Mr. K.Kannan, J.: (Oral) - Honour killing-yet another instance

1. Reply has been filed by the State-respondents in the Registry. The counsel for the petitioner would seek for the investigation to be put in the hands of responsible and senior police officer of the rank of not less than Senior Superintendent of Police, since the case of death was an incident of honour killing for the community that could not tolerate a marriage between the petitioner and his wife, who was later murdered.

II. Action by police so far

2. After the marriage with the petitioner, his wife was reported to have been taken way from his (petitioner’s) company stealthily on 30.09.2014 when he had complained to the police listing out 11 names as prime suspects for causing abduction of his wife from his lawful company. No action has been taken till when the police woke up to the situation that the lady had been killed and dead body had been recovered on 02.10.2014. A case of death under Section 302 IPC and other related provisions was registered and the reply shows that 5 of 11 persons have been challaned, while the investigation is said to be still progressing and the police is on record to state that they have not collected any incriminating materials against the other 6 persons named in the petitioner’s complaint.

III. Husband’s plea for SIT for fresh investigation

3. The petitioner points out that there is simply no response in the whole of the reply filed by the State as to why there was no action taken between 30.09.2014 to 02.10.2014 against anyone of the 11 persons, pursuant to the complaint on 30.09.2014, which if it had been done, would not have resulted in loss of a precious life. The petitioner’s counsel argues with passion that the cases of honour killing constitute a different genre, apart from mere offence under Section 302 IPC and the investigation must be entrusted with the high ranking official only to ensure that the investigating machinery is weaned from local influence and the persons of high responsibility carry out the investigation that could evoke public confidence. The counsel for the respondents would respond to these pleas by stating that the investigation has been taken up in right earnest and the Deputy Superintendent of Police is in-charge of the investigation and the police has not closed the case as regards 6 persons against whom allegations have been made by the petitioner. The counsel would also state the petitioner has furnished no material to substantiate the involvement of other persons.

IV. Court’s initial order for protection

4. On 05.02.2015 when a plea of danger to the life of the petitioner was expressed, after hearing the arguments of the respective counsel, I thought the situation was so serious that the State would require to be sounded a warning that if any untoward incident happened to the petitioner, it would lead to even an inference of serious laches on the part of the State and wanton negligence. The petitioner admits that after the order was passed, appropriate protection has been given but the course of investigation has not much progressed. If reply of the State were any indication that there was a serious approach on the part of the police now and if that seriousness had been exhibited even in a small measure at the appropriate time, when the petitioner had complained of abduction of his wife, it would not have resulted in her death.

V. Law Commission’s recommendation to quell honour killing

5. The grossest dishonour occurring to human beings comes ironically through the expression “honour killings”. The trigger point invariably is the inter-caste marriage of adults or the marriage between persons belonging to a same gotra, perceived as actions against socially accepted norms. The parents themselves become the perpetrators of crimes against their children by succumbing to peer pressure or their own value systems. The decisions of local groups called khaps expecting the parents to disown their ch