"She Had Conspired To Get Her Daughter Killed On Account Of 'Compromising Their Honour', P&H High Court Denies Bail To Mother In Honour Killing Case

The bench of Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill rejected the bail plea of the petitioner and directed the Trial to be expedited.

The prosecution shall ensure the presence of the prosecution witnesses on the dates, as may be fixed by the trial Court for recording their statements so that there is no further delay in the proceedings of trial. The Trial Court may make a schedule in advance for summoning the PWs and fix short dates for the witnesses to be summoned. Special messengers be deputed for securing presence of the witnesses. If deemed necessary, a request be also be made to Senior Superintendent of Police concerned for ensuring that the presence of all the PWs is secured for the dates as may be fixed by the Trial Court."

The case came up as a result of a conspiracy between the petitioner-mother and adoptive parents of the minor daughter who hired professional killers to get their daughter killed for 'compromising their honour' by eloping with a Balmiki boy. This is the case of double murders where in the event minor daughter along with Police personnel died.

The undisputed facts of the case are that Sarita is the biological mother of the deceased-Juvenile Mamta who was given in adoption to her paternal uncle and aunt. Mamta eloped with a boy who belonged to a Balmiki caste. Her decision was not welcomed by the family and they saw it as an act of embarrassment and disgrace. They entered into a conspiracy to hire professional killers and kill Mamta.

When Mamta was produced before Juvenile Justice Board, the complainants named SI Narender and Constable Sushila were accompanying her. The professional killers came on a motorcycle and fired on Mamta. As a result of which Mamta died and SI Narendra eventually succumbed to his injuries. Therefore, the present FIR was registered on the complaint of the complainant.

Petitioner's counsel tried to carve out the possibility of motive on the part of Savita by arguing that once Savita gave away Mamta in adoption to her paternal uncle and aunt, she had nothing to do with her daughter anymore which makes Mamta's conduct not embarrassing for Savita.

On the other hand, the State counsel while pointing strongly at the motive part submitted that since the petitioner and adoptive parents were closely related, the possibility that Mamta's conduct would affect the petitioner cannot be carved out completely. It was further submitted that the alleged act of honour killing was the result of the petitioner and other co-accused feeling that their 'honour' was compromised by Mamta having an alliance with the Balmiki boy. This fact is further concreted by the co-accused who in his disclosure statement, clearly named the petitioner as one of the co-accused.

The court after hearing both the counsels and rejecting the contentions of the petitioners held that the facts stated above have been corroborated with various events do not leave any room for leniency. As far as the argument regarding parity with the case of other co-accused is concerned, the court stated that the petitioner cannot claim any benefit on stating that said accused were granted bail because they were not related to the deceased, unlike the petitioner being the biological mother and during the proceedings of the trial, two eye-witnesses have supported the prosecution case.

Case Title : Savita V State Of Haryana 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 40