'Honour killing must get strong punishment': SC upholds guilt of 11 convicts

New Delhi: Honour killing must get a strong measure of punishment, the Supreme Court on Monday said and upheld the conviction of 11 accused for the "dastardly murder" of a young couple in Tamil Nadu in July 2003.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prashant Kumar Mishra refused to interfere with the Madras High Court's June 2022 verdict that upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused persons, including two police officers.

The bench said the victims -- Murugesan and Kannagi -- who were in their early twenties were killed by administering poison in full view of a large number of villagers.

The masterminds and the main perpetrators of this "macabre act" were none other than the father and brother of the woman, it added.

The top court observed the reason behind the murder was that Kannagi belonged to the "Vanniyar" community whereas Murugesan was a Dalit from the same village in Cuddalore district.

The couple secretly married in May 2003.

"So, at the root of this crime is the deeply entrenched hierarchical caste system in India, and ironically, this most dishonourable act goes by the name of honour-killing," the bench said in its 73-page verdict.

Advocate Priyadharshni Rahul appeared for Murugesan's family.

"A crime is an act against the state. But a wicked and odious crime, as the one we have just dealt with, is the ugly reality of our deeply entrenched caste structure. Honour-killing, as these are called, must get a strong measure of punishment," it said.

The bench awarded a compensation of Rs 5 lakh to Murugesan's kin and said the amount was liable to be paid by Tamil Nadu government.

The amount was stated to be over and above the amount directed to be paid as compensation by the sessions court and the high court.

On the role of the police officers, the bench said both committed the offences under Section 217 of IPC and the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as they neglected their duties and disobeyed the law by not registering the FIR at the first instance with the intention to save the culprits.

Section 2017 of the erstwhile IPC dealt with public servant disobeying direction of law with intent to save person from punishment, or property from forfeiture.