Supreme Court upholds conviction of 11 including 2 police officers for honour killing of TN couple

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the conviction of eleven persons, including two police officers, for the honour killing of a young couple in Tamil Nadu in 2003 who had married across caste lines [K.P Tamilmaran vs. The State by Deputy Superintendent of Police]. .A Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prashant Kumar Mishra dismissed the appeals filed by the convicts against a 2022 decision of the Madras High Court and upheld the sentence of life imprisonment handed down to ten accused and two years' imprisonment imposed on one.The Court directed all convicts, currently on bail, to surrender within two weeks to undergo the remainder of their sentence. It also awarded ₹5 lakh as compensation to the victims’ family to be paid by the State. .The Court was dealing with criminal appeals filed by members of the girl's family, local villagers, and two police officers who had been convicted of offences including murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.The case concerned the murder of Murugesan, a graduate in Chemical Engineering who belonged to the Dalit Community and Kannagi a commerce graduate who belonged to the Vanniyar community. After secretly marrying, the couple fled their village but were eventually traced, forcibly returned, and murdered by being administered poison in full view of local villagers. Their bodies were later burnt.A total of fifteen accused faced trial and thirteen were convicted by the trial court. Twelver of them were sentenced to life imprisonment while one was sentenced to death. On appeal, the conviction and sentence of nine of the thirteen were upheld by the Madras High Court.Two of the accused were acquitted of all charges.Accused sub-inspector KP Tamilmaran was acquitted of offences under Section 3(2)(i) of the SC/ST Act and Section 218 of IPC but his conviction was maintained for offences under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act and Section 217 of IPC and his sentence was reduced from life imprisonment to two years rigorous imprisonment.The conviction of another accused was upheld but his sentence was reduced from death penalty to life imprisonment. Thus, in total, ten were sentenced to life imprisonment and one accused was sentenced to two years in jail.They then approached the Supreme Court. The apex Court highlighted that the honour killing stemmed from deep-seated caste discrimination.“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.”.Kannagi’s father (A-1) and brother (A-2) were among those convicted for the murders. Murugesan’s stepmother (PW-49) was an eyewitness to the incident and her testimony was critical to the case.While most accused were family members and villagers, two police officers, Sub-Inspector KP Tamilmaran and Inspector M Sellamuthu, were convicted for their roles in suppressing the crime and fabricating evidence to protect the accused. Sellamuthu had registered a false FIR and fabricated evidence to shield the main perpetrators, while also seeking to falsely implicate members of Murugesan’s own Dalit community.In this regard, the Court observed that Sellamuthu’s actions had deliberately undermined the investigation at the earliest stage.“The Investigating Officer (A-15) not only covered evidence but fabricated his own. Instead of collecting evidence, he created evidence and tried to implicate the innocent and set the guilty loose...In order to fulfil his wicked design, he has deliberately and willfully violated the mandate of Sections 154 and 157(1) of CrPC as well as Section 23 and 24 of the Police Act, 1861,” the judgment said..It further held that mere absence of a formal complaint was not an excuse for police inaction. The Bench reiterated that when police officers have information of a cognizable offence, they are duty-bound to register an FIR. “Their defence that nobody came forward to lodge a complaint is unsustainable… Even if nobody went to the police station, it was the duty of the police officers to register the FIR...The registration of FIR became a necessity only due to political pressure and the news having caught the attention of press and the media.”.The Court relied heavily on the testimony of PW-49 (Murugesan's step mother), who had witnessed Murugesan being forced to drink poison by Kannagi’s brother and had faced intimidation at the police station when she attempted to lodge a complaint.The Court noted that the delay in investigation caused by the police and compounded by tactics of the defence, had contributed to several witnesses turning hostile. However, it clarified that such hostility did not dilute the credible parts of their testimonies..The Court also dealt at length with the evidentiary value of hostile witnesses, since many prosecution witnesses turned hostile during trial. It emphasised that even testimony from a hostile witness can be relied upon if found credible.“Evidence of a witness who has been cross-examined by the party which produced him cannot be washed off entirely, and it is for the Court to see what can be retrieved from such evidence...If part of the evidence of a hostile witness corroborates with other reliable evidence, then that part of the evidence is admissible," the judgement said. .Importantly, the Court noted that witnesses being related to the deceased did not automatically render their testimony unreliable.On the aspect of delay, the Court observed that the prolonged trial and investigation significantly contributed to witnesses turning hostile. .Ultimately, the Court found that there was overwhelming evidence to uphold the conviction and sentence of the eleven accused persons, including the two police officers. It also ordered the State of Tamil Nadu to pay a sum of ₹5 lakh to the father and step-mother of Murugesan as victim compensation, in addition to any amount already awarded by the Sessions Court or High Court.The Court concluded by directing all the accused who were on bail to surrender within two weeks to serve the remainder of their sentences..The appellants were represented by Senior Advocates Ratnakar Dash, M Sathyanarayanan, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Siddharth Aggarwal, S Nagamuthu and Anjana Prakash along with advocates K Balu, Avinish K Saurab, S Thananjayan, Poornachandiran R, Ajith Williyam S, Puspita Basak, Ankur S Kulkarni, Karuppaiah Meyyappan, Kanika Kalaiyarasan, Tushar Srivastava, Shourya Dashupta, Nirnimesh Dube, Prabu Ramasubramanian, Raghunatha Sethupathy B, Arshiya Ghose, S Sabari Bala Pandian, Pariksheet Bishnoi, Yusuf, Muthalagu, Naveen, G Anandan, G Jai Singh, Muthu Ganesa Pandian, MA Gouthaman, Ram Sankar, Harini Ramsankar, Usha Prabakaran, Maheswaran Prabakaran, M/s. Ram Sankar & Co, C Paramsivam, Nishant Sharma, Rakesh K Sharma, Promila, Deepak Reddy, Pradum Kumar and Neeraj Dubey. The respondents were represented by Additional Solicitor General Vikramjeet Benrjee along with Advocates Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Arkaj Kumar, B K Satija, Rukhmini Bobde, Anukalp Jain, Madhav Sinhal, Rohit Khare, Sunanda Shukla, Ishaan Sharma, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Rahul Shyam Bhandari, G Priyadharshni, Satyam Pathak, Prabhakar Pahepuri, Harsh Vardhan and K Kesavan. .[Read Judgment]