Honour Killing Judgment Sends Wrong Signals
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2020-07-02 18:19:54
About the Author
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
It is unfortunate that a division bench of the Madras High Court reversed the decision of the trial court and set free a person accused of criminal conspiracy and murder, relying on the failure of the prosecution to provide CCTV footage of an ATM withdrawal but ignoring the clinching evidence of his daughter. B. Chinnasamy, accused of hiring killers to kill V. Shankar, a Dalit engineering student, who had married his daughter Kowsalya against his wishes, was released. The bench also asked the state to refund the fine amount the accused had paid as per the trial court's order.
Five assailants had cornered the couple in Udumalpet in Tamil Nadu on March 13. They hacked Shankar to death in broad daylight but failed in their attempt to murder Kowsalya. It was alleged by the prosecution that Chinnasamy had withdrawn Rs 80000 from an ATM from the bank account he jointly held with his wife, between March 12 and 14. He used this money to pay the assailants. A sum of Rs 50000 was recovered from two of the assailants. Part of the money was also used to pay for hiring a room at a lodge where the assailants allegedly stayed before committing the heinous crime.
The High Court said that the failure of the prosecution to submit the CCTV footage of Chinnasamy in the act of withdrawing the money or any other proof that it was him that withdrew the money and that money was used for payments as alleged did not prove criminal conspiracy on his part. It ignored the deposition of Kowsalya who clearly said that her parents, belonging to the dominant upper caste Thevar community were angered by her decision to marry Shankar as he was a Dalit. They had threatened Kowsalya with dire consequences for bringing disrepute to the family. Her testimony proved that Chinnasamy was not concerned about her happiness and was more concerned about family honour. In that sense, he was capable of doing all the acts the prosecution had alleged.
In matters of honour killings, the daughter's testimony regarding the threats received from her family and collaborative evidence in the form of the involvement of any of the family members in getting the act of murder done should normally be enough to nail the accused. It is a well-known fact that it is very difficult to conclusively prove criminal conspiracy in a murder case. Hence, in such honour killing cases, the appellate court should exercise its discretion to provide justice by not ignoring the evidence of the survivor. The court convicted the five assailants for their fatal act in killing Shankar (although it commuted their death sentence to rigorous life imprisonment) but unfortunately freed the person accused of hiring them for the crime. In such cases, the actual act of murder is the culmination of the conspiracy to eliminate those brought dishonor upon the family and the community. This order of the High Court sends a wrong message to casteist forces and khap panchayats all over India.
