Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, June 2: Delivering the verdict in the Anna University sexual assault case which had created a political storm between the ruling DMK and the opposition AIADMK over an alleged attempt to “shield” some higher ups in the government, a Mahila court in Chennai on Monday sentenced the lone accused Gnanasekaran, a biryani vendor and DMK supporter, to life imprisonment of minimum 30 years without any remission and a cumulative fine of Rs 90,000.
The case had created a massive outrage in the state and had sparked a heated exchange between the ruling DMK and the main Opposition AIADMK. Leader of the Opposition in Tamil Nadu Assembly, AIADMK’s E Palaniswami, has accused the MK Stalin government of rushing the investigation to cover the man referred to as “SIR” the perpetrator had allegedly spoken to during the sexual assault.
The court found Gnanasekaran guilty on all 11 charges, including sexual assault, rape, intimidation and kidnapping. He had earlier pleaded for relief, citing his need to be at home to look after his elderly mother and eight-year-old daughter.
The crime occurred on the evening of December 23, 2024, when the survivor, a 19-year-old student, and her friend were seated near a building in the Anna University campus. Gnanasekaran, a resident of Kottur who ran a biryani outlet, entered the campus that evening. Upon seeing them, he pretended to be a university staff member and threatened to report them to the management and have a transfer certificate issued
He then separated them and took the woman student to a secluded spot, where he sexually assaulted her. He also videographed the act on his phone, the prosecution stated. The Madras High Court-appointed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising women officers, probed the sexual assault case and had named history-sheeter Gnanasekar as the lone accused in the charge-sheet. He had already been involved in several other crimes.
Gnanasekaran was charged under Sections 329 (criminal trespass), 126(2) (wrongful restraint), 87 (kidnapping), 127(2) (wrongful confinement), 75(2) (demand for sexual favour), 76 (assault or use of criminal force on woman with intent to disrobe), 64(i) (rape), 351(3) (criminal intimidation), and 238(b) (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and two provisions of the Information Technology Act and Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act.
Following the court’s ruling, AIADMK’s Palaniswami alleged that MK Stalin government played many tricks to save the accused. He said the people’s movement made the conviction possible. Referring to a “Sir” mention in the FIR, the AIADMK leader asked why this individual’s involvement was ruled out during the investigation. “Why did the DMK government rush to conclude this case by saying that only Gnanasekaran was guilty? Who saved SIR? Once AIADMK government is formed, all answers will be available,” Mr Palaniswami said.
The Chief Minister MK Stalin responded that the court praised police for their investigation and added that this had exposed those aiming at political gain from the tragic event. He said the State police force had given a fitting response to those who were theatrical about women’s safety.
Mr Palaniswami, however, questioned why the alleged involvement of another individual (an unnamed person whom Opposition parties claim is linked to the case) was ruled out during the investigation. He added that answers to such questions would emerge when the AIADMK returns to power.
Reacting to the sentencing, the Chief Minister said in a social media post, “We have secured severe punishment for the accused by swiftly completing the investigation in the Chennai student case within five months, which was praised by the High Court.” He added that the Mahila Court had also appreciated the role played by the police in the case.
He also contended that the verdict had “demolished the efforts of small-minded people” who sought political gain from a case involving a young woman. But Mr Palaniswami, in his social media post, said a “DMK sympathiser” has been sentenced to life imprisonment by a Mahila Court. “The DMK government undertook several attempts to protect the accused Gnanasekar in this case,” Mr Palaniswami claimed, and contended it was the AIADMK, with its unrelenting efforts, that made the conviction and sentencing possible.
“We have been fulfilling our promise to this day, that the AIADMK would continue to be the voice of the affected student. And so, we continue to ask even today, ‘Who is that Sir?, so that she gets justice in its entirety,” Mr Palaniswami said. He further asked: “Who was the ‘Sir’ mentioned in the FIR? And why was his involvement ruled out during the probe? Why did the DMK government attempt to conclude that Gnanasekar was the only individual involved in this case?”
Gnanasekar was brought to the court campus in a police van from the Central Prison at Puzhal, on Monday, amidst tight security. He was produced before the trial court (Mahila Court) judge M. Rajalakshmi. The judge read out his sentence as he was standing in the box: “For the charge under Section 64(1) of the BNS, you are sentenced to life imprisonment for a minimum period of 30 years without remission. Also, a ₹25,000-fine is imposed under this section, and if you default to pay the fine, you will have to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.”
The court gave different sentences, ranging from one month to 10 years imprisonment for the conviction, and imposed more fines, under 10 other sections of the BNS, Information Technology Act, and Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act. All the sentences of imprisonment imposed were ordered to run concurrently. The court imposed a total fine of ₹90,000.
The judgment read: “According to the available oral evidence from the victim and scientific evidence available, it is proved on the side of the prosecution that the word ‘Sir’ used by the accused is order to make the victim child to believe him as the university staff and to threaten her to submit herself for his lust and nothing else. Accordingly, this court came to the conclusion that no other person except the accused according to the evidence available before this court either directly or indirectly involved in this occurrence [sic].”
“From the oral evidence given by the prosecution witness [the survivor], which is corroborated by her previous statement, and the oral evidence given by other witnesses… the evidence given by other witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution and the documents and material objects produced on the side of the prosecution, the prosecution has proved all the 11 charges [sic],” the judgment further read.