Anna University sexual assault case: Mahila Court convicts lone accused Gnanasekar
Pronouncing the verdict in the case involving the sexual assault of a student from Anna University in December 2024, the Mahila Court on Wednesday (May 28, 2025) convicted the lone accused, Gnanasekar, 37, after finding him guilty of the offences he was charged with. The quantum of punishment will be pronounced on June 2.
Earlier on Wednesday, Gnanasekar was brought in a police van from the Central Prison, Puzhal, amidst tight security to the Madras High Court campus, where the trial court is located. He was produced before the Mahila Court judge M. Rajalakshmi.
The judge read out the judgment, holding him guilty for offences he was charged under 11 sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Information Technology Act, and Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act. The judge said the quantum of punishment would be pronounced on June 2.
Prosecution's case
The prosecution said the incident occurred on December 23, 2024, when the survivor, a 19-year-old student, and her friend were out on the Anna University campus. The accused Gnanasekar lived with his family at Kottur and and ran a roadside biryani outlet on the service road near Adyar Bridge. He was already involved in several criminal activities.
At 7.10 p.m. on December 23, 2024, he entered the Anna University campus via Madras University campus, and set his mobile phone on flight mode. While getting in, he pretended to speak to someone over the phone, though there was was evidence that the device was already on flight mode.
At 7.45 pm, he spotted the student and her friend who were seated on the stairs of a building on the campus. Gnanasekar hit her friend on the head and snatched the woman's identity card. He threatened the duo, saying he had shot a video of them and that he would show it to the dean, warden, and other staff members of the university. He also threatened to get the authorities to issue a transfer certificate based on the video.
As they pleaded to leave them alone, he asked her to stay where she was and took her friend aside.A few minutes later, he came back and told her that her friend had been caught by the university staff. He then asked her to leave her phone on flight mode, took her to a secluded spot, and sexually assualted her. He also videographed the incident on his phone, according to the chargesheet.
The Madras High Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT), comprising women officers, had probed the sexual assault case, which had sparked massive outrage, and had named history-sheeter Gnanasekar as the lone accused.
Gnanasekar was charged under 11 provisions of the law, including Sections 331(6) (lurking trespass by night), 126(2) (wrongfully restraining any person), 140(4) (kidnapping in order to subject a person to grievous hurt), 75(2) (sexual harassment) read with 64(1) (rape), among other provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Information Technolgy Act, and Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
28 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
40-year-old trader shot dead in Noida Sector 12
Noida: A 40-year-old trader was shot dead in Sector 12, Noida, on Wednesday afternoon, police said, adding that multiple teams are working to apprehend the suspects and a case of murder has been registered at the Sector 24 police station. Police identified the deceased as Ompal Bhati, originally from Sikandarabad who resided in Sector 94 and was engaged in foreign exchange trading with an office in Sector 18. 'On Wednesday, around 1.30pm, Bhati visited the rented flat in W Block of Sector 12 to meet a man. During the meeting, he was shot in the chest and killed. As the landlord and locals heard the gunshot, the suspects managed to flee the scene,' said station house officer (Sector 24) Vidhyut Goel, adding that the motive of killing is yet to be known. During the investigation, it came to light that two men, one of whom identified himself as Pawan (single name) — had approached the owner of the two-storey house in Sector 12 on Tuesday inquiring about an accommodation available on rent. After visiting the property, they left. But they returned on Wednesday morning. 'They finalised the deal to rent the flat and paid ₹1,000 as token money. When the landlord asked for an Aadhaar card and other identification, they assured him they would submit the documents by evening and took the keys for cleaning the flat,' the SHO added. In the afternoon, while cleaning the flat the two suspects called Bhati to discuss something important. During the conversation, one of the suspects allegedly shot him and fled, said an officer, speaking on condition of anonymity. While fleeing, their Delhi-registered motorcycle didn't start and thus they left it behind. 'They simply walked away after locals began converging,' the officer added. Locals alleged that Bhati carried a bag full of cash and it was taken away by the suspects. Deputy commissioner of police Yamuna Prasad, however, nullified it, saying: 'During the investigation, Bhati's wife confirmed that he did not leave home with any cash. His family, which is also into the foreign exchange business, said he would never visit anyone's flat without gaining their trust.' 'It was also revealed by the family that the two had even previously visited Bhati's residence. They were known to each other,' the DCP added. A case of murder has been registered under relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita at the Sector 24 police station. Efforts are underway to arrest the suspects, said officers.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Two unauthorised clinics raided in Panipat, owners booked for illegal medical practice
Karnal: The Panipat police have registered two separate FIRs after the Chief Minister's Flying Squad raided two clinics operating without valid licenses or medical certifications. In the first case, Shabir Ali, a local resident, was booked at the Model Town police station under Sections 18(a)(i) and 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, Section 34 of the National Medical Commission Act, and Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). According to the complaint filed by Vishal, a medical officer at the general hospital, a raid was conducted at SK Clinic in the 8 Marla area based on a tip-off received by the Civil Surgeon, Panipat. The team found Shabir Ali seated in the doctor's chair inside the clinic. When questioned, Ali claimed he was running the clinic. The name of Dr Kajal, BAMS—reportedly his daughter—was displayed on the clinic board, but Ali said she got married in November 2024 and now lives in Saharanpur. The team discovered a large stock of allopathic and injectable medicines inside the clinic, some labeled under the name of a Dr S Khan. Ali failed to produce any valid medical degree or license to justify his practice. In the second case, Devender, another local resident and owner of Dev EH Hospital and Medical Institute near Deswal Chowk, was booked at the Old Industrial police station under similar sections of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, National Medical Commission Act, and the BNS. Panipat deputy chief medical officer Subash Galawat stated in his complaint that Devender presented certificates claiming a BEMS (Bachelor of Electropathy Medicine Surgery) degree and registration with the Electronomopathy Medical Council, Panchkula. However, the raiding team verified that these documents were not legally recognised for medical practice. The FIR further notes that the legitimacy and authority of the mentioned councils to issue such credentials need to be examined by appropriate regulatory bodies. Both individuals are now under investigation for unauthorised and potentially dangerous medical practice.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
RCB fully responsible for stampede, K'taka govt tells high court
The Karnataka government on Wednesday told the High Court that IPL franchise Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) bore full responsibility for the deadly stampede outside Bengaluru's Chinnaswamy Stadium on June 4, which left 11 people dead and several others injured. Opposing the bail plea of RCB's head of marketing, Nikhil Sosale, who was arrested by the Central Crime Branch (CCB) on June 6, the state submitted that RCB's last-minute social media posts, including announcements about free passes and open invitations to the team's victory celebration, triggered the massive and unmanageable crowd buildup. The submissions were made before Justice SR Krishna Kumar, who has reserved orders on Sosale's bail application and is expected to pronounce the verdict on June 12. Terming the entire celebration 'illegal,' the government argued that RCB neither sought the requisite permissions nor implemented necessary safety measures to manage an event that ultimately drew lakhs of people. 'There was no permission taken. What they submitted was an intimation—not a formal request seeking approval,' Advocate General (AG) Shashi Kiran Shetty told the court. 'They tweeted to the world, inviting lakhs of fans without specifying who could enter or what protocols applied. The entire event violated legal norms,' he added. The AG cited multiple posts made from RCB's official handle on X (formerly Twitter) between 11:30 pm on June 3 and 8:55 am on June 4. These posts announced a victory parade from Vidhana Soudha to the stadium but offered no details on ticketing, crowd control, or security arrangements. When Justice Kumar asked whether the state's position was that RCB was 'completely responsible,' the AG replied: 'Yes. They have tried to shift the blame to the State, but the entire responsibility lies with them. The event was illegal under the Karnataka Police Act and Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which deals with disobedience to lawful orders. This has criminal consequences.' Defending Sosale, senior advocate Sandesh Chouta argued that the marketing head was being unfairly targeted. 'He is merely an employee, not a decision-maker. He cannot be held vicariously liable for actions taken by the company,' Chouta told the court. Chouta also pointed out that Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar had publicly invited people to the event, but the AG refuted this claim. When the bench sought clarity on Sosale's personal responsibility, Justice Kumar observed: 'He is not even a director; just a marketing official. You cannot conflate the company with the individual. Show us a document where it's his responsibility to seek permission.' In response, the AG cited a tri-partite agreement between RCB, BCCI and KSCA to underline RCB's obligations but admitted that the document did not directly implicate Sosale. However, Shetty maintained: 'We have identified the right person for arrest based on the investigation so far.' Chouta further argued that the arrest was procedurally flawed, pointing out that it took place on June 6, even though the investigation had been officially transferred to the CID on June 5. The AG, however, countered that local police were well within their rights to act until the handover was formally completed and insisted the arrest was lawful. Sosale has also challenged the legality of his arrest, alleging that it was carried out at the behest of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah -- an act he contends exceeds the CM's constitutional authority in criminal investigations.
