Supreme Court Upholds Convictions in Caste-Based Honor Killings: Hari And Another v. State Of Uttar Pradesh

Introduction

The case of Hari And Another v. State Of Uttar Pradesh (2021 INSC 792) addresses a grievous instance of caste-based honor killings in the state of Uttar Pradesh, India. The Supreme Court of India examined the convictions and sentences of numerous individuals accused of orchestrating and executing the brutal murders of three youths—Vijendra, Ram Kishan, and Roshni—in an act fueled by caste prejudices. This commentary delves into the background of the case, the legal intricacies involved, the Court's reasoning, and the broader implications for Indian jurisprudence.

Summary of the Judgment

The Trial Court had found 54 individuals guilty under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST Act”) for their roles in the heinous murders of three individuals who defied caste norms by attempting an inter-caste marriage. Specifically, 35 accused were convicted and sentenced under sections pertaining to murder, wrongful restraint, criminal force, abetment, and atrocities against Scheduled Castes. Additionally, eight accused were initially sentenced to death, which was later commuted to life imprisonment by the High Court due to mitigating factors such as age and mental suffering. The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed against these decisions, but the Supreme Court upheld the convictions while agreeing with the High Court's commutations. Three appellants were acquitted due to ambiguities in their identification.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Supreme Court extensively referenced several key precedents to shape its judgment:

• Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab (1976): Outlined the principles governing judicial interference in criminal appeals.
• State of MP v. Ramesh (2011): Addressed the treatment of contradictory witness statements in prosecutions.
• Masalti v. State Of U.P. (1964): Established the necessity of at least two witnesses for the involvement of an individual in cases of mob violence.
• Bachan Singh v. State Of Punjab (1980): Provided guidelines for the imposition of the death penalty based on aggravating and mitigating factors.
• Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983): Enumerated factors for considering the imposition of the death sentence.
• United Kingdom and Canada’s sentencing principles: Referenced to discuss racial and religiously motivated crimes as aggravating factors.
• Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018): Directed preventive and remedial measures against honor crimes.

Legal Reasoning

The Court undertook a meticulous examination of both the factual matrix and the legal frameworks applicable to the case:

• Handling of Witnesses: The Supreme Court reinforced that hostile witnesses' testimonies should not be dismissed outright if corroborated by other credible testimonies. In this case, despite some witnesses turning hostile after a prolonged trial period, their initial testimonies aligned with other consistent eyewitness accounts, thereby upholding their credibility.
• Applicability of Section 149 IPC: The Court reiterated that mere presence in an unlawful assembly can result in vicarious liability, especially when the common object of the assembly is criminal. The involvement of multiple accused in orchestrating and executing the murders affirmed their collective culpability.
• Imposition of Death Penalty: Aligning with precedents like Bachan Singh and Machhi Singh, the Court evaluated aggravating factors such as the extreme brutality of the crime and its anti-social nature. However, recognizing mitigating factors like the age and mental suffering of certain accused, the Court concurred with the High Court's decision to commute death sentences to life imprisonment for those individuals.
• Protection of Witnesses: The judgment emphasized the state's obligation to protect witnesses, underscoring failures that may lead to miscarriages of justice. This aligns with broader judicial directions to implement witness protection schemes to ensure unbiased and fear-free testimonies.

Impact

This landmark judgment reinforces the judiciary's stance against caste-based atrocities and honor killings. By upholding the convictions of the majority accused and commending the High Court's judicious commutations, the Supreme Court sets a precedent for stringent actions against caste-driven crimes. Additionally, the emphasis on witness protection signals a progressive move towards safeguarding the integrity of testimonies, thereby strengthening the criminal justice system's efficacy.

The decision also serves as a deterrent against unlawful assemblies and caste-based violence, aligning with constitutional mandates for equality and justice. Furthermore, the acknowledgment of international sentencing principles fortifies India's commitment to global human rights standards.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Section 149 deals with the punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly that commits an offense. An unlawful assembly is defined as five or more persons with a common object to commit any offense or other unlawful act. If any member of such an assembly commits an offense in furtherance of that common object, every member can be held liable, regardless of their direct involvement in the offense.

Hostile Witnesses

A hostile witness is one who is contrary to the defendant's interest or shows reluctance to cooperate with the prosecution. While such witnesses can pose challenges, their testimonies can still be credible if corroborated by other evidence or witnesses. The Court emphasizes careful scrutiny rather than outright dismissal of such testimonies.

Vicarious Liability

Vicarious liability refers to holding an individual responsible for the actions of another, based on their association or role within a group. In this case, members of an unlawful assembly can be held liable for crimes committed to fulfill the assembly's common objective, even if they did not directly participate in the criminal act.

Conclusion