Thursday, January 6 2005 16:37 Hrs (IST) - World Time -

New Delhi: The Supreme Court, which began hearing on the Kanchi Shankaracharya's bail plea in the Sankararaman murder case, today (Jan 6, 2005) repeatedly asked the Tamil Nadu police to "pinpoint" the evidence linking the Seer to the offence.

Repeated queries by a Bench headed by Chief Justice R C Lahoti evoked little response from the counsel for the Tamil Nadu Government, which is opposing the bail.

Appearing for the Tamil Nadu Government, K T S Tulsi, who handed over the case diary and other evidence in a sealed cover, said that the prosecution has "direct evidence" linking the Seer to the conspiracy to kill Sankararaman.

Defence argument:

Appearing for Shankaracharya, senior advocate Fali Nariman sought to drill holes in the prosecution theory linking the Seer to the murder and said that even on basic facts like payment of money to the assailants, the Tamil Nadu police have been changing its stand.

He said, first, the police claimed that Rs 50 lakh was withdrawn from the Mutt's ICICI bank branch for the purpose of giving payments to the assailants.

Nariman said that when the Mutt pointed out that no such money was ever withdrawn from the ICICI Bank, the police changed its stand and claimed the money was received from a land sale agreement and was kept in the Seer's room till its dispersal after the murder in September.

He pointed out that one of the Managers of the Kanchi Mutt, who is under arrest at present, has told the trial court that the money received from sale of land was deposited in Indian Overseas Bank in May 2004, much before the murder.

Faced with this kind of contradiction, Tulsi made a statement that accounts of the Mutt appear to have been tampered with and the police are yet to find the truth in it.

The Court, finding that the prosecution was not pinpointing the evidence against Shankaracharya, had to ask the counsel three times, "What are the specific pieces of evidence against the Shankaracharya. Let us pinpoint the evidence. What is the grave motive for commission of crime?"

Prosecution argument:

Tulsi pointed out that Sankararaman had grave differences with functioning of the Mutt and the activities of the Shankaracharya and had written 39 letters levelling allegations against the Seer to various authorities including the Commissioner of Charity.

The Court asked it is understandable to take note of prosecution theory that those letters could provide evidence for motive but was anything done pursuant to these letters either by the Mutt or Shankaracharya against Sankararaman.

The Tamil Nadu police didn't have any evidence to cite about the reactionary measures either from the Mutt or the Shankaracharya.

Tulsi then said, in any offence punishable with death or life imprisonment and in which there is confessional statements of co-accused, the main accused cannot be granted bail as has been held by the Supreme Court in Pappu Yadav case.

The Court observed that Pappu Yadav case, which was decided more on its facts, had no bearing on this case.

The Tamil Nadu police through its counsel Tulsi argued that it was Shankaracharya who alone had the motive to kill Sankararaman, who was exposing him and the Mutt. He said several of the witnesses in the case were employees of the Kanchi Mutt and if the Seer was released on bail, these witnesses would not be able to depose against him.

Tulsi said if the Tamil Nadu police had failed to arrest Shankaracharya, then there was definite plan by the Seer to flee to a foreign country.

The Tamil Nadu Police said that by engineering fake surrender of five persons in the Sankararaman case by making payments, the Seer had attempted to dislodge and misdirect the investigation.

Terming that this case would be a conspiracy trial, he said there is direct evidence of conspiracy by Shankaracharya to eliminate Sankararaman.

Requesting to court not to go deep into the evidence collected by the police so far, Tulsi said it was too premature to weigh the evidence as the charge-sheet in the case has not yet been filed.

The arguments are continuing.