The Delhi High Court today asked the Haryana government to utilise the Rs 13-lakh fine imposed on the convicts of the 2010 Mirchpur Dalit killing case for rehabilitation of the victim families.
"The fine amounts collected shall be utilised by the Government of Haryana as part of the provision of pecuniary relief and rehabilitation to the victims," a bench of Justices S Muralidhar and I S Mehta said.
The high court today sentenced to life imprisonment 12 members of the dominant Jat community and 21 other convicts to varying jail terms in the 2010 Mirchpur Dalit killing case in which a 60-year-old man and his physically-challenged teenaged daughter were burnt alive.
The court imposed fines ranging from Rs 1,000 to Rs 10,000 for each of the offences, including murder, rioting and causing grievous hurt under the penal code and the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, for which the 33 convicts were held guilty and if recovered, the total amount would come to around Rs 13 lakh.
As a result of the April 21, 2010 violence, 254 families of the Balmiki community had to flee Mirchpur village in Hisar district of Haryana. Some of them took shelter in the farmhouse of one Ved Pal Tanwar.
The Dalit families which moved out of the village supported the case of the prosecution, while those who returned there did not.
The court observed that many of those families continue to remain at the farmhouse awaiting rehabilitation and reparation as they have been too scared to return to Mirchpur.
The Haryana government had initiated rehabilitation programmes for the distressed community.
The proposal was to settle the displaced families "in the newly carved town Deen Dayal Puram in Dhandoor village adjoining Hisar town". According to the report, the state government had proposed spending Rs 4.56 crore to lay down the infrastructure and civic facilities in the proposed township.
The court said it was a sobering fact that the Haryana government decided to rehabilitate the displaced Dalit families in a separate township and not in Mirchpur.
"The question is whether this accords with the constitutional promise of equality, social justice and fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual," said the bench.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
