SC gives Vikas, cousin Vishal 25 years in Katara murder case

Strongly deprecating “honour killings”, the Supreme Court has upheld d 25-year jail term each to Vikas and Vishal Yadav for his role in the kidnapping and killing of Nitish Katara in 2002. The Delhi high court, while modifying the death sentence, had enhanced the life sentence to 25 years and additional five years for destroying evidence.

A Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and C. Nagappan, dismissing his appeal, however, said the sentence of additional five years under the IPC Section 201 (for causing disappearance of evidence) would run concurrently and not consecutively as ordered by the Delhi high court. It will mean that he will undergo 25 years in jail. Yadav’s acquaintance Sukdev was awarded 20 years sentence. Last year the apex court had upheld the conviction but took up the issue of sentence only.

In its judgment on Monday, the Bench said from the findings recorded by the high court it is vivid that crime was committed in a planned and cold-blooded manner with the motive that has emanated due to feeling of some kind uncalled for and unwarranted superiority based on caste feeling that has blinded the thought of “choice available” to a sister — a representative of women as a class. The Bench pointed out that the high court in its judgment of conviction has unequivocally held that it is a “honour killing” and the said findings apart from being put to rest, also gets support from the evidence brought on record.

The Judges said, “The circumstantial evidence by which the crime has been established clearly lead to one singular conclusion that the anger of the brother on the involvement of the sister with the deceased, was the only motive behind the murder. One may feel “My honour is my life” but that does not mean sustaining one’s honour at the cost of another. Freedom, independence, constitutional identity, individual choice and thought of a woman be a wife or sister or daughter or mother cannot be allowed to be curtailed definitely not by application of physical force or threat or mental cruelty in the name of his self-assumed honour. That apart, neither the family members nor the members of the collective has any right to assault the boy chosen by the girl. Her individual choice is her self-respect and creating dent in it is destroying her honour. And to impose so called brotherly or fatherly honour or class honour by eliminating her choice is a crime of extreme brutality, more so, when it is done under a guise. It is a vice, condemnable and deplorable perception of “honour”, comparable to medieval obsessive assertions.”