Topic started by thiaga (@ ool-182ce12a.dyn.optonline.net) on Wed May 15 09:37:29 .
All times in EST +10:30 for IST.
|
hi,
|
Responses:
- Old responses
- From: Jason James Morgan (@ d209-89-88-35.abhsia.telus.net)
on: Sat Dec 4 00:44:26 EST 2004
Black ball Anuradha Ramanan.
One cannot hide the truth from self. The self is truth.
- From: sankarans (@ ppp-219.65.102.190.chn.vsnl.net.in)
on: Sat Dec 4 05:53:57 EST 2004
Mr Tulsi, Senior Lawyer appearing for TN Govt in the Kanchi Seer's case has said that.." I am myself not aware of the details of the confession. " --on 29th Nov 2004. So, it appears that the Prosecution has pulled a fast one before the High Court of the "alleged confession"
Read here for the excerpts.
"I am myself not aware of the details of the confession. But during police interrogation, there
was a statement by the Shankaracharya that tantamounts to an admission but is not admissible as evidence in court," Prosecution lawyer K T S Tulsi said in CNBC's `Tonight at 10' show hosted by Karan Thapar. – Mr Tulsi is the Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the TN Govt in the
Kanchi Acharya’s Trial in the Sankararaman Case
Excerpts from Indian Express
Press Trust of India
Posted online: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 at 1116 hours IST
Updated: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 at 1145 hours IST
- From: sankarans (@ ppp-219.65.102.190.chn.vsnl.net.in)
on: Sat Dec 4 05:57:41 EST 2004
If "All are equal before Law" as TN CM claims, she should demonstrate this by forthwith Suspending the Kanchipuram police officer Mr Prem Kumar and allow the law to take its course by proceeding to prosecute him.
The following are Based on a Report Published in the Indian Express dated 4th December 2004
"He had stripped, molested nuns; now he heads ( the prosecuting
Police Team in) the Kanchi Seer Case"
Superintendent of Police K Premkumar, the crusading officer from Kancheepuram who is heading
the Police Investigation Team in Kanchi Seer's case has been earlier denounced by the Court. The
court had opined that "...It would be shameful to find that a person like the petitioner has been
allowed to work in the police department.’’ The petitioner so denounced was none other than
Superintendent of Police K Premkumar, the crusading officer from Kancheepuram.
The Court had also observed further that
‘‘The petitioner has no regard for law or truth. The role played by the police officers in this case
would make this court think that these officers have behaved like barbarians without giving any
respect to human dignity, that too with the ladies.
It would be shameful to find that a person like the petitioner has been allowed to work in the police
department.’’ The petitioner so denounced was none other than Superintendent of Police K
Premkumar, Kancheepuram.
From the time he was a sub-inspector in Madurai in the eighties, through his days as Deputy
Superintendent of Police to the late nineties when he was promoted to the post of Superintendent of
Police, Premkumar has had little patience for the rulebook and his high-handedness has shocked his
superiors time and again, say insiders.
His beginnings were appropriately ominous. When he was only a sub-inspector in Vadipatti in
Madurai district he took upon himself the job of evicting a tenant of a fellow policeman. The
ex-serviceman tenant, Nallakaman, only wanted the advance of Rs 5,000 he had made returned.
The money was not coming and so Nallakaman decided to dig in his heels. But he had failed to take
into account Premkumar’s interest in the case and had to pay for his costly mistake.
On February 1, 1982 Nallakaman, his wife and son were beaten up at the Vadipatti police station
by Premkumar and his colleagues. The head of the family was then handcuffed and paraded in the
streets and dragged to the Vadipatti bus stand.
To top it all, a criminal case was registered against the hapless Nallakaman on charges, including
attempt to murder. Public outcry followed, an RDO inquiry was ordered and the report confirmed
all the allegations.
Finally, the Usilampatti RDO filed a criminal complaint against Premkumar and three others.
Premkumar himself was placed under suspension.
Meantime, the case filed against Nallakaman, the one filed by the RDO against Premkumar and a
private complaint preferred by Nallakaman himself dragged on in the Madurai District Sessions
Court.
Interestingly, Premkumar took the Group-I services examination during the period, emerged
successful and was appointed Deputy Superintendent of Police.
At one stage, he was also successful in having the Madurai proceedings quashed by the Madras
High Court, but the Supreme Court reversed the ruling and directed that all the three cases be tried
together and disposed of by March 31, 1995.
Premkumar moved up the ladder fast, nevertheless. As Superintendent of Police, he was perhaps
unhappy that he should be bothered by the likes of Nallakaman and moved the Madras High Court
to quash the proceedings against him, but it was his petition that was dismissed with costs.
While Premkumar had alleged that Nallakaman was stalling the trial, Justice Karpagavinayagam held
that the cases had indeed been stalled by Premkumar and the other accused policemen and that the
officer had shown disrespect to the Supreme Court and the High Court.
The judge noted that the Madurai court had issued as many as 13 non-bailable warrants against
Premkumar between September 1995 and March 2000, but none of them was executed.
The judge also expressed dismay that the police officer should have ‘‘disrobed the saree of the
woman teacher (Nallakaman’s wife) at the police station and attempted to remove her thali
(mangalya sutra).’’
The judge went on to wonder how Premkumar came to be promoted so rapidly when his first
appointment as DSP itself was temporary and subject to the issue of the Madurai trial.
But Premkumar seems to be having the last laugh now, emerging as a dashing officer who does not
flinch before the might of a prestigious mutt.
If in June 2002, Justice Karpagavinayagam was appalled by what Premkumar had done as a
sub-inspector at Vadipatti, more revelations were to follow barely four months later.
John Joseph, a Christian priest of Marthandam in Kanyakumari district and a key accused in the
Gilbert Raj murder case, moved the High Court against the brutal treatment meted out to him and
two other co-accused, Sister Wiselin Femina Rose and Sister Sahayarani Jeyamary. The priest had
been brutally beaten up and the sisters stripped and molested by Premkumar and another DSP
Panneerselvam.
Directing a CB-CID inquiry into the allegations, the judge recorded in ghastly detail the testimonies
of the two sisters: ‘‘Premkumar, DSP, came near Sahayarani and removed her saree and petticoat
and threw them at the corner of the room. Then he also tore the blouse and pulled her breasts.
Premkumar, DSP, took his lathi and fisted on her stomach as well as on her private parts.
At the same time, Panneerselvam, DSP, similarly removed the saree of Femina Rose. After tearing
the blouse, he pulled her breast and fisted on the chest with lathi. Joseph John and Gnanakan, father
of Femina Rose (who were also present) prostrated before Premkumar, DSP, and Panneerselvam,
DSP, requesting them not to outrage the modesty of the ladies. They also said that they would give
any statement as they dictated...’’
Premkumar was pardoned under the Probationary Offenders Act in the Nallakaman case by the
Madurai Sessions Court, in effect holding him guilty.
But in the Kanyakumari case, no attempts seem to have been made by the CB-CID to launch
prosecution against him ( Prem Kumar ) despite a division Bench of the High Court and the
Supreme Court approving the single judge’s order.
Based on Excerpts from "Indian Express" -- Saturday 4th December 2004
If "All are equal before Law" as TN CM claims, she should demonstrate this by
forthwith Suspending the Kanchipuram police officer and allow the law to take its course
by proceeding to prosecute him.
"I am myself not aware of the details of the confession. But during police interrogation, there
was a statement by the Shankaracharya that tantamounts to an admission but is not admissible as
evidence in court," Prosecution lawyer K T S Tulsi said in CNBC's `Tonight at 10' show hosted by
Karan Thapar. – Mr Tulsi is the Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the TN Govt in the
Kanchi Acharya’s Trial in the Sankararaman Case
Excerpts from Indian Express
Press Trust of India
Posted online: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 at 1116 hours IST
Updated: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 at 1145 hours IST
Regards,
Sankaran
- From: geno (@ 61.1.200.29)
on: Sun Dec 5 05:00:09 EST 2004
pAppAnunga vAyilaiyum vayithilayum adichukittu azuvaRatha pAkka sirippA irukku!!
These wolves were exuding all kinds of arrogant body language and Joy abandon - when their "pAppAthi" CM - JJ - took her entire cabinet of the "dravidian(??!!)" ADMK - and sat at the feet of Jayendra!!!
"thEvar" adiyALkaLai vachukittu enna Attam Adiningada!
Shatriyan ungaLavALukku adichAN pAru oru Appu!!!
;=)))))))
kaLLu kudicha pArpana kurangukaL - ippO thELum sErthu kottiyathAL - super-a koothAduthungu!!!
;=))))))))
- From: sankaran (@ ppp-219.65.111.65.chn.vsnl.net.in)
on: Sun Dec 5 07:23:10 EST 2004
Pappanuga Ninaicha mathavangala azhavakka mudiyum --- muttaalae theriyaadha unakku?
List all pages of this thread