"No Citizen Can Take Law In Own Hands": Rajasthan High Court Refuses Bail To Two In Honour Killing Case, Orders Further Investigation

Essentially, the deceased-Azad and the accused petitioner-Bhim Saini's sister were in a relationship. As the girl's family was not pleased with the same, therefore, the couple eloped. They were later apprehended by the police and the girl was made to accompany the petitioner-side. The deceased filed a habeas corpus petition following which, the parties attempted to settle the matter through compromise and accordingly, the deceased withdrew the petition. In a close proximity of time, the boy went missing and after four days his dead body was found lying in a pond tied with the heavy iron material.

On investigation, it was found that the cause of death was due to suffocation from strangulation and not due to drowning. Moreover, the deceased had also uploaded the chat on his Instagram specifically stating that "bhai mujhe jaan se maarna chahta hai bhim saini. Shaadi karli hai uski ladki se." (I have married the girl. His brother Bhim Saini wants to kill me) He also chatted with one Dinesh Kumawat regarding death threats.

The court remarked that the instant case has its own peculiar facts which have a circumstantially diffusing smell of intent-full homicidal death on account of Honour and prestige i.e. having a strong trait of honour killing.

Justice Farjand Ali, while dismissing the bail application of the two accused, observed,

"Needless, to observe that every citizen of this country is abided and governed by rule of Law and one has to follow it as no one is above the Law, as in fact no one can. Every citizen is principally embodied to access their fundamental right and legal right peacefully and if it is being hindered by any one, the rule of law and the procedure established by law is there for its recourse, but no citizen is allowed to take the course of law in its own hands, strictly not."

The court noted that the chain of events tentatively showing a well designed conspiracy and the complicity of every accused person is very much available on record. The court assumed from the circumstances that the petitioners are mighty and influential persons. The court opined that the circumstance of non recording of statements of girl Jiya, Dinesh, and the lawyer before whom the compromise talks were made; raises serious doubts and concerns. The possibility of winning over the witness at this stage as well as hampering the same could not be ruled out, added the court.

While invoking and exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, the court directed the Superintendent of Police, Bundi to appoint a competent officer not below the rank of Add. SP to conduct further investigation in the matter under section 173(8) CrPC and to file a supplementary chargesheet before the trial court taking all the other left out relevant evidence in the matter within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. It was added that the relevant witnesses or documents which the trial court feels just and appropriate; be taken on record and shall proceed in accordance with law.

The court also remarked,

"The thrust for the justice should not be defeated merely on technical points rather it shall be ensured that the justice should be done above the technical barriers as the procedure is the handmade of justice."

Moreover, it was opined by the court that the fact of the present case is actively pregnant with motive. As on the pitch of relevancy; motive remains a determining factor for washing away clouds over certain facts and pushes blurred discoloured events towards clarity by establishing a logical link/relation between certain acts so committed in the thrust of a desired result, added the court.

After perusal of Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, the court observed that motive is a relevant fact in itself, in other words, it can be said that it is like a gravitational force which pulls a person's consciousness rather drives him towards to do or omit to do a particular act for the desired result. The court opined that in the present matter, the accused petitioner could not seem to have digested the fact of the relationship of his sister Jiya with the deceased. Certain events thereafter appears to have added fuel in the fire which had germinated the fact in issue i.e the murder of Azad, added the court.

Mr. A.K. Gupta, Sr. Counsel with Mr. Aniket Sharma and Mr. Anil Upman appeared on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. Ghanshyam Singh, GA/AAG, Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP and Mr. R.P. Vijay appeared on behalf of the respondent.

Case Title: Bhim Saini @ Bhimraj Saini v. State of Rajasthan with other connected matter