Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
K. P. Tamilmaran – Appellant
Versus
The State By Deputy Superintendent of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2253 of 2025 [@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1522 of 2023] With Criminal Appeal No. 2254 of 2025 [@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 123 of 2023] With Criminal Appeal No. 2255 of 2025 [@Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 11241 of 2022] With Criminal Appeal No. 2256 of 2025 [@Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 11242 of 2022] With Criminal Appeal No. 2257 of 2025 [@Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4151 of 2023] With Criminal Appeal No. 2258 of 2025 [@Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 126 of 2023] With Criminal Appeal Nos. 2259-2260 of 2025 [@Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 124-125 of 2023] And Criminal Appeal No. 2261 of 2025 [@Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3616 of 2023]
Decided On : 28-04-2025
(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 154 – Hostile Witness – As a general rule, testimony of a witness who has been cross-examined by party which produced him/her will not stand totally discredited, and it is for Court to consider what value should be attached to this testimony – Only because a witness has supported some, though not all, aspects of a case, it would not automatically mean that this witness has to be declared ‘hostile’ – A party can cross-examine its own witness under Section 154 of Evidence Act, even without getting a declaration of ‘hostility’ – Only restriction to cross-examination under Section 154 Evidence Act is that party, who seeks to cross-examine its own witness, must obtain leave of Court – Whether there is a declaration of ‘hostility’ or not, evidence of witness who has been cross-examined under Section 154 Evidence Act by party who called such witness, cannot be washed off entirely and it is for Court to see what can be retrieved from such evidence. (Paras 26 and 31)
(B) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” [false in one thing, false in everything] is not applicable to our criminal justice system – Rejection of entire testimony of a prosecution witness, who has been cross-examined by prosecution, would not only harm case of prosecution but perhaps also of defence in a given case – Ultimately, it will be cause of justice that will suffer if testimony of such witness is totally discarded – It is rightly left to discretion of Court to test evidentiary value of such a testimony – If part of evidence of a hostile witness corroborates with other reliable evidence, then that part of evidence is admissible – Once a prosecution witness has been declared hostile and then cross-examined by prosecution, then it is for Court to evaluate veracity of testimony – There can be several reasons for a witness to turn hostile and court must also look into these factors while evaluating evidence given by a hostile witness – One of many reasons for witnesses turning hostile is long delay usually caused in a trial – Role played here by accused in delaying trial cannot be discounted – Benefit of such witnesses turning hostile cannot be given to other accused who were found involved in offence, on overwhelming weight of other evidence. (Paras 34, 36, 37 and 38)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 311 [Section 348 of BNSS, 2023] – Summoning of material witness – There is a wide discretion with Courts under Section 311 Cr.P.C. – These powers can be exercised suo motu or on an application moved by either side – Court must not be deprived of benefit of any valuable evidence – It is absolutely necessary that Court must be apprised of best evidence available – Power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be invoked at any stage of trial, even after closing of evidence – Section 311 Cr.P.C. can also be read along with Section 165 of Evidence Act, as powers of Court under Section 165 of Evidence Act are complementary to Section 311 of Cr.P.C. – No party can claim cross-examination of a Court witness as a matter of right – Court witness can only be examined with leave of Court – Where a Court witness says something prejudicial to any party, then such a party must be allowed to cross-examine that witness. (Paras 48, 49 and 50)
(D) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 165 – Cross-examination of witness – Under proviso to Section 162(1) of Cr.P.C. Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of any prosecution witness can be used by defence to contradict such a witness during cross-examination – Prosecution may also contradict its own witness during cross-examination regarding previous statements made before police, but again it can only be done with leave of Court – None of these restrictions apply to Court, which has wide power under Section 165 of Evidence Act to ask any questions – Courts are not barred from putting questions which may contradict the witness with previous statements made before police – Special powers of Court under Section 165 of Evidence Act are not impaired or controlled by provisions of Section 162 of Cr.P.C. (Para 51)
(E) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/149, 217 and 218 [Sections 255 and 256 of BNS, 2023] – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Sections 3(2)(i) and 4 – Murder of young couple – Disobedience of law by public servant – Conviction and sentence – Honour-killing by father and brother of girl – Shielding of accused by Police officials – Enough material placed by prosecution before Trial Court which was sufficient to prove guilt of accused, beyond reasonable doubt – It is very difficult to believe that a dastardly double murder takes place in village and those in-charge of police station remain unaware of crime – Investigation done by local police itself was motivated and downright dishonest – Investigating Officer not only covered evidence but fabricated his own – Instead of collecting evidence, he created evidence and tried to implicate innocent and set the guilty loose – In order to fulfil his wicked design, he has deliberately and wilfully violated mandate of Sections 154 and 157(1) of Cr.P.C. as well as Section 23 and 24 of Police Act, 1861 – A crime is an act against State – Honour-killing must get a strong measure of punishment – Impugned Judgment affirmed – Compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) awarded to parents of deceased boy – This compensation would be in addition to amount awarded or directed to be paid as compensation by Sessions Court and High Court. (Paras 57, 60, 67, 75 and 76)
(F) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 154, 156 and 157 – Information in cognizable cases – It cannot be said that Police is empowered to register FIR only in cases where some informant comes forward and provides information regarding commission of a cognizable offence to police – Once police gets information regarding commission of a cognizable offence, whether it is through any informant/complainant or otherwise, police is empowered to register case and proceed with investigation – Even in absence of a formal informant, Police is duty-bound to register the case whenever they receive any information regarding commission of a cognizable offence. (Para 69)
Facts of the case:
By impugned judgment, High Court has modified conviction and sentence of A-14 (Sub-inspector K.P. Tamilmaran), acquitting him for offences under Section 3(2)(i) of SC/ST Act and Section 218 of IPC, but maintaining his conviction for offences under Section 4 of SC/ST Act and Section 217 of IPC, and thus reducing sentence imposed from life imprisonment to two years rigorous imprisonment. Conviction and sentence of another police officer (A-15, Inspector M. Sellamuthu) has been upheld. In case of A-2, conviction by Trial Court has been maintained but sentence was changed from death penalty to life imprisonment. High Court has also acquitted two other accused, i.e. A-3 (Rangasamy) and A-13 (Chinnadurai). Remaining appeals of all other co-accused were dismissed, and their conviction and sentence was upheld.
Findings of Court:
No reason to interfere with impugned judgment of Madras High Court. All those appellants, who are on bail, are directed to surrender within two weeks from today to undergo their remaining sentence.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
Honour-killing cases require a strong and stringent measure of punishment to serve as a deterrent and uphold justice [Important Points (1)].
Courts are not restricted from asking questions that may contradict a witness’s previous statements, including those made before police, under the special powers granted by Section 165 of the Evidence Act. This does not impair or limit the powers under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code [Important Points (2)] (!) (!) .
The discretion of courts under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code is broad, allowing them to summon or re-examine witnesses at any stage of the trial, either suo motu or on application by any party. This ensures that courts are not deprived of valuable evidence and can exercise their powers to facilitate a fair trial [Important Points (3)] (!) (!) .
The maxim "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" is not applicable in our criminal justice system. A witness declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution can still have parts of their testimony accepted if corroborated by other reliable evidence. The court must evaluate the veracity of the testimony and distinguish credible parts from unreliable ones, especially considering reasons witnesses may turn hostile, such as trial delays [Important Points (4)] (!) (!) (!) .
The evidence of a witness who has been cross-examined by the party that called them is not automatically discredited; its value depends on the court’s assessment. Such evidence remains part of the record and can be utilized by both prosecution and defense, provided it is credible and corroborated where necessary (!) (!) (!) .
The law permits parties to cross-examine their own witnesses with the court’s leave under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, and the court has wide powers under Section 165 to pose questions to witnesses, including contradicting previous statements made before police. These powers are intended to uncover the truth and are not limited by the restrictions in the Cr.P.C. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Witnesses who are relatives or interested witnesses are not automatically disbelieved; their testimonies require careful scrutiny. The law recognizes that close relatives often witness crimes at or near their residence, and their testimonies can be credible if found trustworthy after proper examination (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The delay in trial proceedings can impact the credibility of witnesses and the overall case. Witnesses may turn hostile due to prolonged delays, but the benefit of such witnesses’ testimonies, especially when corroborated by other reliable evidence, can still be considered valid (!) (!) .
Police officers’ conduct during investigation, especially their failure to register FIR promptly and their involvement in fabricating evidence, can significantly undermine the integrity of the case. Their actions may amount to neglect of duty and misconduct, affecting the credibility of their investigation (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The investigation conducted by the police officers involved in the case was found to be motivated and dishonest, with deliberate fabrication of evidence and false implicating of innocent persons. Such conduct violates the legal mandates for proper investigation and can justify the rejection of their evidence (!) (!) .
Under the relevant laws, police officers who neglect their duties or act with malicious intent, such as failing to register FIR or fabricating evidence, can be held liable under sections of the IPC and the SC/ST Act, with penalties including imprisonment and fines (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the investigation and subsequent proceedings must aim to uncover the truth, and any evidence obtained through misconduct or fabrication is inadmissible. The role of the court is to scrutinize evidence carefully, especially when police conduct is questionable (!) (!) .
Victim compensation was awarded in this case due to the heinous nature of the crime, which was rooted in caste-based honour killing. The compensation amount is in addition to other amounts awarded and is to be paid by the State of Tamil Nadu (!) .
The judgment dismisses the appeals of the accused, confirming their convictions and sentences, and directs those on bail to surrender within a specified period to serve their remaining sentences. The court also vacates any interim orders (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on this case.
JUDGMENT :
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The challenge before this Court in all these Appeals is to the decision of the Madras High Court dated 08.06.2022. Before proceeding to the impugned judgment, it is necessary to trace the trajectory of this case from the Trial Court onwards, since it has passed through a maze of facts.
3. A total of fifteen accused had faced trial, and the Trial Court ultimately convicted thirteen of them. Amongst them, A-1 to A-3, A-5 to A-8, A-10 to A-13 were convicted primarily under Sections 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). They were all sentenced to life imprisonment, except A-2 (Maruthupandiyan), who was given death sentence by the Trial Court. A-14 and A-15 were the police officers, who were convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 217, 218 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(i), 4 of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘SC/ST Act’) and both of them were sentenced to life imprisonment. A-4 (Ayyasamy) and A-9 (Gunasekaran) were acquitted by the Trial Court, and no appeal against their acquittal was filed before the High Court.
4. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has modified the conviction and sentence of A-14 (Sub-inspector K.P. Tamilmaran), acquitting him for offences under Section 3(2)(i) of the SC/ST Act and Section 218 of IPC, but maintaining his conviction for offences under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act and Section 217 of IPC, and thus reducing the sentence imposed from life imprisonment to two years rigorous imprisonment. The conviction and sentence of another police officer (A-15, Inspector M. Sellamuthu) has been upheld. In the case of A-2, the conviction by the Trial Court has been maintained but the sentence was changed from death penalty to life imprisonment. The High Court has also acquitted two other accused, i.e. A-3 (Rangasamy) and A-13 (Chinnadurai). The remaining appeals of all other co-accused were dismissed, and their conviction and sentence was upheld.
5. No appeal has been filed against the acquittal of the above-mentioned accused by the High Court. Before us, now the remaining eleven accused i.e. A-1, A-2, A-5 to A-8, A-10 to A-12, A-14, A-15, have challenged their conviction and sentence.
6. At this stage, it is necessary to bring a few crucial aspects of this case, in order to have a better perspective.
7. This is a case of a dastardly murder of a young couple, Murugesan and Kannagi, who were only in their early twenties, when they were killed. Both of them were administered poison in full view of a large number of villagers. The masterminds and the main perpetrators of this macabre act were none other than the father and the brother of the girl Kannagi. The reason behind the murder of this young couple was that Kannagi, belonging to the ‘Vanniyar’ community, had dared to marry Murugesan, who was a ‘Dalit’ from the same village. So, at the root of this crime is the deeply entrenched hierarchical caste system in India, and ironically, this most dishonorable act goes by the name of honour-killing!
8. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(ii) After performing their marriage, the two returned to their village and were leading a normal life with their respective families, but then in the first week of July, 2003, both left their village quietly without attracting any a
(1) Honour-killing must get a strong measure of punishment.(2) Cross-examination of witness – Courts are not barred from putting questions which may contradict the witness with previous statements ma....
The court confirmed that related eyewitnesses can provide reliable testimony in murder cases when corroborated by medical evidence, emphasizing that evidence must be assessed for credibility rather t....
Point of law : Murder /Attempt to Murder - Conviction set aside – Delay in filing FIR - unexplained delay in registering the F.I.R. and dispatching the same to the concerned Court, and suppressing tw....
The trial court must ensure all relevant witnesses are examined to prevent miscarriage of justice in dowry-related homicide cases.
The court emphasized that a flawed investigation process and failure to adhere to legal procedures undermine the prosecution's case, leading to the absolution of accused due to a lack of credible evi....
Though test identification parade is not a substantive piece of evidence, at times, it adds strength to case of prosecution by giving more credibility to statements of eye witnesses which is grossly ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
