The Madras High Court, in a significant judgment, upheld the convictions of several accused in the high-profile murder case of Gokulraj, a young engineering graduate. The case, which has drawn considerable attention due to its caste-related implications, was decided by a bench comprising Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice N. Anand Venkatesh.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to June 23, 2015, when Gokulraj, a Scheduled Caste (SC) engineering student, was found dead with his head decapitated on a railway track in Namakkal district. The prosecution argued that Gokulraj was murdered due to his relationship with Swathi, a woman from the Kongu Vellalar community, a caste considered higher in the social hierarchy.
Legal Issues Involved
The case involved several critical legal issues, including:
1. Motive and Caste Hatred: The prosecution contended that the murder was driven by caste hatred, as the accused belonged to the Kongu Vellalar community and were opposed to inter-caste relationships.
2. Conspiracy and Last Seen Theory: The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence to establish that the accused conspired to murder Gokulraj and were last seen with him.
3. Admissibility of Electronic Evidence: The case heavily relied on CCTV footage and call detail records to establish the presence and actions of the accused.
Court’s Decision
The court upheld the convictions of the accused, including Yuvaraj (A1), the leader of the Dheeran Chinnamalai Peravai, an organization promoting the interests of the Kongu Vellalar community. The court found that the prosecution had successfully established the motive, conspiracy, and the involvement of the accused through a chain of circumstantial evidence.
Key Observations by the Court
In its detailed judgment, the court made several important observations:
– On Caste Hatred: “This case brings out the dark side of human behaviour, focusing our attention on the ugly facets of our society; the caste system, bigotry, and inhuman treatment of persons belonging to the marginalized section,” the court noted.
– On Witnesses Turning Hostile: The court lamented the trend of witnesses turning hostile, stating, “Cases such as this are textbook examples of how the criminal justice system can be easily manipulated and won over by witnesses who suborn at the drop of a hat.”
– On Electronic Evidence: The court emphasized the importance of electronic evidence in modern criminal trials, stating, “The strength in the case of the prosecution is the scientific evidence available by way of electronic evidence, Call Details Records, opinion of handwriting expert, opinion of forensic experts, and DNA reports.”
Details of the Judgment
The court upheld the life imprisonment sentences for the main accused, including Yuvaraj (A1), and others involved in the conspiracy. The court also addressed the appeals filed by the state and the victim’s family seeking enhancement of sentences and challenging the acquittals of some accused.
Parties Involved
– Appellants/Accused: Yuvaraj (A1), and others.
– Respondents/Complainants: State represented by the Additional Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Namakkal District, and the Inspector of Police, CBCID, Namakkal District.
– Defacto Complainant: Tmt. V. Chitra, wife of Venkatachalam.
– Case Number: Crl.A.(MD).Nos.228, 230, 232, 233, 515, 536, and 747 of 2022.
Also Read
Lawyers Involved
– For Appellants: Mr. Gopalakrishna Lakshmana Raju, Senior Counsel for M/s. Rishwant S.G.L, and others.
– For Respondents: Mr. A. Thiruvadi Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor, and others.
