Deva Kumari, who first entered the university a year before, fell in love with Mohamed Azad, and both of them were eventually engaged in private.

[1] However, Deva Kumari's father Nadarajah Govindasamy, owner of a transport company, objected to the relationship between Mohamed Azad and his daughter, due to his strong adverse feelings against Islam and his conservative beliefs.

At the time of Deva Kumari's relationship with Mohamed Azad, she was estranged from her father due to him disliking her for often hanging out with young men under the perception that she was not behaving well.

However, Nadarajah only calmly said that Mohamed Azad stayed at his house for twenty minutes and left after having a drink, and asked Arunachalam to see if he was probably with Deva Kumari.

[5] On 21 November 1974, five days after Mohamed Azad disappeared, a gunny sack was discovered washed up to shore from the ocean near Kallang Basin.

According to the pathologist, Mohamed Azad's skull had gaping wounds, and out of the total of 14 head injuries, seven were fatal and they were all inflicted with great force.

Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Lawrence Ang was in charge of the prosecution, while N. Ganesan represented Nadarajah as his defence counsel.

[14][15][16] In his closing submissions however, DPP Lawrence Ang directed the court's attention to the utter brutality, violence and cold-blooded nature of the murder, pointing out that Nadarajah had deliberately omitted and skipped the major parts of his story and never gave any detail on whether there was any retaliation from Mohamed Azad during the supposed fight the men had with each other, whether if Mohamed Azad tried to run, and whether if there was any struggle for the chopper, and how coincidental it was for Nadarajah to have a chopper within his reach, and also cited the witnesses' account of Nadarajah's calm demeanour at the questions of Mohamed Azad's whereabouts.

As such, DPP Ang argued that Nadarajah's defence of sudden and grave provocation should be rejected, and therefore he should be convicted for the premeditated murder of Mohamed Azad.

Justice Chua stated that the judges were of the opinion that in contrast to Nadarajah's claims, the death of Mohamed Azad was the product of a "brutal and senseless" murder, and he admonished Nadarajah for having caused permanent harm to Mohamed's family and his own daughter, by ruthlessly killing off his daughter's beloved man who had a promising future.

He stated that there was clear evidence that Nadarajah had intended to commit premeditated murder by inflicting not just one, but seven fatal wounds on Mohamed Azad's head in the most violent and beastly manner, and that the prosecution's case was overpowering against him even in the absence of his unsworn statement.

On the same date of Nadarajah's execution, 23-year-old soto seller and armed robber Talib bin Haji Hamzah was hanged at the same prison for using a firearm to commit robbery, therefore becoming the second person executed for a conviction under the newly enacted Arms Offences Act, where it mete out capital punishment for the use of firearms to commit a crime.

Subhas Anandan, the veteran criminal lawyer of Singapore, revealed in the episode that he was a friend of the victim, and he defended Mohamed Azad by clarifying that Mohamed Azad was not a bad person as Nadarajah painted him to be, and he said that the victim visited his fiancée's father with the intention to get approval from him to marry his daughter and reconcile their differences rather than argue with him.