If Grievance Is Real But Lies Before Different Forum, Plaint Should Be Returned Under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, Not Rejected: Rajasthan High Court Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due To Severity Of Economic Offence If Evidence Is Documentary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Non-Compliance With Mandatory Duty To Inform Grounds Of Arrest Under Section 47 BNSS Is Impermissible: Orissa High Court Grants Bail Land Acquisition Award Finality Under Section 12 Is A Bar To Writ Petitions Challenging 'Public Necessity': Madhya Pradesh High Court State As Eminent Domain Is Obligated To Pay Adequate Compensation, Not Minimum To Suit Its Convenience: Madras High Court Kerala High Court Grants Emergency Parole To Life Convict To Execute Sale Deed, Repay Bank Loan To Prevent Family's Eviction High Court Cannot Act As Court Of First Instance In Service Matters Amenable To CAT Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Election Tribunal Has No Jurisdiction To Declare Caste Certificate Forged, Authority Vests Solely With Scrutiny Committee: Allahabad High Court Order IX Rule 7 CPC Requires 'Good Cause' Not 'Sufficient Cause'; Trial Court Can't Apply Higher Threshold To Pre-Decree Proceedings: Telangana High Court Victim Cannot Maintain Appeal Seeking Enhancement Of Sentence Under Section 372 CrPC; Such Power Exclusively With State: Rajasthan High Court Disability Pension: Presumption In Favour Of Personnel If Found Fit At Enrollment; Percentage Must Be Rounded Off: Punjab & Haryana HC Employee Entitled To Second Kramonnati Benefit If Promotion To Higher Post Does Not Result In Higher Pay Scale: Madhya Pradesh High Court Borrowers Can Be Granted Opportunity To Clear Loan Overdues In Installments To Prevent Coercive Action Under SARFAESI Act: Kerala High Court Supreme Court Directs Bar Council Of India To Establish National Legal Academy & Institutionalize Continuing Legal Education Banks Cannot Include Advocates In 'Caution List' For Mere Negligence; Bar Councils Have Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Misconduct: Supreme Court

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