Murder for ‘honour’ (The Tribune, June 20,2010)
Scribes’ testimony enough to punish culprits
by Rajbir Deswal
THE Tribune editorial, “Killings in Delhi: Hang culprits to root out the malady” (June 17) on the murder of Asha Rani and Yogesh Kumar allegedly by the girl’s father Suresh Kumar Saini and uncle Om Parkash could not be less harsh. The gruesome lynching of lovebirds in the name of protecting honour reported frequently from various parts of the country need to be checked.
Honour, reputation, status, dignity, prestige, ranking, all make stuff for motive to do away with the lives of the violators of the above kind, when they are perceived to be transgressors of these attributes, particularly by people who still live in medieval times.
When perpetrators of crimes like honour killing defend and justify their act, they cannot be brought to justice in the normal laid down (due) process of law but a more stringent one. What else we should do with criminals who flaunt victory signs and tell the media for the record, “Yes, we did it and we feel we are justified in doing it?” Surprisingly, Suresh Kumar and Om Parkash admitted before media persons, including beaming TV cameras that what they perceived was not a crime but an act to defend their “honour and prestige”.
The killers in Delhi admitted their guilt with no regret, no compunction, no mellowed disposition of character and conviction, but with an audacious, fairly overt and expressive body language, in justifying their criminal act, in an unabashed and shameful manner, as if to claim a trophy or a citation, for upholding the so-called honour.
During the trial, these criminals will defend themselves pleading not guilty, employing various alibis, arguments and subterfuges of having been suddenly provoked, abetted, and thus having become victims of a temporary loss of sense, acting with no mens-rea but as a reflex action propelled by dyed-in-the-wool societal dire straits, blah blah blah!
In the case of honour killings as a sequel to the diktats of khap panchayats in Haryana, where the entire village community spares no witness to prosecute the perpetrators of such crime, their silent support allows no other direct, oral, forensic or circumstantial evidence to be gathered.
Where is the remedy? How can the legal process be reformed to bring such culprits to justice? How to cumulatively rely on (unavailable!) direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, oral testimony and forensic evidence to help prosecute such criminals? The time has come to reform the judicial process by incorporating some resilient but effective tools to bring such criminals to book.
The increasing trend of electronic and print media covering such incidents promptly should come handy in leading evidence. This does amount to extra-judicial confession (Section 21 of the Evidence Act). Such TV footage and print media reports should help courts examine so far as proof, presumption, assumption, inference are concerned, particularly in the absence of any direct evidence.
An extra-judicial confession, bearing on various attendant circumstances, would help courts infer the occurrence of the fact in dispute, if it is made by someone not before a magistrate or in a court, which can be proved by the witnesses who had heard the speaker’s words, constituting the confession.
In Sahoo vs. State of UP (1966), when a father-in-law killed his daughter-in-law, he said to himself, “I have finished her and with her the daily quarrels,”. This statement was held to be a valid confession because it is not necessary for the relevance of a confession that it should communicate to some other person.
Thus, the statements by accused persons like Suresh Saini and Om Prakash which are transparent confessions in their most naked, audacious and shameful form, can be proved in the court of law by citing media persons as witnesses. This writer is convinced that there is an imperative need for enacting a law for witness protection.
Clearly, media persons’ testimony is admissible as extra-judicial confession under Section 21 of the Evidence Act. If these are insulated against any onslaught and also not likely to be won over, they will generally not turn hostile and will dispose in the court of law as independent witnesses.
Not that in all cases such media persons should be cited as witnesses but certainly for cases like honour killing, when no other circumstance is obtaining, there is no harm in resorting to this alternative.
As media persons recorded the first-hand account of the conduct of the culprits, they are responsible professionals and would not be counted as interested witnesses against defence or prosecution. Their testimony with their recordings, etc. can be treated as scientific evidence and this should be deemed adequate enough for purposes of bringing the guilty to book, in a manner as if an independent third party has heard the accused admitting his guilt.
Some North-Eastern states have done this in some cases to prove insurgency and separatist inclination of certain very active and articulate advocates of ‘separatism’ intending carving out ethnic and political chunks out of India by waging war against it.
In the case of Suresh Kumar Saini and Om Parkash, even much after the crime was committed, they were on a ‘high’. It was as if they were drugged with an acquired sense of superior sensibilities in seeking to maintain and restoring their so-called honour and to appear as heroes in the perception of their relatives, caste community and social group.
The writer is the Inspector-General of Police, Haryana, Chandigarh
THE Tribune editorial, “Killings in Delhi: Hang culprits to root out the malady” (June 17) on the murder of Asha Rani and Yogesh Kumar allegedly by the girl’s father Suresh Kumar Saini and uncle Om Parkash could not be less harsh. The gruesome lynching of lovebirds in the name of protecting honour reported frequently from various parts of the country need to be checked.
Honour, reputation, status, dignity, prestige, ranking, all make stuff for motive to do away with the lives of the violators of the above kind, when they are perceived to be transgressors of these attributes, particularly by people who still live in medieval times.
When perpetrators of crimes like honour killing defend and justify their act, they cannot be brought to justice in the normal laid down (due) process of law but a more stringent one. What else we should do with criminals who flaunt victory signs and tell the media for the record, “Yes, we did it and we feel we are justified in doing it?” Surprisingly, Suresh Kumar and Om Parkash admitted before media persons, including beaming TV cameras that what they perceived was not a crime but an act to defend their “honour and prestige”.
The killers in Delhi admitted their guilt with no regret, no compunction, no mellowed disposition of character and conviction, but with an audacious, fairly overt and expressive body language, in justifying their criminal act, in an unabashed and shameful manner, as if to claim a trophy or a citation, for upholding the so-called honour.
During the trial, these criminals will defend themselves pleading not guilty, employing various alibis, arguments and subterfuges of having been suddenly provoked, abetted, and thus having become victims of a temporary loss of sense, acting with no mens-rea but as a reflex action propelled by dyed-in-the-wool societal dire straits, blah blah blah!
In the case of honour killings as a sequel to the diktats of khap panchayats in Haryana, where the entire village community spares no witness to prosecute the perpetrators of such crime, their silent support allows no other direct, oral, forensic or circumstantial evidence to be gathered.
Where is the remedy? How can the legal process be reformed to bring such culprits to justice? How to cumulatively rely on (unavailable!) direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, oral testimony and forensic evidence to help prosecute such criminals? The time has come to reform the judicial process by incorporating some resilient but effective tools to bring such criminals to book.
The increasing trend of electronic and print media covering such incidents promptly should come handy in leading evidence. This does amount to extra-judicial confession (Section 21 of the Evidence Act). Such TV footage and print media reports should help courts examine so far as proof, presumption, assumption, inference are concerned, particularly in the absence of any direct evidence.
An extra-judicial confession, bearing on various attendant circumstances, would help courts infer the occurrence of the fact in dispute, if it is made by someone not before a magistrate or in a court, which can be proved by the witnesses who had heard the speaker’s words, constituting the confession.
In Sahoo vs. State of UP (1966), when a father-in-law killed his daughter-in-law, he said to himself, “I have finished her and with her the daily quarrels,”. This statement was held to be a valid confession because it is not necessary for the relevance of a confession that it should communicate to some other person.
Thus, the statements by accused persons like Suresh Saini and Om Prakash which are transparent confessions in their most naked, audacious and shameful form, can be proved in the court of law by citing media persons as witnesses. This writer is convinced that there is an imperative need for enacting a law for witness protection.
Clearly, media persons’ testimony is admissible as extra-judicial confession under Section 21 of the Evidence Act. If these are insulated against any onslaught and also not likely to be won over, they will generally not turn hostile and will dispose in the court of law as independent witnesses.
Not that in all cases such media persons should be cited as witnesses but certainly for cases like honour killing, when no other circumstance is obtaining, there is no harm in resorting to this alternative.
As media persons recorded the first-hand account of the conduct of the culprits, they are responsible professionals and would not be counted as interested witnesses against defence or prosecution. Their testimony with their recordings, etc. can be treated as scientific evidence and this should be deemed adequate enough for purposes of bringing the guilty to book, in a manner as if an independent third party has heard the accused admitting his guilt.
Some North-Eastern states have done this in some cases to prove insurgency and separatist inclination of certain very active and articulate advocates of ‘separatism’ intending carving out ethnic and political chunks out of India by waging war against it.
In the case of Suresh Kumar Saini and Om Parkash, even much after the crime was committed, they were on a ‘high’. It was as if they were drugged with an acquired sense of superior sensibilities in seeking to maintain and restoring their so-called honour and to appear as heroes in the perception of their relatives, caste community and social group.
The writer is the Inspector-General of Police, Haryana, Chandigarh
3 comments:
wonderful! just what we were discussing the other day. we need police officers like you to put reforms in place and actually make democracy ( rule of the people, by the people, for the people) work. else, we are in for some seriously difficult years ahead!
A 21st century incredibly advanced iron-age society dominated by large number of tribes who are herded by clan-heads for their benefit on different pretexts and assumptions. The Clan-heads have strong noses and flow with the flavour of times. The court of elders can send a strong message to the future happy-go-bludgeoners by punishing them strictly on the basis of any evidence provided, but it is more of a preventive rather than a cure solution. Malaise is more deep than what we see on the surface and solution certainly doesn't lie in my axial philosophy. The young blokes who have apparently dishonoured their clan by indulging in out-clanish marriage-practice have to be cautious of their environment and the repercussive effects of their decision. They are very well aware of tribal rules by being a part of it all their non-romantic life. Love definitely is blind but if the society is also blind then it's a double jeopardy and any prevention/patch may not be a win-win situation. Change of mindset of a society is a long process and fraught with multiple hurdles. It will be one day, but when and how - no clues. Let's wait in perpetuation, Maybe hope lies in-there.
Another two 19/18 year old lovebirds liberated today by their near and dear one's in Bhiwani. I believe that they were not married and I also question - What were they doing when they were caught at one of their Uncle's house, playing chess, tennis, or just plain absurdity of axial philosophers? More to come for sure in the future. Sitting in my favourite auto "Yaa toh nu aie chaalegi" Sir Ji.
Post a Comment