- A. Vijayanand
- For BBC Tamil
Image source, MOHAN ADVOCATE/FACEBOOK
Yuvaraj, the founder of the Deeran Chinnamalai Assembly, has been sentenced to three life terms in the murder case of Salem engineering graduate youth Gokulraj.
`Love between a man and a woman is a matter of feeling and mind. Many stories and legends tell us that, ‘said Judge Sampath Kumar in the judgment.
What happened on Tiruchengode hill?
Gokulraj is an engineering graduate from Omalur, Salem district. He got acquainted with a classmate while studying at a private college in Namakkal. He came to Namakkal on June 23, 2015 to meet his classmate. Gokulraj had earlier said that his cell phone had broken down and the girl had allegedly called him to pay for it. When the two met in person, she gave him two five hundred rupees notes. The two then went to the Arthanareeswarar temple on the Tiruchengode hill to worship the Sami.
Yuvraj, the company chairman of the Deeran Chinnamalai Assembly, who was present at the time, and others have questioned the woman and Gokulraj. They asked for the woman’s address in writing. As soon as the caste details of the woman were known, Gokulraj was questioned. When they found out he was a listed ethnic group, they snatched the couple’s cell phones and sent the woman home alone. The next day, Gokulraj’s body was found decapitated on the railway tracks near Thottipalayam.
The fact revealed in the autopsy
DSP Vishnupriya of Tiruchengode, who was initially investigating the case, registered it as a suicide case. A few days later, he committed suicide. In this connection, the case is registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by a woman who came to the hill with Gokulraj. Then there was the incident where the woman also turned out to be a false witness as she did not know who Gokulraj was.
Parthiban, a lawyer, had filed a petition in the Chennai High Court, alleging that a separate doctor should be appointed to examine Gokulraj’s body and that the government doctor would put pressure on him to do the autopsy.
Following this, a doctor working at Ramachandra Hospital appointed Sampath Kumar and conducted an autopsy. He was the one who said, “This is not suicide, this is a horrible murder.” Only then did the case change direction. The culprits were then arrested. Yuvraj, who has been charged as A1 in the case, was interviewed by the media while in hiding. The case went to the CPCID as DSP Vishnupriya could not handle the case properly.
Something that is not in the investigation
Following this, Chitra, Gokulraj’s mother, filed a case in the Chennai High Court, saying, “They have no chance of getting justice” while the case was pending in the Namakkal court. Subsequently, the case was heard in the Special Court for Prevention of Torture in Madurai. Of these, 106 witnesses were questioned. He also demanded that the case be handed over to B.P. Mohan of Bhavani if justice is to be done for the murder of his son. Following this, B.P. Mohan was prosecuting the Gokulraj murder case.
Image source, Getty Images
In this case, Mohan Mohan argued that the CCTV footage of Yuvraj going to Tiruchengode hill and the interview given by Yuvraj on private television were based on technical evidence. The reason is that there is not enough evidence to prove Yuvraj’s guilt. Speaking to BBC Tamil, lawyer PB Mohan said, “Vishnupriya has given a program on the cause of suicide on a private TV show. Yuvraj, who then took part in the show on his own, admitted that he had “gone up the hill, did not snatch the cell phone, they gave it to him”. This is something that is not in the investigation. We combined this to create new witnesses. We brought the case to life with technical clues, including CCTV. ”
He added, “This case is an example of how even if the investigation in a case is flawed, when the right documents are in place, they can be compiled and won in court.”
Imprisonment until death
Following the completion of the proceedings in this case, Judge Sampath Kumar read out the judgment on the 8th. Yuvraj, then the first accused in the Gokulraj murder case, was sentenced to three life terms and a fine of Rs 5,000. Yuvraj’s driver Arun was also sentenced to three life terms. Sivakumar alias Kumar, Satish Kumar alias Raghu alias Sridhar and Ranjith were given two life sentences each and Chandrasekhar, Prabhu and Giridhar were given one life sentence each.
Image source, MOHAN ADVOCATE/FACEBOOK
Yuvraj, who came out after the verdict, said, `I reject the verdict. Gokulraj committed suicide. My side of justice has not come out, ”he told reporters.
The issue of sentencing the culprits in the Gokulraj murder case till death is being talked about passionately. Human rights activists have been saying that the Tamil Nadu government should consult with legal experts there as well when the case goes to appeal.
What is in the 368 page judgment?
The verdicts of Special Court Judge (PCR) D. Sampath Kumar, who hears cases against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in this case, have also become a matter of debate.
In paragraph 86 of the 368-page judgment, the State Special Criminal Attorney argued that Gokulraj’s murder was the most heinous manslaughter and that the nature of the crime was so severe that he should be punished accordingly. To be considered as a case in point, he argued that enemies 1,2 were the root cause of the murder.
Under Section 15A (5) List Ethnic and Tribal Violence Act, the complainant asked Chitra, “Do you want to say anything about the punishment to be meted out to the enemy?” When asked, he asked, “Should the death penalty be imposed?” Defendants’ attorneys said they would leave it to the court to decide.
Caste, religion and race are not important for love
Next, in paragraph 87, Judge Sampath Kumar said, `The deceased Gokulraj was a young man who had completed his engineering studies, the youngest son of his widowed mother Chitra. Gokulraj would definitely have dreamed of achieving a great place in life. As such he would have had a dream that he could live happily until his last days in the shadow and protection of his youngest son. But that dream has been shattered by the enemies mentioned above.
Enemies oppressed by the arrogance of the dominant caste A young man studying engineering is brutally murdered on suspicion that he has fallen in love with a woman belonging to their caste. Love between a man and a woman is a matter of feeling and mind. Many stories and legends make it clear to us. Caste, religion and race are not important for love. They cannot prevent or destroy love. Gokulraj’s massacre is another bloody history of domination. ‘ The judge also recorded that Dr. Ambedkar had stated that “mixed marriage is the only solution if castes are to be broken”.
“In the case of Latasingh vs State of UP and Another, it has been stated that if a man and a woman marrying a mixed caste are subjected to harassment and intimidation, the perpetrators should be severely punished,” he said.
What was the background to the murder?
Continuing, in paragraph 91, it is stated that in this case, the circumstances relating to the criminal activity of the adversary are in the range of 2,8,9,10,14 between the ages of 20 and 30 at the time of the incident, while examining whether the adversity of the adversary is to be reduced or increased. Enemies 1,3,11,13 are between 30 and 35 years old. The 12th enemy alone was 44 years old at the time of the incident. Except for him, everyone else is young.
There was no acquaintance before the time of the incident between the enemies who were found guilty and the dead Gokulraj and the woman. There is no deep animosity between them enough to kill Gokulraj. The murder took place at the Arthanariswarar temple in Tiruchengode on suspicion of being in love with their caste girl, Gokulraj, on the basis of a misguided policy and ideology of a caste system.
There has been no prosecution on the part of the government that any of the other adversaries other than the 1st adversary had been involved in any other crime before. According to the 1st enemy, there are 2 cases in the Perundurai police station. Although all of the above cases are said to have been against the 1st enemy, in only a few of them has a criminal final report been filed. He has not yet been convicted in the above cases. Also first information reports on the enemy are not based on serious crimes. Apart from them, no other documents have been filed by the government to show the misconduct of the 1st enemy.
Life imprisonment alone is not enough
Therefore, the case loses ground when examining the circumstances under which the incident took place in the light of the Supreme Court judgments pointed out above that the circumstances relating to the crime are situated in such a way as to reduce the severity of the crime. However, this court held that a mere life sentence was not sufficient. Conversely, Swamy Shraddananda @ Murali Manohar Mishra … Appellant vs State of Karnataka Hari & Anr .. Appellant vs The State of Uttar Pradesh as in both cases sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to serve their sentence till death (until death) This Court considers it to be optimal ‘, said Judge Sampath Kumar.
In conclusion, `Special Criminal Advocate P. Mohan appearing for the Government in this case and Senior Advocate Gopal Krishnaraju appearing for the Opposition are both senior advocates. They are appearing daily in different cases in different courts. However, both of them offered their full cooperation to the court during the trial of this case despite the difficult workload associated with their legal profession.
Moreover, they have contributed immensely to reaching a fair conclusion in this case by citing various legal provisions and exemplary judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. The court records their appreciation in the judgment.
Other News: