Back
Quashes Chargesheet Against Police Officer Couple in Kavin Honour Killing
Madurai, : In a significant development in the Kavin Selvaganesh honour killing case, the on Tuesday quashed the chargesheet filed against the parents of the prime accused, Saravanan and Krishnakumari, both serving as police sub-inspectors at the time of the incident. Justice R. Vijayakumar held that the materials relied upon by the prosecution were insufficient to establish the offences alleged, particularly noting the absence of direct evidence and the failure to make out charges under .
Background: A Love Story That Turned Fatal
Kavin Selvaganesh, a 27-year-old techie from Thoothukudi district belonging to the Devendra Kula Vellalar community, was hacked to death on , in Tirunelveli. The prosecution alleged that the murder was orchestrated by the family of Subhashini, a Siddha doctor, with whom Kavin was in a relationship. The prime accused, Surjith, Subhashini's brother, was arrested on charges of murder. Subsequently, his parents Saravanan and Krishnakumari, and cousin Jayapal were arraigned as co-accused.
The chargesheet alleged that the parents had knowledge of the relationship since , cautioned their daughter, and spoke to Kavin over phone in . It further alleged that on the day of the murder, the father met Surjith near a college and instructed him to destroy evidence, including clothes and mobile phone, and remove the number plate of the two-wheeler used.
Court Scrutinises Cell Tower Data
The prosecution's case against the parents rested heavily on call detail records (CDRs) and cell tower location data to infer a meeting between the father and son after the murder. However, Justice R. Vijayakumar, relying on the 's judgment in Rahil and another Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2025 SCC Online SC 1481), noted that cell tower data only indicates the approximate area of a mobile phone and cannot conclusively establish the presence of individuals at a specific location.
"Tower location cannot conclusively establish that two persons were in each other's company and can, at best, serve a limited corroborative purpose,"
the court observed. The judge also cited the
's decision in
Prabhakar Kutty Shetty Vs. The State of Maharashtra
(2026 SCC Online Bom 5123) to reinforce that CDRs alone cannot prove that two persons were together.
The Paradox of Screening
One of the key charges against the father was causing disappearance of evidence and harbouring the offender. However, the court noted that the prosecution's own case recorded in the final report showed that Saravanan proceeded to the scene of occurrence within 16 minutes of receiving information and informed the Head Constable that the murder had been committed by his son.
"Where the prosecution's own material shows that the person accused of screening had, within minutes, gone to the police and named the offender as his own son, the very intention which forms the essential ingredient of both these offences stands negatived by the prosecution's own narrative. The two versions cannot co-exist,"
Justice Vijayakumar held.
SC/ST Act Charges Fall Flat
The court also examined the charges under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. It found that the final report did not extract a single word uttered by the petitioner referencing the deceased's caste, nor was any conversation alleged to have taken place in a place within public view. The telephonic conversations relied upon were private and occurred years before the incident.
"The ingredient of caste reference, insult or abuse and the ingredient of public view are conspicuously absent,"
the court noted. The court further held that the foundational requirements for invoking Section 3(2)(v) were absent as the father was not alleged to have participated in the murder or had prior knowledge.
Decision and Implications
Allowing the petition, Justice Vijayakumar quashed the chargesheet against Saravanan and Krishnakumari. The court clarified that the observations were confined to the disposal of the petition and would not influence the trial against the other accused. Notably, the court dismissed a similar petition by the fourth accused, Jayapal, stating that the question of his involvement must abide by trial.
The ruling has sparked political reactions, with president Thol. Thirumavalavan urging the to appeal, calling the quashing a "wrong precedent." He pointed out that Saravanan was later arrested for alleged links to a gang of contract killers.
The case continues against the prime accused Surjith and cousin Jayapal, with the trial expected to proceed.
Key Observations from the Judgment:
-
" "
-
" "
-
" "
-
" "
-
" "
