Susairaj conviction

by Guest Sat Jul 02, 2011 3:10 pm

both susairaj and mathew seem to have gotten off too lightly, particularly maria. grover seems to have been exploiting maria as well and this mitigates to some extent the natural sympathy one may have felt for him.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/I-am-innocent-conviction-a-stigma-Maria-Susairaj/articleshow/9078189.cms

by sambarvada Sat Jul 02, 2011 10:00 pm

===> TOI reporting is very substandard.

TOI article is very confusing.

It is not clear why this actress was sent to jail. What really happened three years ago?

The following blog does a much better job.

http://alaiwah.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/why-did-maria-susairaj-kill-her-friend/

by sambarvada Sat Jul 02, 2011 10:35 pm

===> The recorded confession of Maria Susairaj.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2011/jul/01confession.pdf

by Another Brick Mon Jul 04, 2011 4:56 am

rashmun, she was convicted for destroying the evidence. 3 years. that's all. that's according to law. what more do you want? i see people in mumbai are holding placards and morchas and are contemplating a candle-light vigil led by the showbiz fraternity. do you share their opinion? if she indeed has not committed the murder, why do you want her to be punished further?

i was of the same opinion as you on thursday (a knee-jerk reaction) but when i read more, i am convinced that the court did the right thing. a reverse helicopter moment for me.

by Rekz Mon Jul 04, 2011 11:09 am

Another Brick wrote:rashmun, she was convicted for destroying the evidence. 3 years. that's all. that's according to law. what more do you want? i see people in mumbai are holding placards and morchas and are contemplating a candle-light vigil led by the showbiz fraternity. do you share their opinion? if she indeed has not committed the murder, why do you want her to be punished further?

i was of the same opinion as you on thursday (a knee-jerk reaction) but when i read more, i am convinced that the court did the right thing. a reverse helicopter moment for me.

Reverse helicopter moment ?? ur heart melted seeing Maria Susairaj break down at mahim church????
RGV must have had the same emotional state which prompted him to tweet on giving her a role in his movie...

by Guest Mon Jul 04, 2011 11:46 am

Another Brick wrote:rashmun, she was convicted for destroying the evidence. 3 years. that's all. that's according to law. what more do you want? i see people in mumbai are holding placards and morchas and are contemplating a candle-light vigil led by the showbiz fraternity. do you share their opinion? if she indeed has not committed the murder, why do you want her to be punished further?

i was of the same opinion as you on thursday (a knee-jerk reaction) but when i read more, i am convinced that the court did the right thing. a reverse helicopter moment for me.

--> first, jerome should have been convicted of murder and not 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder'. second, susairaj was an accessory to the murder because when she went out to buy the knife used to cut up Grover's body she had the opportunity to report to the nearest police station and did not do so.

by Propagandhi711 Mon Jul 04, 2011 11:54 am

can I get a three paragraph brief of the whole issue so I can put on my expert hat and comment? this request is not extended to tracy as her 3 paras get more than a little confusing with interleaved friend's sasu's brother's children stories and I cannot pickup the relevant threads.

by Another Brick Mon Jul 04, 2011 12:53 pm

i am reproducing what i recall from about three years ago when i first read about this case.

cast - maria (small time kannada actress), grover (tv producer) and jerome (naval officer and maria's fiance)

it appears that maria and grover knew each other. since grover was a tv producer, he might have asked for sexual favours from maria although resold cycle would want to us to believe that they were only good friends and rehearsing rakshabandhan from time to time. on the fateful night, grover was relishing maria in her bed. the night before, jerome had talked with maria and had decided to come to mumbai from kochi. he came and saw grover naked in her bed. he stabbed him and he was dead. maria and grover then had sex (mid-day special) and then bought knives to cut his body into pieces, hired a car, went to a jungle in thane and tried to dispose it off.

to rashmun - maria only helped her fiance destroy the evidence. there are several other cases in which friends have helped the main culprit destroy the evidence (katara, j lall and several others) and they also got only three.

by Another Brick Mon Jul 04, 2011 12:55 pm

Rashmun wrote: --> first, jerome should have been convicted of murder and not 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder'. second, susairaj was an accessory to the murder because when she went out to buy the knife used to cut up Grover's body she had the opportunity to report to the nearest police station and did not do so.

what makes you think it was pre-meditated? and why would he come to her place to kill him? if it was pre-meditated, he would go to his place. he came to her, found him naked and killed him. are you saying they both decided on phone to kill him, she lured him and made him stay in her bed and then asked jerome to kill him?

by Guest Mon Jul 04, 2011 1:52 pm

Another Brick wrote:
Rashmun wrote: --> first, jerome should have been convicted of murder and not 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder'. second, susairaj was an accessory to the murder because when she went out to buy the knife used to cut up Grover's body she had the opportunity to report to the nearest police station and did not do so.

what makes you think it was pre-meditated? and why would he come to her place to kill him? if it was pre-meditated, he would go to his place. he came to her, found him naked and killed him. are you saying they both decided on phone to kill him, she lured him and made him stay in her bed and then asked jerome to kill him?

--> jerome knew of grover's presence in maria's apartment. he had overheard grover laughing when talking to maria on phone the night grover was with maria which was also the last night in grover's life. maria even told him that grover was present but had assured jerome that he would not be staying overnight. at one point maria's phone had run out of charge when she was talking to jerome and so her conversation with him continued on grover's phone--this is as per maria's statement to the magistrate which sambarvada had posted earlier.

--> when jerome came to maria's place, she opened the door after which jerome brushed her aside and went straight to the bedroom. almost immediately he started beating grover. subsequently, he went to the kitchen and stabbed grover in the stomach.

by Guest Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:38 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Another Brick wrote:
Rashmun wrote: --> first, jerome should have been convicted of murder and not 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder'. second, susairaj was an accessory to the murder because when she went out to buy the knife used to cut up Grover's body she had the opportunity to report to the nearest police station and did not do so.

what makes you think it was pre-meditated? and why would he come to her place to kill him? if it was pre-meditated, he would go to his place. he came to her, found him naked and killed him. are you saying they both decided on phone to kill him, she lured him and made him stay in her bed and then asked jerome to kill him?

--> jerome knew of grover's presence in maria's apartment. he had overheard grover laughing when talking to maria on phone the night grover was with maria which was also the last night in grover's life. maria even told him that grover was present but had assured jerome that he would not be staying overnight. at one point maria's phone had run out of charge when she was talking to jerome and so her conversation with him continued on grover's phone--this is as per maria's statement to the magistrate which sambarvada had posted earlier.

--> when jerome came to maria's place, she opened the door after which jerome brushed her aside and went straight to the bedroom. almost immediately he started beating grover. subsequently, he went to the kitchen to get a kitchen knife and using it stabbed grover in the stomach.

by Kris Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:52 pm

If he reacted to the victim's presence in the bedroom and did not have enough time to think through his reaction, it qualifies as manslaughter which is a lesser offense than murder in legal terms. If this was not the case, it is murder. I am not sure how much of a difference this would make in terms of sentencing under Indian law. In the U.S. it would carry a lesser punishment than murder. Since I have not followed the case, I don't know the rest of the circumstances

by Guest Mon Jul 04, 2011 3:50 pm

If mathew had killed grover in the heat of the moment, he would've come to his senses soon after he stabbed him. He would've tried to take him to the hospital and/or surrendered at the nearest police station. That would've probably qualified him for involuntary manslaughter and not premeditated murder. Neither of those happened. Instead, he had maria shop for the knife and garbage bags. He had the corpse cut into 300 pieces, stuffed them and their blood stained clothes into two bags, borrowed someone's car, loaded the car with the bags, drove to some woods and burned the cut pieces of the corpse and the clothes. Not a natural reaction of someone who killed someone in the heat of the moment. I don't know how the judge qualified him for manslaughter without considering what he did after the murder was committed.

by Guest Mon Jul 04, 2011 5:08 pm

kinnera wrote:If mathew had killed grover in the heat of the moment, he would've come to his senses soon after he stabbed him. He would've tried to take him to the hospital and/or surrendered at the nearest police station. That would've probably qualified him for involuntary manslaughter and not premeditated murder. Neither of those happened. Instead, he had maria shop for the knife and garbage bags. He had the corpse cut into 300 pieces, stuffed them and their blood stained clothes into two bags, borrowed someone's car, loaded the car with the bags, drove to some woods and burned the cut pieces of the corpse and the clothes. Not a natural reaction of someone who killed someone in the heat of the moment. I don't know how the judge qualified him for manslaughter without considering what he did after the murder was committed.

good points. i have two things to add:

1. it was pointless taking grover to the hospital. According to Susairaj's testimony, the first stab of Mathew was so fierce that Grover's intestines came out. Mathew, being a trained naval seal, presumably received training in how to wield a knife and also general combat training which he seems to have put to use when dealing with Grover.

2. I wonder whether the judge gave the killers the more lenient sentence keeping in mind the fact that Susairaj is not exactly ugly and took pains to maintain her beauty even when in custody. (A few months before the judgement she was taking treatment for her acne while in prison as per news reports.) Did she flash the vulnerable look or even the come hither look at the judge occasionally?

by Guest Mon Jul 04, 2011 5:20 pm

His first reaction was to go and beat grover up, which he did.. and then he walked to the kitchen and came back with a knife... that takes how much time? two or three minutes? Can't it be argued that that gives someone enough time to rethink their first moments of jealousy and rage? When he went to get a knife, 'he knew what he was doing'. He went to the kitchen to get the knife 'with the intent to kill'. The judges know the best...but the many american cases that I have read about here, this is pretty close to a murder, not a manslaughter.

by Guest Mon Jul 04, 2011 5:23 pm

and I wish grover had run out of there in this time, naked or not.

by Guest Mon Jul 04, 2011 5:59 pm

Tracy Whitney wrote:and I wish grover had run out of there in this time, naked or not.

he was probably semi-conscious or unconscious during the time mathew went to get the kitchen knife.

by Guest Mon Jul 04, 2011 6:02 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Tracy Whitney wrote:and I wish grover had run out of there in this time, naked or not.

he was probably semi-conscious or unconscious during the time mathew went to get the kitchen knife.

which, if can be proven, is even worse... you have already downed the man, why go for a kill.

by Kris Mon Jul 04, 2011 8:20 pm

Tracy Whitney wrote:His first reaction was to go and beat grover up, which he did.. and then he walked to the kitchen and came back with a knife... that takes how much time? two or three minutes? Can't it be argued that that gives someone enough time to rethink their first moments of jealousy and rage? When he went to get a knife, 'he knew what he was doing'. He went to the kitchen to get the knife 'with the intent to kill'. The judges know the best...but the many american cases that I have read about here, this is pretty close to a murder, not a manslaughter.

>>>> This could still be voluntary manslaughter, if the guy did this in a fit of rage. Yes, if there was a time lapse of 2 to 3 minutes, this makes it very borderline. The behavior afterward of both (maria and the navy boyfriend) doesn't exactly make them characters deserving of sympathy, but maybe they had good lawyers.

by Another Brick Tue Jul 05, 2011 1:10 am

kinnera wrote:If mathew had killed grover in the heat of the moment, he would've come to his senses soon after he stabbed him. He would've tried to take him to the hospital and/or surrendered at the nearest police station. That would've probably qualified him for involuntary manslaughter and not premeditated murder. Neither of those happened. Instead, he had maria shop for the knife and garbage bags. He had the corpse cut into 300 pieces, stuffed them and their blood stained clothes into two bags, borrowed someone's car, loaded the car with the bags, drove to some woods and burned the cut pieces of the corpse and the clothes. Not a natural reaction of someone who killed someone in the heat of the moment. I don't know how the judge qualified him for manslaughter without considering what he did after the murder was committed.

survival instincts, what else? it is a natural reaction to save your own behind after committing a crime. not every killer goes to the nearest police station to confess right after the crime. btw, the defense lawyers are denying the claim of 300 pieces. not that it matters, but it creates sensation.

rashmun, if jerome really traveled to mumbai just to kill grover, he would come prepared (with a gun or knife) and not look for it in the kitchen. moreover, they would have planned the murder in a better manner (given the time they had) instead of doing it in their own apartment where they could have met resistance from him and alarmed neighbors. it is possible that even after the thrashing he got, grover said something to jerome which riled him up and he stabbed him.

by Another Brick Tue Jul 05, 2011 1:25 am

maria who must have been joyfully entertaining grover's requests perhaps played a victim before jerome and jerome (who like truthseeker surrendered his life to his love) forgave her and went for him instead. true love that.

by Merlot Daruwala Tue Jul 05, 2011 2:32 am

It's educative to read up the definitions in the IPC. Apparently, all murder is culpable homicide but not vice-versa.

Culpable homicide not amounting to murder takes place only under two exceptions: (a) loss of control due to grave provocation and (b) in exercising the right to defend person / property.

I guess the defence went all out for (a).

by Sponsored content

Susairaj conviction

Susairaj conviction

Re: Susairaj conviction

Re: Susairaj conviction

Re: Susairaj conviction

Re: Susairaj conviction

Re: Susairaj conviction

Re: Susairaj conviction

Re: Susairaj conviction

Re: Susairaj conviction

Re: Susairaj conviction

Re: Susairaj conviction

Re: Susairaj conviction

Re: Susairaj conviction

Re: Susairaj conviction

Re: Susairaj conviction

Re: Susairaj conviction

Re: Susairaj conviction

Re: Susairaj conviction

Re: Susairaj conviction

Re: Susairaj conviction

Re: Susairaj conviction

Re: Susairaj conviction

Re: Susairaj conviction