AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Ramasubramanian, J. - The above writ petition was filed by a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste, who married a girl belonging to the upper caste, on account of which both of them were hounded and the girl eventually killed. The writ petition was disposed of by me, by a final order dated 11.11.2014, with certain directions. Paragraph 43 of the order which contains the operative portion, reads as follows:
"43. In the light of the above, the writ petition is allowed to the following effect:-
(1) The Superintendent of Police, Madurai and the 2nd respondent will hand over all the records relating to crime no. 308/14 on the file of Usilampatti Police Station as well as the materials collected by the present investigation officer namely the Dy. SP (PEW), Madurai forthwith to the 3rd respondent who will in turn nominate an officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police to continue the investigation and submit a final report to the Jurisdictional Magistrate. A further direction will follow to the 2nd respondent to direct all their officers to accord full cooperation in the smooth conduct of the investigation by the CBI.
(2) The 2nd respondent is directed to appoint an officer of the rank of an Inspector General of Police to conduct a preliminary investigation on the conduct of the officers in the circumstances that lead to the death of Vimaladevi and submit a report to this court within a period eight weeks and get further orders on the further course of action against such of those officers whose names came to adverse notice.
(3) The 2nd respondent is directed to accord police protection to the petitioner until the completion of the investigation and until further orders from this court.
(4) The petitioner is at liberty to renew the claim for compensation on account of the death of Vimaladevi at the appropriate stage.
(5) The 1st and 2nd respondents are hereby directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- towards costs to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Pursuant to the directions contained in paragraph 43(2), the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai, filed a report before this Court along with the memo issued by the Director General of Police on 21.02.2015. In the report of the preliminary enquiry submitted by the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, he has stated that he examined about 17 persons and recorded their statements. On the basis of the statements so recorded, the Inspector General of Police has arrived at certain findings. These findings are recorded in paragraph 4 of his report from serial Nos.1 to 16.
On the basis of the findings recorded in paragraph 4, the Inspector General of Police has also made certain observations in the form of a tabular column in paragraph 5 of his report, indicating the lapses on the part of the police officers and the officers who are responsible for such lapses. This tabulation is worth extracting. Hence, it is extracted as follows:
S. No.
Lapses
Officers held responsible
i.
Failed to enter information regarding registration of FIR in Usilampatti Town PS Cr.No.244/14 u/s 366 IPC in the station General Diary dated 22.07.2014 of Usilampatti Town PS.
Tmt. Rani, WSI, Usilampatti Town PS, Madurai District.
ii.
Failed to enter in Usilampatti Town PS GD. dated 24.07.2014 the fact regarding despatch of special party to Kerala in time. But later inserted and made entries as if entered in time.
Failed to issue foreign passport to the special party which went to other State (Kerala) in connection with Usilampatti Town PS Cr.No.244/14 u/s 366 IPC.
Tr. Sukumar, Inspector of Police, Checkkanurani circle, Madurai District.
Iii.
Failed to enter the facts regarding arrival of special party from Pattambi, Kerala and connected matters in the Usilampatti Town PS GD. dated 25.07.2014.
Failed to record statement from special police team which went to Kerala and produced Vimaladevi, Dhilipkumar before Inspector of police at Usilampatti AWPS on 25.07.2014.
Tr.Sulkumar, Inspector of Police, Checkkanurani circle, Madurai District.
iv.
Failed to register cases against the mob which way laid the Inspector during production of Vimaladevi before JM Court, Usilampatti on 25.07.2014.
Tr. Sukumar, Inspector of Police, Checkkanurani circle, Madurai District.
v.
Failed to enter the details of the enquiry conducted in CSR No.489/14 in the General Diary dated 23.09.2014 of Batlagundu police station.
Tmt. Anandhi, WSI, Balagundu PS, Dindigul District.
Tr. Vinoji, Inspector of Police Balagundu PS. Dindigul District.
vi.
Failed to register case and produce Vimaladevi before jurisdictional Magistrate Court on 23.09.2014 in connection with complaint of Satheeshkumar.
Tmt. Anandhi, WSI, Balagundu PS, Dindigul District.
Tr. Vinoji, Inspector of Police Balagundu PS. Dindigul District.
vii.
Failed to give proper protection to Vimaladevi, Dhilipkumar who were sent out of the police station after enquiry on 23.09.2014 around 4 PM.
Tmt. Anandhi, WSI, Batlagundu PS. Dindigul District.
viii.
Failed to take action against the persons including officials if any who were responsible in waylaying Vimaladevi, Dhilipkumar, auto driver Ranjith and kidnapping Vimaladevi on 23.09.2014 at Batlagundu.
Tr. Vinoji, Inspector of Police, Batlagundu PS. Dindigul District.
After the report was taken on record, Ms. U. Nirmala Rani, learned counsel for the petitioner also filed a list of about 47 honour killings that were reported during the period from 2010 to 2015 in the State of Tamil Nadu. The tabular column is reproduced for the purpose of finding out what best, the stakeholders, namely the Society, the law enforcing agencies and the judiciary should do to prevent such happenings.
Sl. No.
Date of Occurrence
Deceased Name Age and Caste
Spouse Name Age and Caste
Crime No. and Police Station
Act and Section
1
5.5.2003
Murugesan, Dalit
Kannagi, Vanniar
...
...
2
5.6.2008
Thiruselvi, Hindu
Daniel Raj, Dalit
90/2008
302 and 201 of IPC
3
7.9.2008
Sivaji (29), Dalit
Lakshmi (29) Caste Hindu
492/2008, 78/2008, Dindugal Taluk Thokur
U/s. 147, 148, 452, 32, 506(ii) 364 of IPC 302 of IPC
4
4.11.2009
Sri Priya, Kallar
Pathrakali, Dalit
Udumalaipettai
302 IPC
5
23.6.2010
Suganya, Caste Hindu
Vetrivel (23), Dalit
...
...
6
4.7.2010
Sivakumar
Mehala (19)
266/2010, Manamadurai
302, 307 of IPC
7
5.8.2011
Elango (25), Dalit
Selvalakshmi (18), Hindu
Munnirpallam
...
8
1.9.2011
Durai (21), ST
Thenmozhi, Hindu
627/2011, Thanippadi
302, 201 of IPC
9
8.5.2012
Chitra, Vanniyar
Mathavan, Dalit
58/2012, 61/2012, Nagapattinam
176, 147, 323, 342, 506(2) of IPC and SC/ST Act, 3(1)(10)
10
11.11.2012
Kokila, Paraiyar
Karthikeyan, Arunthathiyar
...
174 of CRPC
11
15.12.2012
Roshi, Dalit
Kandhan, Caste Hindu
...
...
12
19.12.2012
Gopalakrishnan, Dalit
Durga, Hindu
328/2012, Thirumuttam
342, 364, 302 of IPC and SC, ST Cruelty Prohibition Act 3(2)(5).
13
17.1.2013
Nandhini (21), Caste Hindu
Praveen, Dalit
31/2013, Gummidipoondi
3431, 307 of IPC
14
21.1.2013
Nandhini, Koundar
..., Vanniar
...
...
15
31.1.2013
Pooppandi @ Alageswari (25)
Senbagalingam,
79/2013, A. Mukkualam
Sec.174 of Cr.P.C.
16
3.2.2013
Dhanalakshmi, Caste Hindu
Prbu (26), Dalit
84/2013, Viruthachalam
174 of Cr.P.C.
17
6.5.2013
Punitha (24), Muthuriar
Vinoth (26), Naidu
111/2013, Vetharanyam
302 of IPC
18
19.5.2013
Sowmya (20), Nadar
Siva (21), Panikkar
446/2013, Vadaseri
147, 148, 394(b), 307, 302 of IPC.
19
29.5.2013
Priyanga (20), Arunthathiyar
Moorthy (24), Kuyavar
205/2013, Mallur
174 Cr.P.C.
20
5.6.2013
Partipan (21) Dalit
Ochammal, Caste Hindu
117/2013, Maruvathur
302 of IPC and Cruelty Prohibition Act Section 3(2)(5)
21
26.6.2013
Kasthuri (22)
Siva (23)
2010/2013, Kirushnagiri
302 of IPC
22
13.9.2013
Gomathi, Caste Hindu
Murugan, Dalit
110/2013, Seelaperi
302 of IPC
23
Sathiyapriya, Hindu
Suntharesan, Dalit
230/2013, Devipattinam
176, 120, 320 of IPC
24
19.10.2013
Sasikala, Hindu
Kotaisamy, Dalit
128/2013, Emaneswaram
174 of Cr.P.C.
25
11.12.2013
Karthika, Caste Hindu
...Dalit
Eariyodu
...
26
15.12.2013
Venkateswari
Muththaiya (25)
...
...
27
6.3.2014
Sankerganesh, Valayar
Sridevi, Maravar
65/2014, Karivala mvanthanallur
302 of IPC
28
...
Priya
..
17/2013, Sulagiri
174 of Cr.P.C and 302 of IPC
29
...
Pavithra
..
696/2013, Sathiyamangalam
307, 302 of IPC
30
...
Meenakshi
..
331/2013, Kadathoor
302,201 of IPC
31
...
Amudhavalli (21)
..
26/2013, Irumbulik urichi
498(A), 302(A) of IPC
32
...
Keerthana
..
227/2013, Sathankulam
302, 201 of IPC
33
...
Saranya
..
53/2013, Thuthukkudi North
302 of IPC
34
...
Jaya
..
143/2013, Periapalayam
302 of IPC
35
...
Devi
..
313/2013, Udhagamandalam Town
302, 498(A) of IPC
36
...
Valarmathi
..
293/2013, Mohanur
302 of IPC
37
17.3.2014 Maravar
Vetheki, Maruthuvar
Sureshkumar,
139/2014, Kenikarai
294(b), 506(2), 342, 369 and 302 of IPC
38
3.4.2014
Boopathi, Udaiyar
Sathishkumar, Maniyakarar
136/2014, Podinayakanur
302 of IPC
39
21.6.2014
Bavani, Vanniyar
Sathishkumar, Dalit
280/2014, Kenikarai
320 of IPC.
40
7.7.2014
Divya (16)
Saranraj
Mudhukullathur
41
1.10.2014
Vimaladevi (20), Kallar
Dilipkumar (24), Dalit
308/2014, Usilampatti Nagar
147, 149, 306, 176, 120(g), 201 of IPC
42
14.11.2014
Muthukumar, Paraiyar
Bhuvaneshwari, Kongu Vellalar
156/2014, Chottapatti
V/S, 17(G)
43
10.12.2014
Amirthavalli, Dalit
Palaniyappan, Vanniyar
216/2014, Kottur
302 of IPC and Cruelty Prohibition Act Section 3(2)(5)
44
..
Sathyabama, MBC
Ragunath, Kongu Vellalar
155/2014, Sithodu
302 of IPC
45
..
..
..
221/2014, Bhuvanagiri
Sec.109, 120(B), 201, 302 of IPC, SC/ST Act 3(2)(5)
46
05.03.2015
Tamilselvi, Caste Hindu
Boominathan, Dalit
Sivaganga TK
Sec. 149, 120(b), 302, 201, 176 and 145 of IPC
47
20.2.2015
David Raja, Nadar
...Thever
Tirunelveli Rural Police
.
The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to my notice a decision of Justice K. Kannan of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 23.02.2015 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.26734 of 2014. In paragraph 10 of the said decision, the learned Judge issued certain directions, which are worth noting. Hence, it is extracted as follows:
"10. There shall be separate cell in every police district for receiving complaints from couples expressing fear of physical annihilation from parents, relatives and khaps. The police shall make no attempt to compel adult couples to return to their parents, if any one among the couples apprehends physical harm. The police must keep an army of "friends of people" from amongst progressive minded people in every village or group of villages, where honour killings have been rampant, to provide emotional support and counselling. They shall be sounded by the police, when complaints are received, to play a tempering role to diffuse tension in the village. There is a growing disconnect between police and people. Police must keep live contact with people, not merely to apprehend or arrest but also to promote harmony and good will. Every case suspected to be an instance of honour killing shall be considered for entrustment to a high power officer for investigation not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police and under the direct control and supervision of the Senior Superintendent of Police.
Civil Writ Petition No.26734 of 2014
The Secretary, Home Department, Haryana, shall convene forthwith a meeting with all high ranking police officers of the State and evolve an acceptable protocol for the persons who shall be competent to investigate and prosecute cases of honour killings. The proposed action shall provide a manner of tracking responsibility to a police officer whose laxity has contributed to the honour killing. If age old customs deny to the adults of the freedom of choice as marriage partners, they must be treated as obnoxious and will have no place in the constitutional ethos, allowing for individual freedoms to flourish. If khaps or the parents oppose, they shall be made to bow down to individual preferences that must be taken as mature actions of informed adults. The law enforcement agencies shall be the first person who shall respond positively to social welfare legislations."
I am of the considered view that some directions similar to those issued by the Punjab and Haryana High Court may be essential to eradicate the evil of honour killing. Hence, the following directions are issued :-
(1) The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai, shall forward the copy of his Report to the Director General of Police, for appropriate departmental action against the officers against whom a preliminary finding of commitment of certain lapses has been recorded in his Report.
(2) As directed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the State shall create special cells in every District, comprising of the Superintendent of Police, the District Social Welfare Officer and District Adi-Dravida Welfare Officer, to receive petitions/complaints of harassment of and threat to couples of inter caste marriage.
(3) These Special Cells shall create a 24 hour helpline to receive and register such complaints and to provide necessary assistance/advice as well as protection to the couple.
(4) Since all the police stations in the State appear to have been connected electronically through CCTNS Portal (Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems) Network, the State of Tamil Nadu shall examine the possibility of generating First Information Reports automatically (Auto-generated), upon the receipt of complaints from the aggrieved couple, even through helpline.
(5) The Special Cell formed in each District shall monitor on a regular basis,the receipt of complaints through helpline or otherwise, the registration of the same and the action taken by the concerned police.
(6) It shall be the duty of the Station House Officer of the police station within whose limits the couple move about, to provide protection to them. In order to ensure that such a protection is given, the Special Cell should ensure that the complaint received through helpline or otherwise is forwarded immediately to the police station within whose jurisdictional limits the couple apprehending danger are moving about. The forwarding of the complaint to the concerned police station will be facilitated easily if online registration through CCTNS Portal is possible. The moment the request of the couple is forwarded by the Special Cell to the concerned police station, it shall be the duty of the Station House Officer of that police station to provide protection to the couple.
(7) Without confining themselves merely to the grant of protection to the aggrieved couple and taking action against the members of the family and friends for chasing the couple, the Special Cell should take pro-active steps to provide counselling to the parents of the couple.
(8) The State should set apart necessary funds for the purpose of eradicating the evil of honour killing and make available sufficient funds at the disposal of the Special Cells in each District. This fund can be utilised by the Special Cells for providing temporary shelters to the couples and for rehabilitating them wherever necessary. The Special Cells shall have a free hand to engage the services of Counsellors.
(9) In the event of any untoward incident, the Special Cell should fix responsibility upon the officers who failed in their duty to protect the couple. The failure to provide protection should be viewed as a major misconduct. The State shall form the Special Cells and take the above measures within a period of three months.