Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on April 28, 2025 upheld the conviction and sentence of life term awarded upon a man, his son and others in a case related to killing of a Dalit boy and a Vanniyar girl in Cuddalore district, Tamil Nadu, in the year 2003, observing the root of the crime happens to be the deeply entrenched hierarchical caste system in India.

"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. Both of them were administered poison in full view of a large number of villagers. The masterminds and the main perpetrators of this macabre act were none other than the father and the brother of the girl Kannagi. The reason behind the murder of this young couple was that Kannagi, belonging to the ‘Vanniyar’ community, had dared to marry Murugesan, who was a ‘Dalit’ from the same village," a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prashant Kumar Mishra said. 

Court awarded a compensation of Rs 5,00,000 Samikannu - father of Murugesan, and Chinnapillai, step-mother of Murugesan jointly, or to the nearest of their kins to be paid by the State of Tamil Nadu, in addition to the amount awarded or directed to be paid as compensation by the Sessions Court and High Court.

Brief Background

According to the prosecution, Kannagi and Murugesan, both residents of village ‘Pudukoorapettai’ in District Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu, were in love. 

Murugesan had just completed his B.E. (Chemical Engineering) from a college in Chidambaram, Tamil Nadu, and was employed in Bangalore, whereas Kannagi was completing her B.Com. studies from the same college. Knowing well that the Vanniyar community, to which Kannagi’s family belonged, would never allow their union, the two got secretly married before the Registrar of Marriage at Cuddalore on May 05, 2003, and got their marriage registered. 

However, when the family members of the girl got to know of this, they caught hold of Murugesan and Kannagi and made them to drink poison before battering and torturing them after severe beating. After the killings the two bodies were then burnt in different places-Kannagi in the village cremation ground and Murugesan at a place nearby on July 8, 2003.

The FIR was lodged nine days after on July 17, 2003 after the political leaders raised the issue.

The Madras High Court on April 22, 2004 ordered a CBI investigation in the matter.

The incident was of July 7 and 8, 2003, and the Trial was concluded only on September 24, 2021.    

Eleven accused, including two police men, who stood convicted and sentenced by the High Court filed an appeal before the Top Court.

Maruthupandiyan, girls brother was sentenced to death penalty by the special court but the High Court commuted it to life imprisonment.   

Counsel for the accused submitted that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were unreliable and there has been a total failure on the part of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.  

"A crime is an act against the State. But a wicked and odious crime, as the one we have just dealt with, is the ugly reality of our deeply entrenched caste structure. Honour-killing, as these are called, must get a strong measure of punishment. We are also of the opinion that victim compensation here is warranted," the bench said.   

The court also held the High Court rightly upheld the conviction of police officers K P Tamilmaran and M Sellamuthu under Sections 217, 218 of IPC and Sections 4, 3(2)(i) of the SC/ST Act and the sentence of life imprisonment. They initially did not lodge the FIR and after pressure from leaders and media did only to innocent persons belonging to Dalit community to absolve culprits belonging to the Vanniyar community of their complicity in the crime, Court added.

Citing Constitution bench judgment in Lalita Kumari, the court said, even in the absence of a formal informant, the police is duty-bound to register the case whenever they receive any information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence.      

"The purpose of an investigation, like the purpose of a trial, is to reach to the truth. The duty of an Investigating Officer is to lawfully collect evidence. In the present case, the Investigating Officer (A-15) not only covered evidence but fabricated his own. Instead of collecting evidence, he created evidence and tried to implicate the innocent and set the guilty loose. In order to fulfil his wicked design, he has deliberately and willfully violated the mandate of Sections 154 and 157(1) of CrPC as well as Section 23 and 24 of the Police Act, 1861," the bench conclusively held.

Case Title: KP Tamilmaran v. State By Deputy Superintendent of Police