Aarohi Girish Dhumale
On 28th April, 2025, the Supreme Court held that a Court Witness summoned under Section 311 of the CrPC and Section 165 of the Evidence Act cannot be contradicted by the prosecution using their prior police statements. However, the Court is permitted to question them regarding those statements.
This case was heard by a Division Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.
The bench emphasized that under the proviso to Section 162(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), prior police statements can only be used to contradict prosecution witnesses—not court witnesses. However, the Court itself is not bound by this limitation and retains the authority to question any witness under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act.
This ruling was part of the Court’s judgment in the Kannagi-Murugesan honour killing case from Tamil Nadu, where it upheld the conviction of eleven individuals. The case involved the 2003 killing of Murugesan, a Dalit man, and Kannagi, a Vanniyar woman, who had married in secret against her family’s wishes. On July 7, 2003, Kannagi’s father and brother forced the couple to consume poison and then burned their bodies.
In 2021, a Trial Court sentenced Kannagi’s brother, Marudupandian, to death and gave life imprisonment to twelve others. The following year, the Madras High Court commuted his death sentence to life and upheld life terms for ten of the remaining accused.
During the trial, Murugesan’s stepmother (PW-49) was added as an additional witness under Section 311 CrPC, despite not being named in the original CBI chargesheet. This move faced criticism, with some arguing she should have been summoned as a court witness due to concerns that she might turn hostile and favor the defence.
The Supreme Court clarified that while both additional and court witnesses can be summoned under Section 311 CrPC, there are key distinctions: a court witness is subject to stricter rules, and cross-examination is allowed only at the discretion of the court.
The Court upheld all convictions, dismissed appeals filed by two police officers convicted of fabricating evidence, and ordered a compensation of ₹5 lakhs to be paid to Murugesan’s father and stepmother.
Case Name: KP Tamilmaran v. State
Case Number: SLP(Crl) No. 1522/2023
Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Click here to access the order dated 28/04/2025
Instagram: Click here
LinkedIn: Click here
