Chargesheet Against Accused's Parents Cancelled In Chennai Techie Murder Case

In a significant legal development in the July 2025 Tirunelveli dishonour killing case of 27-year-old Dalit IT employee C Kavin Selvaganesh, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has quashed the chargesheet against both the father and mother, Saravananan and Krishnakumari, of the primary accused, Surjith. Both parents are police sub-inspectors in the Tamil Nadu Special Police Force who were previously suspended and arrested by the CB-CID following the incident. Single-judge Bench of Justice R. Vijayakumar pronounced separate orders in Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

Background 

On July 27, 2025, Kavin Selvaganesh was brutally hacked to death in broad daylight at KTC Nagar inTirunelveli, by his girlfriend's brother, Surjith who is Accused No.1 in the case. Because the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste community, the CB-CID filed charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 

Read: Dalit Techie In Tamil Nadu Killed By Lover's Brother Who Opposed Inter-Caste Relationship

The prosecution alleged that Surjith's parents had issued warnings in the past, instructed Surjith to destroy evidence, arranged his harbouring, and provided false information to the police.

Key Reasons For Quashing Chargesheet

The court observed that neither parent was present at the crime scene, nor was there any evidence of prior knowledge, conspiracy, or pre-planning. 

Regarding allegations under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, the Court noted that past telephonic calls between the families took place years before the crime (in 2016-2019) and constituted private conversations between parents. They did not occur in "public view," nor did the final report contain any caste-based slurs or insults.

Read: "Leave My Parents Alone...": Appeal Of Murdered Dalit Techie's Girlfriend

Addressing the allegations of evidence destruction, the court rejected the prosecution's heavy reliance on Call Detail Records (CDR) and cell tower data. The prosecution had inferred that the parents met Surjith near Saradha College immediately after the murder to instruct him to destroy his clothes, remove his bike's number plate, and damage his phone. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court held that cell tower data only indicates a broad operational area and cannot prove physical presence together, let alone reveal the contents of an unrecorded verbal conversation. 

The court noted that "a charge cannot be founded upon an inference drawn from another inference."

Read: Chargesheet Filed In Dalit Techie Dishonour Killing, Accused Cop Denied Bail

Furthermore, the charges of harbouring the offender and causing 'disappearance of evidence', stood disproved by the prosecution's own evidence. The court pointed out that the father (Saravanan) went to the scene of the incident within 16 minutes and explicitly informed a Police Head Constable that his son had committed the murder. Informing law enforcement directly contradicts the legal intention required to prove "screening" or concealing an offender. The court held that "the two versions cannot co-exist" and that compelling the parents to undergo trial on such materials would amount to an abuse of the process of court.

Current Status

While the High Court quashed charges against the parents, it dismissed the petition filed by a relative (Jayapal), against whom independent evidence and physical recoveries at a quarry were found. The trial against the principal accused, Surjith, will proceed independently. Following the verdict, rights groups and political leaders have called for a higher appeal, though it is not clear if the state government would appeal the decision.