25 March,2025 07:29 AM IST | Mumbai | Letty Mariam Abraham
A still from The Dupatta Killer. Pics/Instagram; (right) Patrick Graham
He allegedly raped and strangled 16 women, was convicted on two counts of rape and murder, and is now being considered for a release after serving a 16-year prison sentence. Docubay's documentary, The Dupatta Killer, chronicles the case of Goa's notorious serial killer, Mahanand Naik, and his 16 victims. But director Patrick Graham - who made his writing and directorial debut with Ghoul (2018), followed by Leila (2019) - claims that his focus was on the victims, the survivor and the family left behind, not the perpetrator. Interestingly, numerous true crime stories have been written on the case, with Vijay Varma-starrer Dahaad (2023) also loosely based on it. In conversation with mid-day, Graham decodes why he doesn't like to focus on the perpetrator when chronicling such crimes, and why he took the case.
Edited excerpts from the interview.
When did the idea of making a documentary on Mahanand Naik's crimes strike?
Docubay had been in contact with journalist Mukesh Kumar in Goa, who had done a lot of investigation on this case. He had also written a book on it. It was one of the worst serial-killer cases in India. When the platform approached me with the story, I read it to figure out what interested me about it, and whether I'd be the right [person] to do it.
ALSO READ
What stoked your curiosity in this case?
[I was keen] to gauge what makes a woman vulnerable to someone like Mahanand Naik. How does he prey on a particular subsection of the society? Another thing that I found interesting was a survivor, a young woman whom he abused over a period of years. She was one of the people who came forward and was instrumental in putting him behind bars. Although her rape was passed at trial court, it was quashed at High Court. To me, that was a tragic story because this woman, who did so much, hasn't received justice.
Did you ever feel your own sense of justice coming in the way?
Sure. I'm not trained as a journalist; I'm a filmmaker and storyteller. That allows me to approach these things from my own perspective. So, I form opinions and want to express them. But at the same time, bearing in mind that there is always a discussion and debate to be had, none of what I think in regard to this case is shown in the documentary. I'd like to think of it more as a conversational starting point.
Did you try meeting Mahanand Naik in prison?
Yes, but he didn't want to be interviewed as part of this documentary. We already had an interview with him that was conducted by our investigative journalist, Mukesh Kumar.
Since there is talk about his impending release, do you think he has transformed?
That's the big question we'll leave the audience with. It should be up to a panel of psychologists, police experts and forensic experts with training to decide that. It shouldn't necessarily be up to the court of public opinion because people are emotional. Do I think that a man who kills so systematically can change? Personally, I'm not sure, but the hard evidence that we have is his personal outlook on these murders. He doesn't admit to any of them. Some would say that he has paid his dues and is no longer a threat to society. That is one side of the argument. For instance, there is Father Fernandez, who is acting as Mahanand's guarantor; he doesn't believe that Mahanand could be capable of such crimes, and says that God forgives. But there's also the other side - if he hasn't admitted to his crimes, hasn't apologised or shown repentance, then to me, that's a significant point.
Why didn't you delve into Mahanand's psyche in the docu?
There's a limit to what we can do in an hour-long documentary. Sometimes, too much attention is given to serial killers. Popular culture wrongly suggests that serial killers are evil geniuses. But I think they are just malfunctioning, broken human beings. I'm much more interested in the victims, in what makes them so vulnerable than just another rehashing of an insight into a serial killer. Personally, I don't find serial killers interesting.
If the focus is on the survivor and victims, why is it called The Dupatta Killer?
He is the central driving force, the one inciting the incident. We didn't have much to go on when it came to the analysis of his behaviour. There were no family members whom we could talk to. We could offer conjecture through the means of criminologists and psychologists, which we did. Mahanand becomes a stereotype at the end of the day.
16
Women raped and strangled to death
