HOME | NEWS | REPORT |
January 29, 1998
ELECTIONS '98
|
LTTE met Rajiv to hide its plot: judgeThe Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act court has held that the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam's emissaries's meetings with Rajiv Gandhi at Delhi in March 1991, two months prior to the former prime minister's assassination, were a smoke-screen and part of the conspiracy to eliminate him. The court on Wednesday held the LTTE responsible for the assassination and sentenced all the 26 accused in the case to death. Special Judge V Navaneetham, who delivered the historic judgment, has accepted the prosecution case that the two separate meetings --one by key LTTE functionary Kasi Anandan and another by its London-based emissary Arjuna Sittambalam were organised by the militants to camouflage their real intent. Citing the statement given by accused Sriharan alias Murugan, a hardcore LTTE militant, and the depositions of two witnesses, the judge said the meetings were nothing but a red herring. The court said the conspirators were placed at strategic locations and the preparations to achieve the object of conspiracy were already underway when the meetings were held. The meetings were held to hide the LTTE's design and a convenient ploy to emphatically deny its involvement if the needle of suspicion pointed to it. Rejecting the defence argument that the LTTE could have no motive to eliminate Rajiv Gandhi as its emissaries had met him two months before the incident, the judge, citing the statement of a witness, said Tamil leader A Amirthalingam was also assassinated in Colombo, Sri Lanka, in a similar fashion in July 1989. The LTTE emissaries had met Amirthalingam a couple of days before the assassination, he said. The witness had also spoken about posters which had come up in Jaffna and other Tamil areas in Sri Lanka, hailing the killers of Rajiv Gandhi as martyrs, the judge pointed out. On the involvement of all the 26 convicted in the conspiracy, the judge said the conspiracy was hatched in secret. It was, therefore, extremely rare that direct evidence in proof of the conspiracy could be forthcoming from wholly disinterested quarters or from utter strangers. But, like other offences, criminal conspiracy could be proved by circumstantial evidence. "Indeed, in most cases, proof of conspiracy was largely inferential, though the inference must be founded on solid facts," the judge said. By making available oral and documentary evidence, the prosecution had formed a chain which was so complete that there was no escape from the conclusion that, within all human probability, all the 26 convicted were members of the conspiracy, the judge said. Citing a Supreme Court order, he said conspiracy was a continuing offence. And in this case, as the object of the conspiracy was also to screen evidence and escape from the clutches of law, it continued till the death of the executor of the conspiracy -- Sivarasan. The judge also rejected the defence counsel's argument that it could not be said that Nalini was part of the conspiracy because of her mere presence at the scene of crime with Sivarasan, Subha and Hari Babu. Nalini was fully aware of the plot and shared the common intention with others to commit the crime, the judge said. He said Nalini had associated herself with Sivarasan, Murugan, Subha and Dhanu, knowing fully well that they were members of the LTTE, and had come to India to assassinate the former prime minsiter. "She rendered all assistance to the conspirators, knowing fully well that Dhanu was going to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi by becoming a human bomb. She purchased the green and orange churidar set and slippers worn by the deceased accused at the time of the bomb blast," he said. In furtherance of the common design, she returned to the city from Sriperumbudur, the scene of the crime, with Sivarasan and Subha and, therefore, continued to associate herself with them and finally absconded with Murugan, he observed. Another siginificant aspect of the verdict was that the judge had accepted as evidence the confessional statements made by 17 of the accused, though all of them retracted the same. The judge accepted the statements as each of them was corroborated by at least 75 to 80 per cent of the independent witnesses. The judge said the Supreme Court had, time and again, held that convictions could be based on the retracted confessional statement if it was corroborated by independent witnesses. Merely because the statements were retracted, it could not be said that they could not be acted upon, the judge said. Those who gave confessional statements and subsequently retracted them are: Nalini, Chinna Shanthan, Murugan, Athirai, Robert Payas, Jayakumar, Vijayan, Shanmugavadivelu, Ravichandran, Suseendran, Perarivalan, Irumborai, Bhagyanathan, Padma, Dhanasekaran, Rangan, and Vicky alias Vigneswaran. The judge noted that accused Murugan had argued his case on his own effectively and cross-examined the witnesses. UNI
EARLIER REPORTS:
EARLIER REPORTS:
|
HOME |
NEWS |
BUSINESS |
CRICKET |
MOVIES |
CHAT
INFOTECH | TRAVEL | LIFE/STYLE | FREEDOM | FEEDBACK |