How pro-Christian judges in Indian judiciary are destroying Hinduism by targetting Hindu gurus and swamis: from the judicial “torture” of a Sri Lankan Tamil Swami to the present day.
The judge, who is claimed to have committed such perversion of justice by Dr W J Wall, is currently a judge in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Scarily, the judgement (which Dr Wall claims were against scientific and oral evidence) that this judge gave was upheld by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Chennai and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
How deep does the genocidal poison of Hinduphobia run?
Are Hindus safe in India, especially under an unfettered anti-Hindu judiciary?
The following is a verbatim reproduction from the book titled “The DNA Detectives” by Wilson J Wall published by a very respectable British publishing house in 2005 (pg. 162–165):
“One aspect to the short tandem repeat (STR) analysis that is rather unsettling is when an exclusion is ignored. Such a case took place at Pudukkottai in the southern state of Tamil Nadu in India. Pudukkottai is an hour’s drive from the nearest large town, Turichirapalli (sic), known locally as Trichy. This is a six-hour train journey from Chennai, previously known as Madras.
The case, in brief outline, revolved around allegations of the rape of 13 young girls and the murder of a Sri Lankan by the leader of an Ashram, Swami Premananda. The consequence of one of the alleged rapes was a pregnancy, which was terminated. This resulted in arrest and charges being filed against Premananda in 1994. Events on folded in a large courthouse, open on two sides, but the ancient ceiling fan gently stirring the hot and humid air. Dad there was such a large court building in such a relatively small town is for purely historical reasons, dating from when Pudukkottai was a city state. These sorts of court proceedings are carried out in English, as mentioned before. A legacy of British rule has resulted in the wearing of gowns by the lawyers, but they do not wear wigs, which would be far too hot.
Various legal arguments in the case were put forward until It came to the point when it became obvious that it was going to be necessary to carry out a paternity test to determine whether Premananda was actually the father of the aborted fetus. This initial analysis was carried out in a laboratory of the University of Hyderabad in 1996 using a number of untried probes to produce single locus and multilocus DNA profiles. These, sadly, gave a very inferior result that could not be accurately interpreted, although the scientist reporting results insisted that he could demonstrate a match. Besides this analysis there was also an STR analysis carried out in the same laboratory, unfortunately only using a single STR, which again it was insisted showed a match, indicating that Premananda was the father. At this point, the senior barrister, Mr Ram Jethmalani, who was also an MP in the Indian Parliament, decided to instruct an independent scientific expert to look into the DNA evidence. The conclusions were damning: The profiling had not been carried out in a forensic laboratory, but by a technician who was not a forensic scientist, using probes that had not been validated for forensic use and STR analysis which was completely unproven to have any probity of any sort.
By pleading to the court it was agreed that the defence expert could take material back to the UK for independent testing. This included a blood sample from Premananda and samples from the frozen foetus. Extraordinarily the blood sample was taken in court, so that everyone could be sure the blood was taken from the right person. The samples were sealed and taken back to the UK where testing in an accredited laboratory could be carried out. Being highly trained scientists it was obvious when the foetal material was looked at it was quite likely that we would be able to produce two profiles from it. This would be one from the foetal material and one from the liquid blood, the second of these most likely coming from the mother. When the six-panel STR analysis was carried out in London on what was now three samples, it was quite plain that we had three clear profiles. By taking out the mother’s contribution to the profile of the foetus it was obvious that Premananda could not be the father. A report to this effect was written and presented to the court. It was necessary to return to court for cross-examination of the results. These were in direct contradiction of the conclusions of the Indian scientist. This was not a disagreement on a small point of interpretation but a massive gulf. The difference we’re a result of the difference in the way the analysis was carried out. We had used validated techniques in a Home Office approved forensic laboratory.
The atmosphere became a little heated, to say the least, and when it was obvious that the UK results had been carried out in the most stringent manner, the prosecution counsel got a bit personal with an outburst.
‘I put it out to you Dr Wall, you are not even a proper scientist.’
To the credit of the judge, she did reprimand the lawyer. At one point towards the end of the hearing, the girl whose foetus had been tested came to court as a potential witness where she said that she would not give evidence. This was understandable as the court was full of spectators. These were of two broad groups, those that had heard about the case locally and were simply curious and those that had heard that Jethmalani was appearing. The second group were mostly gowned lawyers who knew of Jethmalani by his reputation and wanted to see him in action. Although not prepared to appear as a witness the judge asked her a single question: ‘was Premananda the father?’, to which she replied ‘no’. The arguments ran on until the final summing up by the lawyers of both sides. The judge made the final decision as to guilt or innocence alone. The result was a disappointment: he was declared guilty as charged and sentenced to twenty years in prison. Even Jethmalani was incensed by the result. In the written judgement it was said that there seemed no reason for an Indian court to accept the findings of a foreign scientist over an Indian one. At the time of writing, Premananda is still in prison, pending an appeal in the High Court in Delhi (sic).” (Wall 2005; “Judgment That Provoked Jethmalani – Times of India” 2005)
…
References
- “Judgment That Provoked Jethmalani – Times of India.” 2005, June 3. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Judgment-that-provoked-Jethmalani/articleshow/1132041.cms
- Wall, Wilson J. 2005. The DNA Detectives. Robert Hale.
