Author: Editorial
Publication: http://sankaracharyaarticles.blogspot.com
Date: January 21, 2005
URL: http://sankaracharyaarticles.blogspot.com/2005/01/editorial-curious-case-of-ravi.html
Ravi Subramaniam's previous mysterious
appearance in police custody was covered by vikatan. At the end of that
article, we had pointed out in our editorial the bizarre appearance of
2 attorneys claiming to represent Ravi Subramaniam. (See our editorial
after the translation).
Ravi Subramaniam gave secret testimony
under CrPC Sec. 164 on Dec 31st. This testimony was cited by the prosecution
during the Supreme Court hearing on Sankaracharya Sri Jayendra Saraswati
Swamigal's bail plea on Jan 7th. At that time, the prosecution offered
Ravi Subramaniam's testimony as evidence of the senior Sankaracharya's
guilt. The Supreme Court order delivered Jan 10 cited Ravi Subramaniam's
secret testimony to Justice Uttamaraaj in Kanchipuram Court, but found
that such confessional statements on their own were insufficient to substantiate
the charges.
Then, after a space of 10 days,
immediately after the Supreme Court granted bail to the senior Mataadipathi,
Ravi Subramaniam's testimony was cited by police as the grounds for arresting
junior Sankaracharya Sri Vijayendra Saraswati Swamigal.
In the intervening 10 days between
Ravi Subramaniam's secret testimony under CrPC 164 on Dec 31st and the
date of Vijayendra Swamigal's arrest, the SIT (specifically SP Shaktivel)
had interrogated Vijayendra Swamigal twice. A third summons for Jan 6 was
canceled, and the police indicated to the press that Vijayendra Swamigal
was not a suspect.
What we find strange is the sudden
second appearance of Ravi Subramaniam to deliver another secret statement,
this time in the Chengelpet Court of Justice Rangarajan. He is said to
have admitted his own guilt and submitted a plea to turn approver and testify
for the Prosecution.
We had our own suspicions about
why Ravi Subramaniam was required to submit a second statement. And also
why it had to be made before the Chengelpet court. Our suspicions were
confirmed by SP Premkumar himself, during an interview he gave after filing
the chargesheet in the case today. He said the chargesheet contained testimony
that had not been submitted to the Supreme Court. The only *new* testimony,
as far as we can gather, is Ravi Subramaniam's second statement.
Ravi Subramaniam's second testimony
served to implicate Vijayendra Swamigal in the alleged conspiracy. The
junior Mataadipathi's case is the one that is being heard in Chengelpet
court. Which leads us to believe that Ravi's *first* statement did not
clearly implicate HH the junior Sankaracharya!
Judging by the Supreme Court order
of Jan 10 (published here), the Prosecution's case hangs on the confession
of the co-accused. After Kathiravan's retraction (see his recent interview
to vikatan here), Ravi Subramaniam's statements are all the Prosecution
has left to found its case on.
Now then, if Ravi Subramaniam has
made 2 statements, and there are inconsistencies between the 2 statements
-- if his story has materially changed in any way between Dec 31st and
Jan 20, the Prosecution's case is on very slippery ground.
Already, we know that his purported
confession is inconsistent with what even the police admit he said before
the police got their hands on him. We know he vehemently protested his
innocence before his arrest (in a 4 page letter to SP Premkumar from Bhopal,
from which only one paragraph was read out to the press). Add to this mix
this letter published by vikatan , defense attorneys are going to have
a lot to confront Ravi Subramaniam with on the stand during trial!
We have not heard anything about
this case from Ravi Subramaniam in open court. (Kathiravan made his retraction
in open court only, in the presence of journalists.) We remain concerned
about whether he is getting proper legal representation. We find it a bit
strange that unlike every one of the 24 other accused, no one has submitted
a plea for bail on behalf of Ravi Subramaniam.
We have a number of questions we'd
like to see the press investigate:
1) What did Ravi Subramaniam testify
to secretly, and how did testimony #1 match up against testimony #2?
2) Under what conditions is Ravi
Subramaniam held?
--- Is he allowed visitors? Can
he mingle with other prisoners?
---What kind of legal access does
he have?
---What, we would like to know,
happened to the lawyer who first showed up on his behalf on Dec. 19 at
the forest bungalow and who arranged for his present lawyer, Thomas? Why
no motion for bail?
3)What else did he say in his 4
page letter to Premkumar purportedly from Bhopal? Conveniently, only a
single paragraph was read out to the press on Dec 24.
4)Where, and in what condition,
are his family and friends? The question is pertinent after Kathiravan's
recent revelation that police intimidated his family members in order to
extract his since retracted statement.
Whether the truth of this case ever
comes out will depend on the public and the media pressing ahead with the
right kinds of questions.
--The Editor.
Post-script -- A word to our readers:
Thank you for your supportive comments. We need your help to publicize
this site! Be an opinion leader! Share our website with your friends and
e-groups! You can use the email icon beneath each entry to distribute articles
you find worthwhile. Please remember to include a link to our URL: www.sankaracharyaarticles.blogspot.com.
