Accused in Anna University sexual assault case, which triggered outrage across Tamil Nadu, found guilty

The incident, which occurred on the evening of December 23, 2024, involved the survivor and her male friend sitting on the steps of a university building. Gnanasekaran, a resident of nearby Kottur and a known history-sheeter, entered the campus through the Madras University side around 7:10 pm, having deliberately set his mobile phone to flight mode to avoid tracking. Though pretending to be on a call, investigators later established that his phone was not connected to any network.

At 7:45 pm, he approached the duo, struck the male student on the head, and snatched the young woman’s ID card. He then threatened them, claiming he had recorded a compromising video and would share it with university authorities, potentially resulting in disciplinary action, including the issuance of a transfer certificate.

Claiming that her friend had been caught by university staff, Gnanasekaran led the woman to a secluded spot, ordered her to keep her phone on flight mode, and sexually assaulted her. He recorded the act on his phone and used the footage to threaten her into silence.

Despite the threats, the survivor approached the Kotturpuram All Women Police Station the next day, Christmas Eve, and filed a formal complaint. What followed was not only the arrest of the accused but also a media frenzy after the police FIR was uploaded with the victim’s details – a violation of norms. The leak prompted the HC to order an inquiry into the breach, alongside transferring the main investigation to an all-women Special Investigation Team (SIT).

The SIT, composed entirely of senior women officers, completed its probe and filed a detailed chargesheet in February 2025. The case was subsequently moved to the Mahila Court, where the trial commenced. Over the weeks, the court framed charges under multiple BNS sections, including criminal trespass, wrongful restraint, abduction, rape, and sexual harassment.

Throughout the trial, Gnanasekaran maintained his plea of not guilty. The court, however, found the evidence – including forensic reports, digital footage, and eyewitness testimonies – conclusive.