Cell tower data showing two people in the same area cannot prove they met, let alone what they said, the Madras High Court has held, quashing the chargesheet against the police sub-inspector couple whose son is accused of murdering software engineer Kavin Selvaganesh, and finding that the father had in fact named his own son as the killer.
Madurai: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has quashed the chargesheet filed by the CB-CID against Saravanan and Krishnakumari, both serving as Sub-Inspectors of Police at the time, in the 2025 murder of Kavin Selvaganesh in Tirunelveli district, holding that the materials relied on by the prosecution did not disclose the offences alleged against them [Saravanan v. State of Tamil Nadu].
Justice R. Vijayakumar found the material insufficient to place the couple at the scene or to show a conspiracy, and held that the charges under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act could not stand either.
Background of the case
Kavin Selvaganesh, a Chennai-based software engineer from the Devendra Kula Vellalar community, was hacked to death on July 27, 2025. According to the prosecution, he was killed by the family of a woman from the Maravar community with whom he was allegedly in a relationship. A case was registered against her brother, father, mother and a relative, and a chargesheet was filed under Sections 103(1), 238(a), 249(a) and 318(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The prosecution alleged that the parents had phoned the deceased in 2018-2019 and warned him against a relationship with their daughter, that the father obtained a two-wheeler in 2023 and gave it to the son with a fake registration number, and that after the killing the couple were in touch with their son, the first accused, and helped him evade arrest by telling him to destroy his clothes, damage his phone and remove the number plate of the vehicle.
ALSO READ: Vijay’s TVK moves Supreme Court, demands special law to stop caste-based honour killings
What the parties argued
The couple contended that they were not at the scene, that no overt act was attributed to them, and that the case against them rested entirely on call detail records from which the prosecution had inferred a meeting. On the SC/ST Act charges, they argued that no caste name was used and that the calls relied on were private telephone conversations. The State maintained that the material raised grave suspicion, and that whether their conduct after the killing amounted to screening the offender was a matter for trial.
Tower location cannot prove a meeting
The Court found no CCTV footage, photograph, recording or independent witness showing that the couple met their son and told him to destroy evidence, and no record of any conversation between them. The only material was tower location data, which, the Court said, cannot conclusively establish that people were in each other’s company, and even if a conversation took place, cannot establish what was said.
The Court also noted that, on the prosecution’s own case, the father reached the scene within 16 minutes of being informed and told a Head Constable that his son had committed the murder, after which the son was taken into custody the same day. Since harbouring requires an intention to screen the offender, the Court held that the father naming his own son negatived the essential ingredient of the offences of causing disappearance of evidence and harbouring.
No caste reference, no public view
On the phone calls to the deceased, the Court observed that they were made about seven years before the killing, were private conversations about a relationship between two young persons that began in their school days, and contained nothing showing any reference to his community. It was natural, the Court said, for parents to admonish a child in such a situation. Summing up, the Court held:
“The allegations against the petitioner, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged. The case of screening rests upon an inference drawn from cell tower location data, which, as per the authorities cited above, is insufficient to establish presence, much less the contents of any conversation, and in any event stands contradicted by the prosecution’s own material. The allegation of cheating does not identify any deception practised upon the deceased. The provisions of the SC/ST Act fail for want of any caste reference, any place within public view, and any participation in the qualifying underlying offence.”
The chargesheet was accordingly quashed as against the father and the mother by separate orders. The case against the other accused, including the son, remains pending, and the allegations against them are yet to be tested at trial.
Case Title: Saravanan v. State of Tamil Nadu (and Krishnakumari v. State of Tamil Nadu)
Case Number: Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 995 of 2026
Bench: Justice R. Vijayakumar, Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)
Appearance: S. Ananth for the petitioners; R. John Sathyan, State Public Prosecutor, assisted by P. Samuel Gunasingh, Government Advocate (Crl. Side), B. Mohan and P. Karthick for the State