A few days ago, there was a shocking development in the case where a young law student from Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala chopped off the penis of a self-styled godman, Sreehari alias Ganeshananda Theerthapada. Aparna* (not her real name) changed her statement in the letter dated June 12, saying that Sreehari had never sexually abused her in the years they had known each other.
Now, in another shocking twist, a man filed a habeas corpus petition in the Kerala High Court on Monday, seeking for her to be released from ‘forceful confinement’. The man who has filed the petition is 35-year-old Ayyappadas, native Kottarakkara, Kollam.
Interestingly, according to Aparna, Ayyappadas was the one who had soured the relationship between her and Sreehari and also hatched the plan for the godman to be framed.
Aparna, in a letter written to Sreehari’s lawyer on 12th June had said that Ayyappadas, who was Sreehari’s disciple, had mislead her and asked her to chop off Sreehari’s penis.
In his petition, Ayyappadas claims that Aparna was forced to write the letter where she states that she was not raped by Sreehari.
“She was forcibly removed from their house at Kannamoola in Thiruvananthapuram and was illegally confined in a house at Nedumangad under the strict control of certain activists of Sangh Parivar and assisted by advocate Ajith, who is the counsel of the Swami,” the petition, filed through advocate MSV, Namboothiri says.
“Even in the conversation that Aparna had with Ajith, telecasted in some TV channels, it can be seen that there is manipulated version to help the Swami. The phone call also throws serious doubt about the genuineness of the same. These are attempts to save the criminal from the prosecution,” the petition adds.
Ayyappadas’ petition goes back to the original version of events, where Aparna had attacked Sreehari for years of sexual abuse. “It was because of continuous sexual harassment and that too against her will that Aparna was forced to chop off the penis of the Swami,” he says in the petition.
He claims that because Sreehari was unlikely to get bail soon for his offences, a “criminal conspiracy” was hatched by “some activists of the Sangh Parivar” along with an “efficient criminal lawyer”. As a result, “Aparna was taken from her house by force and she is under wrongful confinement. The letter in which she has alleged to have implicated me was manipulated while she is in wrongful confinement,” the petition said.
Ayyappadas also claims to have been in love with Aparna for several months. Their relationship, he says, was known to Aparna’s parents, who he often visited at their house.
He then accuses Sreehari of “exploiting” Aparna’s father’s illness. “The Swami also used to sexually harass Aparna even when she was a child and she was waiting for an opportunity to teach him a lesson,” he alleges in the petition.
As per the petition, Sreehari was running a hotel at Kolencherry, called Kalavara. Ayyappadas was also working at the same hotel and handled day to day affairs when Sreehari was away in Thiruvananthapuram.
Ayyappadas says he visited Aparna’s house on the day of the bobbitising incident too, and later heard the news that Aparna cut off the Sreehari’s penis.
The petition also states that the police officers who investigated the case also know the reality but they are unable to act as Aparna has wrote the letter in which stepped back from her earlier statement she gave before the magistrate.
“To save their face, members of the RSS have forcefully made the girl change her statement and write the letter to advocate Ajith Kumar. The woman is in their custody against her will and she should be produced before the court,” advocate Namboothiri told TNM.
About a month ago, Aparna had reported to the police that she had chopped off Sreehari’s penis. The police that told TNM then that Aparna was driven to take the extreme step as she thought no one would believe a godman had been sexually abusing her.
After the Aparna’s letter came to light, a senior police officer had told TNM then that Aparna was “obviously under pressure to change her statement.” Another officer said that while her letter to Ajith Kumar would mean there is no case, a polygraph test was required to ascertain if she was under pressure or acting out of her own volition.