The Supreme Court on April 28 clarified that under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), a court can permit the examination of an additional witness as a prosecution witness if it finds that the witness should have originally been called but was missed due to oversight or other reasons.
“If the Court finds that such a person should have been examined as a prosecution witness and was omitted from the list due to oversight, the Court may allow their examination as a prosecution witness,” the bench stated.
Read Also:- Supreme Court: Hostile Witness Testimony Can't Be Ignored Completely; Court Must Examine What Is Reliable
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and PK Mishra made this observation while dismissing appeals by 11 convicts in the infamous Kannagi-Murugesan honour killing case from Tamil Nadu. The case had reached the apex court after the Madras High Court in 2022 upheld their convictions.
The Court added that powers under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, which allow judges to ask questions or order evidence production, work alongside Section 311 CrPC. These powers can be used suo motu or on a request by either party at any stage—even after the evidence is closed.
In this case, PW-49, the stepmother of Murugesan, was not listed as a witness in the chargesheet by the CBI. During the trial, the prosecution filed an application under Section 311 CrPC to summon her. The move was challenged by the convicts, arguing she should be called a court witness, not a prosecution witness, due to fear she might turn hostile.
“The difference between a prosecution and court witness is crucial. A prosecution witness undergoes full cross-examination as per procedure, but a court witness can only be cross-examined with the Court’s permission,” the Court explained.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Confirms Convictions in Kannagi-Murugesan Honour Killing Case from Tamil Nadu
The Court emphasized that it has wide powers under Section 311 CrPC to summon or recall any witness at any stage to ensure the best evidence is placed before it. The intention is always to ensure justice and not let important evidence be missed.
“Whether a person is required to be examined for a just decision is a matter for the Court to decide based on case facts,” the judgment noted.
The Kannagi-Murugesan case involved the brutal killing of an inter-caste couple—Murugesan, a Dalit chemical engineering graduate, and Kannagi, a commerce graduate from the Vanniyar community. The two secretly married on May 5, 2003, but were caught by Kannagi’s family two months later. They were forced to drink poison and later their bodies were burned.
Initially mishandled by police, the case was later handed to the CBI. In 2021, the trial court awarded the death penalty to Kannagi’s brother, Marudupandian, and life sentences to 12 others, including her father. The High Court reduced Marudupandian's death sentence to life and confirmed the sentences of ten others, while acquitting two.
The Supreme Court, while upholding the convictions, also ordered ₹5 lakh compensation to be paid jointly to Murugesan’s father and stepmother.
"Justice must not be denied just because a material witness was missed earlier. The court has every right to correct such lapses,” the Court stated.
Other report about the judgment can be read here
Case: KP Tamilmaran vs State SLP (Crl) No. 1522/2023 and connected cases
Advocates: Senior Advocates Siddharth Agarwal and Gopal Sankaranarayanan for appellants; ASG Vikramjit Banerjee for CBI
Advocate Rahul Shyam Bhandari for Murugesan’s parents.
