The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, on Tuesday (September 29, 2026), quashed the charge sheet filed by the CB-CID against Saravanan and Krishnakumari, parents of Surjith, who is the main accused in the Kavin Selvaganesh caste killing case.
Kavin, who belonged to a Scheduled Caste and hailed from Arumugamangalam near Eral in Thoothukudi district, was in a relationship with S. Subhashini of Palayamkottai, a Siddha doctor. Kavin was murdered on July 27, 2025 in Tirunelveli. Surjith, Subhashini’s younger brother, was arrested on charges of murder. Later, his cousin Jayapal and his parents were arraigned as co-accused in the case.
Under suspension
The charge sheet filed against Saravanan and Krishnakumari — both police sub-inspectors now placed under suspension — before the II Additional District Court (PCR Act Cases), Tirunelveli, said they had learnt about the relationship between Kavin and their daughter in 2016-17.
Thereafter, Saravanan cautioned his daughter and spoke to Kavin over phone during 2018-19.
Besides, Krishnakumari had contacted Kavin’s mother over phone, informed her about the relationship and warned her. On July 27, 2025, Surjith had informed his father about Kavin’s murder and the latter also informed his wife Krishnakumari.
The police’s final report said they met Surjith near a college and instructed him to destroy his clothes and mobile phone, and remove the number plate of the two-wheeler. Saravanan had also furnished false information to the police.
Grounds for quashing charge sheet
However, Justice R. Vijayakumar said there was no eyewitness to the meeting. There was no CCTV camera footage, photograph, video recording, or statement of any independent witness. There was no recording, transcript, message, or any other electronic material disclosing what transpired between them, the judge added. “The meeting is sought to be established solely on the circumstance that the mobile phones attributed to Surjith, Saravanan, and Krishnakumari, were connected to the same mobile tower during the relevant period,” the judge observed.
Relying on a Supreme Court verdict, the judge said mobile tower information corresponds only to the operational range of the tower and not to the exact location of the mobile phone. It would, therefore, be unsafe to rely solely upon such material to prove the presence of an accused at a particular place.
“It is the prosecution’s own case, as recorded in the final report, that Saravanan proceeded to the scene of occurrence within 16 minutes of receiving information from Surjith and spoke to the police there. It is also the prosecution’s case that he informed a 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 the offences stands negatived by the prosecution’s own narrative. The two versions cannot co-exist,” the judge held.
Referring to telephone conversions, the court said, the ingredient of caste reference, insult, or abuse and the ingredient of public view are conspicuously absent. The telephonic communications relied upon took place several years before the occurrence. The foundational requirements for invoking the relevant Sections under the SC/ST Act are absent.
Plea of Surjith’s cousin dismissed
However, the court dismissed a petition filed by Surjith’s cousin Jayapal, a co-accused in whose quarry premises, Surjith is believed to have destroyed his clothes, mobile phone and the number plate of a two-wheeler soon after Kavin was murdered.
The court said whether Jayapal had a plan or was party to a conspiracy in the murder committed by Surjith is a question that must abide the trial and cannot be gone into at the stage of a quash petition.
T.N. government must raise appeal: Thirumavalavan
In a statement, VCK president Thol. Thirumavalavan, on Tuesday, urged the Tamil Nadu government to appeal against the quashing of the charge sheet and said the court’s move had set a “wrong precedent”. In a statement, he said: “While it is within the court’s authority to acquit someone in a case for lack of evidence, the court’s decision to quash the charge sheet even before the commencement of the trial would set a “wrong precedent.”
“It is worth noting that Saravanan, arrested in this case, was released on bail only to be rearrested for his alleged links to a gang of contract killers in yet another murder case. The High Court’s action has created an impression that such an individual and his wife are innocent,” he said.
Published – September 30, 2026 12:40 am IST
