Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Police Must Protect, Not Fabricate: Supreme Court Condemns Tamil Nadu Police Officers for Malicious Investigation in Honour Killing Case

30 April 2025 12:08 PM

By: Admin


“Instead of Collecting Evidence, The Officer Created It”, - Supreme Court of India delivered a scathing indictment against police misconduct while upholding the conviction of two Tamil Nadu police officers. The Court, through a Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, condemned the deliberate dereliction of duty, fabrication of evidence, and caste-based targeting perpetrated by Inspector M. Sellamuthu (A-15) and Sub-Inspector K.P. Tamilmaran (A-14) during the investigation of a horrific double honour killing.

In powerful language, the Court declared: “The Investigating Officer 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.”

The judgment sends a resounding message on the role and responsibility of police officers in the criminal justice system, particularly in cases involving marginalized communities.

The case arose from the brutal honour killing of a young inter-caste couple, Murugesan and Kannagi, at Pudukoorapettai village in Tamil Nadu. After the murders, Inspector Sellamuthu and Sub-Inspector Tamilmaran willfully neglected to register a First Information Report (FIR) for nine days, despite clear knowledge of the incident.

The police, instead of arresting the actual culprits — members of the dominant Vanniyar community — fabricated a false case implicating four innocent Dalits, including the deceased Murugesan’s own family members. This included concocting an extra-judicial confession and falsifying documents.

The Supreme Court exposed this conspiracy, terming it a gross abuse of police power aimed at shielding upper-caste perpetrators and framing Dalit victims.

“The Duty of a Police Officer is to Investigate, Not to Manufacture Evidence”
In examining the role of Inspector Sellamuthu (A-15), the Court noted: “A-15 orchestrated a fabricated extra-judicial confession and prepared an FIR to falsely implicate Dalits, while real murderers were allowed to go free.”

The Court held that both police officers violated mandatory duties under Sections 154, 156, and 157 of the CrPC, which require immediate registration and investigation of cognizable offences, regardless of whether a formal complaint is filed.

Emphasizing that police officers are not mere gatekeepers but custodians of justice, the Court sternly observed: “When a police officer, from information received or otherwise, has reason to suspect that a cognizable offence has been committed, he shall forthwith register a report and begin investigation.”

The excuse offered by the officers — that no formal complaint was filed — was outrightly rejected. The Court categorically held: “It is not the case that the duty to register an FIR arises only upon a formal complaint. The moment police get knowledge of a cognizable crime, the duty springs into action.”

The fabricated investigation was exposed further when PW-32 (Village Administrative Officer) testified that the so-called confession of A-1 was scripted by Inspector Sellamuthu, not given voluntarily by the accused. This fraud was unearthed during the trial when PW-32 detailed how he was coerced into copying a pre-written statement.

“Manufacturing False Evidence Against Dalits Is a Heinous Abuse of Power”

The Court found Inspector Sellamuthu guilty not only under Sections 217 and 218 IPC (public servant disobeying law and framing incorrect records) but also under Section 3(2)(i) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as his conduct directly resulted in wrongful prosecution of Scheduled Caste persons.

Condemning the caste-motivated misuse of authority, the Court stated: “The Investigating Officer, by his malicious actions, framed innocent Dalits in an offence punishable by death. Such a betrayal of constitutional trust cannot be condoned.”

Sub-Inspector Tamilmaran (A-14) was found guilty of neglecting to register the FIR and thereby failing in his duty under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act and Section 217 IPC, although his role was distinguished as less culpable compared to Inspector Sellamuthu.

The Court upheld the life imprisonment imposed on Inspector Sellamuthu (A-15), finding his actions to be motivated, deliberate, and criminally culpable. In contrast, the sentence of Sub-Inspector Tamilmaran (A-14) was reduced to two years rigorous imprisonment, as he was primarily found guilty of neglect rather than fabrication.

The Court summarized: “The case against A-15 is in a class by itself. He deliberately and knowingly fabricated evidence intending to shield the guilty and implicate the innocent. The High Court rightly upheld his life sentence under law.”

The Court further drew upon Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. to reinforce the principle that immediate FIR registration is mandatory when police receive information of a cognizable crime, with no discretion to delay or defer action.

The Supreme Court’s judgment is a stinging reminder that police misconduct, particularly when motivated by caste prejudice, is not a mere departmental lapse but a serious constitutional breach.

It underscores: “Police officers are guardians of the law, not masters of it. They cannot be permitted to wield their power to distort truth and perpetuate injustice.”

Through this ruling, the Supreme Court not only brings justice to the victims but also reaffirms that the credibility of the criminal justice system hinges on the integrity and fairness of its law enforcers.

Date of Decision: 28 April 2025
 

Latest Legal News