Parents, 80-Yr-Old Grandmother To Serve Life Sentence For Honour Killing Of Teen Daughter

A Sessions Court in Ahmednagar, Maharashtra has convicted three members of a family including an octogenarian woman and sentenced them to life imprisonment in a case of 'honour killing' wherein the trio killed a minor girl (17 years) after she expressed her desire to marry a man of her choice.

Sessions Judge Shivaji Kachare noted that the girl's parents - Sainath and Chhaya Garad and grandmother - Padmavati Garad opposed their daughter's love affair with a boy from the village, who worked as an Accountant at a local finance institute. The judge noted that the family had told the boy, that they would 'prefer killing their daughter for their honour' and that the next day morning of October 8, 2022, the boy was informed through a cousin that the family killed the girl and in fact even cremated her body in the dead of the night, without even informing the police. 

The judge noted that Chhaya was a Sarpanch and that her husband Sainath claimed to have 'political backing' and used these two very grounds to threaten the boy to stay away from their daughter, who was studying in Class 10 and was an excellent athlete. 

"The evidence unmistakably reveals that the deceased was determined to marry a person of her own choice. The accused strongly opposed the said relationship. The deceased and the informant were threatened on this count. Immediately before her death, the deceased was in contact with the informant. Within a short span thereafter, she died under suspicious circumstances. Her body was hurriedly cremated without informing the police. No satisfactory explanation regarding her death has been offered by any of the accused. It is a matter of common experience that crimes committed in the name of family honour ordinarily take place within the privacy of a family residence. Independent eyewitnesses are rarely available because the offence itself is committed by close family members inside the house. Therefore, the absence of direct eyewitness testimony cannot by itself create doubt where the circumstantial evidence forms a complete chain. In the present case, every proved circumstance points only towards the accused Sainath, Chhaya and Padmavati. The possibility of the intervention of any third person is completely ruled out," the court held. 

The judge further held that the trio shared common motive to prevent the deceased from marrying the informant and thus they acted in concert after the death by jointly arranging the hurried cremation without informing the police, without informing relatives and by causing disappearance of the physical evidence. Their concerted conduct before and after the occurrence, the judge said, unmistakably establishes the prior meeting of the minds to eliminate the deceased and thereafter, conceal the offence.

"The cumulative effect of the evidence unmistakably establishes that the trio accused, being unable to reconcile themselves with the decision of the deceased to marry a person of her own choice, caused her death and, thereafter, hurriedly cremated the body in order to destroy the evidence of the offence. Thus, it appears to me that the present crime is an instance of honour killing," the judge opined. 

Further the judge refused to accept the version of the family that their daughter committed suicide by consuming poison. The judge noted that even if the girl consumed poisoned, the family failed to bring any material on record, to support their contention. 

"The conduct of the accused immediately after the occurrence is wholly inconsistent with ordinary human behaviour. If a young unmarried daughter had suddenly consumed poison, the normal reaction of her parents would be to make every possible effort to save her life by immediately shifting her to the nearest hospital. Instead, the evidence discloses that the dead body was cremated during the night itself before the police were informed. No postmortem examination was permitted. No intimation was given to the police regarding the unnatural death, even though the non- matrimonial relatives were not informed before the cremation. Such unusual haste is wholly incompatible with the conduct expected from innocent parents. The conduct of the accused, therefore, constitutes a highly incriminatory circumstance," the judge held. 

Further, the judge clarified that death penalty is not to be imposed merely because the offence is heinous or brutal but rather it can be awarded only in the “rarest of rare” case where the alternative option of imprisonment for life is unquestionably foreclosed. The present case, the court opined did not pass the test of "rarest of rare" as laid down by the Supreme Court. 

"Although the motive behind the crime is reprehensible and the conduct of the accused in hurriedly cremating the dead body and destroying the evidence is highly aggravating, there are no exceptional circumstances to conclude that the accused are beyond the possibility of reformation or rehabilitation. Therefore, considering the mitigating circumstances that the accused have no proven antecedents and the absence of material regarding their inability to reform cannot be ignored while applying the sentencing principles. In view of this, this Court is of the opinion that the present case, though undoubtedly grave and deserving stern punishment does not fall within the category of the 'rarest of rare' cases warranting the extreme penalty of death. The ends of justice would be adequately met by sentencing the accused to imprisonment for life for the offence," the court ruled. 

With these observations, the court sentenced all the three accused to life imprisonment. 

Appearance:

Additional Public Prosecutor AD Dhage represented the State. 

Advocate SR Sayyed represented the Accused. 

Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Sainath Dinkar Garad

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment