Published Sep 29, 2026 | 12:04 PM ⚊ Updated Sep 30, 2026 | 11:48 AM
Madras High Court.
Synopsis: In the latest order, Justice R. Vijayakumar quashed the chargesheet against Saravanan and Krishnakumari, while dismissing Jayapal’s plea seeking similar relief.
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has quashed the chargesheet filed against Saravanan and Krishnakumari, the parents of Surjith, in connection with the murder of 25-year-old IT employee C. Kavin Selvaganesh.
However, the court dismissed the petition filed by Jayapal, a relative of accused Surjith, seeking to quash the chargesheet against him.
Kavin, a software engineer from Arumugamangalam in Thoothukudi district, was hacked to death in Tirunelveli’s KTC Nagar on 27 July, 2025. Police alleged that he was killed over his relationship with a woman from another community. Surjith, the woman’s brother, was arrested in connection with the murder.
Following the murder, the case was transferred to the CB-CID for investigation. At the time, Kavin’s parents had alleged that the murder was connected to the inter-caste relationship.
In the order, Justice Vijayakumar observed: There was no evidence to support the allegation that Saravanan and his wife Krishnakumari met the deceased’s son after the murder and instructed him to destroy evidence. There were also no eyewitnesses to such a meeting.
The allegation that a meeting had taken place was based on the fact that the mobile phones belonging to the first accused, the petitioner and the third accused were connected to the same mobile phone tower at the relevant time. However, cell tower location data cannot conclusively establish that two individuals were physically present together.
The petitioners had only warned their daughter over the phone, the court observed.
The phone conversation between Saravanan and the deceased, which the police relied upon, had taken place seven years before the incident. Linking that conversation to the present case was merely an inference drawn by the investigating agency, the court said.
The court further observed that there must be sufficient material to register a case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. A person cannot be booked under the Act merely because they belong to a particular community.
There was no allegation that the petitioners were involved in the murder. Nor was it alleged that they were present at the scene of the crime or that they had prior knowledge of the conspiracy.
The documents submitted by the prosecution were contrary to the allegations against the petitioners, the court observed. The court also noted the absence of any caste-based reference, the fact that the alleged offence did not take place in a public view, the absence of any allegation that the petitioners participated in the underlying crime, and the fact that police Sub-Inspector Saravanan was the first person to inform the police about the incident.
Accordingly, the case against Saravanan and Krishnakumari was quashed.
However, the court dismissed Jayapal’s petition.
The prosecution alleged that Jayapal had previously met the deceased Kevin in person and warned him that he would face serious consequences if he did not give up his relationship. It was also alleged that Jayapal spoke to Kevin over the phone for more than 24 minutes. Other witnesses had also supported these allegations, the court noted.
The court further noted that, after the murder, the destruction of Surjith’s clothes, removal of the vehicle’s number plate and damage to the mobile phone were carried out at a quarry belonging to the petitioner.
The articles were subsequently recovered from the quarry.
These circumstances prima facie established grounds for the allegations against Jayapal. Therefore, the court held that the case against him could not be quashed and dismissed his petition.
Surjith’s father K. Saravanan and mother Krishnakumari were serving as Sub-Inspectors in the Tamil Nadu Special Police Force. Both were suspended following the incident to ensure an impartial investigation.
The CB-CID subsequently arrested Krishnakumari in May 2026. The prosecution alleged that Surjith’s parents were aware of the alleged plan and had supported him.
Saravanan and Jayapal had already been arrested in connection with the case.
The CB-CID investigated the Kevin caste killing case and filed a chargesheet before the II Additional District Court for SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases in Tirunelveli.
The chargesheet, filed in October 2025, reportedly based on statements from 83 witnesses, accused Saravanan, Jayapal and others under various provisions, including murder-related charges.
Saravanan and Jayapal subsequently approached the Madurai Bench seeking to quash the chargesheet. During the proceedings, the High Court also examined the issue of CCTV footage from the Tirunelveli–Seevalaperi National Highway stretch on July 27, 2025, as the accused claimed that the footage could establish whether Saravanan and Jayapal met Surjith after the murder. The NHAI was directed to produce the footage before the court.
In the latest order, Justice R. Vijayakumar quashed the chargesheet against Saravanan and Krishnakumari, while dismissing Jayapal’s plea seeking similar relief.
Also Read: Caste killing in Tirunelveli: Court dismisses bail petition of accused in Kavin case
(Edited by Sumavarsha, with inputs from Subash Chandra Bose)
