Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
A Special Court for National Investigation Agency (NIA) cases in Chennai’s Poonamallee, on Wednesday, November 12, sentenced history-sheeter Vinoth alias Karukka Vinoth (39) to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for hurling petrol bombs at the main gate of Raj Bhavan in Chennai on October 25, 2023, an attack the agency said was intended “to overawe the constitutional authority of the Governor.”
The court, presided over by Judge S Malarvizhi, also imposed a fine of Rs 5,000, with a default sentence of six months’ simple imprisonment.
According to the prosecution, Vinoth, a repeat offender with over a dozen criminal cases, stole petrol from a motorcycle in SM Nagar, filled it into liquor bottles, and walked from Teynampet to Raj Bhavan, where he hurled two petrol bombs at Gate No 1, the primary entry used by the Governor and visiting dignitaries. The attack caused an explosion and damaged government property.
Police personnel on duty swiftly apprehended Vinoth and recovered two more unexploded petrol bombs from his possession. Initial charges were filed by the Guindy police under the IPC, the Explosive Substances Act, and the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act.
Given the gravity of the offence, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs had transferred the probe to the NIA, which re-registered the case on November 10, 2023, with Inspector R Sibin Rajmon appointed as the Chief Investigating Officer.
The NIA chargesheet filed in January 2024 stated that Vinoth carried out the attack because he was allegedly angered by Governor RN Ravi’s refusal to assent to his premature release from jail, and reportedly over the Governor’s “refusal to release Muslim prisoners.” The agency also highlighted Vinoth’s history of petrol bomb attacks on government establishments, including a TASMAC outlet (2015), Teynampet police station (2017), and the BJP state headquarters (2022), all in Chennai.
Special Public Prosecutor N Baskaran presented 17 witnesses, 57 documents, and 10 material objects during the trial. The defence did not present witnesses or documentary evidence.
Accepting the prosecution’s case that the accused acted deliberately to create a security threat, the court held that the charges were proven beyond reasonable doubt.