Honour Killing of Pregnant Woman: Karnataka High Court Upholds Death Sentence for Brothers, Life Term for Mother and Others in 'Rarest of Rare' Case - 2025-10-09

Karnataka High Court Confirms Death Penalty in Brutal Honour Killing of Pregnant Woman

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has upheld the death sentence for two brothers and life imprisonment for their mother and four other relatives for the 2017 honour killing of their 21-year-old pregnant family member, Bhanu Begum. A division bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice T.M. Nadaf termed the crime "barbaric," "diabolic," and a "cold-blooded murder" that shocks the conscience of society, classifying it as a "rarest of the rare" case warranting capital punishment.

The High Court dismissed the criminal appeals filed by the convicts and confirmed the death sentence reference made by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayapura.

Case Background: An Inter-Faith Marriage and a Heinous Crime

The case revolves around the murder of Bhanu Begum, a Muslim woman who was nine months pregnant. She had married Saibanna, a man from the Hindu-Bedar community, against her family's wishes. The couple had eloped to Goa and returned to their village, Gundaknal in Vijayapura district, after Bhanu became pregnant.

On June 3, 2017, in a premeditated attack, the victim's family members—including her brothers Ibrahimsab (Accused No. 1) and Akbar (Accused No. 2), her mother Ramjanbi (Accused No. 4), and other relatives—formed an unlawful assembly armed with sticks, stones, and an axe.

The prosecution established that the accused first set fire to the couple's dwelling. When the couple escaped, they were attacked. Saibanna was assaulted, and casteist slurs were hurled at him. Bhanu Begum was dragged in front of her mother's house, brutally beaten on the head with a stick until she fell unconscious, and then her brothers poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze in broad daylight, in full public view. The attack resulted in the death of both Bhanu and her unborn child.

Arguments Before the High Court

The appellants' counsel argued that the trial court's conviction was flawed as it relied solely on the testimony of "interested witnesses"—the complainant's family members—while all independent witnesses had turned hostile. They contended that there was no motive for an honour killing, pointing out that another of the victim's sisters had also married a man from the same community. The defense also suggested that the complainant, against whom the deceased had once filed a POCSO complaint, could have been the perpetrator.

The Additional State Public Prosecutor countered that the evidence from the eyewitnesses, including the injured husband (PW-3), was consistent and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence. The State argued that the gruesome nature of the crime—a planned, public execution of a pregnant woman by her own family—was an aggravating circumstance that made it a "rarest of the rare" case, justifying the death penalty.

Court's Reasoning: "Barbaric Act" and a Crime Against Society

The High Court meticulously re-appreciated the evidence, finding the testimony of the eyewitnesses credible despite them being relatives. The court noted that the husband's injuries, detailed in a medical certificate (Ex.P-24), corroborated his presence and the assault on him.

In its judgment, the bench made several pivotal observations:

"The act of the accused is nothing but barbaric act. The deceased had not committed any sin in getting married to a person belonging to a Beda community... The crime is committed so brutally that it pricks and shocks not only the judicial conscience but even the conscience of the society."

The court held that the murder was a "cold-blooded" honour killing intended to create "fear psychosis in the public at large." The bench identified numerous aggravating factors, including: - The premeditated and brutal nature of the attack. - The victims were the deceased's own brothers and mother, who betrayed a relationship of trust. - The murder of not only a helpless pregnant woman but also her unborn child. - The public nature of the crime, which was intended to send a chilling message against inter-faith marriages.

While acknowledging that the accused brothers were young, the court concluded that this single mitigating factor was overwhelmingly outweighed by the aggravating circumstances. The bench stated that "the scale of justice tilts in favour of the prosecution and there are no mitigating circumstances favouring the accused to reduce the sentence."

Final Verdict and Implications

The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by all convicts and confirmed the judgment of the trial court. - Ibrahimsab (A1) and Akbar (A2) are to be hanged by the neck till death. - Ramjanbi (A4), Davalbi @ Salma (A5), Ajama (A6), Jalani (A7), and Davalabi (A8) will serve life imprisonment.

The judgment reaffirms the judiciary's stern stance on honour killings, classifying them as crimes against society that warrant the most severe punishment under the law.