Raja, a Dalit Christian youth who was the victim of a violent assault, died by suicide after being threatened allegedly by Vanniyar caste men, who also lodged a case of bike theft against him.
Dalit residents of Surapattu in Villupuram have refused to receive the body of Raja Marianathan, a 19-year-old Dalit Christian youth who took his own life on December 23 after he and his family members allegedly received death threats from men belonging to the Vanniyar caste. The Vanniyar men, who physically assaulted him, also foisted a false case of bike theft on him, according to the relatives. Raja’s friends and relatives have been protesting outside Mundiyampakkam government hospital demanding the arrest of the Vanniyar men. They are also demanding payment of compensation to Raja’s family.
Raja, a Dalit Christian youth from the Pariah community, died by suicide at his house at 7 pm on December 23. Raja lived in Surapattu, a small village in Villupuram, located on Puducherry-Sengam road. While Dalits live on the left side of the road, the Vanniyars live on the right side. According to residents, on December 21 night Raja and his friends went for dinner at an eatery located in the residential area of Vanniyars. He saw an elderly man belonging to the Vanniyar community knock on a door to get some water while he was returning home. When Raja saw this, he tried to help the elderly man.
“He was trying to fetch some water for that old man. But Moorthy, the son-in-law of the elder man, answered the door and used casteist slurs against Raja when he saw him at the doorstep and asked how a Pariah man dared to come to his house and knock on the door?” alleges Marianathan, Raja’s father. Moorthy and his friends identified as Mohan and Suresh, also from the Vanniyar community, allegedly under the influence of alcohol engaged in a scuffle with Raja and attacked him. Sebastian and Vinoth, friends of Raja, rescued him from the attackers and admitted him to the Mundiyampakkam government hospital. Raja had eight stitches on his face and torso.
According to relatives, the Vanniyar men lodged a false case of bike theft on Raja and friends at Kedar police station to counter registration of a case against Moorthy and others over the assault. Dalit human rights activist ‘Evidence’ Kathir told TNM that the police registered a case against Vanniyar men at the hospital and also questioned Vinoth and Sebastian about the bike theft case while Raja was under treatment. He alleged that the police assaulted them.
“When Marianathan visited the police station with Raja on December 22 to explain that he and his friends were not involved in bike theft, police asked the father-son duo to enter into a ‘compromise’ with Vanniyars. However, they refused to do so and didn’t want to withdraw the case against Vanniyer men,” says Kathir. According to him, Marianathan asked why he should agree for a compromise and settle the case when his son was the victim, says Kathir who visited Surapattu on December 24 to gather details regarding the case from Raja’s family members.
Later on the same day, the Vanniyar men tried to initiate a compromise talk with Raja’s family members in their village. After Raja and Marianathan refused the offer, a Vanniyar man named Venkatesh along with 40 members of his caste allegedly threatened Raja that they would kill him and his family members. “The Vanniyar men told him that their community had 1,000 families in Surappattu while the Dalit colony had only 40 houses and threatened to set fire to the colony,” says the First Information Report, quoting the complainant.
Kathir says Raja’s life could have been saved if the police acted appropriately and thoroughly inquired about the assault on Raja. “Raja was a Dalit Christian and now they are confused regarding the case as sections of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were added erroneously,” says Kathir. Raja’s father is Dalit Christian whereas his mother is Dalit Hindu from Pariah community. Dalit Christians and Dalit Muslims have been excluded from the caste-based reservation in India.
According to Kathir, police registered the FIR with the information provided by a 12th standard student who witnessed the assault on Raja on December 21. In the FIR, police says Raja was waylaid by Vanniyar men who assaulted him with a rod but it fails to mention the claim that the assault happened when Raja tried to help an elderly man from the Vanniyar community. TNM reached out to the investigating officers regarding the discrepancies but they were tightlipped regarding the case.
Police have booked a case against Vanniar men under different sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – 147 (rioting), 148 (Rioting, armed with deadly weapons), 341 (wrongful restraint), 294 (b) (singing or uttering obscene words or songs), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons), 506 (2) (criminal intimidation) and 306 (abetment of suicide). Sections under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – 3(1)(r), which deals with intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate and 3(1)(s), relating to abuse using caste name) have also been incorporated. Since converted Christians from Dalit communities are not eligible for special protection under this Act and reservations under various forums, police are likely to alter the sections, according to activists.
“Dalit Christians are presently categorised as Backward Class in Tamil Nadu. But it is against our Constitution. The FIR says Raja was insulted with casteist slurs then why is it not considered a caste crime? If this does not come under the purview of SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) Act, the government should provide monetary relief to the family members of Raja on humanitarian grounds,” says Kathir.
When Pradeep, a diploma holder, married his then girlfriend, a B.Sc. Botony graduate, it was a union of love, duly registered. In time, their families accepted the couple, both from the same Dalit community. But opposition came from an unexpected quarter. The Manayakarar (community head) of the Scheduled Caste village with over 200 households in Thogarapalli panchayat in Mathur held a community ‘court’ and slapped a fine of ₹25,000 on the families of the couple.
Mr. Pradeep’s case would be the beginning of the practice of the levy of ‘fines’ for falling in love by the feudal ‘kangaroo courts’ headed by Arignar, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) union secretary for the Bargur South constituency in the Thogarapalli panchayat.
“In our village, people have had love marriages before too. But, these penalties started with my marriage after Arignar was made the community head. That was a huge amount. They threatened to disconnect our water and electricity connection. We were unable to fight and our families paid up ₹25,000 each,” Mr. Pradeep said. “I even told my uncle, who was then posted at Mathur Police Station, but he suggested I pay and let go of any conflict.”
Tipping point
Venkatesan, 56, a Havildar supervisor posted in Arunachal Pradesh, came to the village a fortnight ago for his mother’s funeral. “After a 12-hour descent by bus from my station in Arunachal, I took a flight to Chennai and then a bus to Mathur. But when I came home, it was a disturbing scene. None from our village was there and my family had to bury my mother by taking the help of outsiders to dig up the grave. That was when we realised there was a social boycott against our family,” Mr. Venkatesan said, breaking down in the middle.
Mr. Venkatesan’s brother’s son married within the same Dalit community in what was a ‘love-cum-arranged marriage’. The February marriage, however, was met with a similar ‘fine’ from Mr. Arignar’s assembly. Mr. Venkatesan’s family refused to pay up. “We did nothing wrong. They did not elope. The marriage was blessed by the families, then why would we pay?” Mr. Venkatesan asked.
But the village adhered to the community diktat. “When we inquired, we were told that if anybody came for the funeral they would have to pay a fine of ₹10,000,” he said.
The ‘kangaroo court’ runs on patriarchal diktat. Its administrators claim to speak for the community with the stated aim of exercising social control. Men set the agenda and women are typically disallowed from participating. The fine of ₹25,000 is a form of enforcing social control and pushes people into penury.
Karunanidhi’s son had eloped with a girl of the same community and the couple married. When the families were about to reconcile to the elopement and marriage, Mr. Arignar’s ‘kangaroo court’ had a sitting. The two families were slapped with a fine of ₹25,000.
“We married in 2019 and we have two children now. My parents have not visited me. If they do, they will have to pay a fine of ₹10,000,” Charumathi, Mr. Karunanidhi’s daughter-in-law, said.
The fine pushed Mr. Karunanidhi into penury. He sold off the only milch cow he had to pay off the fine plus ₹600 as thappu (‘penalty upon penalty’). “My cow was the only source of income. I used to get ₹500 to ₹1,000 a week,” he said. After he sold the cow to pay the fine, he mixes cement on construction sites to earn a living. “I’m getting old and I can’t do much manual work because of my eyesight,” Mr. Karunanidhi, how has cataracts both eyes, said.
On February 15, 2021, Mr. Karunanidhi and his family attempted self-immolation outside the Collectorate, calling attention to the continuing social boycott against the family. He filed a complaint at Mathur Police Station against Mr. Arignar for extracting the ‘fine’ and asked for it to be returned. But nothing came of it, he said.
Social control is manifested in the form of social boycott, and penalties in the form of thappu.
But Mr. Arignar denies the charge of holding illegal katta panchayats. “How can we maintain the sanctity of the social structure without social control? We need a kattamaippu and kattupaadu or else everything will fall apart. Ask anybody in the village, nobody has any complaints. We use the fine of ₹25,000 for public good — for the temple festival, and to help people during deaths in the family,” he said.
According to Kathir, director, Evidence, a civil rights organisation that predominantly takes up Dalit issues, this is a form of collective social violence enforced through unlawful assembly — katta panchayat and extortion by an organised mob that runs on feudal patriarchy. “Such villages enable all kinds of patriarchal oppression, insulating its people from the rule of law, and similar to caste oppression,” Mr. Kathir said.
“This is worse because there is a whole community involved, which means a Collector and Superintendent of Police should inspect the spot. What if he is a DMK man? When a party speaks of ‘Dravidian model and social justice’, it should act against him,” he added.
Mr. Venkatesan’s family filed a complaint of social boycott with the Mathur Police Station on November 26, and Mr. Kathir says they were called for an inquiry on December 11. However, as of Monday evening, the family was also asked by the community heads to not “escalate the issue” till Thursday, when another assembly will be convened.
When contacted, Murugan, Inspector, Mathur Police Station, claimed there is a “political motive behind the allegations and there were no such fines”, contradicting Mr. Arignar’s own statement to The Hindu.
The Hindu also contacted Prabhu, president of Thogarapalli panchayat. “Yes, all that is true, but we cannot interfere. With my being an MBC (Most Backward Class), if we interfere, it will become a communal issue,” Mr. Prabhu said.
In 1967, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister CN Annadurai created history by amending the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and recognising what’s called a ‘self-respect’ marriage that rejected priests, dowry, and encouraged inter-caste matrimony. Social reformer Periyar called this “daring not just for Tamil Nadu but also the entire world.”
Which is why, the case of P Aruna, who was allegedly strangled to death by her mother in Tamil Nadu’s Tirunelveli on 21 November, was a wake-up call that indicated caste inequity still prevails in the state. Aruna, who belonged to the Thevar caste, was studying in a private nursing college in Coimbatore and was in love with a man, whom she wanted to marry, from the Nadar caste.
The Mathura Police has arrested a man and wife for killing their 21-year-old daughter, packing her body into a suitcase and dumping it on the Yamuna Expressway. The case, being called an honour killing, adds to the long list of such crimes that continue to shame India
India’s Shame: Yamuna Expressway murder is a grim reminder of ‘honour’ killings in the country
Honour killings continue in India, bringing shame to the nation. Image used for representational purposes/AFP
While the country still grapples with the gruesome details that keep emerging from the Shraddha Walkar murder case, the Uttar Pradesh Police has solved the case of a woman’s body found stuffed in a suitcase near the Yamuna Expressway in Uttar Pradesh’s Mathura four days ago. The cops have arrested the woman’s parents in the crime, in what they have described as an ‘honour killing’.
According to the authorities, the body of a 21-year-old woman was found stuff in a travel bag on 18 November and she was shot dead allegedly by her family as they weren’t happy as she had married without their approval. The cops added that the woman’s mother was aware of the killing and even helped the father in disposing the body along the Yamuna Expressway.
“The woman, Ayushi, had a fight with her father on 17 November. She had got married to a man of her choice because of which her family was unhappy. Enraged over this, her father had shot her twice on 17 November after the argument,” acting Senior Superintendent of Police Martand Prakash Singh said.
Ayushi’s mother, Brajbala Yadav, then helped Nitesh Yadav in stuffing the body in a suitcase and accompanied him to dump the body on a service road in Raya near the Vrindavan cut along the Expressway, some 150 km away from their Badapur home.
“The victim’s father Nitesh Yadav and mother Brajbala Yadav have been arrested and sent to jail. They have been booked under Sections 302 (punishment for murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information, to screen offender) of the IPC,” Acting Senior Superintendent of Police Martand Prakash Singh said.
“Brajbala Yadav may not have shot her daughter, but she was involved in disposing of the body and had accompanied her husband to Mathura in a car,” he added.
The murder of Ayushi has once again thrown the spotlight on honour killings in the country. Let’s take a closer look at the issue and the horrific cases that questioned our belief that ‘love conquers all’.
Honour killings in India
‘Hamare ghar ki izzat’ is the root cause of this heinous crime — killing for honour, a death that is awarded to the women or men by their own family members for marrying against their wishes or having a pre-marital relationship, marrying within the same gotra or marrying outside their caste.
Human Rights Watch defines honour killings as “acts of violence, usually murder, committed by male family members against female family members who are perceived to have brought dishonour upon the family by being romantically involved with or choosing to marry men outside their caste, class or religion.
According to activist Kathir Vincent, director of Evidence — an NGO working to protect the human rights of Dalit and Tribal people in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry — women constitute almost 97 percent of honour killing victims.
Also read: ‘Honour killing’ in Kerala: Kevin-Neenu case indicative of a bigger, more frightening trend
Honour killings are also under reported in the country, as relatives destroy any evidence to the contrary or as Vincent said to The Swaddle they are treated as homicides by the police, or as atrocities against scheduled castes and tribes, since lower-caste men who are involved with upper-caste women are the next-most vulnerable group to honour killings.
As per the information published by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), there were 33 cases of honour killings across the country in 2021, with Jharkhand and Punjab recording the maximum cases — eight each.
NCRB data reveals that in 2020 there were a total of 25 such cases while in 2019 there were 24 such instances recorded. In 2018 and the preceding year (2017), the country saw a total of 29 and 92 cases respectively. In 2016, 2015 and 2014, there were 77, 251 and 28 cases recorded respectively.
Indias Shame Yamuna Expressway murder is a grim reminder of honour killings in the country
The cases of honour killings in India since 2014. Graphic: Pranay Bhardwaj
The infamous killings that rocked India
In March 2021, a father murdered his 19-year-old daughter for eloping with her Dalit paramour in Rajasthan’s Dausa district. Three months later in July, news emerged that a 17-year-old Dalit boy’s genitals had been cut off by the family of the Brahmin girl he was dating in Muzaffarpur.
December of last year also saw a 17-year-old boy beheading his 19-year-old sister for marrying a man of her choice in Aurangabad’s Ladgaon village.
The Udumalpet honour killing case of 2016 shocked the nation to its core. Twenty-two-year-old Shankar was killed in a busy market in Tamil Nadu’s Udumalpet for marrying Kausalya, a woman from the region’s dominant Thevar caste. Their marriage had been strongly opposed by Kausalya’s parents, who hired killers to eliminate the young couple. When the couple was walking near Udumalpet Town bus stand, they were brutally attacked by a three-member gang. Shankar died on the spot, while Kausalya survived with minor injuries.
Prior to the Udumalpet case, another horrific honour killing that made headlines across the country was that of Deepti Chhikara in June 2012. The young woman, a school teacher, was strangled to death by her mother Birmati and brother Mohit, and later her uncle Amit helped the duo in disposing of the body in Uttarakhand.
It later emerged that Deepti had wanted to marry one Lalit Vats, but her family was opposed to the match as he was from a different caste. Deepti was allegedly killed in April but her family didn’t register any complaint. It was Lalit who alerted the police to the fact that Deepti had been missing since she went to her maternal home.
In 2010, Monica and Kuldeep, along with Monica’s sister Shobha were killed by their family members in Delhi. Monica had married Kuldeep, who was a Rajput boy, and their families did not approve of the alliance. Both of them belonged to the Wazipur village of Delhi. Shobha on the other hand was involved in a relationship with a boy belonging to another caste and had reportedly helped her sister elope.
According to an IBN-Live report, the three accused —Ankit Chaudary, Mandeep Nagar and Nakul Khari — had claimed that “there was a lot of pressure on them and that’s why they did this (murder).”
At the time of the murder, the family had shockingly justified the killing and Dharamveer Nagar, the uncle of Mandeep and co-accused Ankit, had said that the killings were necessary to uphold the family’s honour. Ankit was Monica’s brother, while Mandeep was Shobha’s brother.
Another honour killing case in 2010 was when 19-year-old Asha Saini and her boyfriend Yogesh, 20, were tortured, electrocuted and beaten to death by the girl’s family in Delhi’s Swarup Nagar.
According to a report published by Rediff.com, the girl’s family had disapproved of her relationship with Yogesh, a driver. The couple was tortured in a flat owned by Asha’s uncle Omprakash and even neighbours who heard the couple wailing for hours and begging for help didn’t step in to help. Allegedly the family threatened the neighbours and told them to “mind their own business,” said the Rediff report.
In May of the same year, Nirupama Pathak, who was working as journalist with a business daily in Delhi, was murdered by her family in Jharkhand because she was in a relationship with a man from a lower caste.
It was reported that Nirupama was dating Priyabhanshu Ranjan, a colleague and friend, and the two were planning to marry in an Arya Samaj mandir. While her mother called it a case of suicide, a post-mortem revealed that the journalist was smothered to death and that she was 10-12 weeks pregnant at the time of her murder. Nirupama’s mother was arrested but later the court set her free as the police found a suicide note signed by Nirupama.
Perhaps, the most infamous honour killing in India. A business executive and son of an IAS officer, Nitish Katara was murdered on 17 February 2002 by Vikas Yadav, the son of Uttar Pradesh politician DP Yadav.
Nitish had been in a relationship with DP Yadav’s daughter Bharti Yadav for a long time and the girl’s family did not approve of the relationship.
Nitish’s body was later found on a highway and it was stated that he had been battered to death with a hammer, following which diesel was poured on him and he was set on fire. The murder was committed by Vikas (Bharti’s real brother) and Vishal Yadav (Bharti’s cousin brother), and Sukhdev Pehalwan (a hired contract killer).
While the Supreme Court had awarded a 25-year jail term without any benefit of remission to Vikas Yadav and his cousin Vishal for their role in the crime, Sukhdev Pehalwan was handed down a 20-year jail term in the case.
Alleging that a Dalit couple’s 15-year-old son Karunakaran tore a banner of Muthuramalinga Thevar, a six member gang hurled casteist abuses and threatened them.
A 38-year-old Dalit man was hacked to death and his 15-year-old son was assaulted by a three-member gang in Thoothukudi, on November 13, claiming that the boy had torn a banner of Muthuramalinga Thevar that was installed during ‘Thevar Jayanthi’ celebration. Though there were six people in the group, only three indulged in violence, while the others hurled casteist abuses. However, only the three persons who attacked the duo have been arrested so far. Muthuramalinga Thevar is regarded as an important figure in the Thevar caste-cluster and his birthday falls on October 30 which is celebrated grandly in various southern Tamil Nadu districts.
According to the First Information Report (FIR) filed by the Thoothukudi South police based on a complaint by Marimuthu’s wife Radha (37), there was a banner near their residence on Thevar Jayanthi day, which was later found torn. Marimuthu and Radha belong to the Paraiyar caste, a Scheduled Caste community. Radha’s complaint said that a six member gang – Mugesh alias Panai, Pathirakalimuthu alias Muthupandi, Jeyaraj alias Jeyamuthulingam, Mugesh’s father – Shanmugavel and his brothers Meeran and Murali – came to their house, alleging that their 15-year-old son Karunakaran tore the banner, hurled casteist abuses and threatened them, on November 11.
Police say that Mugesh belongs to Paraiyar caste, Pathirakalimuthu is from the Thevar caste and Jeya Muthulingam belongs to Nadar caste. On the same day, the six member gang had also gone to the police station to file a complaint against the boy. But Marimuthu agreed to pay them Rs 1500 as compensation for the banner and the issue was resolved.
However, on November 13, three of the six member gang – Pathirakalimuthu, Mugesh and Jeyamuthulingam allegedly beat up Karunakaran and Marimuthu tried to stop it. That was when Mugesh allegedly chased the father-son duo. He first attacked Karunakaran with a machete on his back and on his hand, and then assaulted Marimuthu with the machete. As Mugesh was stopped by Marimuthu’s wife and mother, Pathirakalimuthu took the machete from him and started assaulting Marimuthu.
Further, Mugesh took the machete again and attacked Marimuthu brutally. Meanwhile, Jayamuthulingam was beating up Karunakaran. After the trio fled from the spot, the father and son were taken to Thoothukudi Government Hospital, where Marimuthu was declared dead on arrival. Karunakaran is still undergoing treatment.
Radha alleged that Shanmugavel, Mugesh’s father, was watching the attack and hurling casteist abuses all the while. Stating that the six persons conspired and murdered her husband and that she was scared for her and her family’s life, Radha filed a complaint seeking action against them.
Speaking to TNM, Kathir, founder of Evidence, an NGO that works for Dalit rights alleged that this was a pre-planned murder. He said, “Marimuthu and his family live in a Dalit settlement. In a place dominated by caste Hindu communities, can a Dalit person place a banner of Ambedkar? Especially in southern Tamil Nadu, which is prone to caste conflicts?” He added that people have the freedom to place banners of any leader they want to but one must also be aware of ground realities.
Kathir said that the banner of Muthuramalinga Thevar had been placed before Thevar Jayanthi but the problem began on November 11. “Karunakaran’s father went to the police station and even paid Rs 1500 as compensation for the poster. But that was not enough for them. They wanted revenge and ended up killing the father and injuring the son,” Kathir said.
In a press release issued by Evidence, Kathir mentioned that the people accused in the murder should not be given bail until the case is heard and a judgement has been passed. He also demanded that the state government must offer a monthly pension of Rs 15,000 to Marimuthu’s family and government employment to one of his family members.
Muthuramalinga Thevar is a polarising personality, and events during his birth anniversary trigger tensions in many areas of Tamil Nadu. In 1957, Immanuel Sekaran a dalit leader was killed by Maravars or Thevars. This happened a day after Sekaran refused to stand up for Muthuramalinga Thevar at a meeting. ‘He is not a leader to me. He wanted to destroy my whole community,” Sekaran said. The meeting was held after the Mukkulathor riots in which 42 dalits were slain following tensions with Maravars, who are a sub-caste of Thevars.
The FIR has been registered under sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 294(b) (obscene acts and songs), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 307 (attempt to murder), 302 (punishment for murder), 506(ii) (criminal intimidation) IPC r/w 109 (punishment of a abetment), 120B (punishment of criminal conspiracy) IPC and sec 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(V) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Section 3 of the SC/ST Act deals with Punishments for offences and atrocities against a member belonging to SC/ST castes.
Evidence’s Executive Director A Kathir, who led a fact-finding team to probe the crime, said Mugesh had lodged a complaint against the boy accusing him of damaging the poster.
THOOTHUKUDI: Madurai-based rights group Evidence has urged the State government to consider the murder of the VCK man belonging to an SC community over damage to a banner of Muthuramalinga Thevar as a caste-based killing. A VCK member, S Marimuthu (38), was murdered on Sunday afternoon by an armed gang after his minor son allegedly damaged the digital poster put up across the Ambedkar Statue in 3 cent Anthoniarpuram. Marimuthu was trying to protect the boy from attack, the FIR said. The boy is being treated at Thoothukudi medical college hospital.
According to the FIR, the six accused — S Mugesh alias Panai, his brothers Meeran alias Moorthy, Murali and his father Shanmugavel, Pathirakalimuthu alias Muthupandi and Jeya Muthulingam — had attempted to hack the 14-year-old at his home for tearing the poster. Marimuthu tried to protect his son, but was hacked by Mugesh. As Marimuthu was lying in a pool of blood, Pathirakalimuthu stabbed him in his chest while Muthulingam injured his thigh, the FIR said.
Thoothukudi South Police booked the accused under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324, 307, 302, 506(2), 109, 120B of IPC, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. However, police have so far reportedly only arrested three of the accused — Mugesh, Pathirakalimuthu and Muthulingam. While Mugesh belongs to an SC community, the two others belong to intermediate castes. Marimuthu’s wife Radha, in her complaint, alleged that the six men had conspired to murder both her husband and son at Celseeni colony park.
Evidence’s Executive Director A Kathir, who led a fact-finding team to probe the crime, said Mugesh had lodged a complaint against the boy accusing him of damaging the poster. The issue was settled in the presence of Thoothukudi South police after Marimuthu paid Rs 1,500 although he denied the allegations. “The issue continued to boil due to the caste creed of Muthulingam and Pathirakalimuthu, who engineered the murder. Mugesh was incited to commit the crime,” he told TNIE.
The fact-finding team urged Thoothukudi police to arrest the other three accused, including the father and brothers of Mugesh. “The accused abused Marimuthu by his caste name during the murder. The state should not give bail for the accused until investigations are completed and a judgment is out. The State government should provide a government job for one member of Marimuthu’s family, and a monthly pension of Rs 15,000. Educational expenses of Marimuthu’s three children should also be taken care of by the government, the fact finding team recommended.
Meanwhile, the district administration has handed over a cheque of Rs 6 lakh to Radha and another Rs 6 lakh would be provided to them when the chargesheet is submitted.