Madras High Court Says Students Must Stand for Truth, Not Just Voice Opinions Online

The Madras High Court has made strong observations on the responsibility of students in society, remarking that merely expressing opinions on social media serves little purpose if individuals fail to oppose wrongdoing when it matters. The Court stated that such conduct only creates "paper tigers" who speak loudly online but remain silent in real-life situations.

The observations were made by a Division Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan while dismissing an appeal filed by Udayakumar, a former engineering student convicted of murdering his classmate, Sonali, in 2016. The Bench upheld the life sentence imposed by the trial court.

The case arose from a brutal incident inside a classroom at an engineering college in Karur. According to the prosecution, the accused attacked Sonali with a wooden log after she ended their relationship. An assistant professor who tried to intervene also sustained injuries, while Sonali later died due to severe head injuries.

While examining the evidence, the High Court expressed concern over the conduct of several students who had witnessed the attack. Although many had given statements during the investigation, they later retracted those statements during the trial. The Court observed that even if the students were unable to physically stop the assault, they had a moral and legal duty to tell the truth before the court.

Instead, by turning hostile, they failed both the victim and the justice system.

The Bench further remarked that education should produce individuals with integrity and courage. It observed that remaining silent in the face of crime and

refusing to support the truth reflected a serious lack of character.

The accused had argued that his conviction was unsustainable because no Test Identification Parade (TIP) had been conducted. Rejecting the contention, the Court clarified that a TIP is only an investigative tool and not a mandatory requirement where a witness is capable of identifying the accused in court. The Bench found the testimony of the injured assistant professor to be reliable, noting that a person

who survives such a traumatic incident is unlikely to forget the face of the attacker.

The Court also criticised the investigating officer for introducing an incorrect recovery story regarding the murder weapon, despite eyewitnesses consistently stating that it had remained inside the classroom. However, it held that this investigative lapse did not weaken the otherwise overwhelming evidence establishing the accused's guilt.

Finding the prosecution's evidence consistent and trustworthy, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and life sentence awarded to the accused.