Delhi High Court Pulls Up Trial Judge And Defense Counsel Over Victim-Shaming, Moral Policing During Cross-Examination In Sexual Harassment Case What A Girl Chooses To Wear Is A Matter Of Her Personal Choice, No One Right To Dictate Her: Delhi High Court 125 CrPC | Provident Fund and ESPPs Cannot Be Deducted As Compulsory Outflows To Reduce Income: Supreme Court Enhances Child Maintenance, Rules Decision-Making Process Under Section 19 PC Act Cannot Resemble Hamlet's Dilemma Of 'To Be Or Not To Be' Based On Political Dictate: Supreme Court Landowners Are Entitled To Compensation Under 2013 Land Acquisition Act If Award Was Not Passed Before Cut-Off Date: Supreme Court Supreme Court Declines To Restore Murder Conviction Due To Doubts Over Medical Intimation Timing And Omissions In Prosecution Case Supreme Court Remands Public Employment Caste Validity Dispute Back To MP High Court, Directs Fresh Consideration On Merits Joint Account Holder Who Signs Cheque Cannot Escape Section 138 NI Act Liability: Karnataka High Court Right To Appear Through Video Conferencing Is Not A Fundamental Right But A Matter Of Convenience Based On Court's Discretion: Allahabad High Court Appellate Authority Cannot Set Aside Primary Tribunal's Order Without Discussion Or Reasoning: Andhra Pradesh High Court Remands Inam Dispute Bank Not Bound To Grant Endless Extensions For Replying To Fraud Show Cause Notice When Material Facts Were Known For Months: Bombay High Court Recovery Of Excess Pay From Retired Class-III Employee Is Impermissible In Law Even If Consent Was Given Under Threat Of Withholding Retiral Dues: Chhattisgarh High Court Property Standing In Elder Son's Name Cannot Be Partitioned Without Pleadings & Proof Of Joint Family Nucleus: Karnataka High Court Seeking Divorce Solely On Ground Of Wife's Pre-Marital Accidental Injury Reflects Insensitivity And Lacks Empathy: Madras High Court Prosecution Cannot Be Permitted To Fill Up Lacunas In Case By Recalling Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court Landlord Can Seek Eviction Based On Title By Amending Plaint If Tenant Denies Relationship And Sets Up Adverse Possession: Madhya Pradesh High Court Director Cannot Be Prosecuted Under GST Act Without Impleading Company As Accused: Punjab & Haryana High 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