In a landmark Supreme Court judgment on honour killing delivered on April 28, 2025, the Apex Court of India comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra upheld the life sentences of several individuals, including two police officers, in the KP Tamilmaran v. State case involving the honour killing of a Dalit boy and a Vanniyar girl in Tamil Nadu. The couple, Murugesan and Kannagi, were brutally murdered in 2003 for marrying against caste norms, exposing the deep-rooted caste hierarchy still prevalent in Indian society. Calling the act a “wicked and odious crime,” the Court strongly condemned the misuse of caste identity as justification for violence, labelling it an “ugly reality” that must attract strict punishment.
This blog explores the background of the case, the Supreme Court’s observations on honour killings, the legal provisions applied including the IPC and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and the broader impact of this ruling on caste-based violence and victim justice in India.
Read Also: Visually Impaired Eligible for Judicial Services: SC
Background of the Honour Killing Case
In the shocking case at the centre of the Honour Killing Supreme Court Judgment 2025, a young inter-caste couple from Tamil Nadu. Murugesan, a Dalit and a chemical engineering graduate, and Kannagi, from the dominant Vanniyar caste, secretly married on May 5, 2003, anticipating familial opposition due to their caste differences. Both were brutally murdered for choosing love over caste norms.
The couple got married in secret in May 2003, fearing backlash due to their different caste backgrounds. Just two months later, on July 7, 2003, they were allegedly abducted and poisoned by the girl’s own family members. Their bodies were quickly cremated in secret to hide all traces of the crime.
What followed was not just a failure of family morality, but also a grave breakdown in law enforcement. Two police officers; Sub-Inspector K.P. Tamilmaran and Inspector M. Sellamuthu were found to have manipulated the investigation. They not only delayed filing the First Information Report (FIR) but also falsely implicated innocent Dalits and protected the actual culprits from the Vanniyar community.
Due to growing public outrage and demands for justice, the case was handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in 2004. After years of delay, the CBI filed charges in 2005, and the trial began. Eventually, 18 years (2021) after the murder 13 of the 15 accused were convicted by the Trial Court. The High Court later modified some of the sentences, including converting one death penalty to life imprisonment.
When the case reached the Supreme Court, the Bench upheld the convictions, particularly emphasizing the caste-based motivation behind the murder. It called the crime a “dishonourable act masked as honour” and a product of deep-rooted caste discrimination. The Court reaffirmed that such honour killings must be met with strong punishment, sending a clear message against caste-based violence in India.
Read Also: SC on Live-in Relationships: No Rape If Mutual
Sections Applied in the Honour Killing of Supreme Court Judgment 2025
In this major Supreme Court judgment on honour killing, the Court dealt with multiple sections from the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, reflecting the caste-based violence and criminal conspiracy behind the brutal double murder.
- Section 302 IPC – Punishment for Murder: Section 302 deals with the punishment for committing murder. Anyone found guilty under this section can be sentenced to death or life imprisonment, along with a fine. The main accused were found guilty of intentionally murdering Murugesan and Kannagi due to their inter-caste marriage. The Supreme Court upheld the life imprisonment of several convicts under this section.
- Section 149 IPC – Unlawful Assembly with Common Intention: Section 149 punishes every member of an unlawful group if a crime is committed by any one member in furtherance of the group’s shared intention. A group of 13 accused acted together to plan and execute the honour killing, making all of them equally liable under Section 149.
- Section 217 IPC – Public Servant Disobeying Direction of Law to Save a Person: This section applies when a public servant (like a police officer) knowingly fails to follow the law to protect someone guilty. Inspector M. Sellamuthu and SI K.P. Tamilmaran were found guilty of protecting the main accused by not registering the FIR and tampering with evidence. They were convicted under this section.
- Section 218 IPC – Framing Incorrect Record or Writing with Intent to Save a Person: This section punishes a public servant who creates or alters records with the intention of helping someone escape punishment. The officers had falsified evidence and wrongly implicated innocent Dalit individuals to protect Kannagi’s family. The Supreme Court upheld this serious misconduct.
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Sections 3(2)(i) and 4
Section 3(2)(i) – Offence Attracting Death or Life Imprisonment Committed Against SC/ST Person: If someone commits a serious crime like murder against a Scheduled Caste or Tribe member because of their caste, this section applies. It ensures enhanced punishment in such hate crimes. Murugesan was a Dalit, and the crime was motivated by caste prejudice. This section was rightly invoked to address caste-based hate crime.
Section 4-Negligence by Public Servants: Section 4 punishes public servants who neglect their duty in protecting SC/ST individuals or fail to act when atrocities are committed against them. The Court held both officers guilty under this section for failing to act and instead targeting innocent Dalits, showing systemic bias in law enforcement.
Read Also: Right to Be Considered for Promotion: SC’s Judgment
Supreme Court Observations: Strong Stand Against Honour Killings and Caste-Based Violence
In the landmark case of K.P. Tamilmaran v. State by Deputy Superintendent of Police (2025 INSC 576), the Supreme Court of India, through a two-judge Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, delivered a strong and meaningful judgment on honour killing, calling it an ugly reality of India’s caste system.
“A crime is an act against the State. But a wicked and odious crime, as the one we have just dealt with, is the ugly reality of our deeply entrenched caste structure. Honour-killing, as these are called, must get a strong measure of punishment.”
This statement underscores the Court’s recognition of the heinous nature of caste-based honour killings and the necessity for stringent punishment. The Court also recognized the need for victim compensation, stating:
“We are also of the opinion that victim compensation here is warranted.”
This statement reflects the Court’s deep concern for justice for the victim’s family and the broader need to tackle caste-based atrocities.
- Addressing Systemic Failures and Police Misconduct: The Court also highlighted the systemic failures in law enforcement, particularly the role of police officers who were complicit in the crime. It was noted that:
“A-14 and A-15 both had committed the offences under Section 217 IPC and Section 4 of the SC/ST Act as they neglected their duties and disobeyed the law by not registering the FIR at the first instance with the intention to save the culprits.”
This observation reflects the Court’s stance on police accountability and the importance of upholding justice without bias.
- Delay in Justice and Hostile Witnesses: A Harsh Reality: The Court strongly criticized the delays in the criminal justice system, which often leads to witnesses turning hostile a major reason why such cases fail.
“One of the many reasons for witnesses turning hostile is the long delay usually caused in a trial. This is again unfortunate but true in our country. The present case is no exception. Here, the incident occurred in the year 2003, the case was committed to Sessions in the year 2010 and charges were framed as late as in the year 2017, and the judgment was finally pronounced by the Trial Court on 24.09.2021. It took eighteen years!”
The Bench clearly said:
“The benefit of such witnesses turning hostile cannot be given to other accused who were found involved in the offence, on the overwhelming weight of other evidence.”
This highlights the need for a faster trial process and stronger witness protection mechanisms, especially in sensitive cases like honour killings.
- Court’s Powers Under CrPC and Evidence Act: Ensuring Fair Trial: The Court elaborated on the important procedural powers available to judges to ensure justice is not denied due to technical reasons.
“The Courts have been given wide powers to decide on their own if a witness is required to be called or recalled for examination or re-examination and such power under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) can be invoked at any stage of the trial, even after the closing of the evidence.”
It further explained:
“Section 311 CrPC can also be read along with Section 165 of the Evidence Act, as the powers of the Court under Section 165 of the Evidence Act are complementary to Section 311 of CrPC… these powers can either be exercised on an application moved by either side to the case or suo moto by the Court.”
This makes it clear that Courts are empowered to summon or re-summon any witness, ensuring the truth comes out, especially in honour killing cases involving community pressure and caste influence.
- Victim Compensation: Recognizing the Loss: Acknowledging the profound loss suffered by the victims’ families, the Court directed the State of Tamil Nadu to provide compensation:
“We thus award compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) to PW-1 (Samikannu-father of Murugesan) and PW-49 (Chinnapillai – step-mother of Murugesan) jointly, or to the nearest of their kins.”
This directive emphasizes the Court’s commitment to victim rights and the necessity of state responsibility in such cases.
Read Also: Supreme Court Pushes for Generic Prescriptions
Key Takeaways
- Honour killings are a severe violation of human rights and must be met with strict legal consequences.
- The caste system continues to perpetuate violence and discrimination, necessitating judicial intervention.
- Police officers must be held accountable for their actions, especially when they fail to uphold the law.
- Victim compensation is essential in acknowledging and addressing the suffering of affected families.
Landmark Supreme Court Judgments Against Honour Killings in India
- Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018): In this landmark case, the Supreme Court declared that any interference by Khap Panchayats or family members in the marriages of consenting adults is unconstitutional. The Court stressed that the right to choose a partner is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution and condemned honour killings as barbaric and unacceptable. IPC Section 302 (murder), Section 141 (unlawful assembly), Section 506 (criminal intimidation) applied in this case.
- Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006): The Supreme Court upheld the right of adult women to marry partners of their choice, even across caste or religion. The Court warned against threats or violence from family members and emphasized that such honour-based violence is illegal and unconstitutional. Mainly Section 302 (murder) been applied which is used for punishing perpetrators of honour killings.
- Vikas Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Nitish Katara Case, 2016): In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the life sentence awarded to Vikas and Vishal Yadav for the honour killing of Nitish Katara, who was in a relationship disapproved by the woman’s influential family. The Court termed the act a “rarest of rare” crime driven by caste pride and family honour. IPC Section 302 (murder), Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) applied in this case.
These Supreme Court rulings show a strong and consistent legal stand against honour killings in India, emphasizing constitutional rights, the illegality of caste-based violence, and strict application of IPC provisions.
Final Thoughts
The Supreme Court’s verdict in this honour killing case sends a clear message that crimes rooted in the caste system will not be tolerated. The Court has emphasized the need for strong punishment to stop such brutal acts and has also recognized the importance of victim compensation. This judgment strengthens the fight against caste-based violence and protects the fundamental right of every individual to marry freely and live with dignity.
