DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
2nd April, 2014
JUDGES:
Honourable Justice Gita Mittal, Honourable Justice J.R. Midha
PARTIES:
(Appellants): - Vishal Yadav
(Respondents): - State of U.P.
OVERVIEW
- This case is about the abduction and murder of a man named Nitish Kalra, who was allegedly murdered by the brothers of his lover. Her brothers were not accepting of their relationship and ended up murdering Nitish. An investigation was carried out into this case which resulted in the arrest of Vishal and Vikas Yadav.
- It was held by the trial court that the Yadav brothers, along with Sukhdev Singh were guilty of murdering Nitish and setting his body on fire, and granted them a punishment of life imprisonment.
- This judgement was challenged by the respondents in the High Court stating that there was no evidence to back the claims by the prosecution.
- The High Court upheld the judgement of the trial court, and granted the Yadav brothers imprisonment for 25 years, while imprisonment for 20 years was awarded to Sukhdev Singh.
- There was a re-appeal by which the Court awarded an additional five year term to each of them for the destruction of evidence.
- This judgement was upheld by the Supreme Court where it was stated that this five year term will be concurrent to their imprisonment term which was granted to them and not consecutive to it.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Section 34 of IPC - according to this section, if a criminal act is being committed by several people with a common intention, then each one of them will be liable for that act in the same manner as if it was done by them alone.
- Section 201 of IPC – according to this section if an individual causes, the evidence of the offence which they have committed to disappear, or if they provide false information in order to make an attempt to shield the offender then they will be committing a capital offence.
- Section 302 of IPC – this section discusses about the different types of hurt which are more severe in nature and hence have been categorized as grievous hurt by this Code. It includes eight different types of hurt which is inclusive of: emasculation, loss of vision, loss of hearing, fracture or bone dislocation etc.
- Section 364 of IPC - according to this section, any individual who either kidnaps or abduction someone to murder them or put them in a danger which can lead to their murder will be punished with imprisonment of life or for a term which can extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
- Section 162 of CrPC - this section states that the statements which are given to the police need not be signed by the person giving it. It also states that the statements which are given can be used only to see if they are in contradiction to what the witness states in the court. It also mentions that in case an omission to a fact or circumstance has been made which is relevant to the case at hand then such contradiction may amount to a question of fact.
ISSUES
1. Whether the presumption that ‘a person is innocent until proved guilty’, along with right to silence of an accused mentioned under the constitution enables them to delay the process of trial or obstruct it or present false evidence?
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
The facts of this case can be explained as follows:
- Nitish was working under Reliance General Insurance, Delhi. He was involved in a relationship with Bharti Yadav, they were batchmates in IMT, Ghaziabad.
- Bharti’s brothers were not approving of her relationship.
- It was in Shivani Gaur (common friend of Nitish and Bharti) and Amit Arora’s wedding on 16th February 2002 where, Bharti’s brothers took Nitish away from the wedding venue and murdered him.
- Nitish’s mother had approached the police to file a missing report for her son, when he did not return from the wedding with his friend. She even informed them about Nitish going to the wedding, and all the details she gathered by talking to Bharat (the friend with whom Nitish was attending the wedding) and Bharti (with whom Nitish was involved in a relationship with), and about her getting information that Nitish went away with Bharti’s brother.
- It was the next day when the police had been informed of a dead body which had been found near Khurja. The body had been burnt to a point beyond recognition.
- This body was identified by Nitish’s mother as her son, it was because he had unsually short hands, and his left hand was not burnt, so she could recognise it.
- After investigation, the police arrested the Yadav brothers from Dabra district of Gwalior, and after a while Sukhdev was arrested too.
- The trial court herd the matter and found the Yadav brothers, and Sukhdev to be guilty following which they were awarded with life imprisonment.
- They challenged this decision in the High Court stating there was no evidence against them. The High Court held that motive is more important than circumstantial evidence and in their decision that as per the recordings of witnesses, evidence presented, they were guilty and announced 25 years of jail to the Yadav brothers while 20 years to Sukhdev along with an additional five years to all of them.
- When this case was moved to the Supreme Court, it was held that the additional five years of imprisonment will not be consecutive but run concurrent to their imprisonment term.
In order to throw light on this issue, the court cited the case of ‘Inder Singh & Anr. V. State’ Where it was held that the credibility of testimony be it oral or circumstantial will depend on the judicial evaluation of the whole situation and not just an isolated case of scrutiny. It was also stated that a realistic approach should be adopted and the accused should be entitled with the benefit of doubt only when the prosecution fails to prove their case. Also the proof beyond reasonable doubt should be considered as a guiding factor instead of an absolute rule.
It was also observed by the court that the motive of the individual committing the offence also stands as a very important link in cases which rely on circumstantial evidence.
In the present case, where it had been proved that Nitish and Bharti were involved in a romantic relationship and this was not approved by her brothers Vikas and Vishal. This was enough of a reason for them to involve Sukhdev and abduct Nitish from Suhani's wedding and murder him. They had also been seen by a by-passer named Ajay Katara who was later threatened to change his statement in court.
They also utilised the political approach and power of Vikas Yadav's father (D.P. Yada, Member or Parliament) to fabricate evidence and coerce witnesses to change their statements in court.
In their judgement the High Court stated that the features of this case which have been established by the prosecution along with the testimony of the witness is and the evidence which has been put forward before this court, along with the very convincing array of facts which stand indisputable with regards to the conduct of the appellants, it is found that the appellants are guilty of abducting Nitish, taking him to a different place and then murdering him and after that lighting his body on fire. They have also committed the crime of destroying evidence in order to save themselves from the legal punishment of the henious crimes that they have committed.
The court also spoke about the restrictions within which many women in our country are raised and are supposed to survive. They mentioned as to how we force our women to choose a life partner no matter how educated all successful they become, or even if they come from a very well educated and articulate family from such a big city.
When this matter was moved to the Supreme Court, they held that this was a planned and cold blooded murder but it cannot be categorised as honour killing. The court also upheld the judgement which was given by the High Court and stated that the additional five years will not be consecutive but concurrent to the punishment of imprisonment which had been awarded to the guilty. They also held that it is neither the family members nor the members of the collective who hold any right to assault the boy who is chosen by the girl. Her honour will be harmed if her individual choice is treated like this.
CONCLUSION
This case is a very solid example of the deep rooted patriarchy within our society. it lays down the picture so clearly that even today no matter what the educational qualifications of a girl are, no matter how successful she is in her line of career, she can make decisions of what will happen in an organisation but not her own life. we condition our women to believe that the most important decisions in their life have to be taken by a man beat her father before her marriage or even her brothers or her husband after it.
It is ironical as to how the families which are considered to be so educated and articulat and progressive are actually the ones which engage in activities like these.
This case is also a very strong example of how power and money are misused in our society, it is because even though the term of imprisonment of the Yadav brothers was more as compared to Sukhdev, there was no act which was suggesting regret or remorse in their behaviour. They were even out on bail and the condition was so bad that at the time when they were out on bail, Vikas had committed more crimes and was also involved in the case of murder of Jessica Lal.
The people with money and power in our society think that they can getaway with anything and they're not entirely wrong because our corrupt system enables them to do so, but the question arising here is what are we actually doing to stop it?
There is no denying to the fact that money and power can intimidate anybody but we also have to acknowledge that nobody is above the law and they cannot be. so this is where the authorities have to step in end acknowledge in the first place that such practises are wrong and then take strict actions against it so that even those who think that there will be a way out understand that there will never be a way out.
It is also high time that we stop controlling our women and conditioning them to always be dependent on the men to take their decisions for them. empowerment does not only mean educating them but it also means that they are given an equal chance of opportunity, and an equal chance to have an opinion and put it forward and make their own decisions, this journey to accept that women are equal is a very long one and as a country we have just started.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
