Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
htm
1 of 21 12/15/2008 11:28 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 30 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part30.htm
Then, between pages 40 and 43 of his verdict, Justice Wadhwa stated the
prosecution’s view [italics added by me for emphasis; hereafter,
abbreviations PW stands for prosecution witness, A stands for Accused, MO
stands for Material Objects] of how the conspiracy to assassinate Rajiv
Gandhi progressed. To quote,
“According to prosecution, conspiracy was activated with the
publication of an interview of Rajiv Gandhi in Sunday magazine and
how the conspiracy was put into operation.” [p.40 of the verdict].
2 of 21 12/15/2008 11:28 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 30 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part30.htm
“Second group comprising Robert Payas (A-9), his wife Prema, his
sister Premlatha, Jayakumar (A-10) and his wife Shanti (A-11) came to
India from Sri Lanka on 20.9.1990 [i.e, Sept.20, 1990] as refugees and
reported at Rameshwaram. [p.41 of the verdict]
“Third group comprising Ravi (A-16) and Suseendran (A-17) along
with Sivarasan arrived in India from Sri Lanka in the end of December
1990. Both Ravi (A-16) and Suseendran (A-17) are Indian Tamils.
This group was seen off at Sri Lanka by Pottu Amman. [p.41 of the
verdict]
“Fourth group comprising Arivu (A-18) and Irumborai (A-19) came to
India in October 1990. They had gone to Sri Lanka in May 1990 with
Baby Subramaniam where they had met Prabhakaran [p.41 of the
verdict]
“In the fifth group there is only one person – Murugan (A-3), who
arrived in India clandestinely in the third week of January 1991 with
the directions from Pottu Amman [p.41 of the verdict]
“Sixth group comprising Kanagasabapathy (A-7) and Athirai (A-8)
came to India on 23.4.1991 [i.e, April 23, 1991] and was seen off by
Pottu Amman with certain specific instructions in an LTTE boat with
escort. [p.42 of the verdict]
“Seventh and the last group consisting of nine persons under the
leadership of Sivarasan arrived at Kodiakkarai on 1.5.1991 [i.e, May 1,
1991] in an LTTE boat. This group was seen off by Pottu Amman on
27.4.1991 [i.e, April 27, 1991]. The boat in which they were traveling
developed a snag and had to return. They left shore of Sri Lanka on
30.4.1991 [i.e, April 30, 1991] when again Pottu Amman was there to
see them off. Nine persons were Sivarasan, Santhan (A-2), Shankar
(A-14), Vijayanandan (A-5), Ruban (A-6), Subha, Dhanu, Nero and
Keerthi. Last four and Sivarasan are deceased accused.” [p.43 of the
verdict]
3 of 21 12/15/2008 11:28 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 30 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part30.htm
efforts in Sri Lanka, (4) treatment of injured LTTE cadres in India, (5)
medical assistance and (6) transporting of goods like petrol, diesel,
lungies, medicines, wireless equipments and explosives and even
provisions to Sri Lanka.
2. Hiring of houses in Tamil Nadu was for various activities of the
LTTE, which included houses for the treatment of injured LTTE
cadres.
3. Sivarasan was having other activities in Tamil Nadu. He was to make
arrangements for Santhan (A-2) to go to Switzerland and for
Kanagasabapathy (A-7) and Athirai (A-8) to go to Delhi and from
there to Germany. He was to make arrangement to recruit persons to
impart arms training in Sri Lanka through Ravi (A-16) and Suseendran
(A-17) and to arrange houses at Madras through Robert Payas (A-9),
Jayakumar (A-10) and Vijayan (A-12) for the stay of LTTE cadres not
necessarily for conspirators. He financed Vijayanandan (A-5) in
Madras for purchase of books for LTTE library in Jaffna. Shanmugham
(DA ; i.e, referring to deceased accused) in his confession (Exhibit for
Prosecution – 1300) stated that Sivarasan with others stayed in a house
at Kodiakkarai and they were arranging to send petrol and diesel oil by
boat to LTTE in Sri Lanka.
4. In case of some of the accused including deceased accused there is
no evidence whatsoever that they were members of the conspiracy.
Prosecution has been unfair to charge them with conspiracy.
5. There is no evidence that all the nine persons, who arrived in
India by boat on 1.5.1991 [i.e, May 1, 1991], namely, Sivarasan,
Subha, Dhanu, Nero, Dixon, Santhan (A-2), Shankar (A-4),
Vijayanandan (A-5) and Ruben (A-6), were members of the
conspiracy. In this group there was Ruben (A-6), who came to India to
have an artificial leg fixed which he had lost in a battle with Sri Lankan
army. Sivarasan, Subha, Dhanu, Nero and Dixon are deceased accused.
[My observation: Of the nine persons, Justice Thomas in his verdict had
noted that Sivarasan could belong to the first category of conspirators, and
Santhan as belonging to the second category of conspirators even if he slip
out of the first category; see, The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon – part 29.
Thus, there was divergence in the views of two Justices.]
6. Prosecution also named Jamuna @ Jameela (DA) as a
conspirator, who had also come to India for fixing an artificial limb,
which she had also lost in a battle with Sri Lankan army. There is
not even a whisper in the whole mass of evidence that she had even
knowledge of any conspiracy to kill Rajiv Gandhi. Simply because
she was found dead having committed suicide along with Sivarasan,
Subha and others at Bangalore, could not make her a member of the
4 of 21 12/15/2008 11:28 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 30 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part30.htm
conspiracy.
7. From frequent and unexplained meetings of some of the accused
with others, who have been charged with conspiracy, it cannot be
assumed that they all were members of the conspiracy. This is
particularly so when LTTE was having various activities on Indian
soil for its war efforts in Sri Lanka. Notebook (Exhibit for
Prosecution –1168) seized by the police gives bio-data of some LTTE
cadre working in India though that list is not extensive. It also contains
the bio-data of Irumborai (A-19).
8. All the persons, who came from Sri Lanka during the strife, did not
come through authorized channels. It is also to be seen if the accused
now charged with conspiracy and alleged to have come to India in the
guise of refugees were not in fact refugees. Rather evidence shows that
Robert Payas (A-9), Jayakumar (A-10) and Shanti (A-11) as one group
and Vijayan (A-12), Selvaluxmi (A-13) and Bhaskaran (A-14) as the
second group, were in fact wanting to come to India due to conditions
prevailing in Sri Lanka. They had no money to pay to LTTE. They
were exempted from paying any toll to LTTE on their agreeing to hire
houses in Tamil Nadu for stay of LTTE cadre and on their being
promised help by LTTE. When they so agreed they were not aware
that what was the object behind their hiring the houses. Evidence
regarding providing shelter to the conspirators either before or after the
object of the conspiracy has been achieved, is not conclusive to
support the charge of conspiracy against them.
9. Robert Payas (A-9), Jayakumar (A-10) and Vijayan (A-12) were
hard-core LTTE activists. They were living in Sri Lanka with their
families and suffered because of the turmoil there. They may be
sympathizers of LTTE having strong feelings against IPKF. Consider
the background in which they accepted the offer of LTTE to meet their
expenses in India. It could be that they themselves felled into the trap
because of the circumstances in which their families were placed in Sri
Lanka and the conditions prevailing there.”
I tabulated the other charges for accused other than Nalini, as presented by
Justice Wadhwa. Next to Nalini, Arivu (A-18) was charged on 63 counts.
5 of 21 12/15/2008 11:28 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 30 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part30.htm
Next to Arivu, seven accused (A-7, A-8, A-10, A-11, A-12, A-13, and A-19)
were charged on four counts each; seven other accused (A-3, A-14, A-21,
A-23, A-24, A-25 and A-26) were charged on three counts each; six other
accused (A-2, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-20 and A-22) were charged on two counts
each; two remaining accused (A-9 and A-15) were charged on one count
each. The charge No.1, which was common to all 26 accused were the
following seven items:
120-B read with 302, 326, 324, 201, 212, 216 of Indian Penal Code.
3,4 and 5 of Explosives Substances Act, 1908
25 of Arms Act, 1959
12 of Passport Act, 1967
14 of Foreigners Act, 1946
6(1-4) Indian Wireless and Telegraphy Act, 1933
3, 4 & 5 TADA, 1987
The Terrorist Act under Section 3(4) states, “Whoever harbours or conceals,
or attempts to harbour or conceal, any terrorist shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which
may extent to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.” [p.25 of
the verdict]
Of the 26 accused, eleven (A-7, A-8, A-10, A-11, A-12, A-13, A-14, A-16,
A-17, A-19 and A-23) were charged under both Sections 3(3) and 3(4) of
TADA; twelve (A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-9, A-15, A-18, A-20, A-21
and A-22) were charged under Sections 3(3) only; the remaining three
(A-24, A-25 and A-26) were charged under Sections 3(4) only.
Implying the system overload factor which cripples the Indian judiciary
system leading to many accused spending a longer duration under detention
in prison even before they become convicts [see, The Pirabhakaran
Phenomenon – part 28] Justice Wadhwa also recorded that,
“We may refer to the preliminary submissions of Mr.N.Natarajan,
senior advocate, who appeared for all the accused except
Shanmugavadivelu @ Thambi Anna (A-15). He submitted that he is
not challenging the convictions of various accused under the
Foreigners Act, Passport Act, Explosive Substances Act, Indian
6 of 21 12/15/2008 11:28 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 30 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part30.htm
Wireless and Telegraphy Act, Arms Act, and Sections 212 and 216
IPC. This he said was on account of the fact that for offences under
these Acts accused were awarded sentence of imprisonment for two
years or for a period less than two years which in any case has to be set
off under Section 428 of the Code as they had been under detention
throughout the period during trial. We are thus left to consider
offences under Section 120-B IPC, 302/34 IPC, 362/34 IPC, 324/34
IPC and under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of TADA. [p. 35 of the verdict; IPC
refers to Indian Penal Code.]
Purported LTTE links of the Main Accused whose Appeals were heard
From Justice Wadhwa’s verdict, one can tabulate the purported LTTE links
of the 26 main accused, whose appeals were heard by the three-judge bench
of the Indian Supreme Court. Among the 26, the following 16 were
indicated by Justice Wadhwa, as having had links with LTTE as activists or
helpers or sympathizers. They are namely,
7 of 21 12/15/2008 11:28 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 30 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part30.htm
and assisted the LTTE activist in getting medicines and acted as his helper.
Among these 16 accused, only two (namely Murugan and Arivu) were
ultimately convicted on the charge of aiding and abetting the assassination of
Rajiv Gandhi. Other 14 accused (nine Sri Lankan nationals and five Indian
nationals) were acquitted from the main charge. Of the other two convicted
for their roles in the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, neither Nalini (the 1st
accused; an Indian national) nor Santhan (the 2nd accused; a Sri Lankan
national), were indicated as LTTE individuals by Justice Wadhwa. But, the
status of Santhan in LTTE, as depicted by Justice Thomas, in his verdict, is
in discordance to that of Justice Wadhwa.
8 of 21 12/15/2008 11:28 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 30 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part30.htm
As a reminder, I would like to point out that the prosecution team, in its
Procrustean data-torturing mode and wearing blinders, had presented the
LTTE compilation Satanic Force to support its position that LTTE had
animosity against Rajiv Gandhi. Similar or even worse level of animosity
against Rajiv Gandhi was existing in the Sinhala press of Sri Lanka as well,
from May 1987 until the day of his death. To top it, there was even an
assassination attempt [not by LTTE!] on him in Colombo on July 30, 1987
which was cleanly captured in camera. Rajiv Gandhi became a saint to the
partisan Sri Lankan press, only from May 22, 1991.
9 of 21 12/15/2008 11:28 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 30 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part30.htm
Confession of Santhan
According to Justice Wadhwa, “Santhan (A-2) is a Sri Lankan national. He
knew Sivarasan as they both belonged to same town in Sri Lanka. According
to Santhan (A-2) important decisions like murder of anybody could be taken
only by Prabhakaran.” [p.75 of the verdict].
The last sentence, ‘His leader was Sivarasan’ is also of interest. Regarding
the ‘mysterious status’ of Sivarasan, I will provide details released by
Ranganath [the 26th accused who was acquitted] after his acquittal, in the
forthcoming ‘Espionage Angle’ chapter.
Confession of Murugan
According to Justice Wadhwa’s verdict,
“Murugan (A-3) when asked Sivarasan the reasons for killing of Rajiv
Gandhi he replied that Kasi Anandhan (PW-242) [i.e, prosecution
witness] had met Rajiv Gandhi at Delhi and was told that the meeting
was very cordial there and if Rajiv Gandhi came to power he would
help LTTE movement. Prabhakaran showed the letter written by Kasi
Anandhan (PW-242) suggesting cordial relations to Pottu Amman and
said that people like Kasi Anandhan (PW-242) should be removed
10 of 21 12/15/2008 11:28 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 30 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part30.htm
from the movement. When Sivarasan met Prabhakaran he told him that
‘We must teach a lesson to Rajiv Gandhi through the girls since IPKF
dishonoured women’. From this Murugan (A-3) understood that
decision to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi was taken by Prabhakaran.” [p.75
of the verdict]
11 of 21 12/15/2008 11:28 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 30 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part30.htm
Bureau recorded his angry outbursts against Rajiv Gandhi who, he said,
should be ‘fixed’ once he gets out of Indian soil.’
What a flimsy piece of evidence for the motive attributed to
Prabhakaran’s grouse against Rajiv? If the Intelligence Bureau had
tapped the telephone calls of all the politicians opposed to Rajiv
Gandhi from Kashmir to Kerala, they would have received adequate
angry outbursts against Rajiv Gandhi.”
“Athirai (A-8), a hard core LTTE militant girl, came to India in the last week
of April 1991 in an LTTE boat from Sri Lanka. Athirai (A-8) in her
confession said that she got specialised training in LTTE camps. She was
assigned the work of gathering intelligence on the operations and movements
of Sri Lankan army and other rival organisations like EPRLF, PLOT, etc.
Reports, she prepared, would be handed over by her to Mathiah, another
LTTE leader.”
Athirai had made her confession on Aug.29, 1991 (p.46 of the verdict).
Here is another ‘smoking gun’ that the then LTTE deputy leader,
Mahathaya, was intentionally overlooked by the SIT officials, when charge
sheet on Rajiv assassination trial was finalized in May 1992.
12 of 21 12/15/2008 11:28 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 30 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part30.htm
Such a verdict was arrived at by Justice Wadhwa, after allowing that the
confessions made by the accused (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 8th, 9th, 10th, 12th, 15th,
16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 23rd, 24th and 25th) following their arrests
were permissible.
13 of 21 12/15/2008 11:28 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 30 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part30.htm
14 of 21 12/15/2008 11:28 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 30 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part30.htm
15 of 21 12/15/2008 11:28 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 30 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part30.htm
16 of 21 12/15/2008 11:28 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 30 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part30.htm
17 of 21 12/15/2008 11:28 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 30 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part30.htm
18 of 21 12/15/2008 11:28 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 30 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part30.htm
1991 when Rajiv Gandhi supported the stand of LTTE and had
admitted that it was his mistake in sending IPKF to Sri Lanka and
wanted LTTE to go ahead with its agitation. That being the evidence
brought on record by the prosecution there is no question of it now
contending that there was conspiracy to overawe the Government. Its
stand throughout has been that it was the personal motive of
Prabhakaran and others to commit terrorist act by killing Rajiv Gandhi.
Under Section 3(1) of TADA overawing the Government cannot be the
consequence but it has to be the primary object. There is nothing on
record to show that the intention to kill Rajiv Gandhi was to overawe
the Government. Reference to the Indo-Sri Lankan Accord is merely
by way of narration.
Support to the struggle of LTTE in Sri Lanka was from Tamil Nadu
and it does not appeal to reason that LTTE would commit any act to
overawe the Government. It is matter of common knowledge that all
terrorist acts are publicized and highlighted which is fundamental to
terrorism. Whenever a terrorist act is committed some organisation or
the other comes forward to claim responsibility for that. In the present
case LTTE tried to conceal the fact that it was behind the murder of
Rajiv Gandhi. The object to assassinate was kept a closely guarded
secret.”
19 of 21 12/15/2008 11:28 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 30 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part30.htm
Nalini (A-1) and Arivu (A-18). There is no charge under Section 3(3)
of TADA against Rangan (A-24), Vicky (A-25) and Ranganath (A-26).
They are charged under Section 3(4) of TADA. Charge under Section
3(3) is against A-1 to A-23. If we examine one such charge, say charge
No.235 against A-21 which says that she in pursuance to the criminal
conspiracy referred to in charge No.1 and in course of same transaction
during the period between January 91 and June 91 at Madras and other
place in Tamil Nadu she had actively associated with and assisted other
conspirators for carrying out the object of criminal conspiracy and thus
she knowingly facilitated the commission of terrorist act or any act
preparatory to terrorist act and which was committing the terrorist act
by detonating the improvised explosive device concealed in waist belt
of Dhanu and thereby A-21 committed an offence punishable under
Section 3(3) of TADA. [Note by me: This lengthy sentence exceeding
100 words, though full of legalese is humorous indeed, where Justice
Wadhwa exposed the fallacy of the prosecution team’s main
argument.]
Designated Court held that hatred which developed in the minds [sic!]
of Prabhakaran, further developed into animosity against Rajiv Gandhi
in view of the events which took place after IPKF was inducted in Sri
Lanka.
Thus examining the whole aspect of the matter we are of the opinion
that no offense either under Sections 3 or 4 of TADA has been
committed. Since we hold that there is no terrorist act and no
disruptive activity under Sections 3 and 4 of TADA, charges under
Section 3(3), 3(4) and 4(3) of TADA must also fail against all the
accused.”
20 of 21 12/15/2008 11:28 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 30 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part30.htm
Eelam and Tamil Nadu after the signing of Indo-Sri Lankan Accord of 1987.
Could it be that some political operatives belonging to the Congress Party
had to be protected from the manacles of law? Or could it be, that the real
conspirators to the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi deserved an escape route.
(Continued)
21 of 21 12/15/2008 11:28 AM