K.P. Tamilmaran vs The State by Deputy Superintendent of Police

Held: A-14 (Sub-inspector) and A-15 (Inspector-IO) both committed the offences u/s.217, IPC and s.4, SC/ST Act as they did not register the FIR at the first instance with the intention to save the culprits – In addition, A-15 was the main architect behind the FIR which falsely implicated the four members of Schedule Caste community – Further, A-15 was in-charge of the investigation which led to the filing of the charge-sheet against the innocent persons belonging to Dalit community – A-15 did this entire exercise to absolve the culprits belonging to the Vanniyar community of their complicity in the crime, and he knowingly and deliberately falsely implicated some of the Dalits in an offence punishable with death – A-15 also manufactured the extra-judicial confessions and evidence – High Court rightly upheld the conviction of A-15 u/ss.217, 218, IPC and ss.4, 3(2)(i), SC/ST Act and the sentence of life imprisonment – Impugned judgment not interfered with. [Paras 74, 75] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.154 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302 r/w 149, 217, 218 – Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – ss.3(2)(i), 4 – Murder of a young couple in the name of honour killing – A-14 and A-15 were the police officers who were convicted by the Trial Court u/ss.217, 218, IPC and ss.3(2)(i), 4, SC/ST Act, 1989 and were sentenced to life imprisonment – High Court upheld the conviction of A-14 but modified his sentence by acquitting him of charges u/s.3(2)(i), SC/ST Act, 1989 and s.218, Penal Code, 1860 however, the conviction and sentence of A15 was not modified – One of their defence was that nobody came forward to lodge a complaint for registration of FIR: Held: Such defence is unacceptable in light of the law as well as the facts of the case and was rightly disbelieved by High Court – s.154, CrPC should not be misunderstood to mean that the police is empowered to register FIR only in cases where some informant comes forward and provides information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence to the police – Once the police gets information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence, whether it is through any informant/complainant or otherwise, police is empowered to register the case and proceed with the investigation – In the present case, A-14 (Sub-inspector) and A-15 (Inspector-IO) had the information regarding the incident on the day of the incident itself – However, they still did not register the FIR. [Para 69]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.156, 157(1) – Police Act, 1861 – ss.23, 24 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302 r/w 149, 217, 218 – Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – ss.3(2)(i), 4:

Held: The purpose of an investigation is to reach to the truth – Duty of an Investigating Officer is to lawfully collect evidence – In the present case, the Investigating Officer (A-15) 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 – In order to fulfil his wicked design, he deliberately and willfully violated the mandate of ss.154 and 157(1), CrPC as well as ss.23 and 24, Police Act, 1861. [Para 67] Criminal Jurisprudence – Hostile witness – Meaning – Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.154, 3, 155:

Held: The phrase ‘hostile witness’ is used for a witness who gives a statement contrary to the story of the side for which he/she is a witness – Only because a witness has supported some, though not all, aspects of a case, it would not automatically mean that this witness has to be declared ‘hostile’ – A party can cross-examine its own witness u/s.154 even without getting a declaration of ‘hostility’ – The only restriction to cross-examination u/s.154 is that the party, who seeks to cross-examine its own witness, must obtain the leave of the Court – 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 – There can be several reasons for a witness to turn hostile and the court must also look into these factors while evaluating the evidence given by a hostile witness – The purpose of a Trial Court is to go to the truth of the matter – Whatever evidence is there before the Court must be examined, tested, corroborated (whenever necessary), before a verdict can be finally given. [Paras 31, 36] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.311 – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.165 – Power to summon material witness, or examine person present – Judge’s power to put questions or order production – Powers of Court u/s.311 and s.165, Evidence Act: Held: Power u/s.311, CrPC can be invoked at any stage of the trial, even after the closing of the evidence – Powers of the Court u/s.165, Evidence Act are complementary to s.311, CrPC – Powers u/s.311, CrPC can either be exercised on an application moved by either side to the case or suo moto by the Court – In case a person is not listed as a witness in the charge-sheet but later, the prosecution desires to bring that person as an additional prosecution witness, then the prosecution can move an application to bring this person as a prosecution witness – It is then for the Court to decide whether such a person is required as a witness or not – If the Court finds that such a person should have been examined as a prosecution witness then the Court may allow the application and such a person can be examined as a prosecution witness – Thereafter, the normal course of examination-in-chief, cross-examination, etc. would follow – On the other hand, when the Court calls a person as a Court witness, he can be cross-examined by either side but only with the leave of the Court – Further, the cross-examination is to be restricted only to what was stated by this witness in his/her reply to the questions of the Court, and a Court witness cannot be contradicted to his/her previous statements made before the police i.e. statements u/s.161 of CrPC – However, the special powers of the Court u/s.165, Evidence Act are not impaired or controlled by the provisions of s.162, CrPC – Courts are not barred from putting questions which may contradict the witness with the previous statements made before the police. [Paras 48, 51] Words and Phrases – ‘may’, ‘shall’ – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.311 – Discussed.

Evidence – Hostile witness – Position in India vis-à-vis under English law – Discussed. [Para 30]