Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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