Author: UNI
Publication: The New Indian Express
Date: December 2, 2004
The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP)
on Thursday alleged that Superintendent of Police Premkumar, heading the
special investigation team probing cases involving Kanchi acharya Jayendra
Saraswati, was a ''tainted officer'' with a ''shady background.''
Talking to newspersons here, VHP
international president Ashok Singhal alleged that Premkumar had been convicted
twice and indicted by several High Court judges for his 'misconduct.'
''We don't expect the investigation
being done by Premkumar to be fair. Having badly failed in the investigation,
with several witnesses turning hostile, the police are now jumping over
irrelevant issues to malign the fair name of the acharya and the mutt,''
he said.
However, Singhal did not demand
the removal of the officer as he held the view that the whole case was
foisted on the seer. ''Why should I demand the removal of the officer or
the transfer of the case to some other state when the charges are false
and the seer was falsely implicated in the case,'' he shot back, answering
a question.
He alleged that a fast track court
in Madurai had convicted Premkumar in two cases, but he was let off under
the probation of offender act, considering his position. While being the
DSP of Nagercoil, he was convicted under Sections 355 (outraging the modesty
of women) and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of Indian Penal Code (IPC),
though he faced case under Section 307 (attempt to murder), Singhal said.
Besides, there were seven complaints
against him and a Sessions Judge who was asked to inquire into the complaints,
held that there was prima facie to proceed against him, he said.
Assisted by an advocate, Singhal
claimed that when a writ petition was filed in Madras High Court, challenging
the appointment of Premkumar as DSP, Justice N Srinivasan had said that
his appointment was only temporary in nature and would become permanent
based on the outcome of the cases.
Similarly, Justice Karpaga Vinayagam,
while passing orders pertaining to another case, had observed that ''it
was shameful to find a person like the petitioner (Premkumar) is allowed
to work in police.''
The Judge later slapped a fine
of Rs 10,000 on the officer and was asked to pay the amount to the Gandhi
Mission in Madurai.
In respect of a complaint that Premkumar
had disrobed a woman and attempted to remove her ''mangalsutra,'' the Sessions
Judge in Tirunelveli, who inquired into the complaint, found prima facie,
he claimed.
Two years ago, Justice Karpaga Vinayagam
directed the state crime branch CID police to register a case against Premkumar,
but no action seemed to have been taken. When the aggrieved person petitioned,
the Director General of Police I K Govind had said that action had already
been taken against him, Singhal alleged.
''A person with this kind of background
and track record is heading the investigation team,'' Singhal lamented.
Dismissing as 'false' and 'baseless,'
reports that the seer had admitted to his guilt during custodial interrogation,
Singhal said ''it is a Himalayan untruth.The seer is innocent and it is
nonsense to say that he admitted to his guilt.''
