Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra upheld the convictions of the accused involved in the caste-based honour killing of a young couple. The Court confirmed life imprisonment sentences under Sections 302 read with 149 IPC, modified the death penalty of one accused to life imprisonment, and upheld convictions under Sections 217 and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court reduced the sentence of one police officer from life imprisonment to two years rigorous imprisonment. It recognized the underlying caste-based motive behind the murders and directed that justice must be served without leniency.

The case concerns the killing of a young couple, Murugesan and Kannagi, in Pudukoorapettai village, District Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu, in 2003. Kannagi belonged to the Vanniyar community and Murugesan belonged to the Scheduled Caste community.

Also Read: Supreme Court: ‘Leave Encashment Not Available Twice’ — Sets Aside High Court Orders Allowing Second Encashment Post Re-employment

On 5 May 2003, Murugesan and Kannagi married before the Registrar of Marriage at Cuddalore. They continued living separately with their respective families but later left their village together in early July 2003.

On 3 July 2003, A-2 (Maruthupandiyan), brother of Kannagi, went to the house of PW-1 (Samikannu), Murugesan’s father, and directed him to produce Murugesan. PW-1 located Murugesan at his sister-in-law’s house and advised him to send Kannagi back. PW-1 returned home the same day.

On 7 July 2003, A-2 again visited PW-1’s house and repeated his demand. PW-1 again left to search for Murugesan but did not succeed. A-2 also instructed A-4 (Ayyasamy) to locate Murugesan. A-4 brought Murugesan back to Pudukoorapettai and presented him before A-1 (Duraisamy) and A-2.

Murugesan was tied to a post, stripped, and beaten by A-1, A-2, and others. Villagers were present. Under duress, Murugesan disclosed Kannagi’s location. A Tata Sumo vehicle, driven by PW-22 (Jayatharasan), transported A-5 to A-11 and A-4 to retrieve Kannagi from Moongilthuraipattu village.

Kannagi was brought back to Pudukoorapettai by the early morning of 8 July 2003. Murugesan and Kannagi were taken to a cashew grove. A-1 gave a steel tumbler containing Nuvacron (Monocrotophos pesticide) to A-2, who administered it to Kannagi. Kannagi died within minutes. A-2 then administered the poison to Murugesan, who also died shortly thereafter.

PW-49 (Chinnapillai), Murugesan’s stepmother, witnessed the administration of poison. She was restrained by the accused and later fainted. Upon regaining consciousness, PW-49 went to the Virudhachalam police station but no FIR was registered.

Murugesan’s and Kannagi’s bodies were separately burnt. Kannagi was cremated at the village cremation ground; Murugesan’s body was burnt in a nearby field. The police did not register an FIR immediately. On 17 July 2003, after media and political intervention, FIR No. 356 of 2003 was registered under Sections 147, 302, and 201 IPC at Virudhachalam Police Station. The FIR was based on an extra-judicial confession by A-1 before PW-32 (Ashokan), the Village Administrative Officer.

The initial investigation named eight accused, including four Dalits and four Vanniyars. Dissatisfied with the investigation, the family of the deceased approached the Madras High Court seeking a transfer of investigation to the CBI. The High Court ordered the CBI to take over the investigation on 22 April 2004.

The CBI filed a charge sheet on 14 October 2005 against fifteen accused, including two police officers, A-14 (K.P. Tamilmaran) and A-15 (M. Sellamuthu). The charge sheet invoked Sections 147, 302, 201, 217, 218, and 149 IPC and Sections 3(2)(i) and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The Trial Court convicted thirteen of the fifteen accused. A-2 was sentenced to death. A-1, A-5 to A-8, A-10 to A-12 were sentenced to life imprisonment. A-14 and A-15 were convicted under Sections 217, 218 IPC and Sections 3(2)(i) and 4 of the SC/ST Act and sentenced to life imprisonment. A-4 and A-9 were acquitted.

On appeal, the High Court commuted A-2’s death sentence to life imprisonment. It set aside A-14’s conviction under Section 3(2)(i) of the SC/ST Act and Section 218 IPC, reducing his sentence to two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act and Section 217 IPC. Conviction and sentence of A-15 were upheld. A-3 and A-13 were acquitted.

Eleven accused appealed to the Supreme Court. The appellants submitted that the prosecution’s case was based largely on related witnesses, that witnesses had turned hostile, and that contradictions existed in witness statements. They also submitted that the delay in investigation and trial weakened the case against them.

The prosecution submitted that the caste background of the deceased and the social context were relevant to understanding the crime. The prosecution presented the testimonies of PW-1 (Samikannu), PW-2 (Velmurugan), PW-3 (Palanivel), PW-15 (Tamilarasi), and PW-49 (Chinnapillai) to support the allegations. It relied on the initial threats made by A-2, the abduction and forced return of Murugesan, the torture, and the administration of poison as establishing the guilt of the accused.

Evidence included oral testimonies of eyewitnesses, documentary evidence such as the marriage certificate (Exhibit P-1), and the extra-judicial confession made by A-1 to PW-32. The trial also considered the statements made during investigation under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC.

During trial proceedings, several witnesses turned hostile. The courts considered the evidence of those witnesses whose testimony was consistent and corroborated by other material. The Court discussed the principles relating to the testimony of hostile witnesses and related witnesses.

The Supreme Court examined the evidence, procedural history, and applicable statutory provisions. It maintained the convictions under Sections 302 read with 149 IPC, Sections 217 IPC, and Section 4 of the SC/ST Act. The Court confirmed the commutation of A-2’s death penalty to life imprisonment. It upheld the acquittal of A-3 and A-13. It upheld the reduction of sentence for A-14. The appeals filed by the accused were dismissed. Pending applications were disposed of.

The Supreme Court recorded that "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." It observed that "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."

The Court stated that Kannagi and Murugesan, after their marriage on 5 May 2003, initially lived separately with their families but later left their village together. It recorded that "on 03.07.2003, A-2 (Maruthupandiyan), brother of Kannagi, reached the house of PW-1 (Samikannu) with a big sickle in his hand, and ordered PW-1 to bring his son back to the village." It further observed that "on 07.07.2003, A-2 again comes to the house of PW-1 and threatens him for the second time to bring Murugesan back to the village."

The Court noted that A-4 brought Murugesan back to Pudukoorapettai village and presented him before A-1 and A-2. It recorded that "Murugesan was undressed, tied to a post and then he was mercilessly beaten by the mob including A-1 to A-13. This was done in full view of many villagers who were present there, yet there was no attempt to stop this savage brutality." The Court stated that after physical torture, "Murugesan was unable to bear it any longer and finally revealed that Kannagi was in PW-23 Saroja’s house."

It observed that "Kannagi was finally brought to her village, and by this time it was about 5:30 AM in the morning (of 08.07.2003)." Both Murugesan and Kannagi were taken to a cashew grove where, as recorded by the Court, "A-1 gets Nuvacron (insecticide/poison) in a steel tumbler and gives it to his son A-2, and orders him to administer that to his daughter Kannagi." The Court stated that "A-2 then forced Nuvacron down Kannagi’s throat which caused her death in minutes." It further recorded that "A-2 tried to administer the remaining Nuvacron to Murugesan but when Murugesan resisted, this task was assigned to A-4."

Regarding the administration of poison, the Court stated that "PW-49 (Chinnapillai, step-mother of Murugesan) saw A-2 administering poison to her son Murugesan." It recorded that "Murugesan too died minutes after being forced to drink the poison."

The Court noted that after the murders, "the two bodies were then burnt in different places—Kannagi in the village cremation ground and Murugesan at a place nearby." It recorded that "when PW-49 went to the police station to lodge an FIR on 08.07.2003, she was rebuffed and abused at the police station, and practically thrown out of the station." It stated that "it was only after a gap of nine days, when some leaders belonging to the Dalit community raised this issue through Press and Media and a support was gathered from the public, that a case was finally registered."

The Court discussed the delay in lodging the FIR and initiating the trial. It observed that "the case was only committed to Sessions on 15.03.2010 i.e., after more than seven years." Charges were framed only in July 2017, and additional charges were framed later in 2020.

On the issue of hostile witnesses, the Court recorded that "despite witnesses turning hostile, there was enough material placed by the prosecution before the Trial Court, which was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt." It referred to Section 154 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and stated that "even in a criminal prosecution when a witness is cross-examined and contradicted with the leave of the court, by the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of law, be treated as washed off the record altogether."

The Court cited Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration, observing that "the testimony of a hostile witness cannot be totally discarded, and it is for the Court to consider what value should be attached to this testimony." It further recorded that "evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as washed off the records; it remains admissible in trial and there is no legal bar to base the conviction of the accused upon such testimony, if corroborated by other reliable evidence."

Regarding related witnesses, the Court stated that "merely because the witnesses are interested and related witnesses, it cannot be a ground to disbelieve their testimony." It recorded that "the testimony of such witnesses has to be scrutinized with due care and caution." The Court quoted State of A.P. v. S. Rayappa, stating that "a close relative who is a very natural witness cannot be termed as an interested witness."

The Court examined the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-15, and PW-49, recording that "their testimonies, in the light of the other evidence on the record, are sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused."

Regarding the police officers, the Court recorded that "it is very difficult to believe that a dastardly double murder takes place in the village, and those in-charge of the police station remain unaware of the crime." It stated that "despite taking all reasonable care, it would have been impossible for the complainant to know about this acquisition which was not disclosed to the complainant, neither at the time of the auction nor at the time of payment of consideration."

On the culpability of police officers A-14 and A-15, the Court stated that "considering the proximity of the police station from the village, it is highly unlikely that the police officers would not have known about the incident." It recorded that "the investigation done by the local police itself was motivated and downright dishonest."

Finally, the Court observed that "the accused had committed the offence in full public view, and the evidence placed on record was sufficient to convict them beyond reasonable doubt." The Court stated that "no leniency can be shown to the accused in the facts of the present case."

The Supreme Court observed that A-14 (K.P. Tamilmaran) and A-15 (M. Sellamuthu) had committed offences under Section 217 of the IPC and Section 4 of the SC/ST Act, by neglecting their duties and disobeying the law by not registering the FIR at the first instance with the intention to save the culprits. Regarding A-15, the Court recorded that he was guilty not only under Section 217 IPC and Section 4 of the SC/ST Act, but was also the main architect behind the FIR dated 17.07.2003, which falsely implicated four members of the Scheduled Caste community. It was stated that A-15, being in charge of the investigation, filed the chargesheet against innocent persons belonging to the Dalit community, and that he knowingly and deliberately falsely implicated some Dalits in an offence punishable with death. The Court observed that evidence clearly established that A-15 manufactured extra-judicial confessions and filed chargesheets based on false evidence. Consequently, the conviction of A-15 under Sections 217, 218 IPC and Sections 4 and 3(2)(i) of the SC/ST Act and the sentence of life imprisonment were upheld.

Also Read: "J&K High Court: Marriage Between Two Adults Is a Fundamental Right — Family or Community Consent Is Irrelevant"

Turning to victim compensation, the Court stated that a crime is an act against the State, but a wicked and odious crime, such as the one before the Court, reflects the ugly reality of the deeply entrenched caste structure. Recognizing the need for a strong punitive response to honour killings, the Court awarded compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 (Rupees Five Lakhs) to PW-1 (Samikannu, father of Murugesan) and PW-49 (Chinnapillai, step-mother of Murugesan) jointly, or to their nearest kin. It directed that this compensation be paid by the State of Tamil Nadu, in addition to any compensation already awarded by the Sessions Court or the High Court.

The Supreme Court held that there was no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court, and therefore dismissed all the appeals. It directed that all appellants who were on bail must surrender within two weeks from the date of the judgment to undergo their remaining sentence. Finally, it ordered that all interim orders, if any, stood vacated, and all interlocutory applications, if any, stood disposed of.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellants:Mrs. Anjana Prakash, Mr. Ratnakar Dash, Mr. M. Sathyanarayanan, Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal and Mr. S. Nagamuthu

For  the Respondent:Mr. Rahul Shyam Bhandari, Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee (ADSG)

Case Title: K.P. Tamilmaran v. State by Deputy Superintendent of Police

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 576

Case Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.____ OF 2025 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.1522 OF 2023]

Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

[Read/Download order]