MADURAI: Holding that call records and tower location alone are not sufficient to establish charges of criminal complicity, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday quashed the chargesheet filed by the CB-CID against K Saravanan and his wife Krishnakumari, both sub-inspectors, in connection with the alleged honour killing of techie M Kavin Selvaganesh in Tirunelveli on July 27, 2025. It also refused to order further probe in the case.
The CB-CID had alleged that the sensational murder was a fallout of the inter-caste relationship between Selvaganesh, an SC youth, and the daughter of the SI couple, who belong to a dominant backward community. Justice R Vijayakumar passed separate orders on two petitions filed by the couple.
No further probe, rules HC; VCK asks TN to challenge order
Justice R Vijayakumar observed that though the CB-CID claimed in the chargesheet that Saravanan and Krishnakumari met with their son Surjith, the first accused, shortly after the alleged murder and helped him destroy his clothes and other evidence, there was no eye-witness, CCTV footage, photograph, video recording or statement of any independent witness to the said meeting.
The meeting is sought to be established solely based on the circumstance that the mobile phones of the trio were connected to the same cell tower during the relevant period, the judge added. Referring to a judgment passed by the SC last year, the judge observed that tower location cannot conclusively establish that two persons were in each other’s company and can only serve a limited corroborative purpose. Similarly, call records prove only the fact of communication and not its content. Therefore, instructions alleged to have been given by the couple to their son are merely inferences drawn by the CB-CID, he added.
The judge also pointed out that even as per the prosecution’s own case, Saravanan is said to have informed the police concerned that the murder was committed by his son. This negates the prosecution’s allegation that Saravanan harboured or shielded his son, he added.
With regard to the charges made against the couple under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which penalises persons who insult or humiliate an SC/ST individual using caste name in public view, among others, the judge noted that the couple had only spoken to the murdered victim and his mother over phone several years before the incident asking for severing of the relationship between their daughter and the deceased.
“Both the ingredient of caste reference, insult or abuse and the ingredient of public view are, therefore, conspicuously absent,” he observed in Saravanan’s case. Section 3(2)(v) of the Act also cannot be invoked merely because the couple knew that the deceased belonged to the SC community, he added and allowed the couple’s petitions. The judge, however, clarified that the trial court should proceed against them if it comes across any evidence during the trial, which discloses their complicity in the crime.
Justice Vijayakumar, however, dismissed a similar petition filed by Surjith’s cousin K Jayapal on the ground that unlike the couple’s case, the prosecution has found witnesses and CCTV footage to prove that Surjith met Jayapal in his quarry and that Jayapal offered him a change of clothes. The destroyed evidence was also recovered from the quarry, he noted.
Jayapal is also said to have contacted the deceased both in person and over phone within six months before the incident, the judge observed and concluded that there is prima facie material on record warranting that Jayapal be put on trial.
No further investigation
The judge also refused to order further investigation into the case and disposed of a petition filed by the deceased’s mother Tamilselvi, seeking such a direction. Tamilselvi had alleged bias in the investigation and suspected involvement of more persons in her son’s murder. However, the judge pointed out that she has not identified any additional witness, document or scientific test warranting further investigation.
Sets a bad example:Thiruma
Reacting to the verdict, VCK leader Thol Thirumavalavan said on X that the HC should not have quashed the case against the couple before they could undergo trial. This would set a bad example, he said, urging the government to file an appeal against the order.