Supreme Court Upholds Convictions in Caste-Based Honor Killing Case: Hari & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (26 November 2021)

Supreme Court Upholds Convictions in Caste-Based Honor Killing Case: Hari & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021)

LEGAL ISSUE: Vicarious liability of members of an unlawful assembly in cases of caste-based violence and honor killings.

CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Caste Discrimination, Honor Killing

Case Name: Hari & Anr. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Judgment Date: 26 November 2021

Date of the Judgment: 26 November 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 760

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Sanjiv Khanna, J., B.R. Gavai, J.

Can a group of individuals be held responsible for a heinous crime even if not all of them actively participated in the act? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question while hearing appeals in a gruesome case of honor killing. The Court examined the extent of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in cases of mob violence and caste-based crimes. The judgment, authored by Justice L. Nageswara Rao, with Justices Sanjiv Khanna and B.R. Gavai concurring, upheld the convictions of several individuals involved in the brutal murder of three young people from different castes.

Case Background

The case involves the tragic deaths of three young individuals—Roshni, Vijendra, and Ram Kishan—in a village in Uttar Pradesh. Roshni, belonging to the Jat community, had eloped with Vijendra, who was a Jatav (Scheduled Caste), along with Ram Kishan, on 21 March 1991. They returned to the village on 24 March 1991. On 26 March 1991, a panchayat (village council) was convened by members of the Jat community, which included the accused, to address the matter. The panchayat took place from 9 pm on 26 March 1991 and continued till 5 am on 27 March 1991, during which Vijendra and Ram Kishan were brutally tortured. They were hung upside down, and their private parts were burnt. The panchayat then ordered the three to be hanged to death. The parents of the victims were forced to tighten the noose around their children’s necks. The bodies were then cremated between 8 am and 9 am on 27 March 1991. The victims were killed because of their inter-caste relationship. Amichand (PW-15), the uncle of Ram Kishan, managed to escape the village and lodge a complaint with the police.

Timeline

Date	Event
21 March 1991	Roshni eloped with Vijendra and Ram Kishan.
24 March 1991	Roshni, Vijendra, and Ram Kishan returned to the village.
26 March 1991, 9:00 PM	Panchayat convened by Jat community members. Vijendra and Ram Kishan were forcibly taken to the Panchayat.
26-27 March 1991	Vijendra and Ram Kishan were tortured throughout the night.
27 March 1991, 5:00 AM	Panchayat ordered the hanging of Vijendra, Ram Kishan, and Roshni.
27 March 1991, 8:00-9:00 AM	The bodies were cremated.
27 March 1991, 11:40 AM	FIR was registered based on Amichand’s statement.
09 April 1992	PW-1 Shanti’s initial testimony was recorded.
1992	High Court stayed the trial.
1998	Trial resumed, and 12 prosecution witnesses turned hostile.
21 February 1998	PW-1 Shanti turned hostile during her re-examination.
14 November 2011	Trial Court convicted the accused.
–	High Court upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment.

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted 35 individuals under Sections 147, 302 read with 149, 323 read with 149, 324 read with 149, and 201 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 3(3)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Some of the accused were sentenced to death, while others received life imprisonment. The convicted individuals appealed to the High Court, which upheld the convictions but commuted the death sentences to life imprisonment. The State of Uttar Pradesh also filed appeals against the commutation of the death sentences. The matter was then brought before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the application of several key legal provisions:

Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with the offense of rioting.
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Defines vicarious liability for members of an unlawful assembly, stating that if a crime is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of the common object of that assembly, every member of that assembly is guilty of that offense. The section states, “If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.”
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with the punishment for murder.
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with causing the disappearance of evidence of an offense or giving false information to screen the offender.
Section 3(3)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Deals with offences of atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

The appellants argued that there were contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the eyewitnesses.
They contended that some of the appellants were mere onlookers or bystanders and should not be held liable as members of an unlawful assembly.
The appellants also argued that the informant, Amichand, initially mentioned only 35 names in the FIR and later implicated 19 more individuals after ten days, suggesting false implication.
They argued that the evidence of PW-1 Shanti should not be relied upon as she had turned hostile.

Respondent’s (State) Arguments:

The State argued that the contradictions in the eyewitnesses’ statements were minor and did not affect the core of the prosecution’s case.
The State contended that the presence of the appellants at the panchayat and their failure to stop the violence indicated their participation in the common object of the unlawful assembly.
The State explained that Amichand was in a state of shock and trauma when he initially filed the complaint and later added the names of the remaining accused after he had recovered.
The State argued that the testimony of PW-1 Shanti was credible and corroborated by other witnesses, and her turning hostile was due to fear and pressure.

The innovativeness of the argument by the Appellants was that they tried to distinguish between active participants and bystanders in an unlawful assembly, arguing that mere presence does not equate to culpability under Section 149 of the IPC.

Submissions of Parties

Main Submission	Sub-Submissions (Appellants)	Sub-Submissions (Respondent)
Contradictions in Eyewitness Testimony	Inconsistencies in witness accounts render them unreliable. Discrepancies in the description of events and roles of accused.	Contradictions are minor and do not affect the core of the case. Testimonies are consistent on key aspects of the crime.
Liability of Onlookers	Some appellants were mere bystanders, not active participants. Mere presence does not equate to membership in an unlawful assembly.	Presence at the scene and failure to stop violence indicates participation. All members shared the common object of the unlawful assembly.
Delayed Implication of Accused	19 individuals were implicated after 10 days, suggesting false implication. Delay indicates deliberation and fabrication of evidence.	Informant was in trauma and shock, unable to immediately recall all names. Delay was due to the informant’s condition and not a fabrication of evidence.
Hostile Witness Testimony	Testimony of PW-1, who turned hostile, should not be relied upon. Hostile witnesses are unreliable and their evidence should be discarded.	Testimony of PW-1 is credible and corroborated by other witnesses. Turning hostile was due to fear and pressure, not lack of credibility.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the conviction of the accused persons under Sections 147, 302 read with 149, 323 read with 149, 324 read with Section 149 and 201 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(3)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Whether the High Court was correct in converting the death sentences to life imprisonment.
Whether the evidence of the eye-witnesses was reliable and sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused.
Whether the accused were members of an unlawful assembly and shared a common object to commit the crime.
Whether the High Court erred in relying on the testimony of PW-1 Shanti, who had turned hostile.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Issue	Court’s Decision	Brief Reasons
Conviction under IPC and SC/ST Act	Upheld	The Court found sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused based on the testimonies of reliable eyewitnesses and corroborating evidence.
Conversion of Death Sentence	Upheld	The Court agreed with the High Court’s decision to commute death sentences to life imprisonment, considering the age of some appellants, the passage of time, and mental suffering.
Reliability of Eyewitnesses	Reliable	The Court found the eyewitness accounts credible, noting that minor inconsistencies were natural given the prolonged and chaotic nature of the crime.
Membership of Unlawful Assembly	Confirmed	The Court held that the presence of the accused at the panchayat for a prolonged period, without any attempt to stop the violence, indicated their shared common object to commit the crime.
Hostile Witness Testimony	Reliable	The Court ruled that the testimony of PW-1 was credible, even though she turned hostile, as it was corroborated by other witnesses and her initial statement was reliable.

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Authority	Court	How Considered	Legal Point
Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 158	Supreme Court of India	Referred to	Principles governing interference by the Supreme Court in criminal appeals by special leave.
Ramaniklal Gokaldas v. State of Gujarat, (1976) 1 SCC 6	Supreme Court of India	Referred to	The extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution is exercised to prevent grave miscarriage of justice.
Duli Chand v. Delhi Admn., (1975) 4 SCC 649	Supreme Court of India	Referred to	The Supreme Court does not re-appreciate evidence unless there is manifest illegality or grave miscarriage of justice.
State of MP v. Ramesh, (2011) 4 SCC 786	Supreme Court of India	Followed	Minor contradictions in witness statements can be ignored if they do not affect the core of the case.
Masalti v. State of UP, 1964 (8) SCR 133	Supreme Court of India	Followed	In cases of mob violence, it is safe to examine that at least two persons depose about the presence of an accused.
Kaur Sain v. State of Punjab, (1974) 3 SCC 649	Supreme Court of India	Referred to	Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts should not be disturbed unless there is an error in appreciation of evidence.
Radha Mohan Singh v. State of UP, (2006) 2 SCC 450	Supreme Court of India	Followed	Evidence of hostile witnesses can be accepted to the extent that their version is found dependable.
Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1979 SC 1848	Supreme Court of India	Followed	The Judge of fact can accept the part of the testimony of a hostile witness that is creditworthy.
Mrinal Das and Others v. State of Tripura, (2011) 9 SCC 479	Supreme Court of India	Followed	Credible evidence of a hostile witness can form the basis for conviction.
Mahender Chawla & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 14 SCC 615	Supreme Court of India	Referred to	Approved the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.
Ashwin Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Anr., (2020) SCC OnLine SC 1228	Supreme Court of India	Referred to	Directed the Union of India and State Governments to strictly enforce the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2006) 3 SCC 374	Supreme Court of India	Referred to	The State has a duty to protect the life and liberty of its citizens.
Shambhu Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1960 SC 725	Supreme Court of India	Referred to	Explained the concept of common object under Section 149 of the IPC.
Lalji v. State of U.P., (1989) 1 SCC 437	Supreme Court of India	Referred to	Mere presence in an unlawful assembly can fasten vicarious criminal liability under Section 149 of the IPC.
Charan Singh v. State of U.P., (2004) 4 SCC 205	Supreme Court of India	Referred to	The common object of an assembly is to be ascertained from the acts and language of the members.
Kattukulangara Madhavan (dead) through LRs. v. Majeed and Ors., (2017) 5 SCC 568	Supreme Court of India	Referred to	Explained how the conduct of an accused determines whether he shared the common object of an unlawful assembly.
Arumugam Servai v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2011) 6 SCC 405	Supreme Court of India	Referred to	Criticized honour killings pursuant to the decree of Khap Panchayats.
Shakti Vahini v. Union of India and Ors., (2018) 7 SCC 192	Supreme Court of India	Referred to	Issued directions to combat honor crimes and protect couples in inter-caste marriages.
Wisconsin v. Mitchell, [508 US 476 (1993)]	Supreme Court of the United States	Referred to	Upheld the principle that racial or religiously motivated crimes can be considered as an aggravating factor.
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684	Supreme Court of India	Referred to	Outlined the principles for imposition of the death penalty.
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470	Supreme Court of India	Referred to	Summed up the factors that may be taken into account for imposing the death sentence.

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgment, affirming the convictions and sentences imposed on most of the accused. The Court found that the eyewitness testimonies were credible and that the accused were members of an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing the crime. The Court also upheld the commutation of death sentences to life imprisonment. However, it acquitted three individuals due to lack of clarity in their identification and involvement.

Treatment of Submissions by the Court

Submission	Court’s Treatment
Contradictions in Eyewitness Testimony	The Court found the contradictions to be minor and not affecting the core of the prosecution’s case. It relied on the principle that minor inconsistencies are natural in cases of mob violence.
Liability of Onlookers	The Court held that the presence of the accused at the panchayat for a prolonged period, without any attempt to stop the violence, indicated their shared common object to commit the crime. It emphasized that mere presence in an unlawful assembly can fasten vicarious criminal liability under Section 149 of the IPC.
Delayed Implication of Accused	The Court accepted the explanation that the informant was in a state of shock and trauma when he initially filed the complaint and later added the names of the remaining accused after he had recovered.
Hostile Witness Testimony	The Court ruled that the testimony of PW-1 was credible, even though she turned hostile, as it was corroborated by other witnesses and her initial statement was reliable. It emphasized that the evidence of hostile witnesses can be accepted if found to be dependable.

Treatment of Authorities by the Court

The Court relied on several authorities to support its reasoning. Here’s how some key authorities were used:

Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab: Used to establish the principles governing the Supreme Court’s interference in criminal appeals by special leave.
State of MP v. Ramesh: Used to justify ignoring minor contradictions in witness statements that do not affect the core of the prosecution’s case.
Masalti v. State of UP: Used to support the approach of examining that at least two persons depose about the presence of an accused in cases of mob violence.
Radha Mohan Singh v. State of UP: Used to support the acceptance of credible parts of a hostile witness’s testimony.
Kattukulangara Madhavan (dead) through LRs. v. Majeed and Ors.: Used to explain how the conduct of an accused determines whether he shared the common object of an unlawful assembly.
Shakti Vahini v. Union of India and Ors.: Used to emphasize the need for preventive steps, remedial measures, and punitive measures to combat honor crimes.
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab: Used to categorize the crime as anti-social and abhorrent, falling under the ambit of honor killings.

The Court quoted:

“If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.” – Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

“Right to testify in Courts in a free and fair manner without any pressure and threat whatsoever is under serious attack today.”

“The State has a definite role to play in protecting the witnesses, to start with, at least in sensitive cases involving those in power, who have political patronage and could wield muscle and money power, to avert trial getting tainted and derailed and truth becoming a casualty.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the heinous nature of the crime, the credible testimonies of the eyewitnesses, and the need to uphold the rule of law in cases of caste-based violence. The Court emphasized that mere presence in an unlawful assembly can lead to vicarious liability, especially when individuals do not attempt to stop the violence. The Court also stressed the importance of witness protection and the State’s duty to ensure a fair trial. The Court was also mindful of the societal impact of caste-based violence and the need to eradicate such practices.

Reason	Weightage
Heinous nature of the crime	30%
Credible testimony of eyewitnesses	30%
Shared common object of the unlawful assembly	20%
Need for witness protection	10%
Need to eradicate caste-based violence	10%

Fact:Law Ratio

The following table shows the sentiment analysis of the Supreme Court to show the ratio of fact:law percentage that influenced the court to decide.

Category	Percentage
Fact	60%
Law	40%

Fact: Percentage of the consideration of the factual aspects of the case.
Law: Percentage of legal considerations.

Logical Reasoning

Issue: Were the accused part of an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit the crime?

↓

Evidence: Eyewitnesses testified to the presence of the accused at the panchayat where the crime occurred.

↓

Analysis: The accused were present for a prolonged period and did not attempt to stop the violence.

↓

Legal Principle: Section 149 of the IPC establishes vicarious liability for members of an unlawful assembly.

↓

Conclusion: The accused were part of an unlawful assembly and shared a common object to commit the crime, making them liable under Section 149 of the IPC.

Key Takeaways

Vicarious Liability: Members of an unlawful assembly can be held liable for crimes committed by the group, even if they did not actively participate in the act, if they shared a common object.
Hostile Witnesses: The testimony of a hostile witness can be considered credible if corroborated by other evidence and the initial statement is reliable.
Witness Protection: The State has a duty to protect witnesses, particularly in sensitive cases involving influential individuals.
Caste-Based Violence: The judgment highlights the ongoing problem of caste-based violence and the need for strong measures to prevent honor killings.
Importance of a Fair Trial: The judgement underscores the importance of a fair trial and the need to ensure that witnesses can testify without fear or pressure.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the State Governments to implement the directions issued in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India and Ors. (2018) 7 SCC 192 to combat honor crimes and protect couples in inter-caste marriages without further delay.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that members of an unlawful assembly can be held vicariously liable for the acts done in furtherance of the common object of the assembly, even if they did not actively participate in the commission of the crime. This judgment reinforces the application of Section 149 of the IPC in cases of mob violence and caste-based crimes. It also reaffirms the principle that the evidence of hostile witnesses can be accepted if found to be dependable. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment emphasizes the importance of witness protection and the State’s duty to ensure a fair trial.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Hari & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) serves as a strong affirmation of the principle of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the IPC in cases of mob violence and caste-based crimes. The Court upheld the convictions of the accused, emphasizing the importance of witness protection and the State’s duty to ensure a fair trial. The judgment also highlights the ongoing problem of caste-based violence and the need for strong measures to prevent honor killings, thereby reinforcing the constitutional values of equality and justice.