In a powerful statement delivered after the sentencing in the high-profile Anna University sexual assault case, Public Prosecutor Mary Jeyanthi emphasized that the Mahila Court's verdict unequivocally identifies Gnanasekaran as the sole accused and has held him fully accountable for the crime. The court sentenced him to 30 years of rigorous imprisonment without the possibility of remission, underscoring the gravity of the offense and the unambiguous nature of the evidence presented.
“He will not be entitled to any privileges or early release. There is no one else. The court found the evidence sufficient to convict only him,” Jeyanthi stated, firmly rejecting widespread speculation and conspiracy theories that the First Information Report (FIR) named only Gnanasekaran in order to shield other influential individuals.
The case, initially investigated by the Kotturpuram Police, was later transferred to a Special Investigation Team (SIT) following a directive from the Madras High Court, which took cognizance of the matter due to its sensitive and disturbing nature. The SIT, after an extensive and thorough investigation, filed a comprehensive chargesheet before the Mahila Court.
The survivor's first court appearance on April 23 marked the beginning of legal arguments, with the prosecution presenting a meticulously curated body of evidence across 11 different sections—including oral testimonies, documentary records, and forensic findings. According to Jeyanthi, the case was airtight.
“Every witness and every document submitted pointed to Gnanasekaran alone. There was no hostile witness. The evidence was satisfactory in every respect,” she noted, underlining the strength and integrity of the case built by the SIT and the prosecution.
In response to public questions about whether Gnanasekaran may have had accomplices, Jeyanthi said such speculation is unfounded, unsupported, and legally untenable. She clarified that Gnanasekaran’s mobile phone played a pivotal role in both committing and documenting the crime, and that the device was treated as the primary weapon of the case.
“The phone was subjected to forensic examination on the basis of a court order. The Forensic Science Laboratory confirmed it was in flight mode on the day of the crime. According to Airtel’s nodal officer, the first incoming call was logged at 6:29 PM and an SMS alert was received at 8:58 PM. No other calls were made. These technical details were corroborated in court by an expert witness,” she said.
Jeyanthi also addressed claims about potential legal loopholes or missed leads. She cited Section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which allows for the court to bring additional accused persons into the case if multiple parties are shown to be involved.
“The law allows it. The court allows it. But there must be evidence. In this case, there was none pointing to anyone else. Suggesting otherwise is not only misleading but also an insult to the judiciary. Making such claims now amounts to contempt of court,” she warned.
One of the most disturbing aspects of the case was the deception used by the accused—Gnanasekaran falsely posed as a staff member of Anna University in order to lure the survivor, ultimately recording the assault and using the footage as a tool for blackmail and coercion. This manipulation and abuse of trust formed the psychological core of the prosecution’s argument.
“This was not just an assault; it was a cold, calculated performance—a staged drama designed to trap and traumatize the victim. We proved this through scientific analysis, through documentation, and through consistent witness accounts,” Jeyanthi said.
In her closing remarks, the prosecutor offered heartfelt praise for the survivor, whose courage to come forward catalyzed the legal process and led to justice.
“Because she had the courage to file a complaint, justice has been delivered. The law, the judiciary, and the state will not remain silent when a woman faces such horror. This verdict stands as evidence—not only of the crime but of the survivor’s strength, and of the system’s resolve.”
The verdict, coming amid growing national concern over crimes against women in educational institutions, has been hailed by legal experts and women's rights groups as a landmark moment in Tamil Nadu’s judicial history, both for the clarity of the prosecution and the swiftness of the court in delivering justice.
