SC acquits man in honour killing case

According to the prosecution,Lakshmi,who was a Kshatriya,had married a Dalit boy in 1996 against the wishes of her family due to which her family,particularly Jaggaraju,was angry with her.

The post mortem report revealed the victim died of asphyxia due to smothering as her ‘chunni’ (scarf) had been thrust into her mouth. It was alleged that earlier too an attempt was made on the life of the victim,which she survived.

She was allegedly murdered on August 14,2002,and some gold ornaments from her body were taken away by the accused.

Setting aside the conviction,the apex court said “there is,however,no documentary evidence to that effect. We,therefore,find it somewhat strange that the family of the deceased had accepted the marriage for about six years,more particularly as even a child had been born to the couple.

“In view of this,the motive is clearly suspect. In a case relating to circumstantial evidence,motive is often a very strong circumstance which has to be proved by the prosecution and it is this circumstance which often forms the fulcrum of the prosecution story,” the bench said.

The apex court said the only other piece of evidence against the appellant is the recovery of the ornaments allegedly taken from the deceased.

“We find that the jewellery is of the variety known as ‘disco jewellery’ and is commonly available to all and sundry.

“It is also difficult to believe that the appellant,who statedly killed his niece on account of family honour,would act so low as to take the jewellery which was little more than trinkets from her dead body,” the apex court said.

The apex court further said it was completely unacceptable that though the incident had happened on August 14,2002,the accused had continued to move around with the jewellery in his pocket till its recovery from him on September 7,2002.

“We also see from the record that the jewellery had not been recovered under a disclosure under Section 27 of the Evidence Act but was taken on a search of his person.

“This circumstance,therefore,does not even remotely support the prosecution story in any manner. For the reasons recorded above,we find that the judgements of the courts below cannot be sustained.

“We,accordingly,allow the appeal and order the appellant’s acquittal,” the bench said in its order.