Honour killing victim Kavin's family asks TVK govt to appeal against quashing chargesheet against accused's parents

THOOTHUKUDI: Parents of Kavin, who was allegedly killed in an honour-related crime in Tirunelveli last year, staged a sit-in protest in Arumugamangalam in Thoothukudi district on Thursday, demanding that the State government appeal against the Madurai Bench’s order quashing the charge sheet against the parents of the main accused, Surjith.

The court quashed the chargesheet against Surjith’s parents, citing a lack of material evidence to establish their alleged involvement.

Kavin, an engineering graduate belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, was in a relationship with S Subhashini, a Siddha doctor from Palayamkottai who belongs to a dominant caste. Kavin was murdered in Tirunelveli on July 27, 2025. Surjith, Subhashini’s younger brother, was arrested in connection with the murder. Later, police charged Surjith’s cousin Jayapal and his parents in the case.

Chandrasekar and Tamilselvi, staged a sit-in protest in front of their house in Arumugamangalam. They held a photograph of their son and said they would continue their protest until justice was delivered.

“Should my son have been killed merely because he loved a woman? As a mother, only I know how much I struggled to raise my son. We do not want another Kavin to become a victim of such an incident,” said Tamilselvi.

Questioning the court’s observation that there was insufficient evidence, Kavin’s father Chandrasekar said, “If there was no evidence, how were arrests made in the first place? Since the CBCID conducted the investigation, it should have been allowed to collect further evidence and continue the investigation. We want an explanation as to why the charges were quashed without allowing the investigation to be completed.”

“We respect the court’s verdict. At the same time, we want proper answers to our doubts and questions,” Chandrasekar said.

Meanwhile, the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, urged the Tamil Nadu government to challenge the order before the Supreme Court and effectively pursue the case.

“The primary purpose of Section 528 of the BNSS is to determine whether a prima facie case exists against the accused or not,” R Murali, president of PUCL, said in a statement.

“To examine the evidence in depth and arrive at a conclusion is a function that falls within the jurisdiction of the trial court. The High Court undertaking such an exercise amounts to encroachment upon the jurisdiction of the trial court,” he said.

The PUCL also questioned the High Court’s assessment of the applicability of provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. And for not considering electronic evidence, including a recorded telephone conversation from seven years ago in which Saravanan allegedly threatened Kavin over the phone and warned him to end his relationship with his daughter.