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
Navarasus 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 [PW66] 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:

Appellants 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.

Respondents 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 respondents 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!