Tirunelveli caste killing: HC directs NHAI to produce CCTV footage

Madurai: Madras high court on Wednesday directed the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to produce CCTV footage recorded on the Tirunelveli-Seevalaperi road stretch on July 27, 2025, the day of the Tirunelveli caste killing incident in which an IT employee, Kavin Selvaganesh, was murdered by Surjith.Justice L Victoria Gowri sought the CCTV footage while hearing the petitions filed by two accused persons—a suspended sub-inspector of police, K Saravanan, and K Jayapal—seeking to quash the chargesheet filed by the CB-CID before the trial court in Tirunelveli.The case of the prosecution is that Selvaganesh, a scheduled caste man from Tuticorin district, was in a relationship with S Subhashini, belonging to the maravar community. On July 27, 2025, Subhashini's brother, Surjith, murdered Selvaganesh at KTC Nagar. Surjith, his father Saravanan, and cousin Jayapal were arrested. Surjith's mother, Krishnakumari, an SI and an accused in the case, was placed under suspension. The probe in the case was subsequently transferred to CB-CID.In his petition, Saravanan stated that the prosecution alleged he was involved in facilitating the hiding of his son, Surjith, at a quarry. However, it is an admitted fact that the distance between the place of occurrence and the alleged quarry hideout exceeded 15-20km and that there were at least 20 to 25 CCTV cameras covering this route. Despite the availability of such crucial electronic evidence, the prosecution failed to recover or produce any CCTV footage showing whether he travelled to the quarry, whether Jayapal went there after Surjith's arrival, or the duration of their alleged stay.He stated that if such footage was collected and produced, it would clearly establish that he was not present at the hiding spot and that he was the person who handed over Surjith to police officials on the highway. The deliberate non-collection and suppression of this vital evidence unmistakably demonstrate that the prosecution avoided producing material which would have exonerated him, thereby rendering the investigation unfair and biased.Similarly, Jayapal stated that the prosecution case did not disclose any material to show that he had prior knowledge of the occurrence and that he prearranged any shelter for Surjith in the quarry. He stated that he came to know about the incident only after Surjith reached the quarry on his own. There was no admissible material, such as any prior call, message, or independent witness, to establish that he directed Surjith to come to the quarry, or that he had any advance intimation enabling him to plan, facilitate, or coordinate Surjith's movement.