While confirming the conviction of 11 accused in the 2003 honour killing of S Murugesan and D Kannagi in Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court clarified that the testimony of a hostile witness cannot be rejected completely. The Court said it must assess which parts of the statement can still be used as evidence.
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and P.K. Mishra made this observation while dismissing appeals filed by the convicts and two police officers, challenging the Madras High Court’s 2022 decision that upheld life imprisonment for most of them.
“The term ‘hostile witness’ has become part of legal language. Even if a witness supports only some aspects of a case, it doesn’t mean their entire testimony is unreliable,” the Court noted.
The defence argued that many witnesses changed their versions over the years, leading to contradictions with their earlier police or magistrate statements. In response, the Court said it is the Court's job to determine the truth from such testimony.
“A party can cross-examine its own witness under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, with the Court's permission. Even if declared hostile, their entire testimony need not be discarded.”
The Court emphasized that such evidence can be considered, especially when parts of it are supported by other evidence. The Evidence Act does not mandate complete rejection of hostile testimony.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Confirms Convictions in Kannagi-Murugesan Honour Killing Case from Tamil Nadu
“If a hostile witness's statement matches with other reliable facts, it is admissible. The Court must evaluate how much of it can be accepted.”
The Court also highlighted the reason why many witnesses turn hostile – delays in the judicial process. In this case, the crime occurred in 2003, but charges were framed only in 2017. The verdict came in 2021 after an 18-year delay.
The bench also dismissed the argument that the prosecution witnesses were biased as they were relatives of the victims. The Court said that simply being related does not make their evidence unreliable.
The case involved the murder of Kannagi, from the Vanniyar community, and Murugesan, a Dalit, after their secret marriage on May 5, 2003. On July 7, 2003, Kannagi’s family caught the couple and forced them to drink poison. Their bodies were later burned.
The trial court sentenced Kannagi’s brother Marudupandian to death and gave life imprisonment to 12 others, including her father. In 2022, the High Court reduced Marudupandian’s sentence to life and upheld the others’ sentences. Two people were acquitted.
Read Also:- Supreme Court: Economic Offences Demand Strict Scrutiny, High Courts Must Not Quash FIRs Prematurely
The Supreme Court upheld this judgment and also ordered compensation of ₹5 lakh to be paid jointly to Murugesan’s father and stepmother.
“Compensation of ₹5 lakh must be given to Murugesan’s family for the grave injustice they suffered,” the Court directed.
Case Title: KP Tamilmaran vs State, SLP(Crl) No. 1522/2023 and connected matters.
Senior Advocates Siddharth Agarwal and Gopal Sankaranarayanan represented the convicts. ASG Vikramjit Banerjee appeared for the CBI.
Advocate Rahul Shyam Bhandari represented Murugesan’s parents.
