Bengaluru, June 18 -- The Chennai court's decision to hand down a 30-year, no-remission jail sentence to a 37-year-old man for sexually assaulting a 19-year-old Anna University student hinged on the survivor's "unwavering" and "courageous" testimony. Her consistent narrative, maintained from her initial complaint to her powerful court appearance, formed the bedrock of the prosecution's case, a copy of the judgment accessed by HT has revealed. District Judge M Rajalakshmi, who presided over 31 hearings between March and May this year before delivering the final judgment just five months after the crime, repeatedly emphasised in her June 2 verdict that the second-year student's account did not waver under scrutiny and was corroborated by strong scientific and electronic evidence. The judgment noted that the survivor "had no hesitation in narrating the incident," and that her testimony was "unshaken" throughout. The court found that her detailed statements, beginning with the FIR filed on the night of December 23, 2024 -- hours after the assault, were fully supported by digital, forensic and circumstantial evidence, enabling conviction on all 11 charges, including rape, kidnapping, criminal intimidation and trespass. "From the oral evidence given by PW1 (the victim), which is corroborated by her previous statement and the scientific evidence, the prosecution has proved all the 11 charges," the court noted in its 178-page judgment. The crime, committed in a secluded area of the university, was described by the judge as "barbaric." She acknowledged the profound trauma it caused the student and observed that the assault violated not just the individual but also the sanctity of a space presumed to be safe for students. "Taking into consideration the mental agony of the victim, this court found it lawful to award compensation in addition to the interim compensation awarded," the judgment stated. The student promptly approached authorities, accompanied by a professor from the university's Internal Complaints Committee, triggering an urgent investigation. The accused, Gnanasekaran - a repeat offender with more than 15 prior criminal cases, was arrested within 48 hours. According to the survivor's testimony, Gnanasekaran approached her and a male friend on campus, filmed them without consent, and posed as a university official. He forced the male student to leave by pretending to summon a faculty member, then used the fake pretext of speaking to a university "sir" to threaten the victim with exposure and coerced her into accompanying him. Though he claimed he would release her after a warning, he instead sexually assaulted her. The court found this narrative entirely credible and bolstered by technical evidence. Call records, phone logs and forensic analysis, collected by an all-women special investigation team formed by the Madras high court, confirmed that Gnanasekaran had placed his phone in airplane mode from 6 pm to 8:52 pm on the day of the assault, effectively debunking his claim that he had been in contact with university officials. "It is proved that the word 'Sir' used by the accused was to make the victim believe he was university staff and to threaten her to submit to his lust," the court observed. The judgment also documented the psychological manipulation the accused employed, including threats to leak videos and calls made to the victim's father, which the court said symbolised the mental pressure exerted on her. Yet, the survivor was not deterred and continued to fully cooperate with investigators, it further noted. Police used her statement to identify early leads, including Gnanasekaran's distinctive gait captured on CCTV near the crime scene. Her testimony also helped investigators tie together key forensic elements such as mobile phone activity and video footage, which formed the evidentiary core of the chargesheet. In addition to sentencing Gnanasekaran to 30 years under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the court imposed a fine of Rs.90,000 and directed the government to provide additional compensation to the survivor. This is over and above the Rs.25 lakh interim compensation earlier ordered by the Madras high court, which took suo motu cognisance of the case and criticised the initial handling of the FIR that led to the victim's identity being leaked. The case sparked political outrage in Tamil Nadu, with opposition parties accusing the DMK government of shielding the accused due to his alleged political links -- a claim strongly denied by the police. Gnanasekaran, who maintained his innocence, was nonetheless found guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented....