മന്ത്രി കെ ടി ജലീൽ,ഖുർ ആൻ വിതരണമാണ് സി ആപ്റ്റിൻറെ വണ്ടി ഉപയോഗിച്ച് താൻ നടത്തിയത് എന്ന് വിശദീകരിക്കുന്ന കുറിപ്പിൽ ഇങ്ങനെ പറയുന്നു:
"ഇന്ത്യക്കാർക്ക്, വിശേഷിച്ച് മലയാളികൾക്ക്, വീടു വിട്ടാൽ മറ്റൊരു വിടു തന്നെയാണ് UAE. ആ ആത്മബന്ധം നില നിൽക്കുന്നത് കൊണ്ടാണ് പ്രധാനമന്ത്രി നരേന്ദ്രമോദി തൻ്റെ UAE സന്ദർശന വേളയിൽ അവിടെ ലോകോത്തരമായ ഒരു ക്ഷേത്രം നിർമ്മിക്കുന്നതിനുള്ള അനുമതിയും അതിനാവശ്യമായ സ്ഥലവും UAE ഭരണാധികാരിയോട് ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടത്. ചോദിക്കേണ്ട താമസം, നിർമ്മാണാനുമതിയും അതിനാവശ്യമായ ഏക്കർ കണക്കിന്‌ സൗജന്യ ഭൂമിയുമാണ് അവർ നൽകിയത്. ക്ഷേത്രം സ്ഥാപിക്കുന്നതിൻ്റെ മുന്നോടിയായുള്ള പൂജാദി കർമ്മങ്ങൾ ഇതിനകം തന്നെ പൂർത്തിയാക്കി ക്ഷേത്ര നിർമ്മാണം ആരംഭിച്ചതായാണ് അറിവ്."
മോദി ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടത് പ്രകാരം അവിടെ ക്ഷേത്രം പണിയുന്നതും ഇവിടെ നിയമവിരുദ്ധമായി ഖുർ ആൻ സർക്കാർ വണ്ടിയിൽ വിതരണം ചെയ്യുന്നതും തമ്മിൽ എന്താണ് ബന്ധം ?ക്ഷേത്ര കാര്യം പറഞ്ഞ് ഹിന്ദു വികാരം ഒപ്പം നിർത്താനുള്ള ശ്രമം ആണെങ്കിൽ ജലീലിന് തെറ്റി.
മോദി അവിടെ സന്ദർശനം നടത്തുന്നത് 2015 ലാണ്.അന്ന് അനുമതി നൽകിയത് അബുദബിയിൽ സ്വാമിനാരായൺ സംഘടനയ്ക്ക് ക്ഷേത്രം പണിയാനാണ്.2103 ജൂലൈയിൽ തന്നെ ഒരു മുസ്ലിം വ്യവസായി ഇതിന് അഞ്ച് ഏക്കർ സംഭാവന ചെയ്തിരുന്നു.ദുബായ് ഹൈവേയിലാണ് ക്ഷേത്ര നിർമാണം.
ക്ഷേത്രത്തിൽ വിഗ്രഹങ്ങൾ വയ്ക്കാൻ അവകാശമില്ല.ചിത്രങ്ങളേ ആകാവൂ.അവിടത്തെ മത നിയമമാണ് ബാധകം.അതായത്.ഹിന്ദു ക്ഷേത്ര തച്ചു ശാസ്ത്രം വിലപ്പോവില്ല.യഥാർത്ഥത്തിൽ ഇത് ഒരു ക്ഷേത്രം അല്ല.
ജലീലിന് അറിയാത്തത്,ദുബായിൽ മുൻപേ ഒരു ക്ഷേത്രം ഉണ്ട് എന്നുള്ളതാണ്.1958 ൽ ഷെയ്ഖ്‌ റാഷിദ് ബിൻ സായിദ്‌ അൽ മഖ്‌ദൂം അനുവദിച്ചതാണ് ഇത്.ഇതും നിയതമായ അർത്ഥത്തിൽ ക്ഷേത്രം അല്ല.ശിവനും കൃഷ്ണനും ഷിർദി സായി ബാബയ്ക്കുമുള്ള പ്രാർത്ഥനാ ഹാൾ മാത്രമാണ്,ഇത്.ഇന്ത്യൻ കോൺസുലേറ്റിന്റെ അധീനതയിലുള്ള ഈ 'ക്ഷേത്ര'ത്തിലും ചിത്രങ്ങളേയുള്ളു.ഇവിടെ ഹിന്ദു വിവാഹങ്ങൾ നടത്താമെങ്കിലും അവ റജിസ്റ്റർ ചെയ്യാൻ യു എ ഇ യിൽ നിയമമില്ല.ബർ ദുബായ് ഓൾഡ് സൂക്കിലെ ഒരു കച്ചവട സമുച്ചയത്തിൻറെ മുകളിലെ ചെറിയ മുറിയാണ് ഇത് എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞാൽ തന്നെ ഇത് ക്ഷേത്രമല്ല എന്ന് മനസ്സിലാകും.പുതിയ ദുബായ് നഗരത്തിൽ നിന്ന് ഒരു മണിക്കൂർ യാത്ര ചെയ്താൽ എത്തുന്ന പഴയ നഗരത്തിലാണ്,ഇത്.ഒരു സമയത്ത് 10 -15 പേർക്കേ ഈ മുറിയിൽ നിൽക്കാൻ കഴിയൂ.
നരേന്ദ്ര മോദി ക്ഷേത്ര മാതൃകയോടൊപ്പം
ഇതേ മുറിയാണ് ഗുരുദ്വാരയായി സിക്കുകാരും ഉപയോഗിച്ചിരുന്നത്.പിന്നീട് ജബൽ അലിയിൽ അവർക്ക് വേറെ സ്ഥലം കിട്ടി.
ഈ ഗതികെട്ട സാഹചര്യത്തിൽ,അബുദബിയിൽ സ്വാമി നാരായൺ 'ക്ഷേത്ര'ത്തിന് 2018 ഫെബ്രുവരി 11 ന് ശിലാന്യാസം നടന്നു.ദുബായ് ഓപ്പറ ഹൗസിൽ നിന്ന് മോദി ഇത് വിഡിയോയിൽ കണ്ടു.
രാജസ്ഥാനിൽ നിന്ന് കല്ലുകൾ കൊണ്ട് വന്നു.2019 ജനുവരിയിൽ 14 ഏക്കർ കൂടി കിട്ടി.ഏപ്രിൽ 20 ന് കല്ലിട്ടു.മഹന്ത് സ്വാമി മഹാരാജിൻറെ സാന്നിധ്യത്തിൽ വേദ മന്ത്രങ്ങൾ ഉരുവിട്ടു.ഓഗസ്റ്റിൽ ഇവിടെ രക്ഷാബന്ധനും ജന്മാഷ്ടമിയും കൊണ്ടാടി.ഇവിടെ വിഗ്രഹങ്ങളില്ല.ഇതും പ്രാർത്ഥനാലയം മാത്രമാണ്.ഇത് 2022 ൽ തുറക്കും.
അത് കൊണ്ട് ജലീൽ,യു എ ഇ യിൽ താങ്കൾ പറയുന്ന പോലെ ഒരു ക്ഷേത്രം ഇല്ല.അവിടെ മതേതരത്വം സാധ്യമല്ല.
ഇവിടെ എന്തുമാകാം;ഖുർ ആൻ സർക്കാർ വണ്ടിയിൽ കടത്താം;സ്വർണവും കടത്താം.അതിന് ശേഷം ഘോര ഘോരം മതേതരത്വം വിളമ്പാം.
Digvijay Singh,Congress leader has said that Rajiv Gandhi had wanted the Ram temple at Ayodhya.How far it is true?
The answer is there in Zoya Hassan's book,Congress After Indira.
Halfway through his five-year term as prime minister, Rajiv Gandhi had faltered in most of his major initiatives.
One of the cardinal mistakes was to get directly involved in the controversy over the role of the state in regulating the personal law of religious minorities, and that at a time when Hindutva politics were on the rise. The timing of this initiative was obviously wrong. The prime minister, concerned about losing Muslim support, decided to enact the Muslim Women’s (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act (MWA) of 1986. This was done to revoke the landmark Supreme Court judgement, which granted a maintenance allowance to Shah Bano, a 73-year-old Muslim divorcee, to be paid by her husband under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr Pc).
Rajiv Gandhi at Rishikesh,1991
The Court ruled that Section 125, as part of criminal rather than civil law, overrode all personal law and was uniformly applicable to all women, including Muslim women. At stake in this case was the right of a divorced Muslim woman to claim maintenance from her former husband under the Cr Pc.The verdict of the court was correct,and it would have been judicious on the part of Rajiv Gandhi,if he had gone with it,and had won the Hindu psyche.
This controversy sparked off a huge political uproar, demanding exclusion of Muslim women from the purview of the Cr Pc, to which otherwise all citizens have recourse. Acting on the advice of the clergy, the Congress government took the decision to nullify the court’s verdict and enact the MWA, declaring that Muslim women would not have recourse to the provisions of the Cr Pc in regard to maintenance in the event of divorce. Rajiv Gandhi succumbed to pressure from Muslims leaders in his own party to pass this statute.
This one piece of legislation which allowed Muslim personal law to prevail in reversal of the court decision ruined his reputation for modernity and progressiveness, and the move inflamed Hindu sentiments. It became a bone of contention between Muslim conservatives and critics of the government.
This excessive regard for Muslim sensibilities on personal law provoked an indignant reaction that India would be overrun by a rapidly rising Muslim population propagated by multiple wives. There was strong opposition from the middle classes, from Hindus more generally, and from the women’s movement, which regarded the MWA as a concession to Muslim fundamentalism and a break from secularism. This was a blessing for the BJP which for the first time experienced a conjunction of interests between the party and the middle classes which agreed that India’s Muslims were being pampered by the Congress.
For long the BJP had sought to demonstrate that the Congress was “pseudo-secular” because it had been interventionist with regard to the reform of Hindu personal laws while it refrained from interfering with those of Muslims. To the BJP and many other people outside the BJP circles, the Shah Bano episode was a touchstone of this.
The passage of the MWA gave them a significant opportunity to revitalise this critique and further condemn the double standards of the state’s constitutional law and jurisprudence. The political fallout was severe. Having done this, the Congress felt compelled to mollify Hindu militants demanding concessions on the Ayodhya dispute.
During this period, the BJP and its affiliates launched a nationwide campaign to construct a Rama temple at the site of the Babri mosque in Ayodhya. Hindu activists had been claiming that the mosque stood at the exact spot believed to be the birthplace of Lord Rama, and its use by Muslims was sacrilegious. A campaign to unlock the gates of the mosque and for the construction of a Rama temple at Ayodhya was launched by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) in 1984. The stir took a popular militant turn when it made the liberation of Rama’s birthplace the cornerstone of its programme, which was supported by the BJP and the RSS. The unresolved dispute in Ayodhya seemed to offer an opportunity for Hindu nationalism to garner support for the BJP.
The District and Sessions Judge of Faizabad, KM Pandey, ordered the locks of the Babri mosque, which had remained padlocked for decades, to be opened for Hindu worshippers on 1 February 1986. Arun Nehru, one of the chief advisors of the prime minister, was thinking in terms of a quid pro quo to appease the Hindu militants in exchange for the concession to Muslim clerics on the MWA. The unlocking of the gates was “manipulated through a judicial order” with the aid of the Uttar Pradesh government.
The operatives seized on the Ayodhya controversy to pre-empt the VHP plan for a large-scale agitation with little grasp of the explosive situation this would create. Significantly, this came as a surprise to the VHP because they feared that they were about to lose their most important issue for mobilisation. The Congress did not take into account that the VHP would view this concession as the first step towards the demolition of the Babri Masjid.
By the autumn of 1989, the atmosphere had become surcharged with tension when the VHP announced plans to perform shilanyas (consecration) in different parts of the country and carry bricks, manufactured for the purpose, to Ayodhya to lay the foundation stone of the Rama temple. In the face of this, the Congress government allowed the VHP to perform shilanyas at the disputed site. The shilanyas ceremony took place in November 1989, just days before the commencement of the parliamentary election. Unlike the opening of the gates to the Babri Masjid, which was supposed to have been undertaken under a court order, there was no such justification this time, except the hope that there would be a turnaround in the Hindu vote.
The party leadership reckoned that it could not afford to lose the initiative to the BJP and the Hindu support it was aiming for. Allowing the shilanyas to take place at the disputed site, although Rajiv Gandhi later admitted this was done under the erroneous impression that the area fell outside the disputed land, proved to be a breaking point. This tactical surrender had set the party on a perilous course,and the BJP benefitted.The BJP, VHP, and RSS launched a campaign to convince Hindus that the shilanyas had been the result of their efforts to compel the Uttar Pradesh government to concede to their demand. On the other hand, these actions inflicted serious damage on the Congress’s political base in Uttar Pradesh and inflamed Muslim sentiment.
Rajiv Gandhi wanted to be present in Ayodhya at the time of the shilanyas but his handlers misguided him. In the end, he did not go to Ayodhya but instead went on a sadbhavna yatra which aimed at undoing the damage caused by opening the gates of the mosque and the shilanyas. In the event, Rajiv Gandhi launched his party’s election campaign with a meeting at Ayodhya-Faizabad on 3 November 1989. He was under pressure to start the campaign from Faizabad and not Nagaur as was earlier decided.It was widely expected that he would assert on this occasion his own and his party’s commitment to secularism but he instead promised to establish Rama Rajya. This was apparently not part of the draft of the speech and was added later in Faizabad.
Senior Congress leader from Uttar Pradesh, Kamlapati Tripathi, warned that this craven approach would destroy the unity and integrity of the country and the only course open to the party was mass mobilisation to counter the VHP moves. Needless to say, the party leaders did not heed this advice as it was keen to undercut the BJP’s temple campaign with its own gestures to appease Hindu sentiment but it backfired as the Sangh Parivar rapidly seized the initiative. The leadership admitted that permitting the shilanyas was a mistake, but it was too late to retrieve the ground it had lost.
Rajiv Gandhi may have believed in the faltered Nehruvian model,not learning anything from indian history.All the Hindu leaders in India,have failed when they tried to appease the muslim fundamentalists.The classic example is Gandhi,who witnessed a Hindu genocide in Malabar,after he tried to appease the muslims,by the totally unwanted Khilafat movement.Hence we need not now discuss the upstart,Rahul Gandhi.
While Kerala is discussing Variyamkunnath Kunjahammad Haji and the Hindu genocide of 1921 on the eve of the centenary of the Mappila Rebellion, the story of the conversion of Unneen Sahib to Hinduism has to be remembered. As a result, the fanatic Muslims killed him and his family. It is known as the Ramasimhan episode since Uneen Sahib became known as Ramasimhan after his conversion.
I had read the name of Ramasimhan in the book, Khilafath Smaranakal by Mozhikunnath Brahmadathan Nambudiripad and had searched for the details in the library of the newspaper where I had worked. Unfortunately, the daily, established in 1888, had been banned for nine years from 1938 and thus had not reported the incident.
The conversion
In the book, Brahmadathan speaks negatively of Cherumukk Kunjan Othikkan who converted Kilimannil Unnian from Islam to Hinduism and made him Ramasimhan Nambudiri. Brahmadathan had been declared an outcast by his own Nambudiri community, after the Maappila revolt of 1921. Brahmadathan, Congress President of Cherpulassery in Palakkad was arrested by the police in a case in September 1921. He was given a life sentence and was imprisoned at the Bellary jail. He was declared an outcast for eating along with people belonging to other castes. He had gone to the high priest Cherumukk Somayajippad then seeking pardon. His entreaties were rejected then. After his death, his brother Kunjan Othikkan inherited the position of the high priest-he had been running a bank and had no knowledge of the rituals. But, according to Brahmadathan, he made his position an office of profit.
Kiliyamannil Thekke Palliyayali Moidu of Chemmankadavu village in Malappuram district of Kerala, had two sons namd Unneen and Alippu.Moidu or Kiliyamannil Moideen, hailing from Chemmankadav near Kodur in Malappuram, had made some money, managing the British rubber estate at Palipilly near Thrissur. He acquired land and a rubber estate himself, which were inherited by his son, Uneen or Unniyan.
Unneen was a rubber estate owner near Malaramba, Angadippuram, Perinthalmanna. The British government conferred the title of ‘Khan Sahib’ on Unneen as he was a landlord loyal to them. Unneen married the daughter of a prominent timber merchant Khan Bahadur Kalladi Unni Kammu of Mannarkadu in Palakkad district. Unneen had an Ettukettu bungalow at Angadippuram called the Malaramba bungalow and had leased for 90 years the 600-acre Malaramba estate from Kundrakal Nair, and had named it KM Moidu Rubber Estate. He drove an American Ford car. He had two brothers, Ali Bapu and Kunjahammed.
Unneen reached Angadippuram around 1905, to plant rubber following the British methods. He leased the 600 acres at Pariyapuram, and the land had a dilapidated Narasimha temple.
Unneen was very much attached to Western culture and was following their lifestyle. Being a rich landlord, he maintained local mosques, a madrasa and used to insult Hindus and their places of worship. He used the ruins of a nearby temple for building a latrine in his house. But all of a sudden he became sick and affected severe stomach disease. No treatment found to cure his illness. On seeing his pathetic condition some elders of nearby locality advised him to consult an astrologer and some Hindu Sannyasins for his recovery as they feared that it was a curse of God. They advised him to refrain from insulting Hindu deities and the Vedic literature.
Ramasimhan
During the campaign of Tipu Sultan in the Malabar region of Kerala, hundreds of temples were destroyed and plundered by the Muslims. Prominent among them were Tali Shiva Temple at Kozhikode and Shri Narasimha Moorthi Temple at Malaparamba.
The Narasimha temple came into existence nearly 350 years ago. But it had lost its prominence due to neglect by the family who owned it. Afterwards, one Kundrakkal Nair took up the reconstruction work. With Tipu Sultan’s entry into the Malabar region in 1779, this temple was also got destroyed along with others. Then, Unneen Sahib's family got a lease of 100 acres of land around this temple for a rubber plantation.
A dream
One night in 1944, Uneen had a dream of a fierce face shouting and screaming at him. He got very much afraid. The dream continued for several nights. His Hindu friends advised him to consult an astrologer. One of his friends was the lawyer Manjeri Rama Iyer, who was Dewan of the Nilambur Raja. Rama Iyer had converted himself to Buddhism. He was supportive of the Uneen family in 1921 and was critical of the trials of the Mappilas then. Iyer's family had disowned him.
The astrologer found out that it was Lord Narasimha who had appeared before Uneen in his sleep. He was demanding Unneen resettle Him in his old temple. The astrologers told Uneen to do it. He agreed to the proposal to reconstruct the temple in all its glory. His nightmare got over. He began to visit the temple site. He saw a number of Namboodiri pujaris, granite stone cutters, and the Narasimha idol being brought by the architects. It became a very busy pilgrimage centre for people from different professions. The mantras being recited influenced him very much.
He realised his mistakes and became repentant about his past actions. His painful stomach disease was also got relieved shortly. He changed his living style and eating habits. He took a special interest in Yoga, meditation and charitable works for the well-being of the Hindus. But the sudden change in Unneen Sahib infuriated the orthodox Muslims. The Muslim clergy tried their level best to change the mind of Uneen but were unsuccessful. He became more attached to Hindu religious texts and beliefs. He went to the Arya Samaj at Calicut along with his brother, sons and many other family members and got re-converted into Hinduism the shuddhi ritual conducted by Arya Missionary Buddha Singh in 1946. Unneen held Dayanand Saraswati's 'Satyarthprakash' in his hand. The incident was splashed in dailies and published in Fort St George Gazette.
On becoming a follower of the Vedic religion, Uneen got the name, Ramasimhan. One of his brothers, Ali Bapu, became Dayasimhan. Dayasimhan later became Narasimhan on his conversion into a Namboothiri Brahmin. Ramasimhan’s two sons changed their names to Fateh Singh and Jorwar Singh, the names of Guru Gobind Singh’s two valiant sons who were murdered on the orders of Aurangzeb during Mughal Rule for refusing to accept Islam. Former RSS Malabar pracharak Shankar Shastri had made all the necessary arrangements for the conversion of Unneen and his family.
Ramasimhan's two children renamed Udaya Simhan and Satya Simhan were sent to Delhi Arya Samaj school for education and joined the Birla College.
Accepting the request of Ramasimhan, the learned Namboodiri Brahmins agreed to convert Dayasimhan, brother of Rama Simhan into a Namboodiri Brahmin and his name was changed to Narasimhan Namboodiri. They even arranged the marriage of him with a Namboodiri girl named Kamala, daughter of Puzhakkattiri Kottuvadi Mangalathu Manaykal Narayanan Nambudiri.
Muslim protest and murder
When a Maulavi criticised the re-conversion as a great mistake on the part of Ramasimhan, he retorted: "I have not committed any mistake. It was my grandmother who, on being captured by Muslims, committed the fault of converting to Islam. I am re-converting to Hinduism to rectify the fault and atone for the sin of my grandmother."
But the reconversion of the wealthy and prominent Muslim family of Uneen caused a tremor in the Muslim-dominated Malabar region. They feared that it may create an exodus from Islam to the Vedic religion. On coming back to Hinduism, Ramasimhan became a peace-loving person. He returned his guns and licensed revolvers to the government which he was using earlier for hunting. He told the government that he no more need guns since now he believed in non-violence. He became a vegetarian and brought a cook, Raju/Ramu Iyer from Thrissur. The Muslim clergy spread the rumour that Uneen has become mad. His father-in-law Unnikkammu took away his daughter.
Dressed up as a Brahmin, Unneen converted the mosque in front of his home, into his visitor's room, for Hindu saints and priests, who frequently visited his home and performed pujas. He stopped gifts to mosques and began contributing to temples.
Things took a new turn when Kunjahammed, Uneen's younger brother decided to reconvert into Islam, in 1946. He held a meeting of prominent Muslims and clerics, to persuade Uneen to revert back. About 30 attended. Ramasimhan, who had thoroughly studied Hinduism by then, debated successfully with the Muslim clerics. The clerics announced that Ramasimhan was possessed by a Kafir Jin and he need to consume 14 oranges, which were ritually blessed. Ramasimhan refused. This act of Ramasimhan was counterproductive and encouraged the Islamic fundamentalists to brutally assassinate him and his family. Things became worse when Dayasimhan decided to marry a 15-year-old Nambudiri girl, Kamala, daughter of Mangalath Manaykal Narayanan Nambudiri, after his sacred thread ceremony, or upanayana. After the wedding, Narasimhan became a priest at the Narasimha temple.
The Muslim clerics held a secret meeting, declared Ramasimhan an apostate and decided to inflict the death sentence on him, according to the Sharia. The then IS, Izzatul Islam, which was formed to help the new converts, was assigned the killing job. Seven people from Pookottur, formed the death squad-Paramban Mammad, Kunyatkalathil Moideen Kutty, Puliyan Muhammad, Muttayilkaran Aymutty, Nanath Kunjalavi, Kalathinkal Kunhamu and Illikkappadi Ayamu. They met at the estate of Abubakar Haji, prayed and began their journey with a gun and 20 bullets.
The Muslim fundamentalists attacked the house of Ramasimhan at 2 am on 3 August 1947 armed with deadly weapons and slaughtered the sleeping Ramasimhan, his brother Narasimhan Namboothiri, his wife Kamala Antarjanam and their cook Raju Iyer, in cold blood. A large force of Muslims had come in two trucks with all types of arms, and they demolished the house of Rama Simhan. They desecrated the nearby temple, killed the holy cows and threw the meat and entrails there. Kamala's mother and her other children, who were in the bungalow, escaped.
The assailants destroyed the Narasimha temple; looted the bungalow. The idol was thrown into the pond. They filled the temple well, with the debris of the compound wall.
The Hindus of the whole locality got afraid and hid in their houses. Nobody was there to claim the dead bodies of Rama Simhan and his family. RSS was not a mature organisation then. The bodies were unceremoniously buried by the police on the hillock. Only one Hindu, the RSS pracharak from Nagpur, Sankara Shastri, was present.
The whole incident didn't get the attention it deserved, since the country had plunged into the independence celebrations.
The police arrested the assailants of Ramasimhan and his family. Ramasimhan's younger brother Kunjahammed, father-in-law Unnikammu and an accomplice Haneefa were arrested on the seventh day. Perinthalmanna SI Kesava Menon led the police team.
The weapons used for the murder were retrieved from the Kulathur Muthalakkot pond in which they were dumped. Four of the murderers were sentenced to death by the District and Sessions Court at Palghat.
Acquittal
The Muslim fundamentalists rallied behind the marauders and raised a huge sum of money for their legal assistance on appeal in the High Court of Madras. It was ironic that the Justice Lionel Clifford Horwill ( ICS) of the Madras High Court, in a judgement on January 19, 1949, acquitted all the accused of want of credible evidence. He also observed that “it is unfortunate that such a grave crime organised by the Moplah Muslims against the Hindus of the area has not been detected; if the police were unable to obtain more evidence it was because the Moplah community largely succeeded in maintaining secrecy.”
The pseudo-secular politicians of the then Madras Government were bribed by influential Muslim businessmen for supporting the convicts in fighting the case in the Madras High Court. In the PS Kumaraswami Raja cabinet of 1949, Kozhippurath Madhava Menon was the minister from Malabar, with a Courts and Prisons portfolio, apart from Education. The evidence was destroyed and prosecution witnesses were threatened and coerced into silence. As a result of such actions, the case was dismissed on the grounds of lack of evidence. Thus the murderers of this heinous crime were set scot-free. Many confidants of Rama Simhan like his Manager were bribed and were compelled to hand over the guardianship of his sons to his father-in-law Unni Kammu who forcibly reconverted them to Islam later. Even though the rule of the land could not punish the assailants and their supporters, many of them had a tragic life in their later part of life. Few of them became insane and destitute.
Madhava Menon
As a result of the Congress's support for the Mappila rebellion as well as the Ramasimhan murder 25 years later, the Hindus welcomed Communism to Malabar. The RSS had no foothold then. The RSS never forgot the incident in Malaparamba and their own helplessness at that time. They prepared themselves to redeem what they could not do in 1947. With great difficulty, the Mattummal Narasimha Moorthi Temple Trust went to the court to get an order for handing over the temple lands to the remaining dependents of Rama Simhan. His two children who were in Delhi were brought back and brought up as Muslims again. The Court allowed the Trust to reconstruct the temple. The members of the Trust began the reconstruction with very strong black granite stones. It took five years for the temple work to be finished. After elaborate religious Vedic rites, the temple complex, consisting of the main Lord Narasimha Moorthy, Lord Ganesha, Devi Durga, Lord Ayyappa and Lord Subramania, was been opened to the devotees again. After 60 years, the self-respect of the Hindus could be redeemed.
Today, the MES Medical College stands at the place where Ramasimhan's bungalow stood.MES claims that the estate was transferred to them by his descendants of him, after his murder. But the claim is said to be baseless since it was leased out by the Kundarakal Nair family to Unneen for 90 years. The lease agreement got expired in 1995; hence, the estate should be transferred back to the family or should be attached by the government. Even if the descendants had transferred the lease rights, it was illegal. The temple and the 60 cents around it have been handed over to the Hindus, after a prolonged legal battle.
The Verdict in the Appeal:
Madras High Court
Paramban Mammadu And Ors. vs The King on 19 January 1949
Equivalent citations: (1949) 2 MLJ 544
Author: Horwill
JUDGMENT Horwill, J.
1. The four appellants and three others who were acquitted by the lower Court were charged by the Sessions Judge of South Malabar under Section 120-B read with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, of conspiring with P.W. 10 to commit the murder of one Ramasimhan. There was also a charge under section 148 of being armed with dangerous weapons and rioting. They were further charged under four separate counts for the murder of the said Ramasimhan, his brother Narasimhan, the wife of Narasimhan, and one Raju Iyer, a Brahmin cook of Ramasimhan. These four persons will be referred to during the course of the judgment as deceased Nos. 1 to 4 respectively. The learned Judge found the first accused only guilty of conspiracy and the four appellants guilty under Sections 147 and 34, read with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, on all the four counts. He sentenced the four appellants to death and, as already stated, acquitted the other three.
2. The motive for the offence is said to have been the enmity borne by the Moplah community in general and the seven accused and P.W. 10 in particular against Ramasimlhan and his brother, the second deceased because they had renounced Islam and allowed themselves to be converted to Hinduism. Narasimhan had subsequently been elevated to Nambudiri rank and had been accepted by the Nambudiri community as one of their numbers; and to him in marriage was given the daughter of P.W. 26, a girl of 15 years of age, who was with her husband at the time of the murder and shared his fate. After the first deceased had been converted from Islam to Hinduism, he diverted the large sums of money that he was accustomed to contributing to Muslim charities and spent them on Hindu charities. In particular, he renovated a Hindu temple in the vicinity and was responsible for restoring regular worship there. He began a diligent study of the Hindu scriptures and was studying the Bhagavad Gita, and had perpetually with him P.W. 25, a Nambudiri, to teach mantrams to the second deceased. He had moreover sent his two sons to Delhi to be instructed and brought up in the Hindu religion. All this, the prosecution says, gave rise to a great deal of enmity against him among Muslims; and specific instances have been spoken to in the evidence in which Muslims were heard denouncing very severely the first deceased and even threatening his life.
3. Exhibit P-60 gives an accurate idea of the bungalow of Ramasimhan, by the name " Malaramba Bungalow ". The main entrance to the bungalow was on the eastern side. To enter the house one has to pass through a door situated on the eastern side of a porch, which is the entrance to the bungalow. Just inside that door were lying the first deceased and P.W. 24, a boy kept by the first deceased to massage him. This witness was lying on a mat (M.O. 17), which assumes some importance because on it was found a footprint, and P.W. 25 lay on another mat (M.O. 18), which is important for the same reason. From the verandah, one can enter the room marked " B " on the plan and from that central room, one can pass to rooms north and south. Immediately to the north of that central room was a room in which was lying a child of P.W. 26, the mother of the third deceased. Still north of that room again on a cot were lying the second and third deceased. To the south of the central room were lying P.W. 26 and two of her children. To the west of this series of rooms which run north to south is a verandah, from which is a passageway to the west leading into the dining hall and the kitchen. The western verandah of the main building was separated from this passageway by a door which was said to have been fastened on the night of the offence, as was the main entrance at the east. If those doors were secured, then, apparently, the house could only be entered by breaking open those doors. If one passed through the door separating the western verandah from the passageway, one passed first into the dining hall, where were sleeping the fourth deceased and his assistant, P.W. 22. To the west of the main hall was a kitchen in which P.W. 22 subsequently took refuge.
4. According to the story of the persons who were in that bungalow on the night of the offence and who survived the murderous assault, the first inkling that any strangers were trying to enter came from a banging on the front door. P.W. 24, deposed that the door had not been securely fastened. Although there were three bolts, only the bolt on the top had been secured; and so when the door was knocked that bolt fell and the door opened. P.W. 24 does not give evidence of any great value; for as soon as he saw a person enter, he ran through into the middle room and there joined P.W. 26 and her children. P.W. 25, on hearing cries, hid behind an almirah situated close to where he was lying. From there he was able to see something of what was taking place. He deposed that a little after midnight (2 a.m. was that time generally agreed upon), he heard a sound of a battering of the front door. Before he hid behind the almirah, the first deceased came saying " Who is it, Eda " and then crying out " Boy, I am cheated ", referring to the second deceased. He saw somebody cutting the first deceased with a weapon about a cubit long. He was able to see what was happening, not only by the moonlight shining through the door but by the light of a torch that was being shown by the assailant. The second deceased then came running and flashed a torch to see what was happening. He ran back when she saw the assailant. The witness saw a person chasing the second deceased but is unable to say whether or not that person was the same man who had attacked the first deceased. A little later, when things had become a little quieter, he made his escape. When the fourth deceased and P.W. 22 heard the door separating the verandah of the main building from the passage being broken open, P.W. 22 ran into the kitchen before anyone entered there; but he saw a person attacking the fourth deceased. Subsequently, somebody flashed a torch into the kitchen; but as he was hiding behind the door, he was not seen. The fourth deceased, though severely injured, was able to escape and give two statements, Exhibits P-24 and P-7, before he died. Exhibit P-24 is a statement recorded by a Head Constable. Later on, he was taken to the hospital, where the Sub-Magistrate (P.W. 6) recorded the other statement, Exhibit P-7. The earlier statement was a simple one in which he said that at about 2-30 a.m., he saw somebody flashing a torch and heard him kicking at the door of the bungalow. The man kicked open the door, flashed the torch in his face, and immediately began to attack him. It would seem from this statement that only one person came into the dining room where he was sleeping, but he saw a number of persons running away after attacking the second deceased. Then somebody fired at him with a gun and wounded him in the hip. Exhibit P-7 is to the same effect and is clear that he saw only one person, and that that man incited another to shoot him. It is of importance that in Exhibit P-7 he stated that the man whom he saw was a Moplah. P.W. 18 was sleeping in a Ford Car in a shed that had been erected against the southern wall of the bungalow, and when some persons ran there and set fire to the car, he escaped without identifying anybody. He said that he was able to make out from the accent of the assailants that they were Moplahs. There is other evidence that the persons who were attacking there were Moplahs; and we find no reason for thinking that the persons who made these statements were unable to say to what community the attackers belonged; for the dress and speech of the Moplahs are distinctive.
5. The offence was committed on the 3rd August 1947, and for a long time, no clues were obtained. A person by the name of Haneefa was later arrested and identified by P.W. 25 as one of the assailants. On the day of his arrest (14th October 1947) was arrested also Kunhammad, a brother of the first and second deceased, who had been converted upon the persuasion of his brothers, but later, reverted to Islam. Another person arrested at the same time was Kutti AH, the father-in-law of Kunhammad. In the meanwhile, the police had been examining the bungalow very closely and a number of blood-stained foot-marks were found in the bungalow on the mats M. Os. 17 and 18 and in the portico. One of these impressions was thought at one time by the Footprint Expert (P.W. 33) to be that of the right foot of Haneefa. Soon after these persons were arrested and one of the footprints identified to be that of Haneefa, a charge sheet was filed against these four persons. 6 or 7 weeks later, on 2nd December 1947, another charge sheet was filed, this time against 13 persons, including the four who had been charge-sheeted earlier, but not including any of the present accused of P.W. 10, the approver.
6. On the 14th October 1947, a special investigating officer (P.W. 45) had been sent to investigate, and he had come to the conclusion that the murder had been committed out of religious fanaticism; and since he had found some hair adhering to a door frame with broken glass in the room in which P.W. 26 was sleeping with two of her children, he sent out constables to make a diligent search in all the neighbourhood for persons who had been injured. The first man with scars to be found was apparently the seventh accused, who was arrested on 14th December 1947. His arrest was followed on 17th December 1947, by the arrest of the sixth accused. The fifth accused was found with scars and arrested on 26th December 1947. On 28th December 1947, the second and fourth accused were arrested, the latter having scars. P.W. 10 had been arrested on 24th December 1947 and gave a statement implicating himself and others on 30th December 1947, whereupon the first and third accused were arrested almost immediately on 1st January 1948. Footprints of the arrested men were taken and examined and provisional charge sheets filed; but it was not until 22nd March 1948, that the final charge sheet was filed against these seven accused, and these accused alone.
7. No special reason has been given by the prosecution why these seven accused and the approver P.W. 10. should have participated in this murder. It has not been shown that these eight persons bore any greater enmity towards the first deceased than any other member of their community, except possibly the fourth accused, who is the President of the Izzathai Islam Sangham, the principal objects of which are said to be to relieve needy Mussalmans and to send converted men to Ponnani for training. He is a leather merchant; but all the other accused seem to be men of humble status, though of independent means, with the exception of the seventh accused, a coolie. Accused 1 to 3 are ryots. The fifth accused is a cart driver and the sixth accused a tea shop-keeper. With the exception of the fourth accused, these men do not occupy any position either in society or in the religious life of the community that would make it likely that they would plot a murder of this kind.
8. The principal evidence against the accused is that of the approver., P.W. 10. One generally expects the evidence of an approver to be rich in detail and colour, consistent within itself and not having any important contradictions when compared with other statements made by him earlier. Such evidence carries conviction to the mind; so that a court feels that very little other evidence is necessary to satisfy it beyond all reasonable doubt that the approver's story is true. The evidence of the approver, in this case, is not however of that kind. It is thin and bare and does not carry with it an air of conviction. After stating that he and other numbers of the Moplah community felt hatred towards the first deceased, he described very briefly the conspiracy, which he said took place on a Saturday about the 14th or 15th of the month of Ramzan, about a week or so before the plot was executed. The plot was hatched quite by chance. At Konapparamukku, a place where people gather together in their leisure time to have a chat, the witness chanced to meet accused 4 and 5, and later accused 6, and discussed with them the enormity of the first deceased's lapse into heresy. At the actual conspiracy were also present accused 1 and 2. Then, after giving a very short account of the conspiracy, he went on to describe the events of the day of the murder and said that at about 4 p.m. on that day (Saturday) he went to Kavattuparamba and there met the sixth accused. They were joined sometime later by accused 2 to 5 and 7. From there, with the exception of himself, these persons left in ones and twos, apparently, agreeing to meet at Abu Baker Haji's rubber estate at 10 p.m. or so. The witness waited behind until 7-30 p.m. for the first accused, who had been observing the Ramzan fast and intended to set out only after he broke it. They then went to the place of assignation and assembled there at 10 p.m. They had with them some unlicensed guns and, as agreed amongst themselves each one of them had a knife. They then proceeded to the Malaparamba bungalow of the first deceased and while the witness kept: watch, the others went inside the compound over the southern wall. He then heard the sound of striking the door and human cries. About ten minutes later, all the seven accused returned. He fired a shot at somebody who was running away, presumably the fourth deceased. They then went on towards a tank about four miles away and there washed off the blood on their persons and either there or in the neighbouring jungle threw away their weapons and bloodstained clothes.
9. One thing that strikes one about this story apart from its bareness, in the open, is the manner in which the accused and P.W. 10 met together on the day of offence prior to its commission. One would have expected that they would have adhered to their original plan of proceeding secretly to the place of assignation in Abu Bucker Haji's rubber estate and not being seen together before that. We find, however, according to the story of this witness, that they met together as early as 4 p.m. and' openly waited for one another until all but the first accused had come. When one compares the evidence of P.W. 10 in the Sessions Court, with his confessional. the statement, one finds material discrepancies relating to the circumstances under which the murder was planned. Exhibit D-7 series are extracted from his statement made to the police. There he stated that they first planned the murder on a Monday about 2-1/2 weeks or so before the murder was committed. Then they, i.e. P.W. 10, and accused 2, 3, 5 and 6 decided to murder the first deceased on the following Sunday. On that Sunday they received information that the first deceased was not in his bungalow; and so it was postponed to the following Friday. They then arranged that himself and accused 1 to 3 and 6 should meet at 10 p.m. that night and that accused 4 and 5 should join them after they had left the tope on their way to Malappuram. They however found that it was again impossible to execute their plan that night; and so the murder was postponed until the following day, with the slightly different arrangement that they should meet together at the Kottapadi maidan at 5 p.m. This seems to us a very different story from, what was given by P.W. 10 in his evidence. One cannot say upon reading through the evidence of P.W. 10 that it is necessarily false; but failing as it does to carry conviction, we feel that very substantial corroboration of his story would be necessary before it would be possible to bring home the guilt of this offence to the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt.
10. The learned Sessions Judge relied principally on the corroboration of P.W. io's evidence on the evidence of P.W. 33, the footprint expert. In paragraph 38 of his judgment, the learned Judge stated:
So far as accused I, 3 and 5 are concerned, their complicity is established because their footprints were found at the scene. As regards the 4th accused, P.W. 16 proves that the 4th accused was on his way to the scene along with P.W. 10 and the 5th accused. This is sufficient corroboration for P.W. 13's evidence, as it is manifest that the 4th accused could not have had a destination different from his companions.
That is to say, assuming the guilt of accused 1, 3 and 5 because their footprints were found in the bungalow, the fourth accused must have been guilty, too, because he was associated with men whose footprints had been proved to be that of the murderers.
11. The opinion of a footprint expert is not admissible as evidence. If the court is to make any use of all of the footprint impressions, it must be satisfied from a comparison of the various footprints that they are those of the persons whom the expert says they are. The value of evidence with regard to footprints is obviously very much less trustworthy than evidence with regard to fingerprints. In a fairly good impression of a finger or even in an impression where only a portion of the finger is shown, there is a wealth of detail available to the expert and to the Court for comparison. One sees in a fingerprint a large number of ridges and sweat pores situated along with them.
In examining a fingerprint, therefore, one not merely compares the general configuration of the finger and all the lines on it, but one is able to study such minute details as the bifurcations and junctions of the ridges and the relative positions on those ridges of the sweat pores.
With regard to footprints, on the other hand, it would seem from the evidence and from what we have been able to read from Dr Hans Gross's book on Criminal I Investigation that one can only compare the general shape of footprints found ' with the shape of impressions taken from the feet of the. person suspected. Even in this limited comparison, one has not the same certainty as one would have in. comparing fingerprints; because foot impressions vary considerably according to the circumstances under which they are made. Footprints made when a person is walking slowly or fast, or running slowly or fast or jumping, all create differences that are material. Moreover, a footprint taken after a person has walked a considerable distance, as was the case here when the murder was committed., is larger than a footprint taken when a person has been at rest, as was the case when footprints were taken from the various persons in the Sub-Jail, including some of the accused and P.W. 10. On page 497 of John Adam's translation of the above book, the learned author says:
One may then say with Massen, and rightly, that the details of all the impressions of a barefoot are in each particular case so distinctive and so characteristic that it is always possible to differentiate them, one from another, and recognise again the same impression. This is wholly true only when the impressions in question have been produced under identical conditions...
If then the last and the first impression thus produced be compared, one will see how difficult it is to find this famous ' characteristic resemblance.
He then goes on to say that the difficulty increases if the foot is turned or moved. On page 499 he points out the necessity for making a number of trials in order to ascertain the circumstances under which an impression was made. He says that it is, therefore, necessary to find each time (when conducting the expert meat of taking a number of impressions without adding any fresh colouring matter) a footprint resembling the original in the quantity of colouring substance, when, alone impressions from the same foot might be expected to be similar. On page 510,. the learned author says:
Another result flowing from these conclusions is that the deductions made are only relative;. they can never be expressed by pre-cited data and have only comparative value. It is impossible to give measurements or fixed sizes; for the numerous factors-the size, the weight, and the other corporeal singularities of the individual walking, his burden, his gait, and the variable nature of the oil differ in every case, and maybe combined in so many diverse ways that it is absolutely impossible to give precise indications on this matter.
Malaparamba Mattummal Narasimha Temple
After discussing the matter further the author says:
If one has but one indistinct footprint and no clue therefrom, another must be searched: for.
The only other passage that needs to be set out is found on page 532:
Much prudence must here be exercised (in taking measurements) and nothing was undertaken which shows no chance of success. On the one hand, the foot itself varies considerably, e.g., it is much smaller in cold weather or after a long rest than during hot weather or after a long march; on the other hand, it is difficult to measure, inasmuch as it is not a regular body and must be measured differently according to the parts dealt with.
If we bear all these facts in mind, then we are far from satisfied that the prosecution has proved that the foot impressions seen by the police on M.Os. 17 and 18 and on the portico are the foot impressions of accused 1, 3 and 5. The process adopted by the expert for comparison was, first of all, to lift the impression by placing over it a glass plate. Through that glass plate, he would see the impression and make its outline on the glass with dots. He would then place the plate so marked over a plain sheet of paper arid mark the dots on the paper. Finally, he compared that with an impression made directly from the foot of the person suspected.
12. Ex. P-4I is said to have been taken from M.O. 17, which is not a very good impression; and we do not think that the dots showing the outline of the toes follow very closely the outline on the mat. Then again we find in examining the angles of the toes on the tracing taken from the impression on the mat and comparing it with the impression taken directly from the feet of the fifth accused that the angles at which the toes meet the ball of the foot are different in the two cases. In discussing these impressions the footprint expert stated that in general the size and contour of the pad were the same, as were the relative positions of the toes and the contour of the heel. That is true, but we cannot attach any importance to the; an inward curve in the lower portion of the pad, which is given as a special characteristic. That inward curve, however, was not very well emphasised in the print taken directly from the foot of the accused; and the inward curve might well be due to the fact that blood did not cover that particular portion of the pad.
13. The impression on M. O. 18 is also not very clear. The lifted impression in Ex. P-42, the expert stated, is in general of the same length as the impression in Ex. P-55, i.e., the impression of the foot of the third accused; the outer line of the pad is similar; and the relative positions of the big toe, second toe, and third toe are similar, as is the size of the big toe and of the heel. When we examined these, we found that the relative positions of the big toe, second toe, and third toe are anything but similar. In fact, they are so dissimilar as to lead us to conclude, not merely that the resemblance between the impression of the third accused's feet was not the same as the impression on the mat, but that the impressions must have been by different persons. We also did not find that the outlines and sizes of the heel and big toe and the length were very nearly the same in the two impressions compared.
14. With regard to the impression, Ex. P-54, of the first accused, the expert gave six general characteristics and two special characteristics which he found common to Ex. P-54 and the impression, Ex. P-35 lifted from the footprint in the portico. The second special characteristic is that there is a depression on the pad between the first and second toes. This, as we have stated with regard to other peculiarities in the outline, may have been due to the fact that that portion of the feet was not sufficiently covered with blood to leave an impression, especially as the corresponding depression is not seen to anything like the same extent on the impression taken directly from the first accused's foot. In trying to ascertain whether the footprint in the portico was that of the first accused, we are handicapped by not having been able to compare the outline marked on the glass with the outline on the portico itself; and we feel that it will not be safe for us to come to any conclusion against this accused in the absence of the original impression.
15. The learned Sessions Judge, for demonstration purposes, had several impressions taken of the feet of two peons in the Court. These we compared with those taken from the mats and the portico, and we found a reasonably close agreement between Ex. G-4 and Ex. G-5, taken from a foot of one of the peons, and Ex. P-35, which was attributed by the expert to the first accused. This is perhaps some indication that one must be careful not to draw too hasty a conclusion from such similarities as were pointed out by the expert. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that Mr Jayarama Aiyar has emphasised the evidence that only one assailant was present in the portico; and so even if we assume that one of these three accused was present in the bungalow that night, the other two footprints could not have been those of the other two, and might have been the impressions of the first and second deceased, whose footprints could not be taken. We do not want to over-stress this point; because the observation of P.W. 25 might have been faulty, and he ran away before the assailants left the bungalow.
16. The learned Public Prosecutor, finding that the evidence with regard to the footprints is far from conclusive, has relied on the fact that accused 4, 5 and 7 were found, when examined by various doctors, to have had scars on their persons which could have been the result of injuries sustained on the night of the offence. If there is evidence that an assailant has received any injury on some particular part of his person and a corresponding injury is found on the body of the suspected person shortly after the offence is committed, and there is medical evidence that that injury was probably caused at or about the time when the offence was committed, the evidence of the injury would be strong corroborative evidence against that person. But such evidence becomes increasingly weak as the time between the examination of the injuries or the scars and the date of offence increases. These accused were examined five or six months or more after the offence was committed; and so it was impossible for the doctors who gave evidence to say precisely that these injuries were caused on the day when the murder was committed or even within a short period before or after. They could not even be sure to within a month or so of the offence when the injuries were caused. Further, there is no evidence that any of the assailants met with injuries at the time when the murder was committed, except that when the police officers were examining the bungalow they found some hair adhering to some broken glass. That would indicate that on the person of one of the assailants on a part of his body normally covered with hair, one could expect to find an injury. The learned Public Prosecutor has stated that since there was a lot of broken glass strewn about, some of the assailants might have cut their feet walking over it. That may be true; but it is a curious circumstance that while many scars were found on the bodies of these accused persons, none was found on the feet of any of the accused. The seventh accused had no less than nine scars on his person, the fifth accused had three scars and the fourth accused had one scar and a number of scratches. The learned Public Prosecutor has been unable to suggest how so many injuries could have been caused to these three persons on the night of the offence. We are therefore unable to attach any value to this evidence.
17. P.W. 41, a tailor, deposed that he made a shirt for the fifth accused about eight months before the offence. When the tank spoken to by P.W. 10 was searched, a number of pieces of cloth were found there; and P.W. 41 claimed to be able to identify a piece of cloth about 15 inches long as a portion of a shirt that he had made for the fifth accused. We have examined that fragment, and we can scarcely believe it possible that P.W. 41 could identify it as a part of the shirt he had made so long before for the fifth accused.
18. P.W. 13, a keeper of tea shops at Kodoor and Chattuparamba, deposed that at about 8-30 p.m. on the night of offence he met a man whom he thought to be P.W. 10 and another. If it really was P.W. 10 that he saw, it would be in accord with the evidence of the approver; for he and the first accused might well have been where P.W. 13 said he saw them at about that hour. But P.W. 13 is unable to say with any certainty that it was P.W. 10, and so his evidence is of no value and the learned Sessions Judge very rightly did not place any reliance on it.
19. P.W. 12 deposed that he saw P.W. 10, whom he had known for a very long time, and the first accused, who was then a stranger, but whom he afterwards identified as the first accused, together in Malappuram at 4-30 p.m. on the evening preceding the offence and again at 7 p.m. in a tea shop. This evidence is inconsistent with the evidence of P.W. 10, who deposed that the first accused did not arrive there until 7-30 p.m. and that it was for him that he had remained behind after the other accused had left for Abu Bucker Haji's tope. Moreover, if P.W. 12 had seen P.W. 10 at 4-30 p.m. one would have expected if P.W. 10's evidence is true, that he would have seen the other accused who were with P.W. 10 at that time.
20. The only other witness whose evidence needs discussion as P.W. 16. In the absence of any definite conclusion to be drawn from the footprints, the learned Public Prosecutor relies very strongly on the evidence of this witness. He deposed that on the evening preceding the offence he was taking tea in a shop at Paha.-paramba and left it at about 8-30 p.m. He had not gone very far when he saw P.W. 10 coming along. Behind him in a group were five other persons whom he did not identify. Behind them again, at a distance of 12 yards, were the fourth and fifth accused, whom he had known from boyhood. The place at which he saw these persons was only about a quarter of a furlong from Abu Bucker Haji's plantation, which was the place of assignation. This evidence does not accord very well with the evidence of P.W. 12 who saw P.W. 10 and the first accused together on the other side of the plantation at the same time; and it conflicts still more definitely with the evidence of the approver, who stated that at 4-30 p.m. all the accused, with the exception of the first accused, left singly or in pairs, agreeing to meet in Abu Bucker Haji's plantation at 10 p.m. As he left with the first accused three hours later, he was unlikely to have been with these persons at 8-30 p.m. P.W. 16's evidence, if true, shows that they were leaving the plantation, presumably on their way to commit the murder. These differences in time between the evidence of P.W. 10 and the evidence of P.W. 16 can hardly be due to a mere misjudging of the time. The object of the conspirators was to proceed to the place of assignation singly or in pairs and not to be seen together, and so it is not likely that P.W. 10 would have been mistaken into thinking that he left the plantation at 10 p.m. if, in fact, he left it at 8-30 p.m. Moreover, their attempt at secrecy would have been frustrating if they had left the plantation as early as 8-30 p.m. when they would have expected to meet people on the road, who would see them all together. Nor could P.W. 10 very well have been mistaken as to the time; for he had just finished taking a cup of tea in the neighbouring tea shop and would have had a very good idea of the time in relation to his mealtime; and it is not likely that he would have thought that it was 8-30 p.m. if in fact, it was 10 p.m. The learned Public Prosecutor has asked us to accept the evidence of P.W. 16 on this point in preference to that of P.W. 10, and he has argued that we should not reject the evidence of P.W. 16 merely because we think it unlikely that the accused would have been in the open at about that time. If however, we accept the evidence of P.W. 16 as true, then it is most unlikely that at the time they were on their way to the scene of the offence, which was only eight miles away, and which they did not reach until 2 a.m., the next morning. If he did see them, it would seem more probable they were bound on some peaceful errand or were going for shikar, as the fourth accused is reported to have stated to this witness.
21. It is seen from the above discussion that the evidence of the approver receives no corroboration of any importance from the evidence of any of the other witnesses and has, therefore, to be rejected, as not being sufficient to bring home the offences to the appellants.
22.It is unfortunate that such a grave crime has not been detected; but the failure of the prosecution to prove the offence against the appellants was not due to any defect in the investigation, which seems to have been most carefully-and certainly very honestly conducted. No attempt was made to make evidence, where none was naturally forthcoming; and if the police were unable to obtain more evidence it was because the Moplah community largely succeeded in maintaining secrecy. It was almost impossible without their cooperation for the police to obtain any more evidence relating to the crime.
23. The appeals are allowed and the convictions and sentences passed on the appellants are set aside. They are ordered to be set at liberty.
In Hindu mythology, the son of Brahma, King Prajapati Daksha had a daughter named Sati.
Princess Sati grew up adoring the legends and tales of Shiva, and when finally her age of getting married came, she knew it was only the ascetic Lord Shiva of Kailash where her heart and soul resided.
Soon enough, Daksha’s daughter left her father’s luxuries and palace and began her meditation to win Shiva’s heart.She performed intense penance in dense forests and renounced food completely. When she finally pleased Shiva through her austerities, the lord of Kailash appeared in front of her and agreed to marry her.
The legend goes that Sati and Shiva were happy in their marital bliss, but their marriage had not gone down too well with King Daksha, who considered ascetic Shiva nothing short of an uncouth lad who lives a hermit’s life not worthy of his daughter.
So when Daksha organized a great yajna, he invited all the deities, gods and sages–but consciously excluded his son-in-law Shiva to insult him. Hurt by her father’s decision, Sati decided to visit her father and demand the reason for not inviting them. When she entered Daksha’s palace, she was bombarded with insults directed towards Shiva.
Haughty and proud King Prajapati Daksha called him all sorts of names right from a dishevelled god who hung out in a graveyard to the supposed ‘lord of the beasts’. Unable to bear anything against her husband, a devastated Goddess Sati threw herself in the glowing sacred fire of yajna.
When Shiva’s attendants informed him about the demise of his wife, he grew enraged and created Veerbhadra from a lock of his hair. Veerbhadra created havoc in Daksha’s palace and killed him.
Meanwhile, mourning his beloved soulmate’s death, Shiva tenderly held Sati’s body and started his dance of destruction (taandav). To save the universe and bring back Shiva’s sanity, Lord Vishnu cut Sati’s lifeless body using Sudharshan Chakra into 51 pieces.
These pieces fell on earth at various places and came to be known as Shakti Peeths. All these 51 places are considered to be holy lands and pilgrimages.
1. Amarnath: Shakti Mayamaya, Body part–Throat
One of the most famous temples of India, the Amarnath Shakti Peeth is located in India’s Jammu & Kashmir. Situated near Pahalgam in Anantnag district, this temple opens for pilgrimages during July/August when the Shivling is available for darshan. The throat of Goddess Sati is said to have fallen here. The devi resides here in the form of Shakti Mahamaya with Trisandhyeshwar as Vairabh.
2. Attahasa : Shakti Phullara, Body part–Lips
This Peeth is located in Attahasa Village of Labhpur in Birbhum district of West Bengal. The goddess appears as Shakti Phullara and her lower lip is said to have fallen here. It is compulsory to offer sour eatables whenever bhog is offered to the Shakti.
3. Bahula: Shakti Bahula, Body part–Left Arm
Located on the banks of Ajay River, this holy land is situated in Ketugram, roughly eight kms from Katwa of Bardhaman district in West Bengal. The goddess resides here in the form of Devi Bahula and is accompanied by Bhiruk as the Bhairava. The left hand of Sati fell on this land.
4. Bakreshwar : Shakti Mahishmardini, Body part–Centre portion between eyebrows
This Peeth is located on the banks of Paaphara River, approximately 24 kms south west of Siuri town. The centre portion of Goddess Sati had fallen here and she is worshipped in the form of Shakti Mahishamardini The temple is renowned for its eight natural hot springs which are enriched with healing powers.
5. Bhairav Parvat: Shakti Avanti, Body part–Elbow
Maa Sati resides here in the form of Goddess Avanti. This peeth is located near Ujjain in Madhya Pradesh at the Bhairav hills on the banks of Shipra River. In this temple, the goddess’s upper lip had fallen.
6. Bhawanipur: Shakti Aparna, Body part–Left anklet
Goddess Sati appears as Devi Aparna with Vaman as Lord Shiva in the Bhawanipur peeth, located in the Sherpur Village of Bangladesh. Here, the left anklet (ornament) of Sati had fallen.
7. Gandaki: Shakti: Gandaki Chandi, Body part–Forehead
Near the bank of Gandaki river, lies the Muktinath, Dawalagiri Peeth in Nepal. Maa Sati resides here in the Gandaki Chandi form with Chakrapani as the Bhairav. Here, her forehead had fallen and hence, the importance of this holy land can also be found in Vishnu Purana which is an ancient text of Hinduism.
8. Janasthaan: Shakti Bhramari, Body part–Chin
In the Godavari river valley in the Nasik city fell both parts of the chin of Goddess Sati. Devi is known as Shakti Bhramari or Chibuka (meaning Chin) here.
9. Hinglaj: Shakti Kottari, Bodypart–Top of the head
Sati’s Brahmarandhra (top of the head) fell in Hinglaj, around 125 kms away from north-east of Karachi. The goddess here is in the form of Shakti Kottari.
10. Jayanti: Shakti Jayanti, Body part–Left Thigh
Locally known as Nartiang Durga Temple, the Jayanti Shakti Peeth is where the left thigh of Sati fell. Located in Kalajore, Bourbhag village in Bangladesh, Devi resides here in the form of Jayanti Shakti.
11. Yogeshwari: Shakti Yogeshwari, Body part–Palms of Hand & Soles of Feet
Dedicated to Maa Kali, this Shakti Peeth is located in Iswaripur village, in the Khulna District in Bangladesh. The goddess resides here in the form of Devi Jashoreshwari and Lord Shiva appears as Chanda.
12. Jwala: Shakti Ambika/Siddhida, Body part–Tongue
Situated 30 km south to the Kangra Valley in Himachal Pradesh is the Jwala Shakti Peeth. Discovered by the Pandavas, here the Goddess Sati resides in the form of Devi Ambika or Siddhida. Tongue of Sati is said to have fallen here. She sits in the form of a flame, which miraculously keeps burning, even under the layer of rocks.
13. Kalighat: Shakti Kalika, Body part–Right Toes
This Hindu temple is in Kolkata, West Bengal. Kalighat is the site where Maa Sati’s toes of the right foot had fallen. The goddess resides here as Shakti Kalika.
14. Kalmadhav: Shakti Kali, Body part–Left Buttock
Left buttock of Goddess Sati fell in Kalmadhav, Amarkantak in Shahdol district of Madhya Pradesh. Devi appears in the form of Shakti Kali.
15. Kamakhya: Shakti Kamakhya, Body part–Genitals
One of the fiercest incarnations of Goddess Sati is Maa Kamakhya. Situated in the hills of Neelgiri in Guwahati, Assam, it is one of the most famous Shakti Peeths. The Yoni (genital organ) of Sati had fallen here. During June/July the goddess’s menstrual course takes place for three days. The doors of the temples are closed during this period, and Angabastra is used to cover the Yoni-stone of the Devi.
16. Kankalitala: Shakti Devgarbha, Body part–Pelvis
Located on the bank of Kopai River, in the Birbhum District of West Bengal, this temple is locally known as Kankaleshwari. The Goddess is worshipped here as Devgarbha or Kankaleshwari.
17. Kanyashram: Shakti Sravani, Body part–Spine
This famous temple is located in Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu. Devi is in the form of Shakti Sravani.
18. Chamundeswari: Shakti JayaDurga, Body part–Both Ears
In the Chamundi Hills of Mysore is the Shakti Peeth where both the ears of Sati had fallen. The devi resides here and is worshipped in the form of goddess Jaya Durga.
19. Kireet: Shakti Vimla, Body part–Crown
Crown of Sati had fallen in Kireet, near Lalbagh court road of Murshidabad district in West Bengal. Maa is worshipped here as Goddess Vimla.
20. Ratnavali: Shakti Kumari, Body part–Right Shoulder
Locally known as the Anandamayee Temple, Kumari Shakti Peeth is situated on the bank of Ratnakar River in Khanakul, West Bengal. Here, the right shoulder of goddess Sati had fallen. She is worshipped in the form of Shakti Kumari.
21. Trisrota: Shakti Bhraaamari, Body part–Left Leg
This Shakti Peeth is on the bank of Teesta River in Jalpaiguri of West Bengal, and is locally known as Bhramari Devi Temple. Sati’s left leg had fallen here and she resides in the form of Shakti Bhraamari.
22. Manasa: Shakti Dakshayani, Body part–Right Hand
This Shakti Peeth is located near the foot of Kailash Mountain in Mansarovar, Tibet, China. It is in the form of a stone slab. The devi is in the form of Shakti Dakshayani. Here, Sati’s right hand had fallen.
23. Manibandh: Shakti Gayatri, Body part–Wrists
Situated near Pushkar at the Gayatri Hills in Ajmer, Rajasthan, this Shakti Peeth is where two manivediakas or wrists of Sati had fallen. The Goddess is worshipped here as Gayatri.
24. Mithila: Shakti Uma, Body part–Left shoulder
Near the Janakpur Railway Station on the border of India and Nepal lies Mithila, where the left shoulder of Sati had fallen. Here, Sati is in the form of Shakti Uma.
25. Nainativu: Shakti Indrakshi, Body part–Anklets
This Shakti Peeth is in Nainativu, Manipallavam, 26 kms from the ancient capital Jaffna, Nallur in Sri Lanka. The idol of the goddess is believed to be made by Lord Indra and was worshipped by both Lord Rama and King Ravan. The anklet of Maa Sati is said to have fallen here.
26. Guhyeshwari: Shakti- Mahashira, Body Part- Both Knees
Situated near to the PashupatiNath Temple in Kathmandu, Nepal, this temple is where both the knees of Maa Sati had fallen. She is worshipped here as the Devi Mahashira. King Pratap Malla built this temple in the 17th century.
27. Chandranath: Shakti Bhawani, Body part–Right Arm
Situated on the top of Chandranath hills near Sitakunda station, this Peeth is in Chittagong, Bangladesh. Goddess is worshipped as Devi Bhawani here. Sati’s right arm had fallen here.
28. PanchSagar: Shakti Varahi, Body part–Lower Teeth
Located near Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh, this Shakti Peeth is dedicated to “Maa Varahi”. Devi Sati’s lower teeth fell here.
29. Prabhas: Shakti Chandrabhaga, Body part–Stomach
It is believed that the stomach of goddess Sati fell in Prabhas-Kshetra, near Somnath Temple in Guajarat’s Junagadh district. Here, the devi is in the form of Chandrabhaga.
30. Prayag: Shakti Lalita, Body part–Finger
Fingers of both the hands of Goddess Sati fell in this Shakti Peeth. Goddess is worshipped here in the form of Lalita. There are three temples, namely, Akshaywat, Mirapur and Alopi.
31. Kurukshetra: Shakti Savitri, Body part–Ankle Bone
Maa Sati appeared as Savitri, also known as Bhadra Kali in Thanesar, Kurukshetra, Haryana. The ankle bone of Sati had fallen here.
32. Maihar: Shakti Shivani, Body part–Right Breast
Maihar is an amalgam of two words; Mai meaning mother and Har meaning necklace. According to the Hindu Mythology, Sati’s necklace fell down in this city situated in Satna district of Madhya Pradesh, and hence people started calling it “Maihar”. The temple is situated at the Trikoota hill. Devi is worshipped here.
33. Nandikeshwari: Shakti Nandini, Body part–Necklace
Located in Sainthia town in Birbhum district of West Bengal, this temple is where the necklace of Maa Sati had fallen. This Shakti Peeth is only 1.5 kms from the railway station. Devi is worshipped here Nandini.
34. Vishweshwari: Shakti Rakini, Body part–Cheeks
This Shakti Peeth is located at Kotilingeshwara temple on the banks of Godavari River. Sarvashail is a famous Shakti Peeth where the cheeks of Goddess Sati fell. Maa Sati is worshipped here as Rakini.
35. Shivaharkaray: Shakti Mahisha-Mardini, Body part–Eyes
This Shakti Peeth is situated near the Parkai Railway Station, near Karachi in Pakistan. Goddess Sati’s eyes fell here and she is worshipped as Mahisha-Mardini.
36. Shondesh: Shakti Narmada, Body part–Right Buttock
At the source point of Narmada River, at Shondesh in Amarkantak of Madhya Pradesh fell the right buttock of Goddess Sati. Here, the devi is in the form of Narmada.
37. SriSailam: Shakti Sundari, Body part–Right Anklet
Located in Tripurantakam, Sri-Sailam in Andhra Pradesh, this Shakti Peeth is where the right anklet of Maa Sati fell. The goddess is worshipped here in the form of Sundari and Sri Sundari.
38. Sri Shail: Shakti Maha-Lakshmi, Body part–Neck
The Shakti Peeth is located at Sri Shail at Jaunpur Village in Bangladesh. Devi Sati’s neck is believed to have fallen here. Here, the goddess appears in the form of Maha-Lakshmi.
39. Shuchi: Shakti Narayani, Body part–Upper Teeth
This temple is located at Suchindram, which is 11 kms on the Kanyakumari road of Tamil Nadu. Sati resides here as Devi Narayani.
40. Shikarpur: Shakti Sugandha, Body part–Nose
Situated on the banks of river Sonda, Shikarpur is 20 km away from the Barisal town in Bangladesh. Here, the devi is known as Maa Sunanda or Devi Tara.
41. Tripura: Shakti Tripur Sundari, Body part–Right Foot
Situated in RadhaKishorepur Village, a few kms away from the Udaipur town, Tripur Bhairavi Shakti Peeth is where the right foot of Sati had fallen. The goddess is in the form of Devi Tripur Sundari.
42. Ujjani: Shakti Mangal Chandika, Body part–Right Wrist
Located at Ujjani village in Guskara station of Burdwan district, West Bengal, this Shakti Peeth is where the right wrist of Devi Sati had fallen. She is worshipped here as Devi Mangal Chandika.
43. Varanasi: Shakti Vishalakshi, Body part–Earrings
This temple is located in Manikarnika Ghat, in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. It is where the earrings of Goddess Sati had fell. Devi is worshipped here as Vishalakshi and Manikarni.
44. Vibash: Shakti Kapalini, Body part–Left Ankle
Located in Tamluk in Medinipur district of West Bengal, this Shakti Peeth is where the left ankle of goddess Sati had fallen. Goddess is worshipped as Kapalini.
45. Bharatpur: Shakti Ambika, Body part–Left Toes
It is believed that the fingers of the left feet of Goddess Sati fell in the Biraat Nagar, Bharatpur district of Rajasthan. Sati is worshipped here as Ambika Shakti.
46. Vrindavan: Shakti Uma, Body part–Ringlets of Hair
In the Bhuteshwar Temple in Mathura district of Uttar Pradesh lies this Shakti Peeth. The goddess Sati’s ringlets of hair are said to have fallen here. The goddess is worshipped as Devi Uma.
47. Jalandhar: Shakti Tripurmalini, Body part–Left Breast
This Shakti Peeth is located in Jalandhar, Punjab. Devi Sati’s left breast fell here. The goddess resides here as Tripurmalini.
48. Ambaji: Shakti Amba, Body part–One part of the Heart
Guarded by the Aravalli Hills from all sides, this gorgeous temple is situated in Gujarat. The temple is located on the peak of Gabbar Hill. It is said that the heart of Sati Devi’s fell here. Aadi Shakti appears here as Goddess Amba.
49. Jharkhand: Shakti Jai Durga, Body part–Second part of the Heart
Situated in Deogarh in Jharkhand, Baidyanath Jayadurga Shakti Peeth is one of the most revered temples of India. It is the temple where Goddess Sati’s heart had fallen and she is worshipped as Jai Durga.
50. Danteshwari: Shakti Danteshwari, Body part–Tooth
Located in Chhattisgarh, Danteshwari Temple is dedicated to Danteshwari Devi. It is believed that Goddess Sati’s tooth fell here when Lord Shiva was carrying her charred, lifeless body around the earth.
51. Biraj: Shakti Vimla, Body part–Navel
This Shakti Peeth is located in Jajpur, near Bhubaneswar. This Peeth is also known as Nabi Gaya as the Nabhi (Navel) of Goddess Sati fell here. Sati is worshipped here as Devi Vimla.
