Understanding Love, Rejection and Its Consequences

I just fail to comprehend what sort of love this is that a man kills her if she chooses to stay away from him. How can a man kill a woman just because she does not like him? I most strongly feel that love cannot be forced on anyone, and a man must respect the wishes of the woman who wants to stay away from him and should focus his mind on so many other good things in life and go in refuge of whichever God or Goddess he believes in, and if he does not believe, then he should start believing, and he will soon discover that it gives so much mental peace! But if he does not feel like worshipping, then he should immerse himself in whatever he enjoys doing and should refrain from overthinking! By murdering a woman, a man not only destroys the woman he loved so much and also her family but also simultaneously suffers himself also interminably by spending his life in jail or hanged, and his whole family suffers as a consequence, and the worst affected are his parents, who get a bad name in society for no fault of theirs!

Key Observations on Love and Violence

• Love cannot be forced on anyone.
• A person must respect the wishes of another who chooses to stay away.
• Emotional distress should be addressed through positive activities and constructive engagement.
• Violence destroys not only the victim but also affects families on both sides.
• Criminal actions often result in lifelong consequences for the offender and loved ones.

Madras High Court Upholds Life Sentence In Sonali Murder Case

It is entirely in the fitness of things that the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgement titled Udaykumar Vs State in Crl. A. (MD) No. 301 of 2023 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026:MHC:2128 that was reserved on 10.06.2026 and then finally pronounced on 15.06.2026, has upheld the conviction and life sentence imposed on a man for killing a woman engineering student inside her classroom after she refused to continue her relationship with him.

It must be laid bare that a Division Bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice N Anand Venkatesh and Hon’ble Mr Justice KK Ramakrishnan dismissed the appeal that had been filed by Udayakumar, who had been convicted by a Karur court for murdering Sonali, who was a third-year civil engineering student at Karur College of Engineering. The Court added that such incidents reflected a disturbing trend.

Case Highlights At A Glance

Particulars	Details
Case Title	Udaykumar Vs State
Case Number	Crl. A. (MD) No.301 of 2023
Neutral Citation	2026: MHC: 2128
Court	Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Date Reserved	10.06.2026
Date Pronounced	15.06.2026
Accused	Udayakumar
Victim	Sonali
Outcome	Conviction and Life Sentence Upheld

Opening Observations Of The Court

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgement authored by the Honourable Mr Justice N Anand Venkatesh for a Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth to the state briefly that "The sole accused has assailed the judgement and order of the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Mahila Court), Karur, made in SC No. 24 of 2017 dated 01.02.2022 in this appeal, wherein he was convicted and sentenced, which was ordered to run concurrently.”

Prosecution Case Background

To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 2 while elaborating on the prosecution case that,

“The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Sonali had proximity with the accused person for sometime. Later, she abstained herself from having proximity and as a result, the accused person became agitated and entertained animosity. The deceased was studying at Karur College of Engineering, IIIrd year BE Civil Engineering. The accused person also used to study in the same college in the same branch, but, however, due to lack of attendance, he was debarred from writing the exams and therefore he discontinued his studies. On 30.08.2016, at about 9.00 a.m., PW1 was taking classes and was instructing the students, at about 10.30 a.m., the accused person is said to have trespassed into the classroom and scolded the de-facto complainant in filthy language and assaulted the deceased on her head indiscriminately with a wooden log (MO1) and as a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and later succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. In the course of the same transaction, when PW1 came to the rescue of the deceased, he was also attacked by the accused person causing injury on his left wrist. Thereafter the accused person intimidated all those persons in the classroom and fled away from that place.”

Key Allegations at a Glance

Particulars	Details
Deceased	Sonali, a third-year BE Civil Engineering student
Accused	Former student of the same college and branch
Date of Incident	30.08.2016
Location	Classroom at Karur College of Engineering
Weapon	Wooden log (MO1)
Allegation	Attack on deceased and injury caused to PW1

Trial Court Findings and Conviction

As it turned out, the Division Bench enunciates in para 15 that,

“The trial Court, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused person in the manner stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal appeal has been filed before this Court.”

Court Observations on Rejected Relationship Crimes

Be it noted, the Division Bench notes in para. 20 that,

“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 and this is one such case where a girl, who was studying in the third year Engineering was present in the classroom and the enraged boy barges into the classroom and attacks the girl indiscriminately on her head with a wooden log and the girl sustained grievous injuries and ultimately succumbs to the injuries. Due to the reckless gory act on the part of the boy, the life of a girl, who had dreams to make it big has been snatched away. To make things worse, this incident takes place in broad day light in the presence of other students in the classroom and the Assistant Professor, who questions the accused person is also attacked, as a result of which, he sustained injuries.”

Credibility of Injured Witness

It is also worth noting that the Division Bench notes in para. 28 that,

“This Court must also keep in mind the fact that the testimony of an injured witness requires higher degree of credibility and there must be very strong reasons for discarding the same. Therefore, PW1 identifying the accused person in the dock after the incident, cannot be doubted and the finding of the trial Court is sustainable.”

Important Principle Regarding Injured Witnesses

• Testimony of an injured witness carries higher evidentiary value.
• Strong reasons are required to discard such testimony.
• PW1's identification of the accused was accepted as reliable.
• The trial court's findings were held to be sustainable.

Minor Discrepancies in Evidence

It cannot be lost sight of that the Division Bench points out in para. 29 that,

“The learned Senior Counsel pointed out certain discrepancies between the complaint given by PW1 and the evidence tendered before the Court. The discrepancies that were pointed out by the learned Senior counsel for the appellant touched upon the colour of the dress that was worn by the accused person and which is said to be the uniform of the college, the manner in which the complaint was given to the police, naming the accused person in the complaint without even knowing the accused person prior to the incident etc. All these are minor discrepancies which will not discredit the evidence of PW1.”

Discrepancies Highlighted by the Defence

• Colour of the accused person's dress.
• Whether it was the college uniform.
• Manner in which the complaint was lodged.
• Naming the accused in the complaint.

The Court concluded that these were minor discrepancies and did not affect the credibility of PW1.

Evidence of PW2 (Assistant Professor)

Do note, the Division Bench notes in para. 30 that,

“PW2 was also working as an Assistant Professor in the same college and he has stated that a loud noise was heard from the classroom and when he rushed to the classroom, he found the deceased in the floor unconscious with grievous head injuries. Even though PW2 would not have seen the incident, he was present immediately after the incident and ascertained that the attack had taken place and it was done by the accused person. He was one of the person who took the injured to the hospital.”

Hostile Witnesses: PW3 to PW5

Do also note, the Division Bench then notes in para. 31 that,

“PW3 to PW5, who were the students and were examined as eyewitnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and they were treated as hostile witnesses.”

Status of Key Student Witnesses

Witnesses	Status
PW3	Hostile Witness
PW4	Hostile Witness
PW5	Hostile Witness

Evidence of PW27 and Delay in Cross-Examination

Do further note, the Division Bench further notes in para. 32 that,

“PW26 is another student, who has turned hostile. PW27 is also a student, who describes about the incident and the attack made by the accused person on the deceased with MO1. He knows the accused person since he also studied in the same college. He states that he informed PW1 about the incident and the learned Senior counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the evidence of PW27, PW1 could not have seen the incident. This submission is only liable to be rejected outright. PW1 is an injured witness in the same incident and therefore, one stray statement should not be blown out of proportion and the evidence of PW27 must be considered as a whole. To a large extent, the evidence of PW27 corroborates the evidence of PW1 and also the identity of the accused person. Chief examination of PW27 happened on 25.04.2019 and he was not cross-examined immediately. He was recalled and cross-examined only on 24.09.2021 and during cross-examination this witness makes a curious statement that the accused was not there at the time of incident. This Court recalls the judgment in Dharmaraj v. The Inspector of Police, Athanakottai Police Station, Pudhukottai District reported in 2015 (2) LW (Crl.) 458 and the judgment in Rasukannu @ Rengasamy and Karthik v. State through the Inspector of Police, Alangudi Police Station, Pudukottai District reported in 2018 (1) MLJ 306, where it has been held that if a witness has been cross-examined after a long interval from the date of chief examination, such evidence cannot be disregarded/eschewed if there are circumstances to show that he/she might have been won over by the other side during the interregnum period has been cross-examined after a long interval from the date of chief examination, such evidence cannot be disregarded/eschewed if there are circumstances to show that he/she might have been won over by the other side during the interregnum period.”

Timeline of PW27 Testimony

Event	Date
Chief Examination	25.04.2019
Cross-Examination	24.09.2021
Gap	Approximately 25 Months

Court Findings on PW27

Quite rationally, the Division Bench observes in para. 33 that,

“In the case in hand, 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.”

Reasons for Rejecting Cross-Examination Version

• PW27 clearly identified the accused during the chief examination.
• The contradiction surfaced after a gap of nearly 25 months.
• The Court found the change in version suspicious.
• The cross-examination statement was therefore eschewed.

Recovery of MO1 (Wooden Log)

It merits noting that the Division Bench notes in para. 36 that,

“A lot of hue and cry was made regarding the recovery of MO1. It is the consistent evidence of the witnesses that the accused person had dropped MO1 in the classroom before fleeing from the place of occurrence. As usual, the investigating officer, who probably does not even have the fundamental knowledge in conducting of investigation, mechanically comes up with the theory of recovery of MO1 from a bush after the arrest of the accused person. It has become a routine practice in all cases to show a recovery after the arrest of an accused person. Obviously MO1 was available in the scene of crime and it has been spoken to by PW15, who was a witness to the observation mahazar Ex.P11. 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.”

Court Observations on MO1 Recovery

• Witnesses consistently stated that MO1 was dropped in the classroom.
• The prosecution version regarding recovery after arrest was questioned.
• PW15's testimony supported the presence of MO1 at the crime scene.
• The lapse by the investigating officer did not weaken the prosecution case.

Postmortem Doctor Evidence and Identification of MO1

It would be instructive to note that the Division Bench hastens to add in para 37, noting that “PW24, who is the postmortem doctor, has further confirmed in his evidence that the injuries sustained by the deceased are capable of being caused by MO1. Therefore, the identification of MO1 in this case is quite apparent, and it cannot be discredited just because PW31 goofed up the investigation in a case which was otherwise an open and shut case.”

Common Sense and Circumstantial Evidence in Criminal Trials

Most significantly, the Division Bench encapsulates in para. 38 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgement, postulating precisely that, “While deciding a criminal case, common sense also plays a major role. The incident had taken place inside a classroom in a college. It is impossible for a total stranger to get into a college and enter a classroom during the working hours. The security arrangements are such that no one will be allowed inside the college without proper identity. The accused in this case was a student in the same college. He was debarred from the writing examination for some reasons. He is said to have entered the college by wearing the college uniform. Therefore, there was a smooth entry for the accused person into the college, and he specifically gets into the classroom in which the deceased was present.

This also shows that the accused person is well aware of the topography of the college. Hence, there is no reason for some rank third party to get into the college and attack the deceased without a motive. The motive in this case is the broken relationship between the deceased and the accused, and the disgruntled accused person barged into the college and attacked the deceased. This perfectly falls in line with the case projected by the prosecution, and there is absolutely no reason to doubt this version given by the prosecution.”

Key Findings Highlighted by the Court

• The incident occurred inside a college classroom during working hours.
• A stranger could not have easily entered the college premises.
• The accused was a student of the same college.
• The accused allegedly entered wearing the college uniform.
• The accused was familiar with the college layout and classroom location.
• The prosecution established motive arising from a broken relationship.
• The circumstances supported the prosecution's version of events.

Factor Considered by the Court	Court's Observation
Location of Incident	Inside a college classroom during working hours
Access to College	Restricted by security and identity checks
Identity of Accused	Student of the same college
Knowledge of Premises	Well aware of the college topography
Motive	Broken relationship with the deceased
Prosecution Version	Found consistent with established facts

Court Disappointment Over Hostile Student Witnesses

Most forthrightly, the Division Bench laments in para. 39, holding explicitly that, “This Court has to necessarily express its disappointment in 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 they depose to the contrary in the dock. 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 on 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 the future. 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 courses. The education did not really build up a character to the students, and rather, each of the students, who turned hostile, exhibited pusillanimity.”

Court Observations on Student Conduct

• Students examined as eyewitnesses turned hostile.
• No effort was allegedly made to stop the attack.
• No attempt was made to overpower the accused after the incident.
• Statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were not supported in court.
• The court emphasised the importance of supporting the administration of justice.
• The Court viewed the conduct of hostile witnesses with serious concern.

Clinching Evidence and Upholding Conviction

As a corollary, the Division Bench then propounds in para 40 holding 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.

Rather, the evidence established a strong substratum to the case of the prosecution, and there is no reason to interfere with the judgement of the trial court. The trial court has considered the entire evidence in a proper perspective and has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused person in the manner stated supra.”

Reasons for Confirming the Trial Court Verdict

• PW1's evidence was found reliable and sufficiently corroborated.
• Minor discrepancies did not affect the core prosecution case.
• The prosecution established a strong evidentiary foundation.
• The trial court evaluated the evidence from the correct perspective.
• The conviction and sentence were found justified.

Dismissal of Criminal Appeal and Final Directions

Finally, the Division Bench then aptly concludes by directing and holding in para. 41 that, “The upshot of the above discussion leads to only one conclusion: that this criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the criminal appeal shall stand dismissed, and the judgement and order dated 01.02.2022 passed in S.C.No.24 of 2017 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Mahila Court), Karur, is hereby confirmed.

The trial court shall take steps to secure the presence of the accused person to undergo the remaining period of sentence.”

Final Outcome of the Case

Issue	Outcome
Criminal Appeal	Dismissed
Trial Court Judgment	Confirmed
Conviction and Sentence	Upheld
Further Direction	The accused is to be secured for remaining sentence period

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A - 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.