TIRUCHY/CHENNAI: John David, who conviction in the sensational Navarasu ragging case was upheld by the Supreme Court recently, is expected to file a revision petition, according to his advocate A Padmanaban.
In an exclusive interview with Express, Padmanaban claimed that there was no direct evidence to establish the claim that his client took Navarasu to his room on the fateful day, knocked him unconscious, severed his limbs and disposed them off at various places.
The prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence, he argued. He agreed that David was found along with Navarasu on November 6, 1996 at 1 pm near the Dean’s office, but beyond that there is no proof to link him to the murder.
According to Padmanaban, the crucial point is that the prosecution claims that the murder took place at 3 pm on November 6, 1996.
The then Governor of Tamil Nadu, Chancellor of the University wrote a letter to the Vice-Chancellor of Annamalai University requesting information about
Navarasu.
The V-C of Annamalai University had sent the report stating that the father of the deceased (Navarasu) was informed around 10 pm about the matter.
He was informed that Navarasu had been seen by one of his classmates in the mess at breakfast.; later by the mess servant at lunch, and subsequently by the Warden and Deputy Warden in the evening, all on November 7, 1996.
It is thus seen that the Vice-Chancellor of Annamalai University had gathered certain materials to show that the deceased was seen alive on November 7, 1996.
The prosecution had not examined the Vice-Chancellor even though he was cited as a witness in the charge sheet. But the Trial Court had accepted the evidence of the postmortem doctor that the offence of murder could have taken place either on 6 or 7th November.
Padmanaban argues that the murder could not have taken place in Room No 319 for the following reasons: Severing of head while Navarasu was alive, would have caused profuse bleeding where blood would have sprouted all over the place..
Later in the day, John David’s roommates too did not find anything untoward or smelling foul.
Even when police along with forensic experts examined the room they found no evidence of blood in the room.
The advocate asserted the police threatened John David and forced him to confess to the crime.
According to him, the circumstantial evidence in the case is too feeble to make out a case against John David.