Kannada starlet Maria Susairaj will walk free on Saturday despite being convicted on charges of destroying evidence, a cognisable offence under the Indian Penal Code. Her fiancé Emile Jerome Mathew, convicted Thursday of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, was handed a 10-year jail sentence instead of a life term. Mathew would have got a life sentence if the court had accepted the prosecution’s case.

Dressed in a white top and jeans, Susairaj didn’t meet anyone’s eye through the hearing. In fact, even after the quantum of punishment was announced, she remained unaffected and expressionless. Mathew, on the other hand, interacted with his advocate a couple of times during the proceedings and even came out after the order was delivered to meet his family.
Hearing the arguments of the prosecution and the defence on quantum of punishment on Friday, sessions judge M.W. Chandwani, who held Mathew guilty of charges of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, rejected the prosecution’s plea for life imprisonment. The court also found both Mathew and Susairaj guilty of destroying evidence, but again rejected prosecutor R.V. Kini’s plea that this deserved a seven-year jail term, and confirmed that a three-year sentence would suffice. The court’s sentencing Susairaj to a three-year jail term effectively means that the actress, arrested in May 2008, will be free soon. The procedure for depositing a `50,000 fine that the court slapped on her, in addition to imprisonment, will keep her in jail for a night longer. She is expected to be out of jail by Saturday afternoon.
In the jampacked courtroom Friday, Mr Kini started the arguments, saying Susairaj had taken an active part in the gruesome crime and also changed her version from the confessional statement she made before the magistrate. The prosecutor argued that according to him it was a fit case under IPC Section 302 (murder), read with 34 (common intention), which attracted capital punishment. He further argued that since the court had not found her guilty on the homicide charge, she should be punished with seven years in jail under IPC Section 201(1) for destroying evidence in a murder case. The prosecutor wanted to prove it was Mathew’s intention to kill television executive Neeraj Grover. He went on to add that had it only been a scuffle between the two men (as claimed by Susairaj), Mathew, a trained naval officer, could have easily overpowered Grover. But the accused stabbed him, and despite Susairaj asking him to call for help, Mathew assured her that Grover would not die for the next few hours. He further asked her to get her friend’s car and buy bags. Mr Kini said for this intention to kill, Mathew deserved to be punished with life imprisonment.
Advocate Sharif Shaikh for Susairaj argued that based on the fact that the court considered this to be a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the sentence for destroying evidence should be restricted to three years. He also argued that the “helpless lady” was forced to assist Mathew in destroying evidence.
Advocate Abdul Wahab Khan for Mathew, on the other hand, argued that in this case there was a fight and Mathew could not control himself, and hence stabbed Grover with a kitchen knife. The advocate further claimed that nobody was aware who had brought the knife into the scuffle in the first place.
The advocate further argued that Mathew was a person of good character who had joined the Navy at the age of 18 and had risen to the rank of captain. He also had no intention to kill anyone, but had momentarily lost his balance of mind. It was further argued that Mathew was such a patriot that he even wanted to return to his naval base after his punishment to serve the nation. To bolster the case for a reduced sentence, the defence also said the young naval officer was responsible for looking after his parents.
“There is no conclusive evidence of murder,” the judge ruled. The court announced a `1 lakh fine for Mathew in case of homicide in addition to the punishment, which was later reduced to `50,000. The fine money will go to the victim’s family, the court ordered.