The Madras High Court, in an engineering college murder case, said that the educated youngsters did not have the confidence to tell the truth as student witnesses were hostile.
A division bench of the Madras High Court has maintained the conviction and life imprisonment of an engineering student who murdered his classmate inside a classroom in 2016.
The court expressed shock that a talented young woman lost her life owing to a worrisome belief that certain males cannot tolerate rejection.
The court said it had taken the decision with a “heavy heart” and also criticised student witnesses who became hostile throughout the trial, saying they had “let down” the victim.
A bench of Justices N Anand Venkatesh and K K Ramakrishnan said the “brutal and reckless” act of the accused had “snatched away” the woman’s dreams to make it big even as it sharply pointed out that education had failed to build character in the fellow students who had turned hostile and the incident had exposed their “pusillanimity”.
“This court had to say it in no uncertain terms because it’s quite disappointing that the students who saw the incident happening in front of their eyes decided to give a different version in the court… “The deceased was let down by the students in not supporting the prosecution’s case, and it is with a heavy heart that this court has to find that the students failed in their duty to uphold the truth,” the June 15 ruling said.
The prosecution said that the third-year BE Civil Engineering student and the accused, who was studying the same branch, were good friends but when she started to distance herself, he got angry and upset.
our connection, killing in brutality
The victim was in class on August 30, 2016, when the accused reportedly barged into the classroom, attacked her and beat her head repeatedly with a wooden log. An assistant professor who attempted to intercede was also injured. Meanwhile, the accused threatened the class and ran away.
The woman was then transported to a hospital where she died. The police changed the charge to murder after her death and the accused was taken into custody the following day.
The murder weapon was found and the medical evidence proved the victim had sustained several skull fractures and significant damage. The police later filed a chargesheet for offences including murder, trespass, inflicting harm, criminal intimidation and use of obscene words. The trial court convicted the accused, who preferred the present appeal.
“It’s not worth fighting about on social media.
- This is a sad situation where the accused was formerly close to a female student, who eventually distanced herself and the accused could not digest it. There have been several occurrences lately that point to a trend where a male feels justified in killing a girl if she do not maintain a relationship with him after being rejected.
- The wounded witness (assistant professor) has given a testimony which has a greater degree of credibility and there must be extremely solid reasons for dismissing it.
- The event happened in broad daylight, in the classroom yet the kids did not try to overpower the accused. At least they could have spoken the truth to the court.
- Just voicing disagreement and thoughts on social media is not enough, it needs to transfer into action or else the kids would be paper tigers in real life. They should know that it is only a matter of time until any student is subjected to a similar scenario.
- With a sad heart this Court has to find that the students failed in their responsibility to protect the truth and failed the deceased. This is the kind of mentality displayed by so-called educated engineering student.
Punishment confirmed
The court noted that the evidence on record provided a firm foundation for the case of the prosecution and there was no reason to interfere with the judgement of the trial court upholding the conviction of the accused for the murder of his classmate under Section 302 (murder) and other relevant provisions of the IPC
In the evidence on record, the criminal appeal of the individual stands denied and the trial court is directed to take efforts to ensure the presence of the accused person for undergoing the remaining duration of the life sentence granted to him.
