THE FACTS ABOUT THE CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST 
SWAMI PREMANANDA
Swami Premananda is a Hindu monk from Sri Lanka. There he founded and ran several spiritual centres. After the ethnic riots in Sri Lanka in 1983, Swami Premananda and many of his followers came to Tamil Nadu, South India and established a new spiritual and social mission. He founded an Ashram in Fatimanagar near Trichy. Soon Indian as well as foreign devotees came in great numbers for his blessings and spiritual advice. In addition to the Ashram, he also established an orphanage, a school for destitute children and various programmes of support and help for the local poor and uneducated. During the early 1990’s Swami Premananda’s influence grew in India and many foreign countries, where devotees created spiritual centres and followed his teachings.
(See article ‘Swami Premananda – His Life’ for more details)
In 1994, Swami Premananda’s mission and influence were taking a definitive upward turn. However, after a heavy press campaign of slanderous accusations, a case was filed against Swami Premananda and some of his close devotees and disciples. Subsequently, a fabricated criminal case started in November 1994. The two main accusations were rape of girls living in the orphanage and murder of a Sri Lankan, who was an inmate of the Ashram.
All this was clubbed together under a conspiracy charge, which is a violation of Indian law, as normally each charge would have to be dealt with separately, case by case.
are being handcuffed
Swami Premananda and 6 others1 were arrested and imprisoned in November 1994. Swami Premananda was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences in 1997 by the Sessions Court in Pudukottai. The Chennai High Court (in 2002), and then the Supreme Court (in 2005) confirmed the Judgement.
Despite these confirmations, from the start of this case until its conclusion, many questions have obviously arisen, showing the inconsistency of the accusations made against Swami Premananda. Furthermore, those questions and facts have never been accepted or clarified by the judicial authorities.
The legal beginning of the case itself, as well as the investigation were highly suspect. The way the trial was conducted and the position of the Sessions Court on key points, raise many questions. Even the sentence given to Swami Premananda - two life sentences to be run consecutively - is subject to legal question.
The case against Swami Premananda did not start with a complaint to the police but with a highly defamatory press campaign, which lasted for many months.
A young woman, Suresh Kumari, who had grown up in the Ashram orphanage and a woman resident, Latha, were lured out of the Ashram by promises of material advantages in exchange for lies against Swami Premananda. The two agreed to give interviews to talk about the supposed facts to the press i.e. Suresh Kumari being victim of rape in the Ashram premises. The first articles published in the press contained vague and general allegations with regard to misdeeds allegedly committed against the girls in the Ashram.
The Indian Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA: an organisation for the welfare of women, incidentally related to a communist movement) was involved in this defamatory campaign and they sent letters and faxes to various authorities of Tamil Nadu requesting them to investigate this case.
The ruling party in Tamil Nadu ordered the police from Chennai to go to Trichy, 300 km south, and to take over the investigations in the case. Within a few weeks because, the entire state of Tamil Nadu was flooded by a mass of wild articles accusing the Swami of all kind of atrocious misdeeds, it created upset and anger amongst the people.
It is worth noting that the first article appeared in the newspapers on 5.11.1994, but Suresh Kumari only filed the complaint with the police on 16.11.1994, accusing Swami Premananda of raping her 8 years previously.
Under Indian law, a complaint made 8 years after the supposed crime cannot be legally accepted or acted upon. Nevertheless, the police, who had already started investigations and were by now already present in force in the Ashram grounds, immediately arrested Swamiji and some of his close devotees and disciples.
The mother of Suresh Kumari, Mrs. R. Deivanai, stated in Court that her daughter had been corrupted by others, who even have admitted in Court that they wanted to discredit Swami Premananda. She further said that certainly her children had never complained to her and would they not first tell such a thing to their own mother who was right there beside them in the Ashram rather than going to the press?
4.1. The Rape Case
On 19th and 20th November many people were taken away from the Ashram by the police for investigation and inquiries.
In total 20 girls and young women (aged between 14 and 35) were taken away for interrogation. This violates Indian law (proviso of article 160 Code of Criminal Procedure) according to which no woman may be taken away from her residence for any kind of investigation or interrogation. The fact that the Indian judicial system had to create such laws is enough in itself to give an idea of the kind of wrongdoings, such as rape and molestation during police investigations of women. (See article Amnesty Findings and Relevant Incidents in Premananda Case)
Mr. Ram Jethmalani, Senior Counsel for the Accused and former Law Minister of India stated as follows:
“While Section 160 of the code authorizes the police to require the attendance of witnesses at the Police Station for the purpose of the investigation of a case, the proviso imposes a severe restriction on this power.
No woman can be required to attend at any place other than the place where the woman resides.
It follows that her statement must be recorded at her home without putting her in a situation where the police can act upon her mind by threats, inducements or promises. The conduct of the police on the 19.11.94 and the 20.11.94 in herding 20 girls and taking them to the police station and examining them there was a flagrant breach of this proviso. The girls were not accused and they could not be arrested. They did not claim to be raped when first contacted at the Ashram. Why were they then removed from their residence and examined at the Police Station and that too not by female police officers but by male police officers? Those girls who did not want to leave the Ashram and did not want to go with the police were forcibly moved from one place to another against their will.
The police thereby committed offences of abduction and wrongful confinement. Their examination at the Police Station is plainly contrary to the proviso. Now this breach of law can have three possible consequences:
a) It seriously impairs the value of the evidence of the girls;
b) it renders their evidence at the trial inadmissible;
c) it vitiates the trial. “
4.2 Confinement and Torture of the Alleged Victims by the Police
From the aforementioned investigation in the police station, 13 statements (under 161 Code of Criminial Procedure) emerged against the Swami accusing him for rape. The supposed victim girls were then held against their will in custody (first in the STEPS institution in Pudukkottai and then in a social organisation, Udavum Karangal, in Chennai, both homes for destitute women connected closely with the police) for more than 2 years, i.e. up to the end of the first trial.
In January 1995 in a Court statement in front of a magistrate, and then also during the trial itself, one of the girls, Aruljothy, - then a prosecution witness - stated that physical and mental violence were used on them to force them to say that they were raped by the accused.
Judgement of the Sessions Court admits this is true by stating:
“...No doubt in Ex.D.10, Prosecution Witness 14 Aruljothy has stated that “only after police have been beaten me and the other girls, we said that Swamiji has raped us.” Even if such a force was used, such use of mild force might have been essential to bring the Victims out of their self-imposed reluctance and remove them from the fear or grip. Such use of mild force was not to instill fear in the victims impairing their evidentiary value.”
Further, after the trial, when the girls were released from the destitute homes where they were held, some filed affidavits in front of the High Court in Chennai explaining in detail how they were tortured and forced to accuse Swami Premananda. However, their statements were ignored. Some girls returned to live in the Ashram, and also refused financial compensation offered to them by the Court after the Judgement in order to demonstrate that their accusations against Swami Premananda were fabricated and forced from them against their will.
Aruljothy said:
“... Some girls were so badly beaten that they fainted... We were imprisoned in Udavum Karangal homes for two years. ... The police said that if we went against them and spoke the truth they would break our bones and put us in a house for prostitutes...”
(see detailed article by Aruljothy: ‘The True Story About the Case’)
Initially, on the basis of these 161 Code of Criminal Procedure statements, a rape case was made against Swami Premananda and 6 other inmates of the Ashram. Later on, intermittently, new accusations of murder, conspiracy and fraud were added.
4.3 DNA Testing
To prove medically that the Swami was raping the girls, a foetus was supposedly aborted from one of the girls, Aruljothy, in January 1995, and examined by a forensic scientist for the prosecution, Dr. Lalji Singh. The prosecution stated that his findings showed that Swami Premananda was the father of this foetus. Since then, Dr. Singh has given evidence in two other similar, highly suspicious, forensic examinations.
The Defence Counsel also legally brought a DNA expert from the United Kingdom. Top Genetics specialist, Dr. Wilson J. Wall’s test results, however, gave a contradictory statement. His results, done according to international DNA standards (which were not used by Dr. Singh), proved without a doubt that Swami Premananda had not fathered this foetus. Dr. Wall’s test results and the scientific explanations given by him were not even considered by the Court.
Dr. Wall’s report to the Court:
“... The final results became available on 20th April 1997. The conclusion is that it is impossible that accused Premananda, whose blood I extracted before this Honourable Court, is the father of the foetal tissue... My earlier opinion that Dr. Singh’s methodology and conclusions are both wrong is now rendered 100% conclusive by the findings of the UK Laboratory. ... When I say that the accused has not fathered this foetus, what I mean to say is that there is not even a chance, or even an infinitesimal chance of him being the father.”
(Dr. Wall’s new book ‘The DNA Detectives’, to be published in August 2005 highlights the Swami Premananda Case as a prime example of DNA evidence misuse.)
Mr. Ram Jethmalani, Senior Counsel for the Accused and former Law Minister of India stated as follows:
“The sordid fabrication of the Prosecution Witness .14 (Aruljothy) - charge has been fully exposed. It is a sad example of the dirty deeds, which some investigating officers of the Police can resort to for securing conviction of the innocent.
It demonstrates how the tentacles of police influence can corrupt highly placed scientists and drag them down to the police level.The police guilty of this action must be severely dealt with, so that such characters are eliminated from our police force. For a society governed by the rule of law a totally incorruptible investigating machinery is indispensable. It is equally indispensable that agency must not only be incorruptible but must be believed to be incorruptible by the common man.”
Moreover, the statements of the 13 girls and of other Prosecution witnesses that were first recorded in the police station, secondly written as statements and thirdly deposed in Court, were full of auto-destructive contradictions and ridiculous declarations. All of these were exposed by the Defence Counsel and the clear statements of various defence witnesses, amongst whom were many were highly educated professionals from a variety of countries. All this was also rejected by the Court out of hand, without any legal explanation.
Aruljothy said :
“... Months before we were due to give evidence we were moved to another destitute home in Pudukkottai called Steps. There we were systematically trained to give false stories of the most disgusting nature against Swamiji. Surprisingly, this was done by the lawyers acting on behalf of the police – .... Even more shockingly, the official Public Prosecutor, Mr. Varadarajan, took part in this fiasco, from which you can understand that entire trial was staged on his part. We had to memorize our lines all night and then repeat them to Inspector Kuppuswamy and the lawyers. It was during this time that Kuppuswamy attacked me, hitting me directly on my eyes with his fists.”
(see detailed article by Aruljothy: ‘The True Story About the Case’)
4.4. The Murder Case
The murder charge was added 2 months after the start of the case. Swami Premananda was accused of having killed a Sri Lankan male, Ravi who was an Ashram inmate. He was mentally ill and had died there naturally some years previously. His family and all the Ashram inmates knew about this. The deceased was presented by the prosecution as a scholar with an engineering qualification, who was widely denouncing the Swami’s misdeeds and was therefore murdered by him.
Medical reports from the Angoda State Mental Hospital in Sri Lanka, where he had been admitted for several years, and affidavits from the family proved that he was mentally ill and on heavy medication.
(See more details in article ‘The Murder Case’ by Ella Combe)
Moreover, no evidence at all was delivered in Court that could prove beyond reasonable doubt the accusation of murder supposedly organized by the Swami. Statements that were given by the witnesses of the prosecution were very contradictory. Again the forensic test performed on behalf of the prosecution was clearly contradicted by Dr. Purandare, another eminent scientist for the Defence. His evidence was also not considered by the Court.
The murder case was brought against Swami on the evidence of the ‘approver’2 Ambikananthan who would have said he joined the Swami and five others in murdering Ravi. For his telling the ‘truth’, in return he was given advance pardon by the Court. However, he was not even in the Ashram on the day of Ravi’s death.
Mr. Ram Jethmalani, Senior Counsel for the Accused and former Law Minister of India stated as follows:
“Normally speaking, when an approver gives evidence, he admits that he was a conspirator and how the conspiracy came to be executed. In this very strange case, approver Ambikananthan denies that he entered into any such conspiracy or that he instigated the murder of Ravi. He also denies being part of any other conspiracy such as rape or concealment of evidence. This is a legal joke, fraud on the law and abuse of the Court’s process.”
Ambikananthan said in Court that his statement about the murder would be supported by four Ashram boys as witnesses. However, the said boys denied what he said. Also Ambikananthan’s wife went to the Court to give evidence against him, stating that he was lying about the murder.
The defence team of Swami Premananda exposed all the above-mentioned points very clearly and in great detail in their highly qualified work during the trial in the Sessions Court, in the High Court, and in the Supreme Court. Mr. Ram Jethmalani is revered in India as well as abroad, as a most eminent senior advocate. He defended Swami Premananda in the Sessions Court and in the Supreme Court. At the time of the appeal in the High Court, Mr. Jethmalani was the Law Minister of India and this prevented him from arguing the Swami’s case. All his work and arguments during the case were brilliantly investigated and eloquently demonstrated the above points, amongst many others.
However, all the questions and facts exposed by him, which could sweep away the theories of the prosecution, were put aside and not given any chance to be elucidated or settled. Legally binding scientific tests and conclusions made by qualified scientists for the Defence were similarly not taken into consideration.
To give an example:
Session Court Judgement states:
“Defence Witness 49 (Dr. Wall), called and paid for by the defence, is heavily tilted in favour of the accused, and hence his evidence and EX.D.98 Report are to be rejected.”
Dr. Wall commented (during an interview 2001):
“We are not partisans, whether we are employed by the prosecution or by the defence. Our job is to clear and clarify for the Court, so the Court can come to a valid decision. ... The whole use of experts in Court is that it doesn’t matter who employs them, what we are trying to do is help the Court to come to the right conclusion. We are actually for the Court and the Court is there to find out the truth.”
“... If they [two experts] cannot agree, the judge may order retesting to be done. More likely, if the gulf between the two experts were so large, the judge would say – I am not going to accept the DNA evidence in this case at all. If the experts can’t agree, then we don’t know whose evidence to accept and we won’t accept either. And that is the normal practice.”
Incoherence and misbehaviour, as well as illegal procedures during the investigation, and highly questionable contradictions in the various statements of the prosecution, all exposed by the defence were swept aside. Defence witnesses’ statements in particular were almost systematically rejected on an unknown basis (except for the fact that they were in favour of the accused, which is common sense for a defence witness). All this prevented the accused from having any fair chance to prove his innocence – which is the basic principle of the Indian common legal judicial system. In short, the defence has not been taken in consideration.
Premananda at the Sessions Court
Mr. Ram Jethmalani, Senior Counsel for the Accused and former Law Minister of India stated as follows:
“The Honourable Court must steel its mind against the prejudice caused by the media, by politicians and public demonstrations, which continued even while the trial is going on. The Court must remember that judicial courage is part of judicial honesty ... Courts exist to proclaim innocence as much as they do for punishing the guilty ... The prosecution witnesses do not have a consistent account to put forth. Their discrepant accounts, their falsehoods, their omissions, improvements and contradictions have been discussed in detail...
It will be the grossest miscarriage of justice in judicial history if any of the accused is held guilty of this bogus murder, which never took place.”
6. The Final Outcome and Present Situation
The Sessions Court had stated that in this particular case no remission of sentence or amnesty should be possible. However, according to Indian Penal Code and Indian Constitution, the power to make such a decision does not lie with any judicial authorities, but with the Government itself. Nevertheless, this was confirmed by all the Courts, even though, regardless of the innocence of Swami Premananda, it is a clear violation of Human Rights. The implicit meaning and purpose of this action is, clearly, that he should never have the chance of coming out of prison ever again.
Today, Swami Premananda is serving his sentence in jail in Tamil Nadu. He is suffering from several serious physical ailments (diabetes and resultant blindness, high blood pressure and severe asthma) and has been denied proper medical treatment by the government, again violating basic Human Rights.
All these facts lead us to realize that underlying the desire to have justice respected, as the authorities are stating regarding this particular case, there lies a deeper problem and design. However, it is not our purpose at this stage to go deeper into this question.
Our wish right now is that Swami Premananda, as well as the other accused in this case, should be granted justice and be treated fairly and humanely.
1 The Details of the Six Other Accused Are:
Swami Kamalananda, former Chief Engineer and Ashram secretary:
Twice imprisonment for life to run consecutively and a fine.Dr. Chandradevi Kamalanathan, M.B.B.S., Ashram Doctor:
Imprisonment for two years, 7 months and 2 days (already undergone) and a fine.Mr. Balendran Shanmugam, devotee and engineer:
Imprisonment for life and imprisonment for ten years + fine. Both sentences to run concurrently.Mr. Nandakumar Somasundaram, Swami Premananda’s brother:
Imprisonment for life and imprisonment for ten years + fine. Both sentences to run concurrently.Mr. Sathishkumar Sabaratnam, orphan brought up in the Ashram, engineering degree student:
Imprisonment for life and imprisonment for ten years + fine. Both sentences to run concurrently. And imprisonment for one year (to run concurrently with the ten years imprisonment) and a fine.Mr. Mayilvaganam Pakkirisami, Swami’s elderly uncle, Treasurer (Sri Lankan Government), died in 2001 – Imprisonment for life
2 An approver is a person who has taken part in a crime and has been pardoned by the Court for telling the truth.