Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, Justice K. K. Ramakrishnan, Madras High Court

The Madras High Court confirmed the conviction and life sentence imposed on a former engineering student for murdering a fellow third-year student inside the college classroom after she ended her relationship with him.

While dismissing the appeal, the Court expressed strong disappointment over several student eyewitnesses turning hostile and observed that merely expressing dissent on social media without standing up for truth in real life would reduce students to “paper tigers”.

The Court was hearing a criminal appeal filed by the sole accused challenging the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Mahila Court), Karur, whereby he had been convicted for offences under Sections 449, 294(b), 324, 302 and 506(ii) IPC and sentenced, inter alia, to life imprisonment for murder.

A Division Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice K. K. Ramakrishnan, while expressing disappointment over the conduct of several student eyewitnesses who turned hostile during trial despite having witnessed the incident and having previously made statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, remarked:

This Court has to necessarily express its disappointment on the attitude of the students, who were examined as eyewitnesses and who had chosen to become hostile witnesses. In the first place, no attempt was made by any student to prevent the accused person from carrying out the attack. Even after the incident, no attempt was made by the students to overpower the accused person. Even if the students were not forthcoming to act in this manner, the minimum they should have done is to have spoken before the Court. All their statements were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and deposed to the contrary in the dock”.

The Bench further added:

“The student community must understand that it is only a matter of time that a similar incident may happen to any student in a college in such a gruesome fashion. There is no use in merely expressing dissent and expressing views in social media and it has to translate itself into action or else the students will only become paper tigers in real life. This Court had to express it strongly since it is quite disappointing that the students who saw the incident happening in front of their eyes chose to give a different version in the Court. Unless and otherwise acts of this nature are identified and the assailant is punished with the active cooperation of all concerned, it is only bound to continue in future”.

Senior Advocate Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam appeared on behalf of the appellant, while D. Venkatesh, Counsel for State, represented the respondents.

Background

According to the prosecution, the deceased and the accused had earlier been in a relationship. The deceased subsequently chose to distance herself from the accused, which led to animosity on his part. Both had studied in the same Civil Engineering programme, though the accused had discontinued his studies after being debarred from writing examinations due to lack of attendance.

On the day of the incident, the deceased was attending classes in her third year of engineering. The accused allegedly entered the classroom carrying a wooden log, abused her, and repeatedly assaulted her on the head. When the Assistant Professor attempted to intervene, he too was attacked and sustained injuries. The deceased later succumbed to the injuries sustained in the attack.

Following the investigation, the accused was charged under Sections 449, 294(b), 324, 302 and 506(ii) IPC. The Trial Court convicted him and sentenced him to life imprisonment along with other sentences for the remaining offences. The appeal before the High Court challenged that conviction.

Court's Observations

One of the principal contentions raised by the appellant was that the Assistant Professor (PW1) had joined the college only shortly before the incident and had not known the accused earlier. It was argued that in the absence of a Test Identification Parade, identification of the accused in Court was unreliable.

Rejecting the contention, the Court held that a Test Identification Parade is merely an aid to investigation and is not mandatory in every case. The Court emphasised that what mattered was whether the witness's identification in Court was trustworthy.

The Court observed: "It must be borne in mind that a test identification parade is within the realm of investigation in order to help the investigating officer to proceed against the correct accused person during the course of investigation. In other words, it is an aid towards investigation and test identification parade has no role to play in a Court. Insofar as the Court is concerned, what is material is the identification of the accused person by the witness in the dock."

The Court found that PW1 was not merely an eyewitness but also an injured witness who had personally been attacked by the accused during the same occurrence. Consequently, he had ample opportunity to observe the assailant.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Pargan Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), the Court observed that traumatic events often leave a lasting imprint on human memory and that victims or eyewitnesses of such incidents are unlikely to forget the face of the assailant.

The Bench observed: "A person who encounters such an extreme experience is not likely to forget the face of the assailant even for a lifetime."

The Court further held: "In the case in hand, the assailant not only indiscriminately attacked the deceased, but also attacked PW1. Therefore, PW1, remembering the face of the accused person and identifying him in the Court, is a clear possibility."

The Court noted that several student witnesses examined as eyewitnesses had turned hostile. However, it held that this did not undermine the prosecution's case in view of the reliable testimony of PW1 and the corroborative evidence available on record.

The Court also noticed that one witness had identified the accused during the chief examination, but changed his version during cross-examination conducted almost twenty-five months later. The Court concluded that the witness had likely been won over during the intervening period.

The Bench observed: "When PW27 had specifically deposed during chief-examination regarding the identity of the accused person and also the incident, and it is quite shocking that during cross-examination conducted after nearly twenty-five months, PW27 states as if the accused person was not there. Obviously, PW27 has been won over, and therefore, the statement made by PW27 in the cross-examination has to be necessarily eschewed."

The Court found that the medical evidence completely supported the prosecution's version. The post-mortem report showed multiple severe injuries on the head, skull fractures, brain injuries and haemorrhage. The medical opinion confirmed that the deceased died due to injuries to the brain and skull.

According to the Court, the ocular testimony of PW1 stood fully corroborated by the medical evidence, leaving no room for doubt regarding the manner of assault.

The Court also dealt with objections relating to the recovery of the wooden log used in the assault. While criticising the investigating officer's version regarding recovery, the Court held that such lapses could not outweigh the overwhelming evidence otherwise available on record.

The Court observed: "Just because there is a lapse on the part of the investigating officer to have shown a recovery, that by itself will not discredit the case of the prosecution since the recovery of MO1 is evident from the deposition of PW15."

The Bench further remarked: "PW31 goofed up the investigation in a case which was otherwise an open and shut case."

The Court also expressed strong disappointment regarding the conduct of student eyewitnesses who either failed to intervene during the attack or later turned hostile before the Court.

The Bench observed that even after the incident, no attempt was made by the students to overpower the accused person. Even if the students were not forthcoming to act in this manner, the minimum they should have done was to have spoken before the Court.

Expressing its disappointment in strong terms, the Court added: "With a heavy heart, this Court has to hold that the students had let down the deceased by not supporting the case of the prosecution and thus they failed in their duty to uphold truth."

The Bench further observed: "This is the type of attitude that was exhibited by the so-called educated students, who were doing an Engineering Course. The education did not really build up a character in the students, and rather, each of the students, who turned hostile, exhibited pusillanimity."

Conclusion

The Court concluded that “in the light of the clinching evidence available in the form of PW1, which has also been corroborated sufficiently, minor discrepancies do not really touch the core of the matter and it does not in any way discredit the case of the prosecution”.

The Court added that the “evidence established a strong substratum to the case of the prosecution and there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court”.

Finding that the trial Court had considered the entire evidence in a proper perspective and had rightly convicted and sentenced the accused person, the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentences imposed by the Trial Court.

Cause Title: Udayakumar v. The State (Neutral Citation: 2026:MHC:2128)

Appearances

Appellant: Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam, Senior Counsel for Advocate K. M. Karunakaran.

Respondent: D. Venkatesh, Counsel for State.

Click here to read/download Judgment

Tags: