The bench noted that while Bharti was a Yadav and came from a well-placed business class family with her father also being a member of Parliament but Nitish was a Katara and his father was in government service and was certainly not in the same income bracket of Bharti's family.
“The present case again brings to the fore a malaise which still afflicts Indian society that finds its roots in entrenched social structures based on religion, caste and economic standing.
“What is of special concern is that such divisive forces exist even on the borders of Delhi - the nation's capital, which is also a cosmopolitan city,” it said.
The bench also said that Bharti, who was sent out of India to the UK and kept out of the court for over three-and-a-half years, was also a victim of the honour killing.
“Her testimony is evidence of the influence of her brothers and family as she prevaricates over trivial matters and denies established facts borne out by documentary evidence. Finally, when she must have been stretched to the utmost, she succumbs to their pressures when she concedes a deviously put suggestion,” the bench said.
It said that every woman, or girl, who faces opposition from their famile members for choosing their life partners from different caste, should be given protection.
“Going back to the course of events in the present case which unfolded in 2002, would it not be permissible to treat Bharti Yadav as also a traumatized victim of the crime committed by the appellants? Or for that matter, should not every woman, or girl, whose freedom to choose her partner is so taken away by any person, be treated as a victim of the crime of honour killing as well? Such a woman is left to face the criticism and ill treatment of her family and caste, completely defenceless and alone.
“It is high time that such women are afforded similar protections as are being provided to victims of other kinds of violence (including sexual violence) so that they are able to live life with dignity and self respect on their terms, in the manner they choose. Certainly not in a manner where critical choices regarding their lives are taken by others and thrust upon them,” it said.
