Supreme Court’s Verdict in Tamil Nadu Double Murder Case Exposes How Forensic Blunders Can Derail Justice

New Delhi- In a stunning reversal, the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday acquitted Kattavellai @ Devakar, a man sentenced to death for the brutal 2011 murders of two young lovers in Tamil Nadu, exposing shocking investigative failures that nearly led to a grave miscarriage of justice. The three-judge bench—comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta—delivered a 77-page judgment that not only exonerated the accused but also laid bare systemic flaws in criminal investigations, particularly in handling forensic evidence and witness testimonies.

The Crime That Shocked Tamil Nadu

The case dates back to May 14, 2011, when Ezhil Muthalvan (D1) and Kasturi (D2), both college students, went missing after visiting Suruli Falls in Theni district. Their decomposed bodies were discovered five days later in the forest, bearing horrific injuries—D1’s neck nearly severed, and D2’s body mutilated with signs of sexual assault. The prosecution alleged that Devakar, a local coconut cutter, murdered them after attempting to rob their jewelry.

The trial court in 2018 convicted Devakar under Sections 302 (murder), 376 (rape), and 397 (robbery) of the IPC, sentencing him to death. The Madras High Court upheld the verdict in 2019, relying heavily on circumstantial evidence. However, the Supreme Court’s exhaustive scrutiny revealed fatal gaps in the prosecution’s case.

Why the Supreme Court Overturned the Conviction

The “Last Seen” Theory Collapses

The prosecution’s case hinged on the testimony of PW-5, Rajkumar, who claimed he saw Devakar threatening the victims before they were killed. However, the court found his conduct “unnatural and unreliable.”

Rajkumar waited six days before informing police, claiming he assumed the couple had eloped. The bench noted, “His assumption lacks basis—he admitted no prior knowledge of their marriage plans. A reasonable person would have alerted authorities sooner.”

The only other witness, PW-25 (a forest guide), testified to seeing Devakar with a sickle. But the court dismissed this, stating, “A sickle is a common tool for coconut cutters. No forensic link proved it was the murder weapon.”

DNA Evidence Rendered Useless Due to Mishandling

The prosecution’s strongest evidence—DNA from semen found on D2—was discarded due to glaring lapses:

Vaginal swabs were sent to the forensic lab 41 days after collection. “Unjustified delay raises risks of contamination,” the court observed, citing Manoj v. State of M.P.

The samples’ movement was poorly documented. *”PW-37 (the doctor) said she ‘might have’ handed swabs to a constable, but PW-41 (the constable) denied receiving them,”* the judgment noted.

The defense alleged swabs were sent via speed post, but the court clarified only reports were mailed. Still, it condemned the “casual attitude toward sensitive evidence.”

Confession Statements Under Cloud

Devakar’s alleged confessions (Exhibits P-8 and P-75) were recorded a year apart, with no explanation for the second statement. The court ruled:

A confession’s credibility depends on voluntary disclosure. Here, procedural irregularities and lack of independent witnesses cast doubt.”

The recovery of a gold chain (allegedly D2’s) at his mother-in-law’s house was also questioned. “No distinctive features proved it was the victim’s. Such chains are commonly available,” the bench remarked.

Test Identification Parade (T.I.P.) Flaws

The T.I.P., where PW-5 identified Devakar, was conducted nine days after arrest—by which time the accused’s photo had circulated. The court cited Budhsen v. State of U.P.:

“Prior exposure to the accused vitiates T.I.P. sanctity. PW-5 admitted seeing Devakar at the police station before identification.”

No magistrate’s testimony confirmed the T.I.P.’s fairness, making it inadmissible.

Unexplored Alternate Suspects

Devakar’s defense highlighted that the victims’ families suspected four others (Arjunan, Ambazhagan, Viji, and Francies). PW-56 (CBCID officer) recorded their statements, but these were never produced in court.

“The prosecution failed to explain why these leads were abandoned. This omission breaches the principle of fair investigation,” the bench stated.

Missing Key Witness: Bhagyalakshmi

Bhagyalakshmi, PW-5’s girlfriend and D2’s friend—who was present at the crime scene—was never examined. The court called this a “fatal omission”:

“She could have corroborated the last-seen theory or clarified if the couple planned to elope. Her non-examination invites adverse inference.”

Supreme Court’s Directives on DNA Evidence

Alarmed by recurring forensic lapses, the bench issued binding guidelines:

Documentation: Samples must bear FIR details, collector’s signatures, and witness endorsements.

48-hour Rule: Labs must receive samples within 48 hours; delays require case diary entries.

Custody Register: A log must track every movement, signed by handlers.

No Unauthorised Access: Samples can’t be reopened without court approval.

“Directors General of Police must enforce these protocols. Training for investigators is non-negotiable,” the court ordered, directing the judgment’s circulation to all High Courts and police academies.

A “Clean Acquittal” and the Compensation Question

Devakar spent 14 years in jail—including six on death row—before his exoneration. While stopping short of awarding compensation, the bench hinted at future accountability:

“When clean acquittals follow prolonged detention, Article 21 rights (right to life) are infringed. Legislatures must consider remedies for wrongful prosecution.”
The court referenced the Law Commission’s 277th Report on wrongful convictions but noted it didn’t cover judicial delays.

The judgment is a damning indictment of Tamil Nadu’s investigation machinery. From contaminated evidence to ignored suspects, the case reflects systemic apathy toward due process. Legal experts say the ruling will force police reforms. As Devakar walks free, the Supreme Court’s message is clear: “Convicts can’t hang on the gallows of investigative incompetence.” The question now is whether India’s criminal justice system will learn from its mistakes.

Connect with us. Share your grievance at mystory@aawaazuthao.com