| Headnote |
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 147, 302/149, 323/149, 324/149 and 201/149 – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – s. 3(3)(10) – Matter pertaining to honour killing – Jat girl wanted to marry Jatav boy which infuriated the Jat community – Jat girl and Jatav boy along with another Jatav boy who accompanied them, physically assaulted for 12 hours and killed by accused for violating caste-ridden societal norms – 54 persons charged – Trial court convicted 35 persons for the commission of offences u/ss. 147, 302/ 149, 323/149, 324/149 and 201/149 and s. 3(3)(10) of the SC/ST Act and imposed death sentence on eight of them – However, the High Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment – On appeal, held: From the evidence of four eye-witnesses, the medical and scientific evidence, and documentary evidence it is proved that the youngsters were tortured, then killed by hanging and thereafter, their bodies were cremated – Testimonies of the four eye-witnesses are credible – Inconsistencies and contradictions in their evidence are trivial – Eye-witnesses’ account stating about the involvement of the accused and ascribed specific overt acts to some of them, believed by the courts below – As regards those, not assigned any active role or overt act, there is no doubt that they shared the common object to punish the victims and kill them – Their presence in the Panchayat continuously for nearly 12 hours without any protest lends support to the prosecution version – Relevant portion of the testimony of the hostile witness rightly relied upon by the High Court – Informant not able to mention all the names of those involved due to the trauma of witnessing an egregious crime, is accepted – Recovery of clothes of deceased, recovery of half burnt body remains support the prosecution’s version about the burning of the bodies of the victim – Thus, the murder established beyond doubt – Courts below committed no error in convicting the accused u/s. 302 with the aid of s. 149 – Entire incident squarely falls under the head of anti-social and abhorrent nature of the crime – Thus, order passed by the High Court is upheld, except for three who are acquitted in view of the ambiguity in their identity – Evidence – Witnesses. s. 149 – Unlawful assembly – Vicarious liability u/s. 149 – Held: s. 149 is declaratory of the vicarious liability of the members of an unlawful assembly for acts done in prosecution of the common object of that assembly or for such offences which the members knew would be committed in prosecution of that object – Prosecution need not prove each of the members’ involvement especially regarding which or what act – While overt act and active participation may indicate common intention of the person perpetrating the crime, the mere presence in the unlawful assembly may fasten vicariously criminal liability u/s. 149. B s. 149 – Unlawful assembly – Common object of an assembly – Held: Common object is different from common intention as it does not require a prior concert and a common meeting of minds before the attack – It is enough if each has the same object in view and their number is five or more and that they act as an assembly to achieve that object – Common object of an assembly is to be ascertained from the acts and language of the members composing it, from the surrounding circumstances and the course of conduct adopted by the members. Witnesses: Hostile witness – Evidentiary value – Held: Part of the evidence of the hostile witness which is creditworthy, can be acted upon – Criminal trial. F Protection of – Implementation of Witness Protection Scheme – Need to formulate scheme/guidelines/programmes to safeguard rights of the witnesses. Constitution of India: Art. 136 – Interference by this Court in a criminal appeal by a Special Leave – Governing principles – Stated. Art. 19(1)(a) and Art. 21 – Right to life – Right to life guaranteed to the people also includes in its fold the right to live in a society which is free from crime and fear, and the right of witnesses to testify in courts in free and fair manner without fear or pressure – If one is unable to testify in courts due to threats or other pressures, it is a clear violation of Art. 19(1)(a) and Art. 21 – One of the main reasons for witnesses to turn hostile is that they are not accorded appropriate protection by the State – State to ensure the safety of the witnesses irrespective of case, creed, religion, such that they could safely depose the truth in the court at least in sensitive cases involving those in power, political patronage. Honour killings: Preventive steps, remedial and punitive measures to combat honour crimes – Suggestion of, in Shakti Vahini’s case – Stated. Casteism: Commission of atrocities in the name of castes – Ghastly murders of three youngsters, by physically assaulting them for nearly 12 hours for violating caste-ridden societal norms – Held: Episodes of honour killing demonstrate that the casteism has not been annihilated even after 75 years of independence – Bigotry perpetuated by such caste-based practices impedes the objective of the Constitution of equality for all its citizens – High time for the civil society to react and respond with strong disapproval about the ghastly crimes committed in the name of caste. Administration of justice: Administration of criminal justice – Racial and religiously motivated crimes, if to be treated as aggravating factors for enhanced punishment – Foreign laws-United Kingdom, Canada, United States vis-a-vis Indian laws – Discussed. |
