A Mathura court on Wednesday sentenced eight persons to death and 27 others to life imprisonment for killing a young couple who had eloped from Mehrana village in 1991. The slain youths cousin was also killed for helping them.
Pronouncing the sentence,Additional District and Session Judge AK Upadhyay slapped penalties of Rs 25,000 on each of the 35 convicts. He had convicted them on November 14.
Roshini (19),from the dominant Jat community,and Vijendra (22),from the Scheduled Caste Jatav community,had eloped on March 21,1991 but returned to the village after three days for the last rites of a woman.
On March 26,a panchayat was convened where the couple and Vijendras cousin Ram Krishna,who had gone with them,were brought from their homes.
Roshini admitted eloping with Vijendra on her own and requested that she be allowed to live with him. The panchayat rejected the request.
All three were beaten mercilessly,hanged from a tree one after another,dragged to the cremation ground and set on fire.
The next day,the police went to the village and lodged an FIR on a complaint from Vijendras uncle Ami Chand. He blamed panchayat members and the girls family for the crime.
After investigation,the police chargesheeted 55 persons for murder and offences under the Prevention of Atrocities on SCs/STs Act. Three of the accused were declared juvenile and their case was transferred to the juvenile court.
Fifteen others died during the trial,while one,identified as Amar Singh,is absconding. One accused,Balkishan,was acquitted.
Prosecuting officer Shiv Shankar said,The court observed that it was a rarest of rare case and gave death sentence to eight persons. The 35 convicts include members of the girls family,panchayat members and other villagers.
The trial of the three juvenile accused,including Roshnis brother,is still pending. Her father Ganga Ram is one of those awarded life term. Mansu Pahalwan,at whose residence the panchayat was held,was also awarded life term.
Defence lawyer Anil Saxena,who represented Roshinis father,said they would challenge the judgment in the High Court.