K.P. TAMILMARAN versus THE STATE BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (28/04/2025) — Supreme Court headnote

AI-generated headnote. Verify against the judgment before relying on it. Paragraph numbers refer to the judgment.

Summary

Eleven accused, including a Sub-Inspector and an Inspector of police, challenged the Madras High Court's affirmation of their convictions for the 2003 honour-killing of a young inter-caste couple who were forcibly poisoned before villagers. The Court held that the evidence of witnesses cross-examined by the prosecution under s.154 Evidence Act is not wiped off the record, that an eyewitness omitted from the chargesheet was rightly summoned later as a prosecution witness under s.311 CrPC, and that the two police officers who knew of the deaths yet registered no FIR for nine days, one of whom then fabricated a confession to implicate the victim's Dalit relatives, were rightly convicted under ss.217/218 IPC and ss.3(2)(i)/4 of the SC/ST Act. Appeals dismissed; Rs.5 lakh additional compensation awarded.

Issues

Whether the testimony of a prosecution witness who has been cross-examined by the prosecution with leave under s.154 of the Evidence Act (a so-called hostile witness) must be discarded in its entirety.
Whether close relatives of the deceased are interested witnesses whose evidence cannot be relied upon.
Whether an eyewitness not cited in the chargesheet could be summoned under s.311 CrPC as a prosecution witness rather than as a court witness, and what the scope of s.311 CrPC and s.165 of the Evidence Act is.
Whether the police officers in charge of the station (A-14 and A-15) were guilty under ss.217 and 218 IPC and ss.3(2)(i) and 4 of the SC/ST Act for not registering an FIR despite knowledge of the deaths and for fabricating evidence against Dalit relatives of the deceased.
Whether the convictions of the remaining accused for the murders were sustainable on the evidence.
Whether victim compensation should be awarded in addition to that ordered by the courts below.

Provisions considered

Section 154, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The Court may permit the party calling a witness to put questions that could be put in cross-examination; sub-section (2), inserted in 2005, says this does not disentitle that party from relying on any part of the witness's evidence. Tracing Khijiruddin, Praphullakumar Sarkar, Jagir Singh and Sat Paul, the Court held that such evidence is not washed off the record and it is for the court to decide what weight to give it. The word 'hostile' does not appear in the Act; the only condition is the leave of the Court, and a witness who supports some but not all of a party's case need not be declared hostile. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31)
Section 3 (definition of 'evidence'), Indian Evidence Act, 1872Statements made by a witness in court, including in cross-examination by either side, are 'evidence' because they are made with the Court's permission; nothing in the Act requires them to be discarded, so they form part of the material the court weighs. (¶¶ 32, 33, 34)
Section 155, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Noted as permitting a party, with the consent of the Court, to impeach the credit of its own witness by the methods listed in the section. (¶ 35)
Section 165, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The Judge may ask any question, in any form, at any time, of any witness about any fact. The power is complementary to s.311 CrPC and is not impaired by s.162 CrPC, so the court may itself contradict a witness with police statements. The High Court had rightly relied on this power to dismiss PW-1's apprehension that his wife PW-49 would be declared hostile if examined as a prosecution witness. (¶¶ 46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54)
Section 311, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The first part ('may') gives the court discretion to summon, examine or recall any person at any stage; the second part ('shall') makes it mandatory where the evidence is essential to a just decision. The power may be exercised suo motu or on application, even after evidence is closed. Where the prosecution seeks to add a person omitted from the chargesheet, the court may allow it and the person is examined as a prosecution witness with the normal chief and cross-examination; a court witness, by contrast, is cross-examined only with leave. (¶¶ 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 54)
Section 162(1), proviso, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Only a witness called for the prosecution may be contradicted with his s.161 statement (by the accused as of right, by the prosecution with leave); a court witness cannot be so contradicted by the parties. The restriction does not bind the court acting under s.165 of the Evidence Act. (¶ 51)
Sections 154(1), 156(1) and 157(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Information of a cognizable offence must be reduced to writing and the officer in charge who, from information received 'or otherwise', has reason to suspect such an offence must forthwith report to the Magistrate and investigate. Following Lalita Kumari, registration of an FIR is obligatory even without a formal informant. A-14 and A-15 knew of the deaths on 08.07.2003 but registered no FIR until 17.07.2003; their plea that nobody came forward to complain was rejected both on the facts and in law. (¶¶ 67, 68, 69, 70)
Sections 217 and 218, Indian Penal Code, 1860S.217 punishes a public servant who knowingly disobeys a direction of law intending to save a person from punishment; s.218 punishes framing a record known to be incorrect with that intent. Both officers committed the s.217 offence by not registering the FIR to save the culprits; A-15 additionally committed the s.218 offence by manufacturing the extra-judicial confession and other records on which the FIR and chargesheet against innocent Dalits were based. (¶¶ 72, 74)
Sections 3(2)(i) and 4, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989S.3(2)(i) punishes with life imprisonment a non-SC/ST person who gives or fabricates false evidence intending to cause an SC/ST member to be convicted of a capital offence; s.4 punishes a public servant's wilful neglect of duties under the Act, which include registering an FIR. Both officers were guilty under s.4; A-15 was also guilty under s.3(2)(i) because he fabricated evidence to implicate four Dalits in an offence punishable with death. (¶¶ 73, 74)

Held

The evidence of a witness cross-examined under s.154 of the Evidence Act by the party that called him is not, as a matter of law, washed off the record. The court must consider whether the witness stands wholly discredited or can be believed in part, and may act on the creditworthy part with due caution in the light of other evidence; only where the witness is totally discredited is the evidence discarded, as a matter of prudence. Jagir Singh was clarified in Sat Paul, and s.154(2) now embodies this in the statute. 'Hostile witness' appears nowhere in the Act; the sole condition for cross-examining one's own witness is the leave of the Court. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31)
The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus does not apply in Indian criminal law; the court separates the wheat from the chaff and may rely on that part of a hostile witness's deposition which is corroborated by other reliable evidence, bearing in mind the reasons, including long trial delay, for which witnesses turn hostile. Here many Dalit witnesses were declared hostile only because they did not depose against A-4 and A-9, who were wrongly made accused and later acquitted; that cannot benefit the other accused. (¶¶ 36, 37, 38)
Related witnesses are natural witnesses and are not necessarily interested witnesses; their evidence must be scrutinised with care but cannot be rejected merely because they are relatives of the deceased. The testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-15 and PW-49 established the sequence of threats, abduction, torture to extract Kannagi's whereabouts, and the poisoning of both victims by A-2 at the instance of A-1, and were sufficient to prove the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite minor discrepancies. (¶¶ 17, 18, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45)
S.311 CrPC confers wide power to summon or recall any witness at any stage, exercisable suo motu or on application, and read with s.165 of the Evidence Act enables the court to call a person as a court witness when neither side will. The Trial Court rightly allowed the prosecution's application to summon PW-49, an eyewitness omitted from the chargesheet, as a prosecution witness; the High Court was right to reject PW-1's apprehension that she would be declared hostile, since s.165 equips the court to deal with that. Her failure to support the prosecution as to A-4 and A-9 did not detract from her reliable evidence against the other accused. (¶¶ 46, 47, 48, 49, 54)
No party can claim cross-examination of a court witness as of right; it is allowed only with leave, confined to what the witness said in reply to the court, and a court witness cannot be contradicted with his s.161 CrPC statement, the proviso to s.162(1) applying only to prosecution witnesses. Those restrictions do not fetter the court's own power under s.165 of the Evidence Act to put any question, including one contradicting the witness with his police statement. (¶¶ 50, 51, 52, 53)
A-14 and A-15, in charge of a police station about three kilometres from the village, had knowledge of the double murder on the day itself: PW-2, PW-3, PW-15 and PW-49 were driven out of the station with casteist abuse when they went to report it, and the police witnesses' evidence showed knowledge of the incident. Their failure to register an FIR for nine days, until political and media pressure built up, violated ss.154 and 157 CrPC; the defence that no informant came forward was unsustainable on the facts and irrelevant in law. (¶¶ 57, 58, 59, 60, 67, 68, 69, 70)
The examination-in-chief of PW-32, the Village Administrative Officer, showed that A-15 had him copy out and sign a pre-written 'extra-judicial confession' of A-1 on 17.07.2003, and PW-34 was made to sign mahazars and confessions shown as recorded elsewhere; the FIR registered on that basis named four Dalit relatives of the deceased, including his father PW-1, as accused. A-15 was the architect of a dishonest investigation that fabricated evidence to implicate the innocent and set the guilty loose. (¶¶ 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 70)
Both police officers committed offences under s.217 IPC and s.4 of the SC/ST Act by neglecting their duty and disobeying the law in not registering the FIR with intent to save the culprits. A-15, who additionally manufactured the confession and evidence and filed a chargesheet against innocent Dalits in an offence punishable with death, was rightly convicted also under s.218 IPC and s.3(2)(i) of the SC/ST Act and sentenced to life imprisonment; his plea for parity with A-14, whom the High Court had acquitted of those two charges, was rejected. (¶¶ 71, 72, 73, 74)
Honour-killings, rooted in the caste structure, must attract a strong measure of punishment and warrant victim compensation. Rs.5,00,000 was awarded jointly to PW-1 and PW-49 (or their nearest kin), payable by the State of Tamil Nadu, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Sessions Court and the High Court. (¶ 75)

Result

Appeals dismissed; the Madras High Court judgment dated 08.06.2022 affirmed in full. Appellants on bail to surrender within two weeks to serve the remaining sentence. State of Tamil Nadu to pay Rs.5,00,000 as additional victim compensation to PW-1 and PW-49 jointly. Interim orders vacated.