Supreme Court upholds majority of convictions in inter-caste double murder, affirms police culpability and directs compensation

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prashant Kumar Mishra heard appeals challenging the Madras High Court judgment of 08.06.2022 arising from the brutal 2003 murder of a young inter‑caste couple in Cuddalore district, Tamil Nadu; the appeals related to conviction and sentence of eleven accused, including two police officers, following CBI prosecution after transfer of investigation.

The Court dismissed the appeals and declined to interfere with the High Court’s rulings on the whole, upholding convictions and sentences in major respects while recording the High Court’s earlier modifications (including reduction of one death sentence to life and partial modification of the conviction/sentence of a police officer). The Court reiterated established principles on the evidentiary value of witnesses who turn “hostile”, held that the prosecution had proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt on the core facts, and found culpability of the investigating officers for dereliction and fabrication. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “From the above conspectus, it emerges clear 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. It is for the Judge of fact to consider in each case whether as a result of such cross‑examination and contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony… If in a given case, the whole of the testimony of the witness is impugned, and in the process, the witness stands squarely and totally discredited, the Judge should, as matter of prudence, discard his evidence in toto.” The Court also noted that “the evidence of hostile witnesses can also be relied upon by the prosecution to the extent to which it supports the prosecution version,” emphasising that the trial judge must evaluate such testimony with caution and in the light of corroboration.

Background The case arose from the killing on 7–8 July 2003 of Murugesan (a Dalit) and Kannagi (from the Vanniyar community) who had married inter‑caste. The pair were allegedly seized, brutally beaten and administered Nuvacron (an insecticide) in full view of villagers; their bodies were subsequently burnt. The local police delayed registration of an FIR; after public, media and political pressure the matter was handed to the CBI by the Madras High Court in 2004. The CBI charge‑sheet in October 2005 named fifteen accused (including two police officers). At trial thirteen were convicted; the Trial Court sentenced most to life and imposed further penalties on two police officers for offences under IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. On appeal the High Court modified some convictions and sentences—acquitting two accused, reducing one death sentence to life, and partially modifying a police officer’s conviction and sentence. The present petitions challenged those appellate findings.

The Supreme Court reviewed testimony of key witnesses (PW‑1, PW‑2, PW‑3, PW‑15 and PW‑49), addressed the long delay in trial, and examined the law on witnesses declared hostile, Section 154 Evidence Act as amended, Section 311 CrPC and the Court’s power under Section 165 Evidence Act to summon or question witnesses. The Court found the core prosecution narrative—abduction, torture to extract location of Kannagi, forcible administration of poison and burning—proved by ocular and corroborative evidence. It found that the local police officers (A‑14 and A‑15) had knowledge of the incident on 08.07.2003 and had failed in their statutory duty to register the FIR and to conduct impartial investigation; the investigating officer (A‑15) was held to have fabricated confessions and manufactured evidence to implicate innocent Dalit persons, and the High Court’s upholding of conviction and life sentence for A‑15 was affirmed. The Court awarded Rs. 5,00,000 as additional victim compensation to the deceased’s parents (PW‑1 and PW‑49), directed surrendered appellants on bail to surrender within two weeks, and dismissed interim applications.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 576 Case Title: K. P. Tamilmaran v. The State by Deputy Superintendent of Police (Criminal Appeal Nos. arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 1522/2023, 123/2023, 11241/2022, 11242/2022, 4151/2023, 126/2023, 124‑125/2023, 3616/2023) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mrs. Anjana Prakash (senior counsel), Mr. Ratnakar Dash (senior counsel), Mr. M. Sathyanarayanan (senior counsel), Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal (senior counsel), Mr. S. Nagamuthu (counsel) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rahul Shyam Bhandari (counsel for family of deceased), Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, Additional Solicitor General (for CBI)