EVIDENCE OF HOSTILE WITNESS CAN'T BE FULLY DISCARDED: SUPREME COURT:

EVIDENCE OF HOSTILE WITNESS CAN'T BE FULLY DISCARDED: SUPREME COURT:

While upholding the convictions of eleven individuals in the 'Kannagi-Murugesan' honour killing case from Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court ruled that a witness supporting certain aspects of a case, even if not all, does not automatically warrant being declared 'hostile'.

A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and PK Mishra dismissed the appeals filed by the eleven convicts challenging the Madras High Court’s 2022 judgment, which had affirmed their life sentences. The Court also dismissed appeals filed by two police officers accused of fabricating evidence. In addressing the defence's contention that many witnesses had turned hostile over the years by contradicting their earlier statements made to the police or, in some cases, before a magistrate, the Supreme Court emphasized that when a witness deviates from the narrative of the party calling them, it is ultimately for the Court to determine the extent to which their testimony should be accepted.

The Supreme Court noted that while the term "hostile witness" is commonly used in criminal jurisprudence and retained for pragmatic reasons, it refers to a witness who gives a statement contrary to the case of the party that called them. However, a witness supporting some aspects of a case does not automatically become hostile. Under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, a party may cross-examine its own witness with the Court’s permission, even without formally declaring hostility. Importantly, the evidence of such a witness cannot be discarded entirely; it is for the Court to assess and determine what portions can be accepted.

The Court further observed that it is permissible for courts to rely on portions of a hostile witness’s testimony that are corroborated by other evidence on record. There is no specific prohibition under the Evidence Act requiring that such evidence be discarded outright. Consequently, such testimony remains part of the overall body of evidence which the Court may consider while arriving at its decision. It is ultimately for the Court to assess the value of that piece of evidence and to determine how it should be utilized in the context of the particular case.

"If part of the evidence of a hostile witness corroborates with other reliable evidence, then that part of the evidence is admissible. Once a prosecution witness has been declared hostile and then cross-examined by the prosecution, then it is for the Court to evaluate the veracity of the testimony."

The Court observed that one of the reasons witnesses often turn hostile is the delay in the conduct of trials. In the present case, the incident occurred in 2003, but the case was committed to the Sessions Court only in 2010, with charges being framed as late as 2017. Ultimately, judgment was delivered in 2021, after an inordinate delay of 18 years.

The Court also rejected the defence’s argument that the prosecution witnesses were primarily members of the husband’s family and therefore should be treated as interested witnesses.

The case concerned the brutal murder of a young inter-caste couple, S Murugesan and D Kannagi, who were poisoned by Kannagi’s father and brother. Murugesan, a graduate in Chemical Engineering, belonged to the Dalit community, while Kannagi, a commerce graduate, hailed from the Vanniyar community. The couple had secretly married on May 5, 2003. Upon discovering the marriage, Kannagi’s family apprehended the couple on July 7, 2003, just as they were preparing to leave town, and forced them to consume insecticide (poison), leading to their deaths. Their bodies were subsequently burned.

The murder of the couple came to be recognized as one of the earliest instances of "honour killing" in the State of Tamil Nadu. Following a flawed police investigation, the case was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for further inquiry.

In 2021, the trial court sentenced Marudupandian, Kannagi’s brother, to death and awarded life imprisonment to 12 others, including her father. In 2022, the Madras High Court commuted Marudupandian’s death sentence to life imprisonment and upheld the life sentences of ten others, including Kannagi’s father. Two individuals were acquitted.

Today, the Supreme Court further directed that compensation of Rs 5 lakhs be jointly awarded to Murugesan’s father and stepmother.