'Kurian never named by Prosecutrix'

Shasthamangalam S Ajith Kumar is regarded as one of the best trial lawyer in the State of Kerala. He was the junior of Shri. K.P Radhakrishna Menon, who later got elevated as a High Court Judge. He was also the junior of famous criminal lawyer Kottur Gopala Krishna Pillai. He has appeared in a number of high profile cases which got wide media attention. He also worked as a Special Prosecutor for Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) and Revenue Intelligence and Customs.

 He has represented eight accused in Suryanelli case, including Accused no.2. Given below is the transcript of his interview with Nebil Nizar and Vimal Koshy.


1- Could you brief us about the trial?
Ajith Kumar: A Sessions Court in Kottayam was notified as a Special Court for trying this case. Sasidharan Nambiar was the Sessions Judge. Suresh Babu Thomas was the Special Public Prosecutor.

The trial was a split one because Dharmarjan was at large and could not be traced, so charges were laid against 40 persons and taken on file by the Special Court. The second trial, was started when Dharmarajan surrendered.

2- Why was this case entrusted to a special team?
Ajith Kumar: This case got a lot of media attention and the Government had then entrusted this case to a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by Deputy IG Sibi Mathews. Joshwa was then a Dy.SP. Siby Mathews had an image as that of an excellent Investigating officer.


3- KK Joshwa, then a member of this SIT strongly came out against the then SIT Chief. How do you view this?
Ajith Kumar: I Know Siby Mathews personally. When N Ram wrote an article on Siby Mathews in frontline containing some defamatory remarks, he engaged me to file a defamatory suit against Ram. Siby Mathews is a man of character. You cannot influence him. He never mixes official and personal matters. He is an incredibly credible officer. 

In Suryanelli case, I and Siby Mathews were on different poles. He was the SIT Chief and I was the counsel appearing for eight accused in the case.

During the trial, Siby Mathews and Joshua were working like one soul and two bodies. They were seen working together to ensure a conviction. There was not even a murmur, a dissent or anything from the side of Joshwa. I strongly believe that Joshua now came out against Siby to wreck personal vengeance.


4- Justice Basant (as he then was) is in news for wrong reasons. His decision in Suryanelli case is widely criticised. His statement during a personal conversation kicked start controversy. How do you view all this?
Ajith Kumar:  I Know R Basant for the past 28years. I have represented cases before him. I have argued first and second appeals before him.

I had a serious difference of opinion with him regarding the way he appreciates evidence, he is a person who believes that provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure are intended to see that an accused is ultimately found guilty and convicted.

I even submitted before him that his decisions would throw to wind the traditional principles of appreciating evidence. He smiled and said: ‘Ajith Kumar, please understand that there is a change in time’. He was a convicting Judge.

Just of the reason that he has decided against me in a couple of cases does not make me speak against him. I admit that R Basant was an Honest Judge with Character and Integrity. He is a very hard working individual who believes that he is the seat of Justice, and Justice must be administered.

I feel really bad when persons who do even know who he was, accuse him of wrong things.  

5-Director General of Prosecution T Asaf Ali has given a legal opinion that Further Investigation is not necessary, any comments?
Ajith Kumar: Even if I was the DGP, I would have given the same legal opinion. If further Investigation is ordered, then the entire case would collapse. Prosecution got two convictions (Trial 1 and 2). He might be hopeful of a Conviction from the High Court from the settings of the things.

But, if you have any regard for truth, this case should be opened up. State Government should ask CBI to investigate this case. 

6- How do you see Dharmarajan’s revelations to media?
Ajith Kumar:  Dharmarajan is a convicted accused. He has jumped parole and is at large. He is the son of a lawyer and brother of a sitting Judge. Dharmarajan himself is a Law graduate and a Lawyer. We cannot presume that he is ignorant of Law and its technicalities. We cannot believe the version of a convict.

7- Did the local Police who investigated this case, had a genuine interest to prove the case?
Ajith Kumar: Initial investigation was done by one Mr. Mathews, Circle Inspector. He turned hostile during the trial and was grilled by the Prosecution.

Mathews recorded a statement of the Prosecutrix during the course of his Investigation, in which there was no rape or allegation of rape. She added that she went on her own, she met Dharmarajan and went to so many places, met Usha (Accused 2) at Kanyakumari (SIT version is that they met at Kottayam).

Mr. Suresh Babu Thomas, learned Special Public Prosecutor stoutly denied the existance of such a letter and alleged that Mathews had cooked up a story.

During the 2^nd Suryanelli Trial, the Defence side was successfully able to get hold of a communication from the Circle Inspector Mathew to Deputy Inspector General (DIG) saying that such a statement was recorded. Having no other way, the Prosecution admitted the existence of such a statement from the part of the girl to Circle Inspector Mathews.

8- Dharmarajan who jumped parole and now at large giving an interview to a private channel from an undisclosed location, speaks about Police tortures and how statements were extracted out of them. Did any of the persons whom you represented complaint so?
Ajith Kumar: Everybody was treated in the most cruellest manner. Mr. Cherian, an accused in this case has said to me about his experience at Devikulam Police Station. They were stripped naked and inhuman treatment was inflicted on them which even Hitler did not do at the Concentration Camps. This continued till 03:00am.

The sad fact is that none of the accused made complaint against the torture.

9- Do you think that the Investigation by SIT was not fair?
Ajith Kumar: Most of the witnesses in this case was threatened by Police. Most of the witnesses statements were recorded under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure before a Magistrate. During the trial stage, all of them were threatened with Perjury.

The evidence upon which Siby Mathews relied on was that of a Prostitute from Mundakayam, Kottayam, who took part in the whole process. Instead of arraying her as an accused, Siby Mathews deleted her from that list and made her a witness and statement under 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded.


10- Do you think that this case needs to be re-investigated?
Ajith Kumar: This case should definitely be Re-Investigated. Central Bureau of Investigation is that apt agency. The State Government should show the courage to do that.


11-  Now the main stream media is busy discussing the involvement of present Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman PJ Kurian, what you have got to say about this?
Ajith Kumar: None of the persons whom I represented at the trial said me about PJ Kurian. They all said that they were all falsely arrayed as accused, I am pretty sure that Kurian was nowhere in picture. 

During the first trial, I was present in the court all the time during this In-Camera trial, the prosecutrix has never ever named P.J Kurian.



(Shasthamangalam S Ajith Kumar may be contacted at +91- 944 705 3350)

Suryanelli returns

Photo: www.ibnlive.in.com

 
By Jino M Kurian

The Suryanelli rape case is being trembled on the doors of national politicians,once again. The case is raising several issues on the prevailing social system. Whether the victim has suffered or has been still suffering is a wretched inquiry, which makes the society an accused. In the case of rape,only the victim can perceive her sufferings. No any other can envisage her state of mind or assume them in victim’s state. People are recappingmysterious allegations without ensuring the rights of the victim. She is still living among the people who watch her as a deviant.

The judgment in the Joseph v SI of Police ILR 2005(1) Kerala 554, 2005(1) KLJ 595, 2005(2) KLT 269 (well-known Suryanelli case) was totally distracting to the society. The charges on the 35 accusers were quashed because of the insufficiency of the evidence. The legal system pondersfor proof of evidences always; otherwise the system might be condemned. The investigation team had given prodigious efforts to discover the truth behind. Seventeen years ago a school girl was induced and transferred to an illicit sex racket by her paramour. She had been brutally raped and harassed by the criminals to whom she was moved. Any civilization shall gazeat this heinous crime with embarrassment only.

Indian society has been contemplating the Suyranelli case frequently,because of the presence of a national leader in it. It has been deliberated among the judiciary and people by the last seventeen years. Most of the accused, including the national leader, were acquitted by the Kerala High Court on its judgment[1]delivered on 2005. Allegations were raised again when the case had been posted for hearing before the Supreme Court.Presently,the Supreme Court again referred the case to the High Court.

Meanwhile, media interviews with the victim and the alleged political leader revealed the circumstances led to the case. Even from the judgment of Kerala High court in P J Kurian v State of Kerala (2007(3)KLT36), the Honorable court observed that it is humanly impossible for the accused political leader to reach the commissioned place within the time mentioned. The facts of the case specify that accused was in the Idicula’s house, at Thiruvalla until 8pm. This place is around 118kms away from Kumily, where the crime was commissioned. He was using Idiculla’s land phone No. 630324, from 15.22 to 18.57 pm. In the interview[2] given by Prof. PJ Kurian to a News channel, he was stating that he was there at the Idicula’s house even after the break of the phone, which might be upto 20.00. Sukumaran Nair, the present General Secretary of the NSS given his witness statement that on the alleged day of crime (19.02.1996), P J Kurian was with him until 20.30 at Perunna, Chenganasherry, which is around 110 kms far from Kumily.

The investigation team found that after the meeting with the NSS leader, the accused is coming on phone at 22.25 only from the land phone of his home, which is around 14 kms away from Thiruvalla. The mysterious 1.55 hours in between the meeting of Sukumaran Nair and the telephone call of 22.25, made him under the shadow of doubt. Was it possible for a central minister, without escorts to reach Kumily from Chenganasserry and comeback his home, within this time?

One pathetical fact is the victim identified the accused only several days after the complaint made. Parents who were complained the incident also,had come to know about the absence of the name of the political leader among the accusers list, long after the framing of the charge. They made a private complaint to include him in the accusers list. It may ensue in the case of a village girl; she might not have noticed the face of a national politician, during the 1996 period, when media was not much popular as today.

A prudent man may search in the darknessto establisha conclusion. The court made judgmentsare the only dependable sources on which one man can rely on. Plea of alibi[3] of the accused, which would be convincingly proved from the time schedule of the accused, might be the reason for his acquittal from the crime.Awakened society, whilewitnessing the whole incidents, shall remember the words written on the walls of the court, "Let justice be done though the heavens fall[4]."

(The author is an Advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Kerala. He is also a student at NALSAR University of Law)

---

[1] ILR2005(1)Kerala554, 2005(1)KLJ595, 2005(2)KLT269

[2]Interviewbroadcasted by Asianet News Channel available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzWtGuiT1WQ&feature=youtu.be(visited on 10 Feb 2013 at 12:00pm)

[3] Plea of alibi is a defense available for the accused under Section 103 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872

[4] Meaning of latin maxim Fiat justitiaruatcaelum

‘Justice is too noble a word to be used by persons who disgrace women the way Basant has savagely done’

‘Victim was used for child prostitution’, this controversial statement from the part of R Basant, former Kerala High Court Judge and part of the division bench that acquitted 35 accused in Suryanelli case, shook the conscience of the society. Widespread protest escalated. Broadcast, Print and Online media joined the civil society in protest.

In an email interview with our correspondent Nebil Nizar, Justice V.R Krishna Iyer, eminent Jurist and former Supreme Court of India Judge V.R Krishna Iyer came out heavily against Justice Basant.

1)  Justice Basant is heard saying in the tape; Child Prostitution is not Rape but Immoral only. How do you respond?

Justice Iyer: I consider the distinction between immorality and rape as absurd and spiritually untenable

2)  Is it important for the Judge to Examine the charecter of the Prosecutrix before reaching a conclusion? Or whether Happening of the alleged offence is important?

Justice Iyer: Both are relevant.

3)  Does conversation with Justice Basant show the attitude of Judges while deciding cases relating to sexual offences?

Justice Iyer: The attitude of the judges in sexual offenses discloses Judicial disposition vis a vis sentencing. The diabolical attitude of the judge towards sex crimes makes his sentencing harsh

4)  Original IPC (Copy at Harvard Law School) in Section 376′s explaination notes says that if a girl is held in captivity and raped, when she has a chance to escape, if she didn’t, then she cannot claim that she was raped. Then is Justice Basant right?

Justice Iyer: No, a rape is a rape whether the victim has been opportunity to escape or suffers confinement.

5) Do you think ‘Contempt of Court’ must be slapped on Justice Basant for making fun of the apex Court by saying that the Judge has not even read the Judgement of Kerala High Court?

Justice Iyer: Justice Basant making observations about the sentencing Judge is guilty of making stultification. Such an attitude is near contempt.

Many women feel outraged by Basant remarks. There is some moral justice in refusing to call Judges like Basant. Justice is too noble a word to be used by persons who disgrace women the way Basant has savagely done.

Justice Basant is my old friend and I know him to be a good Judge. I am shocked how he made such derogatory Judgement about his own sister female humanity. He has to withdraw the vulgar statement he has made. Oh the pity of it-dear Basant please express your regret and withdraw your shocking opinion about women kind publicly. You were a learned Judge; why ruin your reputation.



(This interview was earlier published at http://www.worldbeyondweb.com/interview-with-justice-v-r-krishna-iyer/)