No Use Expressing Dissent On Social Media If One Can't Stand By Truth In Court: Madras High Court To Students Turning Hostile In Murder Trial

The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan remarked that it was disappointing to see students, who witnessed the incident, give a different version in the court.

In this backdrop, it observed that there was no use in merely expressing dissent and views on social media and unless those were translated into action, students would only become “paper tigers” in real life.

“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,” the court said.

The court added that by turning hostile during the trial, the students had 'let down' the deceased and failed in their duty to uphold the truth. The court added that education had not really built the character of students who exhibited a lack of courage by turning hostile.

“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. This is the type of attitude that was exhibited by the so called educated students, who were doing Engineering Course. The education did not really build up a character to the students and rather each of the student, who turned hostile exhibited pusillanimity,” the court said.

The court was hearing a criminal appeal filed by Udayakumar against the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Mahila Court) Karur. The appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 449, 294(b), 324, 302, and 506 (II), and sentenced to life imprisonment along with fine.

As per the prosecution the appellant had proximity with the deceased. Though the deceased and the appellant studied in the same class, the appellant was debarred from writing the exam due to lack of attendance, following which he discontinued his studies. When the deceased abstained herself from having proximity, the appellant became agitated and entertained animosity.

While so, on August 30, 2016, the appellant trespassed into the classroom and assaulted the deceased on her head with a wooden log. When the professor interfered and questioned him, the appellant attacked the professor also. The deceased sustained grievous injuries and later succumbed to her injuries. The professor also suffered injuries to his hand.

The appellant argued that his very identity was in question. The appellant argued that many of the eyewitnesses had either turned hostile or had not seen the actual incident. It was also submitted that the Assistant Professor, who had named the appellant in the FIR, had joined the college only 45 days prior to the incident and did not know the appellant before the incident. The appellant also submitted that no steps were taken to conduct test identification parade and the Assistant Professor had identified the appellant for the first time in court, which was wholly unreliable.

The appellant also argued that there were inconsistencies regarding the recovery of wooden log- which was the material object in the case. Thus, it was argued that in the absence of specific identity of the accused person, the appellant could not be made a scapegoat.

The State, however, argued that the Associate Professor was an injured witness and had seen the accused person at the time of the incident. It was submitted that there was no ground to disbelieve the evidence of the professor. It was argued that lapses in investigation could not wipe out the entire evidence of the professor and hence the conviction and sentence did not warrant interference.

The court observed that it was an unfortunate case where a girl student had suffered grievous injuries because she decided to abstain herself from the accused person, with whom she used to have some proximity. The court added that it had become a trend where a boy, who gets rejected in relationship, thinks that the girl is bound to continue with the relationship, failing which he is justified in even killing the girl.

“This is an unfortunate case where a girl student who used to have some proximity with the accused person chose to abstain herself for some reasons. The accused person was not able to digest this attitude of the deceased girl. It has become a trend in the recent times where a boy, who gets rejected in a relationship, thinks that a girl is bound to continue with the relationship failing which he will be justified in even killing the girl. Very many incidents of this nature has taken place in the recent past…,” the court said.

The court observed that the evidence of the Assistant Professor could not be doubted since he had also suffered injuries on the hands of the appellant. The court also observed that the minor discrepancies which were pointed out by the appellant would not discredit the witness evidence. The court also noted that the Professor's evidence was also supported by the medical evidence.

Thus, finding no reason to interfere with the order of the trial court, the court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the life sentence ordered by the trial court.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam Senior counsel for Mr. K. M. Karunakaran

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. D. Venkatesh Counsel for State

Case Title: Udayakumar v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 255

Case No: Crl. A. (MD)No.301 of 2023