The funeral of caste killing victim Kavin held in his native village
Kavin, an engineer and IT company employee who belonged to the Scheduled Caste, was killed by S. Surjith, the brother of the girl he loved, at KTC Nagar in Palayamkottai on Sunday last. The accused belonged to the Most Backward Caste.
Ministers P. Geetha Jeevan and Anita R. Radhakrishnan, Thoothukudi Collector K. Elambahavath, Superintendent of Police Albert John, MP Kanimozhi, Thoothukudi Mayor Jegan Periyasamy, Srivaikundam MLA 'Oorvasi' S. Amirtharaj, Naam Thamizhar Katchi coordinator Seeman, and former Ministers S.P. Shanmuganathan and Rajalakshmi placed wreath and consoled the family members, especially Kavin's mother Tamilselvi, a teacher.
Kavin's mortal remains were taken out in a procession with police protection and consigned to flames at Arumugamangalam.
Kavin's family, which refused to accept the body since Sunday last while making a few demands, received it at Palayamkottai on Friday morning following a decision taken at a meeting held at Arumugamangalam on Thursday night.
Demanding the arrest of prime suspect Surjith's parents Saravanan and Krishnakumari, both sub-inspectors, as their names figured in the First Information Report, the family of the deceased refused to accept the body, which had been kept at the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital mortuary.
However, the detention of Surjith under the Goondas Act, the arrest of Saravanan, and persuasion by officials through various sources helped in the breakthrough.
Minister for Municipal Administration K.N. Nehru, who is also in charge of Tirunelveli district, Tirunelveli Collector R. Sukumar, Tirunelveli City Commissioner of Police Santosh Hadimani and MLAs M. Abdul Wahab of Palayamkottai and E. Raja of Sankarankovil placed wreath on the mortal remains of Kavin at the mortuary before handing over the body to father of the deceased C. Chandrasekar and younger brother Praveen at 10.35 a.m.
With police escort, the mortal remains were taken to Arumugamangalam.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Malegaon blast case: Forced to name Yogi Adityanath, says witness; court scraps his statement to ATS
A witness in his testimony to the special court in the 2008 Malegaon blast case had alleged that he was tortured and forced by the officers of the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) to name Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in the case. Special Judge A.K. Lahoti, who on Thursday (July 31, 2025) acquitted all seven accused in the case, said he could not rely on the witness's statement to the ATS, as he submitted to the court that it was given involuntarily. 2008 Malegaon blast: Who were the accused? A brief timeline of the case In its more than 1,000-page judgment, made available on Friday (August 1, 2025), the court said the ATS had questioned prosecution witness Milind Joshirao in October 2008 about the functioning of the right-wing group Abhinav Bharat. He was asked about a meeting at the Raigad fort, where the accused had allegedly taken an oath to create a separate Hindu Rashtra. Joshirao, during his testimony to the court, claimed that the ATS had treated him like an accused. 'They (ATS officers) were telling him to take the names of Yogi Adityanath, Asimanand Indresh Kumar, Devdhar, Pragya and Kakaji in his statement,' the court said. 'The ATS officers assured him that if he took their names, they would let him go free,' it added. Controversy breaks out in Maharashtra after ex-policeman claims he was asked to pick up Mohan Bhagwat over 2008 Malegaon blast case The court noted that the witness had refused to do so and hence, the then Deputy Commissioner of Police Shrirao and Assistant Commissioner of Police Param Bir Singh had shown the fear of torture to him and extended threats. 'It further held that the witness had never stated the things mentioned in the statement and it was written by the ATS officers,' it said. 'Considering his testimony, it clearly indicates that the statement was involuntary,' the court said. 'The statement raises doubts regarding its admissibility and authenticity as it was involuntary,' the court said. Malegaon blast acquittals destroyed Congress 'conspiracy' to manufacture false narrative of Hindu terror: BJP 'When a statement is given involuntarily without actual knowledge of the facts mentioned in the same, nothing survives in it,' the court held, terming it as unreliable. Former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt. Col. Prasad Purohit were among the seven to be acquitted by the court, which noted that the prosecution had failed to adduce cogent and reliable evidence to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Six people were killed and 101 were injured after a blast at Malegaon in Nashik district in September 2008.
Indian Express
4 hours ago
- Indian Express
Former SSP, DSP among 5 Punjab cops convicted of killing 7 in 1993 fake encounter
A CBI court in Mohali Friday convicted five retired Punjab Police officers, including then Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) and Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), in a case pertaining to two alleged fake encounters in 1993 in which seven men of Tarn Taran's Rani Vallah village were gunned down. Among the victims were four Special Police Officers (SPOs). The court of Special Judge Baljinder Singh Sra convicted former SSP Bhupinderjit Singh, DSP Davinder Singh, Inspector Suba Singh, ASIs Gulbarg Singh and Raghbir Singh, all retired, of criminal conspiracy, murder, destruction of evidence, and fabrication of records under Sections 120-B, 302, 201, and 218 of the Indian Penal Code. All five were taken into custody following the verdict. Five other accused police officers during the course of the trial while one turned prosecution witness. The quantum of sentence will be pronounced on Monday. The case stems from two separate alleged fake encounters in June and July 1993, in which seven men were picked up by the police, illegally detained, tortured, and later shown as killed in staged encounters. According to the CBI, five of the seven victims belonged to Dalit communities. According to investigation carried out by the CBI, the victims were initially picked up in connection with a robbery case in village Sangatpura. However, they were later declared as militants and shown to have been killed in armed encounters with the police. Their bodies were not returned, nor were families informed. As per the CBI, on the morning of June 27, 1993, Inspector Gurdev Singh — then SHO of Sarhali police station — led a police team that picked SPOs Shinder Singh, Desa Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Balkar Singh alias Bobby, and another person Daljit Singh — all residents of Rani Vallah — from the residence of a government contractor in the presence of family members. They were taken to PS Sarhali, where they were allegedly tortured to confess to the robbery. Subsequently, on July 2, 1993, Sarhali police filed an FIR (No. 61/93) claiming that three SPOs — Shinder Singh, Desa Singh, and Sukhdev Singh — had absconded with government-issued arms. On July 12, police claimed that while escorting one Mangal Singh to village Gharka for recovery in a dacoity case, their party was attacked by militants. In the alleged crossfire, Mangal Singh and three others — Desa Singh, Shinder Singh, and Balkar Singh — were shown as killed. Police recovered arms and ammunition from the scene and registered another FIR (No. 72/93) at Sarhali police station. The forensic analysis, however, revealed inconsistencies. The Central Forensic Science Laboratory found that the bullet casings collected at the scene did not match the weapons allegedly recovered from the deceased. Post-mortem examination reports also indicated that the victims had been tortured prior to death. Despite being identified by two ASIs, the bodies were cremated as 'unclaimed' and 'unidentified.' In a separate incident, the CBI found that another victim from the earlier group, Sukhdev Singh, had been handed over to Verowal police. Around the same time, police abducted Sarabjit Singh from village Hansawala and Harwinder Singh from Kaithal, Haryana. All three were shown as killed in another encounter on July 28, 1993, allegedly involving Verowal police officers. An FIR (No. 44/93) was registered at Verowal police station, and police documented the recovery of a bolt-action rifle, a 12-bore gun, and a .303 rifle. The CBI found these documents to be fabricated to justify the killings. The case was originally brought to light as part of the broader investigation into mass cremations of unclaimed bodies in Punjab during the militancy era, spearheaded by human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra. Following Supreme Court orders on December 12, 1996, the CBI began its inquiry. The central agency registered a regular case in 1999 based on the complaint of Narinder Kaur, wife of SPO Shinder Singh. She alleged that that her husband was killed in a fake encounter and cremated as an unidentified person. The CBI filed a chargesheet in 2002 against 11 accused officers. However, trial proceedings were delayed due to legal stays between 2010 and 2021. During this period, five of the accused died. Out of 67 witnesses cited by the CBI, 36 died away during the prolonged trial, and only 28 were able to testify. Sarabjit Singh Verka, counsel for the victim families, welcomed the court's decision and noted that justice had been delayed but ultimately delivered. Gurmeet Kaur, widow of SPO Sukhdev Singh, said, 'I was pregnant when my husband was killed. We didn't even know he had died until 15 days later. He left home for duty and never returned. I raised my children doing domestic work. We sold off everything we owned to fight this case. Now, after 32 years, justice has finally been served. She urged the Punjab government to grant her children jobs and compensation. 'Now that the court has declared my husband innocent, I hope the government recognizes our suffering,' she said. Nishan Singh, son of another victim, said, 'We fought the case in high court, the Supreme Court and later in the CBI court. We are hopeful that justice will be done with strict punishment to the guilty and compensation for the affected families so that we can rebuild our lives.'
The Hindu
4 hours ago
- The Hindu
Madras HC restrains Savukku Shankar from defaming ADGP Davidson Devasirvatham in Sivaganga custodial death case
The Madras High Court has restrained YouTuber 'Savukku' Shankar alias A. Shankar from making defamatory allegations, insinuations or imputations against Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order) S. Davidson Devasirvatham in relation to the alleged custodial death of B. Ajith Kumar of Sivaganga district in June this year. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu granted the interim injunction for a period of four weeks pursuant to a defamation suit filed by the ADGP (L&O) accusing the YouTuber of presenting concocted tales woven out of unverified gossip, with a tone of certainty, in order to mislead the people at large and create suspicion and hostility. The judge agreed with senior counsel P.H. Arvindh Pandian, representing the ADGP, that the derogatory and defamatory manner in which the statements had been made would prima facie affect the reputation of his client holding high office and that Article 19(2) of the Constitution protects a citizen from being defamed. In an exhaustive affidavit filed in support of his injunction application, Mr. Devasirvatham recalled his professional accomplishments since he joined the Indian Police Service (IPS) in 1995 and said that the YouTuber had, however, exhibited a longstanding pattern of targeting him with false and malicious allegations. The ADGP said that the YouTuber had in July 2022 launched a targeted smear campaign linking him with the fake passport scam. The online slander extended to repeated demands for his suspension and removal from service and the defamatory outbursts quietened only after the Madras High Court gave a clean chit to him. Though the reputational damage caused due to that campaign, spearheaded by the YouTuber directly and also through his proxy Varaaki, remained unremedied, 'I chose not to respond publicly and continued to discharge my official duties with discipline and commitment,' the ADGP said. However, after the recent Sivaganga custodial death of a temple security guard, the YouTuber had once again taken to the social media to level a series of grave and unfounded allegations against him, the ADGP complained and said that a completely false narrative had been constructed linking him with the death. 'The statements are entirely false, wholly unverified and manufactured without any basis. However, they were presented by the first respondent with a tone of authority and a pretense of insider knowledge thereby misleading the public into believing that they are grounded in official sources or confidential information,' the ADGP said. He went on to state: 'The truth, however, is that the first respondent possesses no personal knowledge of any such instructions, has no access to official communications, and is utterly devoid of evidence to support these reckless and defamatory allegations.' Claiming that the intention of the YouTuber was to deliberately sow doubts in the minds of the public, the ADGP said, 'these falsehoods are pushed by the first respondent with sensationalism, using provocative and conspiratorial language to stir public emotion and tarnish my name.' Mr. Devasirvatham said, the insidious allegations were amplified by other social media influencers leading to an orchestrated wave of repetition across digital platforms. 'What started as one person's false and harmful claim quickly grew into a digital echo chamber where repeating the lie made it seem like a fact,' he lamented. Apart from praying for an interim injunction specifically against the YouTuber, the ADGP also sought a John Doe/Ashok Kumar order (an order passed against unknown people) against all those unidentified individuals indulging in a malicious campaign against him in the digital space. 'Unlike accredited journalists governed by professional ethics, institutional oversight and legal consequences for irresponsible reporting; the respondents herein are often self-styled 'commentators' or 'digital influencers' who exploit the viral mechanics of platforms such as YouTube, X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook to spread scandalous narratives solely for sensationalism and viewership. Their content is unfiltered, unverified and unaccountable and crafted not with a sense of public duty but with the sole aim of gaining clicks, followers, or political mileage,' he said.
