Tue Jun 24 06:54:30 UTC 2025: Here’s a summary of the provided text and a news article rewrite:
**Summary:**
In December 2024, D. Gnanasekar, a biriyani shop owner, raped an engineering student on the Anna University campus in Chennai. He was aware of CCTV blind spots and targeted young couples, threatening them before assaulting the women. This was not his only alleged offense; other students had reported similar attempts. Despite a delayed police complaint due to inaction from a women’s helpline (OSCC) and initial reluctance from the police, the survivor persisted. The Mahila Court ultimately sentenced Gnanasekar to life imprisonment without remission for 30 years, taking into account his past criminal record and the severity of the crime. The court criticized the OSCC’s inaction and a police error in the FIR but ruled neither sufficient to acquit the accused given the evidence.
**News Article:**
**Chennai Biriyani Shop Owner Sentenced to Life for University Rape, Highlighting Systemic Failures**
**Chennai, India – June 24, 2025** – D. Gnanasekar, 37, a biriyani shop owner, was sentenced to life imprisonment without remission for 30 years by a Mahila Court in Chennai for the rape of an engineering student on the Anna University campus in December 2024. The case has ignited a debate on women’s safety and exposed critical failures within support systems.
Gnanasekar, who ran a roadside eatery called “Gravity Biriyani,” exploited his knowledge of the university grounds, including CCTV blind spots, to assault the victim. Police reports indicate a pattern of targeting young couples, threatening them, and then sexually assaulting the women in secluded areas.
The investigation revealed disturbing details, including a video of the assault found on Gnanasekar’s phone, along with 19 other obscene videos screen recorded by the accused.
The case also revealed significant delays in reporting the crime. Initial attempts to seek help from the One Stop Crisis Centre (OSCC), a women’s helpline, proved futile. The victim’s written complaint, sent via WhatsApp, was not acted upon promptly, leading to a delay in the official police report.
The Mahila Court strongly criticized the OSCC’s inaction and also noted a discrepancy in the First Information Report (FIR). The FIR wrongly stated the complaint was received at the police station, when, in fact, the police collected the complaint from the University. While condemning the police error, the court determined that these issues did not negate the compelling evidence presented by the survivor.
Prior to sentencing, Gnanasekar’s defense argued he was home with his family on the day of the assault and that the complaint was lodged after a delay, however, the claims were rejected. The court also took into account Gnanasekar’s extensive criminal history, which included 37 other cases related to house trespass, theft, robbery, and burglary, deeming him a repeat offender and denying leniency.
This case serves as a stark reminder of the challenges faced by women in India and the urgent need to improve support systems and ensure swift justice for survivors of sexual assault. The verdict sends a strong message to offenders while highlighting critical areas for improvement within law enforcement and support networks.
First Piper 