Sweets, Vadapalani for Rs.520.75
marked through PW189
(attached with Ex..P.225)
Ex.P449 24.06.2011 Cash chart No.740 dated 04.09.04 of Sri Krishna Sweets,
Vadapalani marked through PW189
(attached with Ex.P.225)
Ex.P450 24.06.2011 Mahazar dated 11.01.05 for Ex.P224 to P.227, P.230 &
P.231 series marked through PW189
Ex.P451 24.06.2011 Xerox copy of letter dated 17.09.95r of SriKaryam & Agent
of Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peedathipathi Sri Sankaracharya
Swamigal Mutt (with statement showing the release of
Gold) (total 2 sheets) marked through PW189
Ex.P452 24.06.2011 Xerox copy of Sri Adishankara Swarna Vimana Trust
report by H.L.Shah, dated 30.10.95 pages No.171 to 183
(Total 7 sheets) marked through PW189
Ex.P453 24.06.2011 Mahazar dated 12.01.05 for Ex.P451, Ex.P452 seized
from A.C.Muthaiya marked through PW189
Ex.P454 24.06.2011 Mahazar dated 13.01.05 for Ex.P116, Ex.P118 series and
246
P119 seized from PW84 Chidambaram marked through
PW189
Ex.P455 24.06.2011 Mahazar dated 17.01.05 for Ex.P126, P.127 which was
seized from PW116 marked through PW189
Ex.P456 24.06.2011 Mahazar dated 18.01.05 for Ex.P251, P.252 and Xerox
copy of cheque seized from PW144 Nagarajan marked
through PW189
Ex.P457 24.06.2011 Nakkeeran weekly dated 25.12.04 (Pages 1 to 36
including cover) marked through PW189
Ex.P458 24.06.2011 Nakkeeran weekly dated 29.12.04 (pages l to 36 including
cover) marked through PW189
Ex.P459 24.06.2011 Mahazar dated 18.01.05 for Ex.P457, P.458 seized from
Kamaraj marked through PW189
Ex.P460 24.06.2011 Mahazar dated 12.01.05 for Ex.P232 to P.233, seized
from PW141 Namachivayam marked through PW189
Ex.P461
(Series No.1)
24.06.2011 of Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peedathipathi
Jagathguru Sri Sankaracharya Swamigal Sri Madam
Smasthanam, Kanchipuram (Page 10 dated 01.03.04 for
Rs.1,71,376.70 ) marked through PW189
Ex.P461
(Series No.2)
24.06.2011 of Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peedathipathi
Jagathguru Sri Sankaracharya Swamigal Sri Madam
Smasthanam, Kanchipuram (Page 11 & 12 dated
02.03.04 for Rs.1,74,870.20 ) marked through PW189
Ex.P461
(Series No.3)
24.06.2011 of Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peedathipathi
Jagathguru Sri Sankaracharya Swamigal Sri Madam
Smasthanam, Kanchipuram (Page 13 dated 03.03.04 for
Rs.1,80,002.20 ) marked through PW189
Ex.P461
(Series No.4)
24.06.2011 of Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peedathipathi
Jagathguru Sri Sankaracharya Swamigal Sri Madam
Smasthanam, Kanchipuram (Page 14 dated 04.03.04 for
Rs.1,78,463/- ) marked through PW189
Ex.P461
(Series No.5)
24.06.2011 of Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peedathipathi
Jagathguru Sri Sankaracharya Swamigal Sri Madam
Smasthanam, Kanchipuram (Page 15 dated 05.03.04 for
Rs.1,78,463.00 ) marked through PW189
Ex.P461
(Series No.6)
24.06.2011 of Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peedathipathi
Jagathguru Sri Sankaracharya Swamigal Sri Madam
Smasthanam, Kanchiypuram (Page 16 dated 06.03.04 for
Rs.1,93,099.50 ) marked through PW189
Ex.P461
(Series No.7)
24.06.2011 of Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peedathipathi
Jagathguru Sri Sankaracharya Swamigal Sri Madam
Smasthanam, Kanchipuram (Page 17 dated 07.03.04 for
Rs.1,65,745.90 ) marked through PW189
Ex.P462 24.06.2011 Mahazar dated 19.01.05 for Ex.P461 series seized from S.
Nagarajan marked through PW189
Ex.P463 24.06.2011 Mahazar dated 20.01.05 for Ex.P128, P129, seized from
PW118 Ramkumar marked through PW189
Ex.P464
(series No.1)
24.06.2011 Incoming and outgoing call details in respect of cell phone
9884084080 (Vol.I) marked through PW189
247
Ex.P464
(series No.2)
24.06.2011 Incoming and outgoing call details in respect of cell phone
9884084080 (Vol.II) marked through PW189
Ex.P465

24.06.2011 Incoming and outgoing call details Book in respect of
Mobile No.9840344445 marked through PW189
Ex.P466

24.06.2011 Incoming and outgoing call details Book in respect of
Mobile No. 9840488588 marked through PW189
Ex.P467

24.06.2011 Incoming and outgoing call details Book in respect of
Mobile No. 9840108734 marked through PW189
Ex.P468

24.06.2011 Incoming and outgoing call details Book in respect of
Mobile No. 9894356789 marked through PW189
Ex.P469

24.06.2011 Incoming and outgoing call details Book in respect of
Telephone No.04112 -223115 marked through PW189
Ex.P470

24.06.2011 Incoming and outgoing call details Book in respect of
Mobile No. 98423 31314 marked through PW189
Ex.P471

24.06.2011 Call details book in respect of Mobile No.98941-87410
marked through PW189
Ex.P472

24.06.2011 Call details book in respect of Mobile Nos.
9884425639,9884031949 & 9884451431 marked through
PW189
Ex.P473

24.06.2011 Call details book in respect of Mobile No. 9841275166
marked through PW189
Ex.P474
(Series 1 to
5)

27.06.2011 Photos of Ravisubramanian (Approver) marked through
PW189
(at Pages from 2357 to 2365 in vernacular part No.5
records)
Ex.P475
(Series 1 & 2
)

27.06.2011 Photos of Krishnasamy @ Appu (A5) marked through
PW189
(at Pages from 2367 to 2369 in vernacular part No.5
records)
Ex.P476
(Series 1 to
21)

27.06.2011 Photos of Ambi @ Ambigapathi (A8) marked through
PW189
(at Pages 2371 and from 2413 to 2451 in vernacular
part No.5 records)
Ex.P477
(Series 1 to
5)

27.06.2011 Photos of Kathiravan (A6) marked through PW189
(at Pages from 2373 to 2381 in vernacular part No.5
records)


Ex.P478
(Series 1 to1
5)

27.06.2011 Photos of Rajinichinna (A7) marked through PW189
(at Pages from 2383 to 2411 in vernacular part No.5
records)
Ex.P479
(Series 1
to22)
27.06.2011 Photos of Madubaskar (A9) marked through PW189
(at Pages from 2453 to 2495 in vernacular part No.5
records)
248
Ex.P480
(Series 1 to
18)
27.06.2011 Photos of K.S.Kumar (A10) marked through PW189
(at Pages from 2497 to 2531 in vernacular part No.5
records)
Ex.P481
(Series 1 to
10)
27.06.2011 Photos of Anilkumar (A12) marked through PW189
(at Pages from 2533 to 2551 in vernacular part No.5
records)
Ex.P482
(Series 1 to
10)

27.06.2011 Photos of Ananadakumar (A11) marked through PW189
(at Pages from 2553 to 2571 in vernacular part No.5
records)
Ex.P483
(Series 1& 2)

27.06.2011 Photos of R.T.Palani (A14) marked through PW189
(at Pages from 2573 & 2587 in vernacular part No.5
records)
Ex.P484
(Series 1 &
2)

27.06.2011 Photos of Thil Pandian (A17) marked through PW189
(at Pages from 2575 and 2591 in vernacular part No.5
records)
Ex.P485
(Series 1 &
2)

27.06.2011 Photos of Kurivi Ravi (A15) marked through PW189
(at Pages from 2577 & 2589 in vernacular part No.5
records)
Ex.P486
(Series 1 &
2)

27.06.2011 Photos of Sathish (A18) marked through PW189
(at Pages from 2579 & 2595 in vernacular part No.5
records)
Ex.P487
(Series 1 &
2)

27.06.2011 Photos of Meenatchisundaram (A13) marked through
PW189
(at Pages from 2581 & 2597 in vernacular part No.5
records)
Ex.P488
(Series 1& 2)

27.06.2011 Photos of Arumugam (A16) marked through PW189
(at Pages from 2583 to 2593 in vernacular part No.5
records)
Ex.P489
(Series No.
1)

27.06.2011 Xerox copy of the letter by Mahadevan, Manager, Sankara
Mutt to the Manager Indian Bank, Sankara Mutt,
Kanchipuram dated 06.01.05 marked through PW189.
Ex.P489
(Series No.2)

27.06.2011 Xerox copy of Indian Bank, Sankara Mutt Branch,
Statement of A/c regarding payment and receipts relating
to A/c.No.124, 125 of SS Mutt, dated 30.08.04 (2 sheets)
marked through PW189.
Ex.P490


27.06.2011 Mahazar dated 18.01.05 for Ex.P.489 series and other
documents, the original of which were marked as Exhibit
seized from PW141 Namachivayam marked through
PW189.
Ex.P491

11.07.2011 Passport of Accused No.5 issued by the Regional
Passport Madras on 12.01.93 marked through PW189.

LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF DEFENCE:


249
Ex.D1 20.01.2010 164 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW39 dated 28.12.04 marked
through PW39 in cross.
Ex.D2 21.01.2010 Nakkeeran Weekly dated 22.12.04 marked through PW40 in
cross.
Ex.D3 21.01.2010 Nakkeeran Weekly dated 25.12.04 marked through PW40 in
cross.
Ex.D4 23.03.2011 Certified copy of the order dated 07.04.05 in Cr.M.P.1807/05
of Judicial Magistrate I, Kancheepuram marked through
PW177 in cross.
Ex.D5 30.06.2011 Nakkeeran Weekly dated 20.11.04 marked through PW189
in cross.
Ex.D6
(Series No.1)
01.07.2011 Xerox copy of the letter dated 03.12.04 by A3 regarding
submission of documents addressed to the ADSP PEW
Kanchipuram, Chief Investigating Officer, marked through
PW189 in cross.
Ex.D6
(Series No.2)
01.07.2011 Xerox copy of the letter dated 04.12.04 by A3 regarding
submission of documents addressed to the ADSP PEW
Kanchipuram, Chief Investigating Officer, marked through
PW189 in cross.
Ex.D6
(Series No.3)
01.07.2011 Xerox copy of the letter dated 07.12.04 by A3 regarding
submission of documents addressed to the ADSP PEW
Kanchipuram, Chief Investigating Officer, marked through
PW189 in cross.
Ex.D7

01.07.2011 'Dhinathanthi' daily newspaper dated 19.11.04 marked
through PW189 in cross.
Ex.D8

01.07.2011 Relevant entry regarding the articles seized column from the
arrestee in memo of arrest of A6 Kathiravan marked through
PW189 in cross.

LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF PROSECUTION:


M.O.1 02.04.2009 Blood stained shirt of the deceased marked through PW1

M.O.2 02.04.2009 Blood stained Dhothi of the deceased marked through PW1

M.O.3 09.09.2009 Blood stained Mosaic floor stone piece-1 marked through
PW11.

M.O.4 09.09.2009 Sample Mosaic stone piece -1 marked through PW11.

M.O.5 09.09.2009 Blood stained plastic chair in which left leg was broken
marked through PW11.

M.O.6 09.09.2009 Two pieces of backside left leg of the broken plastic chair
marked through PW11.

M.O.7 17.12.2009 Toyota Qualis Car bearing Registration No.TN05 H 8263
marked through PW32.

M.O.8 11.02.2010 Bajaj Pulsar Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.TN 02 S
4479 marked through PW50.
250

M.O.9 12.02.2010 Computer Monitor -1 (Samtel 14") marked through PW54.

M.O.10 12.02.2010 CPU / Intel inside Celeron marked through PW54.

M.O.11 12.02.2010 Max Key Board with Mouse marked through PW54

M.O.12 12.02.2010 Computer- Monitor -1 (Samtron 14") marked through
PW54.

M.O.13 12.02.2010 CPU - Zebronic marked through PW54.

M.O.14 12.02.2010 H.P.Laser Jet Printer (1200 Series Model) marked through
PW54.

M.O.15 25.03.2010
Soney Small cassette r';fuhr;rhhpahh; ngl;o19/09/04 MC 60)
Xd;W marked through PW60.

xM.O.16 07.03.2011 (Panasonic) Video Cassette contains the recording of
statement of A6 Kathiravan marked through PW169.

M.O.17 07.03.2011 (Panasonic) Video Casette contains the recording of
statement of A7 Rajinchina A10 Kumar & A11
Anandakumar marked through PW169.

M.O.18 07.03.2011 (Panasonic) Video Casette contains the recording of
statement of A13 Sundar @ Meenatchisundaram, A14
R.T.Palani, A15 Ravi @ Kurivi Ravi & A22- Segar marked
through PW169.

M.O.19 07.03.2011 (Panasonic) Video Casette contains the recording of
statement of A17-Pandian, A18-Satheesh, A19-Devaraj,
A20 -Arun, & A16-Arumugam marked through PW169.

M.O.20
(series No.1)
07.03.2011 (Panasonic) Video Casette contains the recording of
statement of A1 Jayendrar marked through PW169.

M.O.20
(series No.2)
07.03.2011 Video Casette contains the recording of statement of A1
Jayendrar marked through PW169.


M.O.21

07.03.2011 (Panasonic) Video Casette contains the recording of
statement of Usha marked through PW169.

M.O.22

07.03.2011 (Panasonic) DV Casette contains the recording of statement
of Krishnasamy @ Appu (A5) marked through PW169.

M.O.23

07.03.2011 (Panasonic) DV Casette contains the recording of statement
of Approver @ Ravi Subramanian marked through PW169.

M.O.24

08.03.2011 (Panasonic) Video Casette contains the recording during
Arrest of A1 marked through PW171.

M.O.25

09.03.2011 Knife (Aruval) about 47 cm in length marked through
PW172.

251
M.O.26

09.03.2011 Knife (Arruval) about 60.5 cm in length marked through
PW172.

M.O.27

09.03.2011 Blue colour shirt marked through PW172.

M.O.28

09.04.2011 Grey colour Ford Ikon Car baring Reg.No.TN-05-E-2112
marked through PW185.

M.O.29

09.04.2011 Nokia Cell Phone No.351516/00/225588/3 (Cell No.98842
22354) marked through PW185.

M.O.30
(series )
08.06.2011 Cash of Rs.20,000/- in the denomination of Rs.500 X 40
seized at the residence of A17 marked through PW189.

M.O.31
(series )
08.06.2011 Cash of Rs.20,000/- in the denomination of Rs.500 X 40
seized at the residence of A16 marked through PW189.

M.O.32
(series )
08.06.2011 Cash of Rs.20,000/- in the denomination of Rs.500 X 40
seized at the residence of A18 marked through PW189.

M.O.33
(series )
08.06.2011 Cash of Rs.4,500/- in the denomination of Rs.500 X 9 seized
at the residence of A19 marked through PW189.

M.O.34
(series )
08.06.2011 Cash of Rs.5,000/- in the denomination of Rs.500 X 10
seized at the residence of A20 marked through PW189.

M.O.35
(series )
08.06.2011 Cash of Rs.7,000/- in the denomination of Rs.500 X 14
seized from A14 marked through PW189.

M.O.36
(series )
08.06.2011 Cash of Rs.6,000/- in the denomination of Rs.500 X 12
seized from A15 marked through PW189.

M.O.37

08.06.2011 Nokia Cell Phone (No.9840515732) seized from A15
marked through PW189.

M.O.38

08.06.2011 Nokia Cell Phone (No.9841275166) seized from A14
marked through PW189.

M.O.39

08.06.2011 Nokia Camera Cell Phone (with sim card) (No.9840108734)
seized at the residence of A13 marked through PW189.

M.O.40
(series)
08.06.2011 Cash of Rs.10,000/- in the denomination of ;Rs.500x 20
seized at the residence of A13 marked through PW189.

M.O.41

08.06.2011 Money Purse seized at the residence of A13 marked
through PW189.

M.O.42

08.06.2011 Driving Licence seized at the residence of A13 marked
through PW189.

M.O.43

08.06.2011 Blue Oral Privilege Card seized at the residence of A13
marked through PW189.

M.O.44

08.06.2011 V.G.P. Golden Club Card seized at the residence of A13
marked through PW189.

M.O.45 08.06.2011 SONY ERICSSON Cell Phone No.98425 14424 seized from
252

A22 marked through PW189.

M.O.46 08.06.2011 Cash of Rs.500/- seized from A22 marked through PW189.

M.O.47

08.06.2011 Yamaha Motor Cycle Registration No. TN 22 V 3267 handed
over by A10 and seized marked through PW189.

M.O.48
(series)

08.06.2011 Two 500 Rupee note handed over by A10 and seized and
marked through PW189.

M.O.49

08.06.2011 Nokia Cell phone (No 9382675252) handed over by A10
and seized and marked through PW189.

M.O.50


08.06.2011 Knife (18" in length) seized which was handed over by A11
and marked through PW189.

M.O.51


08.06.2011 Cash of Rs.500/- (one note) seized which was handed over
by A11 and marked through PW189.

M.O.52

08.06.2011 Nokia Cell Phone (No.9382207127) seized which was
handed over by A11 and marked through PW189.

M.O53


08.06.2011 One 50 Rupee note seized from A24 and marked through
PW189.

M.O.54
(series)

08.06.2011 Cash of Rs.60/- in the denomination of Rs.50 X 1, Rs.10 X 1
seized from A21 and marked through PW189.

M.O.55

08.06.2011 Nokia Cell phone (No.98400 39313) seized from A7 and
marked through PW189.

M.O.56
(series)

08.06.2011 Cash of Rs.1310/- in the denomination of Rs.100 X 13,
Rs.10 X 1, seized from A7 and marked through PW189.

M.O.57


08.06.2011 Hero Honda Red Colour Motor cycle (CD 100) Reg.No.TN
09 D 9851 identified and handed over by A7 and seized
and marked through PW189.

M.O.58


08.06.2011 Yamaha Black colour RX 100 Motor cycle Registration No.
TN 04 A1013 identified and handed over by A7 & seized
and marked through PW189.

M.O.59

08.06.2011 Yamaha Pink Colour RX 100 Motor cycle Registration
No.TN 01 Z 1372 identified and handed over by A7 and
seized and marked through PW189.

M.O.60

08.06.2011 Revolver -1, seized from A6 and marked through PW189.

M.O.61
(series)

08.06.2011
njhl;lhf;fs; seized from A6 and marked through
PW189.

M.O.62
(series)

08.06.2011 Cash of Rs.300/- in the denomination of Rs.100 X 3 seized
from A6 and marked through PW189.

M.O.63

08.06.2011 Nokia Cell Phone (No.94440-26062) seized from A6 marked
through PW189.

253
M.O.64


08.06.2011 Nokia Cell Phone (No.9840488588) handed over by A6 and
seized at his residence and marked through PW189.

M.O.65
(series)

08.06.2011 Cash of Rs.30,000/- in the denomination of Rs.500 x 60
handed over by A6 and seized at his residence and
marked 189.

M.O.66

08.06.2011 Nokia Cell Phone (No.9894038005) seized from A1 and
marked through PW189.

M.O.67

08.06.2011 Reliance Cell Phone (No.9364324348) seized from A3 and
marked through PW189.

M.O.68

09.06.2011 Cell phone charger seized from A1 which was handed over
by Neyveli Krishnamoorthy and marked through PW189.

M.O.69

09.06.2011 TVS Suzuki Red Colour Motor Cycle (Reg. No. TN 02 L
0469) identified by A8 and seized at the back side of the
house of A10 marked through PW189.

M.O.70
(series)

09.06.2011 Gold (child) Ring -2 seized from PW49 and marked through
PW189.

M.O.71

09.06.2011 Gold (child) Bracelet -1 seized from PW49 and marked
through PW189.

M.O.72


09.06.2011
jhk;g[ fapW brapd; seized from PW74 and marked through
PW189.

M.O.73

10.06.2011
Bharath Trading Company vd;w bgaUila gr;ir kw;Wk;
bts;is epwj;jhyhd nghu;L marked through PW189.

M.O.74 13.06.2011 okia Cell Phone (with sim card No.9842331314) and
marked through PW189.



(C.S.MURUGAN)
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PUDUCHERRY