There was no 'Sir'; Gnanasekar acted alone: Mahila Court

CHENNAI: Accused Gnanasekar used the word "Sir" only to make the victim believe that he was a university staff, and none other than the accused was involved and the same has been proved with scientific evidence available, the Mahila Court held after sentencing the varsity rape case on Monday.

Finding the accused guilty of all 11 charges for which he was prosecuted and sentencing him to life imprisonment for at least 30 years without any remission, Sessions Judge M Rajalakshmi pondered whether there were any other accused involved in the case.

"This judgment will not be a complete one if the question (is not addressed). There is a direction by the Madras High Court to the All Women SIT that the team shall not allow any offender to go scot-free irrespective of their position in the society," the court noted.

The court pointed out that the question arose as the survivor herself had mentioned in her complaint that the accused gave her a third option that she has to be with the "Sir" for some time, in addition to the two options he gave to threaten her — sending video to her family members and the Dean office leading to her dismissal from the institute.

Accused received no calls at time of offence: Court

In her complaint, the survivor had noted that before he made the threat, he received a phone call and in that, he told her that he would leave her after threatening her.

The SIT investigation found that no phone calls were received by Gnanasekar on December 23 at the time of the offence. According to the evidence submitted by a forensic official, Gnanasekar's mobile phone was in aeroplane mode, and he took a screenshot of him dialling the survivor's father and used it to threaten her.

Special Public Prosecutor MP Jayanthi Mary told mediapersons that the forensic officials submitted a report that the phone was in aeroplane mode and also deposed the same before the court too, which was accepted.

In addition to the forensic department report, the nodal officer of Bharti Airtel deposed before the court that on the date of the crime, December 23, no phone calls were received on Gnanasekar's mobile phone between 6.29 pm to 8.52 pm. No calls were received on the other mobile number belonging to the accused.

"Thereby, it is proved that no calls were received in the two mobile numbers of the accused at the time of occurrence of the crime, which is alleged to have happened between 7.45 pm to 8.30 pm," Sessions Judge Rajalakshmi noted and cited the evidence deposed by the survivor in which she stated that he was talking on phone while approaching her.

"From the evidence of the survivor, her complaint and the scientific evidence available before this court, it is crystal clear that the accused to threaten the victim and to make her believe him as the university staff, without making any call on his mobile, talked on his mobile while coming towards the victim. Accordingly, this court concludes that no other person except the accused is either directly or indirectly involved in this occurrence," Sessions Judge Rajalakshmi noted.