Arushi Talwar Case: Applications for Addition Evidence may be rejected if the object is to stall proceedings

Is a criminal court bound to entertain the plea of accepting additional evidence? In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court answered the question in negative.

In a ground breaking development in the already long and controversial Arushi Talwar murder case, a two judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court comprising of Dr. B.S. Chauhan and S.A. Bobde, JJ rejecting the plea of the petitioners seeking for the reports of the Narco-analysis tests, brain mapping tests, polygraph tests, lie detector tests and psychological tests conducted on the 3 persons arrested for allegedly helping the petitioners in the commission of the offence,recently held that the petitioners were adopting dilatory tactics in the trial as the learned Trial Judge who has been conducting the trial is likely to retire very soon. 

In order to arrive at the conclusion the Court considered the fact that the petitioners had not raised any previous objection regarding non-supply of the reports and documents allegedly proved by the witnesses to them or them not being made part of the Court record. They had even participated in the examination and cross-examination of two witnesses. The Hon'ble Court opined that criminal courts are not obliged to accede to the request made by any party to entertain and allow application for additional evidence and in fact, are bound by terms of Section 233(3) Cr.PC. to refuse such request if it appears that they are made in order to vex the proceedings or delay the same.

The full order of the court can be found here

“Special Reasons” for Death Penalty under Section 354(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure

Under Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Code”), the court has to provide ‘special reasons’ before death sentence can be awarded to a convict. In a recent case (Deepak Rai v. State of Bihar), a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) has clarified as to what constitutes “special reasons” under the Code. In the instant case, the appellant-accused, along with other accused, burnt seven persons alive which included a man, his wife and his five children. The incident took place when the deceased man, along with his wife and children, was sleeping at his house. Though the deceased man was burnt alive by putting kerosene over him, his wife and children were fire trapped inside the room which they were sleeping in. It had been pointed out in the judgment that the appellant had committed the crime after the deceased man refused to withdraw a theft case against him.

(Image Source: Fatih University MUN Website)

In this post, I am culling out the relevant part wherein court has discussed Section 354(3) of the Code. The judgment is fairly long and it discusses a number of cases where death penalty has been awarded and rejected. The case involved two main issues: (i) whether the reasons assigned the courts below, for awarding death sentence, are ‘special reasons’, and (ii) whether the impugned matter falls into the category of ‘rarest of rare crimes’. In this post, it is the first issue which I am dealing with.

Who can prefer an appeal before the Supreme Court

A landmark legal development has been the United States Supreme Court's branding of the contentious Federal Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA) as unconstitutional in Hollingsworthv. Perry. While doing so it also rejected an appeal from a Californian lower court's decision invalidating Proposition 8, a statute that sought to discriminate against homosexual people. In fact, the court refused to go into the merits of Proposition 8 stating that the appellants did not have the requisite locus standi to invoke the court's (Supreme Court's) jurisdiction as the appeal was not preferred by the State of California but by a group of private individuals who had sponsored the proposition.

The decision is particularly important in the Indian context as an appeal against the Delhi High Court's 2009 Naz Foundation judgment is pending before the Indian Supreme Court. In that decision the High Court deemed Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code to be unconstitutional for criminalizing sexual relations between consenting homosexual adults. The interesting point about the appeal is that the original respondents to the case, The National Capital of Delhi and The Union of India haven't preferred it, with the Attorney General unequivocally stating the Government's full acceptance of the High Court's verdict. Who then are the appellants? They are a motley of private individuals from different sections of the society, thus giving rise to obvious jurisdictional issues. In light of the US Supreme Court verdict the Indian Supreme Court may not even go into the merits of the case as the appellants, not being the state but private individuals, do not have the right to enforce the statute they seek to defend, thereby invalidating their locus standi. However, will the Supreme Court follow this route? In an erudite and brilliantly written piece Mr. Vikram Raghavan, a senior counsel with the World Bank, has sought to elucidate this interesting legal principle.

Death Penalty - Uncertain Procedure and Life of an Individual

“The judgment does not, with respect, indicate the material that led this Court to conclude what aroused the intense and extreme indignation of the community. Except the nature of the crime, it is not clear on what basis it concluded that the criminal was a menace to society and “shall continue to be so and he cannot be reformed” ( Supreme Court in “Sangeet & Ors. v. State of Haryana” )

Given the grave nature of certain crimes, imposition of Death Penalty has, for a long time, come out to be a proper way of their valid redressal. But, what constitutes this grave nature that will make a crime qualify to be a “rarest of the rare crime”? This has rather been a matter of dispute.

Recent decision of the apex court in the case of Sangeet & Ors v. State of Haryana (decided on Nov. 20, 2012) has once again thrown light on the debate surrounding the issue of death penalty. In this case, an entire family but one was brutally murdered. Considering the nature of crime to be heinous, appellants were sentenced to death by the trail court which, on appeal, was confirmed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. While discussing the issue, Supreme Court referred to the two landmark judgments Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P. (1973) 1 SCC 20, decided in accordance with former CrPC Code (1898), and Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684, decided in accordance with the fresh CrPC Code (1973). A number of other cases were also discussed in the judgment.

Change in the nature of Sentencing w.r.t “Death Penalty”- Since 1974, when a fresh CrPC (1973) came into force, the nature of sentencing in cases, where maximum punishment is death penalty, has significantly changed. In earlier code, death penalty appears to be the rule and life sentence an exception (as also other sentences).[1] Contrary to this, under the fresh code, death penalty appears to be exception and life imprisonment a rule.[2]

Ultimately, considering the uncertainty in the procedure governing death penalty in this case, appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court and death sentences were converted into life imprisonment.


"The Constitution Bench made it absolutely clear that the suggestions given by learned counsel were only indicators and not an attempt to make an exhaustive enumeration of the circumstances either pertaining to the crime or the criminal. The Constitution Bench hoped and held that in view of the “broad illustrative guide-lines” laid down, the Courts “will discharge the onerous function with evermore scrupulous care and humane concern, directed along the highroad of legislative policy outlined in Section 354(3) [of the Cr.P.C.] viz. that for persons convicted of murder, life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence an exception." - para 28 

Earlier this year, I came across an article titled “A case against the death penalty”, published on Frontline, which thoroughly examined the issue of death penalty and inconsistencies therein. If one compares this article with the judgment in Sangeet case, the debatable issues are principally the same. Article highlighted a group of retired judges who came in rescue of those wrongly convicted with death sentences. Unfortunately, two of the convicts, who were wrongly convicted, were already executed in 1996 and 1997. According to the retired judges, this “constituted the gravest known miscarriages of justice in the history of crime and punishment in independent India.”

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950, provides to every person a life and personal liberty. This right of life and personal liberty can only be taken away by a procedure established by law. In the light of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, it has now become clear that this procedure cannot be “arbitrary, unfair, oppressive or unreasonable”. In India, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, empowers the judges to provide a death penalty, and for doing so, reasons are to be noted. But what are the criteria for providing these reasons? Seeing the absence of any such proper mechanism, Supreme Court, in the case of Bachan Singh (supra), came up with certain principles. Unfortunately, these principles have not been followed uniformly. In Bachan Singh (supra), court was of the opinion that due weightage should be given to both the crime and the criminal, instead of crime alone. It was also held that death penalty should be given only in rarest of rare crime. Further, Section 235 of CrPC empowers the judge for giving a judgment once the arguments are heard. Of Course, discretion should be left to the judge deciding a particular case. But, should the life of a person be made subject only to this discretion? Should not there be certain basic principles to be followed with certainty? In the absence of such a certainty, life of a person will depend merely on the what a judge thinks of. There can be a situation when one judge may provide a death sentence, but other judge, on the same facts and circumstances, may not. Whether it should be crime and criminal, or the criminal alone, is a matter which needs thorough deliberation. Reverting back, do all these circumstances leave the procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution  as reasonable? In my opinion, the substantive part of the procedure under Article 21 needs more clarity as far as the death penalty is concerned. In the absence of such a clarity, the life of an individual, though an accused, will be at stake. It is true that certain crime are so grave that death penalty may be warranted for it. Nonetheless, procedure of providing death penalty should have some certainty

From the judgment of the Court in Sangeet Case, and also other cases mentioned therein, it is clear that  in awarding death sentence, there has not been a consistency in the principles followed. Much discretion is provided to the judge in determining what constitutes rarest of rare crime. This uncertainty in the decisions is also because of the change in the judges serving the apex and other courts. It is high that that, if not abolition, then a uniformity should appear in such grave convictions.

contact - abhinav.s@nujs.edu

---

[1]See Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 367(5)

[2] See Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 354(3)

Importance of evidence in "Dowry Death"

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, term dowry can be defined as the property which a woman brings to her husband in marriage, or the effects which the wife brings to the husband to support the expenses of marriage. Webster dictionary defines “Dowry” as the money, goods, or estate that a woman brings to her husband in marriage. Section 2 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 defines “Dowry” as any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly between the concerned parties before or after the marriage as a consideration for the same.

The tradition of dowry was originated in ancient India, and it was generally provided to enable a woman to support her in crisis, and also to support her husband and children if needed. But, the purpose for which it was created lost its significance over a period of time and now it has become a tradition followed in many parts of the country. A large number of cases are witnessed by various courts throughout the country daily, and many of them have “Dowry death” as its subject matter. Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines “Dowry Death” and it states that if the death of a woman is caused under 7 years of her marriage under normal circumstances, and if there is enough evidence to prove that woman was subjected to some kind of cruelty or harassment by her husband or any of his relatives while demanding dowry, such death would come under the category of “Dowry Death”. But, it becomes important to understand the role of evidence in such cases. Section 498-A of the same act relates to the cruelty on a woman by her husband or nay of his relatives. These two sections play a very important role while deciding the case pertaining to the issue of dowry death, along with Section 300 and 299 which are related to the issue of “Culpable Homicide” and “Murder”. Murder and Culpable homicide become important to consider because in cases pertaining to the issue of “Dowry Death”, death of a woman is caused and it is very important to relate that death with these provision so as to decide whether the deceased was murdered or not.

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, term “evidence” can be defined as any species of proof, or probative matter, legally presented at the trial of an issue, by the act of the parties and through the medium of witnesses, records, documents, concrete objects, etc., for the purpose of including belief in the minds of the court or jury as to their contention. The same has to be distinguished from proof and testimony. Evidence is such kind of proofs which can be presented in front of the court when are where needed to be presented. Testimony means only such evidence as is delivered by a witness on the trial of a cause, either orally or in the form of affidavits or depositions.

Offences committed under Section 304-B and 498-A are non-bailable offence which makes difficult for the accused person to get bail, and courts remain careful while granting bail in cases relating to dowry death. Schedule 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides a list of non-bailable offences and there are approximately 222 offences which come under the category of “non-bailable offence”. Death because of dowry is a very serious crime, but court are also careful while examining such cases because the punishment prescribed for dowry death is very severe and it would be highly unjustifiable to punish the person who is not involved in such crime. And, also it is a principle under criminal law that an accused should be convicted only if the offence could be proven beyond reasonable doubt. And, for this purpose evidence becomes very crucial. In cases relating to the issue of dowry death, there can be various forms of evidences for e.g., Letter by woman to her parents explaining her plight or communicating with them by any other means, torture by the family members of the husband for dowry etc. But, it has also been seen over a period of time that the story portrayed by the parent’s of the deceased woman, and also there are various cases where a man or his family members get punishment for the crime which they have not committed. Sometimes, a woman dies naturally but a case is registered under the provision mentioned under Indian Penal Code for “Dowry Death”. It is for this purpose that the relevance of evidence in such cases becomes more important.

Interpretation of certain expressions present in various act become more important in these case. One such point was decided by the Supreme Court in Baldev Singh v State of Punjab AIR 2009 SC 913, where the meaning of the term “agreement” as mentioned in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was interpreted by the court. It was held by the court that just because there was no expressed agreement of dowry between the parties doesn’t mean that no conviction can be made for dowry, whether there was any demand for dowry or not would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Moreover, it was held by the court that the expression “soon before her death” present in Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 is present with the ides of proximity test. It was opined by the court that “soon before death” is not interval between cruelty and harassment and death of the woman, but it denotes the existence of a proximate and live-link between the effects of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned.

In Vijay v State of Maharashtra AIR 2009 SC 1217, it was alleged by the counsel of the state that a ring and money was demanded by the deceased, and that she informed this to her parents through a letter but there was no mention of money in the letter. Trial court acquitted the accused, but trial court’s order was reversed by the Bombay High Court. Supreme reversed High Court’s order and acquitted the accused on the ground that evidence present by the counsel didn’t mention money.

Necessary existence of proximate and live-link between effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and concerned death of the victim was again opined by the Supreme Court in Prem Kanwar v State of Rajasthan AIR 2009 SC 1242. Moreover, it was alleged in this case that deceased woman died because of the burn injuries, but the same was not reported in the Post-mortem report submitted by the doctor, which showed that death was caused as a result of broken skull bones. It forced Supreme Court to conclude that the death was not a suicide as had been alleged by the accused, instead it was a murder. It is clear that evidence not only protects the accused if wrongly charged, but also it acts as a weapon for courts to convict the accused persons. The view of proximate and live-link was again reiterated by this court in Raja Lal Singh v State of Jharkhand 2007 AIR SCW 3690:AIR 2007 SC 2154

In case of Dharam Chand v State of Punjab AIR 2009 SC 1304, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the accused were made included in the list of accused persons in the trial. But, it was later found that both them were not living in the same house as that of deceased woman. She was allegedly killed by her husband and his family in the bathroom. Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of bother-in-law and sister-in-law of deceased woman as they were living separate. It is another case where persons have been accused of “dowry death” without any ground and evidence.

Presumption as to whether the death has been caused of the dowry demand can be made only if certain conditions are fulfilled. Unless these conditions are fulfilled, death of a woman cannot be presumed as a “dowry death”. The same condition were laid down by the Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh v State of Punjab AIR 2009 SC 1454, referring to Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 where following conditions were laid by the court stating that the presumption as to dowry death can be raised only on proof of the following essentials:

1. The question before the Court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman. This means that the presumption can be raised only if the accused is being tired for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC.

2. The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives.

3. Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with any demand for dowry.

4. Such cruelty or harassment was soon before death.

This means that fulfilment of these conditions is necessary before convicting anyone for “dowry death”

In Madan Lal v State of UP AIR 2009 SC 2175, it was alleged by the accused persons that deceased died because of the she was suffering from epilepsy and which became the reason for the fracture of sound box and wind pipe. But, doctor’s report contradicted what was alleged by the accused person. Supreme relying on the report submitted by the doctor upheld the conviction of accused persons by the Allahabad High Court.

Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Referring to this section, Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v Jaggu Ram AIR 2008 SC 982, opined that it was the duty of the accused person to explain why they cremated the deceased without waiting for the police investigation to be done. Supreme Court convicted the accused because he was not able to explain the above mentioned fact which clearly indicated that accused had cremated the deceased without waiting for anyone with sole objective of concealing the real cause of the death. A similar view was taken by this court in Ram Badan Sharma v State of Bihar 2006 AIR SCW 4068 : AIR 2006 SC 2855, where the news of victim’s death was not sent to her parents who were living few miles away from the place where death occurred. Also, there was nothing to prove that death was caused naturally.

Referring to Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which states that when the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death, court upheld the conviction of the accused persons because it was not difficult to presume that death caused was a “dowry death”.

It was held by the Supreme Court in Kailash v State of M.P. AIR 2007 SC 107, that the determination of the period which can come within the term “soon before” is left to be determined by the courts depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. It was further held by the Supreme Court that “mere lapse of some time by itself would not provide to an accused a defence, if the course of the conduct relating to the cruelty and harassment in connection with the dowry demand is shown to have existed earlier in time not too late and not too stale before the death of the death of the victim.” It can be clearly understood that if the death of the victim has been caused after the she was subjected to cruelty and punishment, then it would not be easy for the accused persons to get exonerated even if they had stopped such acts of cruelty soon before the death. It would wholly depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, and court would be the sole authority to determine such situations.

The importance of a “dying declaration” by the victim was emphasised by the Supreme Court in Balbir Singh v State of Punjab 2006 AIR SCW 4950: AIR 2009 SC 3221, where it was held by the court that just because the dying declaration was not recorded by a magistrate cannot be a ground to disbelieve the entire prosecution case. It was further held by the court that “when a statement of an injured is recorded, in the event of her death, the same may also be treated to be a First Information Report.” Section 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence Act states that a state made by a person explaining the cause of his death should be considered as relevant and important in the cases where his death comes into questions. In such circumstances, dying declaration made by the victim would become important so as to arrive at a correct decision. It should not be necessarily made in front of a magistrate.

These were some of the case laws related to the issue of “Dowry Death” But, the issue doesn’t end here itself. In the year 2007, 202^nd report was submitted by the then Chairman of Law Commission of India, Justice A.R. Lakshmanan on the issue “whether death sentence should be provided for dowry death or not?” He was of the opinion that murder and dowry death are two different crimes and two cannot be the same. Although, he recommended minimum 10 year imprisonment for the crime related to “dowry death”. This was the second time when Law commission made recommendation on this matter after 1983 when first recommendation was made the commission for amending IPC and Evidence Act in relation to “Dowry Death”. Evidence always play a crucial role in determining the guilt of the person under criminal law, and his guilt should be proven beyond reasonable doubt to punish a person. Sometimes, this dowry tradition subjects a woman to creulty by her husband and his family. But, it is also true that there have been various instances when provisions related to dowry have been misued.

In other words, “dowry death” has become a very crucial matter to be looked into. Courts are very careful while examnining the evidences provided by each of the sides to avoid unjustice.

Fake Encounters and Honour Killings: Rarest of Rare Crimes

Recent developments in the Indian Legal system pertaining to the issues relating to “Rarest of rare crimes” have shown the credibility and activeness of the Indian Judiciary. Two judgments, one relating to the issue of “Honour Killings” and another relating to the issue of “Fake Encounters”

Both of these judgments would serve as a setback towards those police officers and persons, who use these two issues as a weapon to kill innocent person. Two basic questions which would come into the mind of a reasonable person are:

1. What honour would a person get by killing his own children or relatives?

2. Who will secure us when police officers are indulged in contract killings?

Recently, it has been held by the Supreme Court in Prakash Kadam & Etc. Etc. vs Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta & Anr (CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1174-1178_OF 2011), that killing innocent people in the name of Encounter is a brutal offence, and it can be categorized under “Rarest of rare crimes”. Also, it has been declared by the apex court that the police officer, if found guilty, should be punished with the capital sentence or death. A murder done by a normal person would be a normal murder, but a murder done by a police officer, who owes a duty towards the society for maintaining its peacefulness and has violated it through the breach of his own duty, would be punished with death. The view of the court was that if a police officer has been ordered by his senior official to do an illegal act, then he can refuse to do such an act and if he doesn’t do so, he would be liable for the offence committed by him in his own capacity. Justice katju took the example of Nuremburg Trials stating that "In the Nuremburg trials the Nazi war criminals took the plea that ' orders are orders', nevertheless they were hanged,''. It is a setback to those police officials, who had appealed against the order of Bombay High Court dismissing their bail plea in a criminal case pending before a session court.

According to Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary an Encounter can be defined in the context for the present purpose as “an incident in which police shoot dead a suspected criminal”. And, when such an accident is fake or has been created by police officers themselves for their personal gain, it becomes a fake encounter. The present case deals with one such case where a person was killed by some police officer in the name of “Encounter”.

In this case, deceased Ramnarayan and one of the accused were indulged in an estate business i.e. they were working with each other. But, suddenly some differences grew up between them and they didn’t work together for longer. The said accused asked the police officers to kill Ramnarayan on a contract. The Supreme Court was of the view that Fake `encounters' are nothing but cold blooded, brutal murder by persons who are supposed to uphold the law. This is one of the grave situations representing the law and order of the country. Police Officers, who are considered to be the protectors of the society, are contracting with a third party to kill an innocent person. Moreover it was said by the court that if police officers can kill a person, why they cannot kill the witnesses of the case for saving the person whom they have contracted with. They can even kill their own relatives for their own safety. In this case, they have not complied with the duty which they have been appointed for. They have done the act, which is in contrary with the duty imposed on the police officers.

It is said by the court that our ancient thinkers were of the view that the worst state of affairs possible in society is a state of lawlessness. When the rule of law collapses it is replaced by Matsyanyaya, which means the law of the jungle. In Sanskrit the word `Matsya' means fish and Matsyanyaya means a state of affairs where the big fish devours the smaller one. The view was taken by the apex court considering the growing lawlessness in the country.

This is one of such cases which pertain to the issue of “Fake Encounter”, but it is a landmark judgment for holding this crime under the category of “Rarest of rare crime”. The position of the weaker section would get worse when their savers are killing them for money or for their personal benefit. Police officers are protected under certain provisions of the Indian law, which includes Exception 3 of Section 300, which allows a public servant to exceed his power in good faith. But, such kinds of provisions have been misused by various police officials from time to time. We live in a democracy, where it is the duty of the state towards its citizens for maintaining the peace of the society. The bench which delivered the judgment consisted of Justice M. Katju and Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra, who also delivered the judgment, where it was held by them that Honour Killing is under the category of “Rarest of rare crimes”

This issue can be related to the controversy relating to the fake encounter of Sohrabuddin Sheikh and his wife Kosar Bi by the Gujarat Police officials. The report submitted by Geeta Johri, who was once eliminated by Gurajart government from the committee inquiring into this issue, shows that there was an involvement of some of the Gujarat top police officials and one minister Amit Shah. Today, Encounter can be used as a weapon against any person easily. But, after the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta, it would not be possible for police officers to kill an innocent person in the name of an “Encounter” arbitrarily.

Now coming to the next judgment which has been decided by the Supreme Court recently on 9^th May, 2011 i.e. Bhagwan Dass vs State (Nct) Of Delhi CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1117 OF 2011, where accused, Bhagwan Dass, killed his own daughter for having adulterous relation with her uncle after leaving her husband. According to accused, the act of his daughter, Seema, had dishonoured his family and this led him to kill her. This case is also important from the perspective of CrPC, as court had considered motive as an important element for convicting a person when case is based on circumstantial evidence. In cases of direct evidence, motive is irrelevant.

The judgment was written by Justice Kajtu, stating that honour' killings have become commonplace in many parts of the country, particularly in Haryana, western U.P., and Rajasthan. Often young couples who fall in love have to seek shelter in the police lines or protection homes, to avoid the wrath of kangaroo courts. Court went on saying that honour killings, for whatever reason, come within the category of rarest of rare cases deserving death punishment. It is time to stamp out these barbaric, feudal practices which are a slur on our nation. This is necessary as a deterrent for such outrageous, uncivilized behaviour. All persons who are planning to perpetrate `honour' killings should know that the gallows await them. Earlier it was held by the Supreme Court in Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (2006) 5 SCC 475 that there is nothing `honourable' in `honour' killings, and they are nothing but barbaric and brutal murders by bigoted, persons with feudal minds.

Honour Killing can be defined as murders by families on family members who are believed to have brought "shame" on the family name.The apparent "shame" could be caused by a victim refusing to enter into an arranged marriage or for having a relationship that the family considers to be inappropriate. Oxford Dictionary defines it as “the killing of a relative, especially a girl or woman, who is perceived to have brought dishonour on the family.”

The judgment is another important decision for categorising Honour Killings under the category of “Rarest of rare cases”. Both the above discussed decisions have been delivered by the Supreme Court in the month of May, 2011. Today, there have been various reported cases when a man/woman is killed by his/her own family members for marrying someone from other castes. This practice is usually prevalent in rural North India, and also in some parts of urban North India. There cannot be any kind of honour by killing your own children just because they have married someone from other caste or community. In India, every person is free to marry another person of his choice and there is no such law which can prevent them from doing so. These decisions are always criticised by Khap Panchayats and other institutions present basically in the state of Punjab and Haryana.

What honour would a family get by killing their own family members?

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. But, this right which has been provided to each and every person is sometimes violated with some acts which neither have any sanction of the law, nor does it give any authority to any person to take away the life of another person.

Fake Encounters and Honour Killings are few acts which take away the life of an innocent person. It is the duty on the part of Indian Judiciary to check whether the provisions mentioned under the constitution are complied with. In other words, ensuring the primacy of the Indian Constitution. And, it would be interesting to see in the near future the activeness of the Indian Judiciary. The scope of law should change with time, because circumstances change with time. The scope of “Rarest of rare crimes” has been increased through these decisions, but it should be kept in the mind that death sentence also takes away the life of another person. Cases pertaining to these issues should be handled carefully, especially when court is relying merely on circumstantial evidence.

“The law will never make men free, it is men that have to make the law free.” – Henry David.