How fabricated cases kept a Chennai man in jail for more than two decades

Karuna landed in the police net in 1997 when he was charged with murder. His legal troubles mounted when he was named as an accused in four other cases.
Silhouette of a man in a room with orange light behind him
Silhouette of a man in a room with orange light behind him
Written by:

It took nearly 22 years for Karuna to be found not guilty in a case that he had all along maintained was fabricated. The 52-year-old man from Chennai was vindicated when he was acquitted in a case of attempt-to-murder (charged under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code) by the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Tambaram, on January 12, 2023. The court ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused. But perhaps more significantly for Karuna, the judgement served to expose the police and its underhand methods in the case. 

Karuna, who was once a boxer and ran a small business, landed in the police net in 1997 when he was charged with murder. While out on bail in the murder case, Karuna’s legal troubles mounted when he was named as an accused in four other cases. His advocate BA Chandrasekar told TNM that the police had allegedly foisted false cases against him so he would be labelled a habitual offender. It was to ensure Karuna remained in jail. “Originally, he was involved in a murder case. When that case was pending, the police filed four other 307 (attempt-to-murder) cases against him so that he could be detained under the Goondas Act,” said Chandrasekar. Under the Goondas Act, a person can be detained without bail for a period that may extend up to one year. 

Chandrasekar alleged that the police tend to trump up charges when it isn’t in a position to secure a conviction against the accused. “The police will file a number of cases against an accused. On record, the accused will have 10-15 cases against them, but if you see, they will be involved in only certain cases,” he pointed out.  

In Karuna’s case, he found himself named as an accused in a total of five cases – one murder, and four attempts-to-murder. Karuna was convicted in the murder case in 2004 and sentenced to life imprisonment. His appeal, however, is presently pending before the Supreme Court. While three other cases are pending before the court, Karuna managed to secure relief in a 2001 case only recently.  

This attempt-to-murder case against Karuna dates back to June 8, 2001 when Mohan, who worked at a leather company, alleged of being assaulted at his workplace. In his complaint with the police, Mohan alleged Karuna attacked him with an aruval (long sickle) and when he tried to deflect the blows, he injured his left palm fingers. Although Karuna made an escape when people in the neighbouring offices raised an alarm, he was arrested days later and booked for attempt-to-murder. 

Even as Karuna languished in jail, the trial moved at a snail’s pace. His family members told DT Next, which first reported the story, that over the years he was shifted to different prisons across Tamil Nadu. Karuna, who is presently at Cuddalore jail, had to travel to Tambaram every time there was a hearing in the case.

It was during one such hearing at the Tambaram court last year that advocate BA Chandrasekar came across Karuna for the first time and was intrigued by his case. Karuna had refused to engage a lawyer, as he was unable to afford one, and had sought to present his own case in court.  

 “I was surprised because he refused to engage a lawyer free of cost through legal aid. Karuna had told the judge that he had been in prison for 20 years and did not want an advocate who did not have the calibre to present his case,” said Chandrasekar. The fact that Karuna had spent 20 years in jail for a crime that had the maximum punishment of seven years moved Chandrasekar. In September 2022, Chandrasekar began appearing for Karuna on the promise that he would get him acquitted. 

A stunning admission 

The prosecution’s case unravelled during Mohan’s cross-examination by Chandrasekar. Recalling what happened that day in court, the advocate said he began by asking the complainant, who was also the prosecution’s first witness, how many times the police had met him in the hospital. “Mohan replied, ‘Three or four times’. I asked why the police had to visit him so many times if he was in position to answer their questions the first time. I then went on to ask him whether the police brought any fruits or Horlicks for him in the hospital. Mohan said ‘no’,” recounted the advocate. 

His next question proved to be the clincher. “I asked whether the police gave him money. He said, ‘Yes, they gave me Rs 5,000’”, said Chandrasekar.  

Mohan’s admission stunned the court. In the order, judge S Meenakshi wrote,“This leads the court to assume that maybe the PW1 is a stock witness of the police.” PW is short for Prosecution Witness. Chandrasekar said Mohan’s candid admission was crucial. “It showed that the police can go to any extent to file a case against anybody,” he said. 

Inconsistencies and omissions

The court found many other glaring inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case against Karuna. Key among them was the fact that the injuries mentioned by Mohan in his deposition did not match that of the accident register kept by the hospital which treated him. While Mohan claimed he sustained cuts to three fingers on his left hand and another cut to his head, the hospital’s accident register revealed that he had lacerated wounds in his left hand, which was diagnosed as a carpal bone fracture. “If the injuries were indeed caused by a sickle which was brought pre-planned by the accused to the scene of occurrence with an intent of killing the PW1, then the injuries sustained does not match ones that ought to have been made by a weapon such as sickle,” stated the court. 

Another contradiction was a report by a doctor which stated that Mohan had claimed to have been attacked by a mob, while the prosecution stated that only Karuna was involved. “What is the reason for him to give a complaint only against the accused, who has been alleged to be present and assaulted him on that date and why the presence of the mob was deliberately withheld while giving the complaint to the police, and why this fact was not further investigated by the police, were all not at all explained by the prosecution,” the judgement read.

There were other lapses on the part of the investigators including the failure to retrieve the weapon or send leather sheets stained with Mohan’s blood for forensic examination. The Investigating Officer’s excuse that he did not send the blood-stained leather sheets to the forensic department because it would contain chemicals was found to be “a lame one” by the court. “...it is not the duty of the Investigation Officer to merely dismiss an important part of evidence on the ground that it will not prove fruitful even if such an investigation is done upon that piece of evidence,” noted the court. 

The prosecution’s case fell apart when several of its witnesses turned hostile. The judge observed that the offence cannot be considered as proven merely based on Mohan’s allegations, whose evidence the court found untrustworthy. Finding Karuna not guilty, the court ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. 

Although Karuna continues to remain behind bars, his acquittal gives him and his family hope that he may one day walk out a free man. 

Related Stories

No stories found.
The News Minute
www.thenewsminute.com