{"id":3030,"date":"2025-05-08T11:20:50","date_gmt":"2025-05-08T05:50:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=3030"},"modified":"2025-05-08T11:20:50","modified_gmt":"2025-05-08T05:50:50","slug":"sc-condemns-honour-killing-as-caste-based-barbarity-upholds-life-sentences-and-awards-compensation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/sc-condemns-honour-killing-as-caste-based-barbarity-upholds-life-sentences-and-awards-compensation\/","title":{"rendered":"SC Condemns Honour Killing as Caste-Based Barbarity, Upholds Life Sentences and Awards Compensation"},"content":{"rendered":"

K. P. TAMILMARAN [APPELLANT(S)] Vs. <\/strong>THE STATE BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [<\/strong>RESPONDENT(S)]<\/h1>\n

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.1522 OF 2023<\/p>\n

(2JB, SUDHANSHU DHULIA and PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA JJ., delivered by SUDHANSHU DHULIA J.<\/strong>)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In a significant judgment addressing the social evil of honour killing, the Supreme Court of India delivered a strong condemnation of such crimes, emphasizing their roots in the country\u2019s deeply entrenched caste system. The verdict came in the criminal appeals of multiple convicts involved in the brutal murder of an inter-caste couple in Tamil Nadu. The couple, both in their early twenties, were killed in 2003 for marrying against caste norms \u2014 the girl from the \u2018Vanniyar\u2019 community had married a Dalit boy. Their murder, orchestrated by the girl\u2019s own father and brother, was carried out in public view, allegedly by poisoning them.<\/p>\n

The two-judge bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra called the act a \u201cwicked and odious crime\u201d and asserted that such killings, ironically termed \u201chonour\u201d killings, are dishonourable and must attract stringent punishment. The bench also acknowledged the caste hierarchy’s significant role in perpetuating these crimes and awarded a compensation of \u20b95 lakh to the victim’s family, to be paid by the State of Tamil Nadu, in addition to any previous compensation granted.<\/p>\n

A total of 15 people faced trial, including police officers accused of aiding the cover-up. The Trial Court had convicted 13, sentencing most to life imprisonment and one (A-2) to death. Two police officers (A-14 and A-15) were convicted under IPC Sections 217 and 218 and the SC\/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for their role in shielding the culprits and falsely implicating Dalits. The High Court later reduced A-14\u2019s sentence to two years and upheld A-15\u2019s life sentence for fabricating evidence and misleading the investigation.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court upheld these convictions, particularly noting A-15\u2019s role in framing innocent Dalit individuals and manipulating evidence to protect the real culprits from the Vanniyar community. The Court found that A-15 deliberately manufactured confessions and filed a false chargesheet, making him directly responsible for the miscarriage of justice.<\/p>\n

The Court also lamented the delay in the judicial process, highlighting that the case took 18 years from the crime to the judgment. It criticized the accused for their role in delaying the trial and emphasized that witness hostility due to such delays should not undermine the weight of other corroborative evidence.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the Court reinforced the judiciary\u2019s powers under Section 311 of the CrPC and Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act to summon or re-examine witnesses at any stage, affirming that procedural tools must be used effectively to ensure justice.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upheld the convictions, and directed the convicts to surrender within two weeks to serve the remainder of their sentences. The judgment stands as a stark reminder of caste-based violence and the necessity of uncompromising legal responses to such crimes.<\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

K. P. TAMILMARAN [APPELLANT(S)] Vs. THE STATE BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [RESPONDENT(S)] SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.1522 OF 2023 (2JB, SUDHANSHU DHULIA and PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA JJ., delivered by SUDHANSHU DHULIA J.)   In a significant judgment addressing the social evil of honour killing, the Supreme Court of India delivered a strong condemnation of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3032,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3030","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3030","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3030"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3030\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3034,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3030\/revisions\/3034"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3032"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3030"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3030"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3030"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}