Satya Prakash
Tribune News Service
New Delhi, 28 November
More than 30 years after two youths and a woman were subjected to honor killings for violating caste-based social norms in Uttar Pradesh’s Barsana, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of 23 accused and found three others in their identities. He was acquitted on account of ambiguity. ,
A bench headed by Justice LN Rao lamented that even after 75 years of independence, caste-motivated violence and honor killings are taking place in India, which is obstructing the constitutional objective of equality.
“These episodes of caste driven violence in the country demonstrate the fact that casteism has not been eradicated even after 75 years of independence. According to Dr. BR Ambedkar, inter-caste marriage is a way to get rid of casteism to achieve equality. His vision to ensure justice and equality for all sections of the society, especially the oppressed classes, is well enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution. Bigotry to such caste-based practices, which is prevalent even today, obstructs this objective of the Constitution of equality for all its citizens,” the bench said.
Looking at Roshni’s proposal of marriage with Vijendra-Jatav, who belongs to the Jat community, the top court said, “Though the numbers are a little small, honor killing has not stopped in this country and it is high time that civil society Responds and reacts with strong disapproval regarding heinous crimes committed in the name of caste.”
Recalling the directions of the administrative officers and police officers to take stringent measures to stop the honor killings and the Law Commission report on the issue, the Bench emphasized that those “brutal and feudal minded persons” should be punished harshly. It has been recommended to punish those who commit atrocities in the name. Of caste.
Twenty witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and four witnesses were presented by the defence. When the trial resumed in 1998, 12 of the 20 prosecution witnesses turned hostile. The trial was put on hold for six years between 1992 and 1998 due to orders passed by the Allahabad High Court.
“Even if the witnesses have turned hostile, their evidence may be accepted if they are natural and independent witnesses and they have no reason to falsely implicate the accused,” it said, adding that, as a defender of its citizens, the State shall ensure that during a trial a witness can safely narrate the truth, without any fear of being haunted by those against whom he has made a statement.
Referring to an earlier judgment of the apex court, the bench said, “This unfortunate situation has arisen because the State has not taken any protective measures to ensure the safety of these witnesses, who are commonly referred to as ‘witness protection’. I am known.”