Submitted to: Prof.

Anshuman Singh

Submitted by:
Vijay Leshanth. S
B.Com LL.B (hons) First year
Tamil Nadu National law School
Trichy, India
pranavsriramlal@gmail.com
Cell: 8760362288
 Case Analysis

Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu

Vs

John David

Facts:

In the year of 1996 the respondent –accused [ John David ] was studying in the senior first year

course of MBBS and the deceased - Navarasu ,was studying in the junior first year of MBBS in Raja

Muthiah Medical College, Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar. The respondent [John David] was

ragging the deceased-Navarasu. While ragging the respondent [John David] suddenly hits the deceased –

Navarasu’s head. On the spot the deceased- Navarasu died on the spot and his dead body was disposed of

after cutting it into different pieces which was very gruesome and ghastly. The father [PW-1] of deceased

– Navarasu made a complaint on missing of his son on 10.11.1996 in Annamalai Nagar Police Station

which was registered as Crime No. 509 of 1996

While this process was going on and without the knowledge of Annamalai Nagar Police, a

torso was recovered on 07.11.1996 by Inspector of Police, E.5 Pattinapakkam [PW-55], from the PTC

Depot at mandaiveli, Chennai. This information was passed to Annamalai Nagar Police. After registering

the missing report the Annamalai Nagar Police started investigation and during the course of such

investigation gathered materials and also received information from various persons including students of

the college pointing the guilty towards the accused [John David], who was also absconding from the

college premises from 12.11.1996. On 14.11.1996 the accused [John David] surrendered himself before
the Judicial Magistrate, Mannargudi. The message of his surrender was conveyed to the Annamalai Nagar

Police Station, which got the police custody for five days of the accused from 18.11.1996. On 19.11.1996

the accused [ John David ] gave a confessional statement stating that he has put severed head of

decreased – Navarasu in the boat canal within the University campus. Pursuant to the confession, the head

was also recovered .On 20.11.1996 Annamalai Nagar PS asked E.5 Pattinapakkam PS for sending the

records connected with the recovered at Chennai on the suspicion that it may belong to the severed head

of the deceased – Navarasu, which was recovered at the instance of the accused. Dr. K. Ravindran [PW-

66] conducted autopsy/post-mortem of the head on 21.11.1996. On 22.11.1996 a message was received

from Villupuram Control Room which was forwarded to Annamalai Nagar PS which mentioned that

three human bones femur, tibia and fibula have been recovered on 21.11.1996 from the sea-shore of

konimedu of merkanam based on the information given by the concerned Village Administrative Officer

– Nagarajan [PW-43]. Post mortem of the limbs were conducted by Dr.srinivasan [PW-45] and later

limbs were sent to PW-66. PW-66 after examining the severed head , the torso and three human bones

above mentioned that there are scientific evidence to hold that they belong to a single individual and also

the fact that they belong to deceased – Navarasu . The father of the deceased – Navarasu [PW-1] and

thandeeswaran [PW-60], nephew of PW-1, also identified and confirmed that the head and torso are of the

decreased- Navarasu. For confirming the said fact, the sample blood of PW-1 and his wife Baby

Ponnusamy [mother of Navarasu] was examined by Dr. G.V.Rao [PW-77] at Hyderabad by DNA test.

PW-77 compared the tissues taken from the severed head, torso and limbs and on scientific analysis he

found that they all belonged to the same by way of DNA matching. Therefore this evidence very much

proves the fact the severed body parts belong to the deceased.
LEGAL ISSUE:

Should the accused be convicted under section 302 for murder or should he be convicted for

murder or should he convicted under section-323 and 324 under anti-ragging laws?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

The case was first heard before the principle sessions court in Cuddalore in its judgment dated

11/03/1998 it convicted the accused for committing such a crime under the section-302,201,364 and 342

IPC and sentenced him to go rigorous imprisonment for seven years, one year and a fine of Rs. one lakhs

under sec 342 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 21 months under section 201 of IPC and the sentences

would run consecutively.

Later an appeal was filed by the side of the respondent in the high court. The high court in its judgment

reversed the verdict given out by the trial court on the basis that the sessions court failed to prove the

guilty of the accused and acquitted the respondent of all charges under which he was convicted namely

sections 302,201,364 and 342 of IPC.

Later when the appellants favored higher appeal the high court reviewed its verdict and admitted to the

fact that it had erred in giving out its verdicing the verdict of the trial court and that it had ignored crucial

evidence that were very much vital in the analysis of the case. The high court reversed its judgment by

restoring the verdict of the trial sessions court. The high court also granted permission to the appellants

for higher appeal in this case.

Judgment:

The final verdict was given out by Dr. Mukundakam Sharma in which it clearly sent out orders to the

high court to reverse its verdict and restore the verdict given out by the sessions court, the bail bond of the

accused was also immediately cancelled and he was asked surrender before the concerned authorities

immediately. Permission for higher appeal was allowed.

Arguments:

Appellant’s arguments:

The counsel arguing on behalf of the state and the deceased stated that acquitting of the accused itself was

highly erroneous and was full of pitfalls. The counsel also referred to the well established chain of events

that took place was beyond any doubt and the abundance of circumstantial evidences that were

discovered.

The main motive of the accused to cause bodily injury to the deceased also was proved beyond the

question of doubt. The counsel also referred to the fact that accused was very well in company of the

deceased the day the crime was committed. The very fact that confessional statement of the accused

himself helped in the discovery of the body parts of the deceased, proved to be clinching evidence to the

case against the accused.

The accused after committing the crime fled from the hostel and he himself surrendered before the court

which would even more substantiate the evidence against the accused. It is also very important to note the

fact that all the eye witnesses are independent and from a respectable family and they had no ill will

against the accused.

Respondent’s arguments:

They counsel for the respondent placed their arguments as follows:

There were no direct eyewitnesses to the crime at the time when the crime was committed, and there is no

direct evidence that the crime was committed by the accused.

Moreover there is no conclusive proof or direct eyewitnesses to back the claims that the deceased was

taken to the room of the accused by the accused.

Absence of blood stains in the floor and walls of the room substantiate the respondent’s claims.

The public witnesses who were listed by the police claim never to have smelt or seen any blood stains or

blood odour in the room of the accused.

There is no conclusive evidence to prove the fact that the accused fled to his home town the night the

crime was committed.

The vice chancellor and dean of the university who were listed among the local police were never

examined.

Critical analysis:

This case has been one of the most controversial cases in the history of judicial

verdicts in Tamil Nadu, not just because of its barbaric nature or its impact on ragging legislation in

Tamil Nadu but also the most harebrained verdict that was given out in the high court. The verdict clearly

invited widespread condemnations from the whole judicial community considering its prejudiced nature
indicating some mala fide in the judicial process, it turned out to be a true insult to the judiciary of our

nation. Even through the supreme court of India overturned the judgment and restored the verdict of the

sessions court the damage was done. The people lost their trust in the judicial system which was a black

mark in the history of our nation. I very much condemn the verdict given out by the high court acquitting

the accused stating the absence of direct evidence and eye witnessed as one of the most insane arguments

presented by a high court. It very much showed the people that the judiciary was for sale!