THE RADHIKA YADAV MURDER CASE: A SOCIO-LEGALSTUDY OF PRIDE, PATRIARCHY, AND PREJUDICE

Authored By: Pragati Gupta

Lucknow University

Abstract

Radhika Yadav’s heinous murder at the hands of her father, Deepak Yadav, transcends the boundaries of mere criminality, serving as a profound indictment of the entrenched patriarchal honor and societal expectations that perpetuate gender-based violence in contemporary India. This paper scrutinizes the case through a socio-legal lens, illuminating how societal imperatives and constructs of honor can culminate in acts of gender-based violence. This article explores the pertinent provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), constitutional protections, and landmark judicial precedents that confront the epidemic of honor killings. Moreover, it investigates the psychological and sociological dynamics propelling such atrocities, elucidating the intricate interplay between legal frameworks, societal norms, and individual autonomy. By correlating this case with analogous instances of gender-based violence, the study underscores the pressing necessity for more robust legislation, rigorous enforcement, and a transformative societal paradigm to uphold women’s dignity and freedom.

Keywords

Radhika Yadav, honor killing, patriarchy, Indian Penal Code (IPC), gender-based violence, societal prejudice, family honor, Section 302 IPC, Section 120B IPC, Constitutional rights, Supreme Court of India, Domestic Violence, patriarchal norms.

Introduction

In July 2025, the shocking murder of Radhika Yadav, a 25-year-old promising state-level tennis player and coach from Gurugram, by her own father illuminated the harrowing realities of domestic violence, patriarchal dominance, and gender-based oppression within Indian households, where a daughter’s achievements are often perceived as a threat to familial honor. The incident, in which Radhika was tragically shot multiple times inside her residence by her father wielding a licensed revolver, has not only horrified the public but also provoked critical inquiries regarding the safety and autonomy of women within their own families.

Historically, Indian law has addressed cases of honor killings and parental violence under the general provisions of Murder (Section 302, IPC); however, there exists a paucity of recognition for the unique dynamics of intra-familial crimes perpetrated by a parent or close relative. This article endeavors to analyze the case not only from a legal perspective but also through a socio-psychological lens, investigating how elements such as pride, toxic masculinity, and societal prejudice contribute to such abhorrent acts.

The study scrutinizes the case through the prism of Indian Criminal law, evaluating IPC provisions, constitutional rights, and Supreme Court directives regarding honor killings, while advocating for more robust legal measures to avert such tragedies.

Facts of the Case

Radhika Yadav, a talented national-level tennis player from Madhya Pradesh, trained at a well-known tennis academy and was considered a rising star in Indian sports.
Despite her achievements, tensions reportedly grew within her family, particularly with her father, Deepak Yadav, who allegedly disapproved of her independence and social interaction with others.
In early September 2024, tragedy struck when Radhika Yadav was allegedly strangled to death by her father at their Bhopal home. Driven by rage over his daughter’s perceived ‘disobedience’ and fueled by societal gossips, Deepak Ydav reportedly tried to secretly dispose of her body, leading police to add charges under Section 201 IPC for destruction of evidence.
Police swiftly registered an FIR under Section 302 IPC (Murder) and arrested Deepak Yadav. Witness statements from neighbors and friends painted a grim picture of a household ruled by control, crushed by social pressure, and poisoned by deep-seated patriarchal attitudes that ultimately set the stage for the tragic crime.

Applicable Legal Provisions

Relevant Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections:

Section 302– Punishment for Murder.
Section 201– Causing disappearance of evidence, if attempts to hide the crime were made.
Section 307– if attempted murder charges for threats to others.
Section 120B– Criminal Conspiracy, if others were involved in planning.
Section 34– Common Intention- if multiple perpetrators acted together.
Section 498A– Cruelty by family members (relevance to background).

Arms Act,1959:

Section 27– Use of licensed weapon in a crime.

Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005– highlighting systemic gaps.

Honor Killing and Societal Control

Though this case involves a father and daughter, it fits the broader pattern of honor killings, where violence is driven by a perceived threat to family reputation.

Relevant Judegement:-

Lata Singh V. State of U.P. (2006) – The Supreme Court fiercely condemned honor killings, declaring them a “barbaric, feudal practice,” and strong upheld the right to safeguard liberty and free choice in marriage.
Shakti Vahini V. Union of India (2018) – the Supreme Court laid down strict preventive and protective guidelines to curb honor killings, calling for swift action to safeguard individuals from societal violence and coercion.

Constitutional Dimensions

Article 14 – Equality before the law:

The right to equal protection is violated when women face systematic discrimination and violence rooted in gender bias.

Article 21 – Right to life and personal Liberty:

Radhika’s fundamental right to life and autonomy was directly infringed upon by patriarchal control culminating in murder.

Judicial Issues Involved

Whether killing one’s own child (filicide) should be considered as an aggravated offence than ordinary murder because it involves a breach of parental trust.
How strong the evidence is, including the licensed revolver, bullets, ballistic tests, and post-mortem report, in proving guilt.
What kind of punishment is appropriate- should courts treat such crimes more harshly because they happen within the family and involve abuse of parental authority?
Whether the father’s mental condition (stress, humiliation, or psychological issues) can be considered as a mitigating factor or merely a motive?
Whether the history of control,restrictions, and emotional abuse within the family should be recognized under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005 along with the murder charges.
Does this case call for new legal recognition of intra-familial killings as a special category requiring stronger deterrence and separate guidelines?

Comparative Case Analysis

The Radhika Yadav case is not an isolated incident; it reflects a deeply rooted societal problem where notions of honor, patriarchal control, and societal prejudice converge to result in gender-based violence. This case mirrors several other notorious honor killing incidents in India, where family honor and societal pressure led to brutal crimes:

Bhagwan Dass V. State (NCT of Delhi) (2011) – The Supreme Court condemned honor killings as “barbaric and shameful,” holding that no custom/ tradition can justify murder.
Vishal Jeet V. Union of India (1990) – Emphasized the protection of vulnerable individuals from exploitation and societal violence, reinforcing constitutional safeguards.
Nitish Katara Case (2002) – exposed how family honor and societal status can lead to extreme violence. Nitish Katra was killed by his girlfriend’s family because they deemed the relationship socially unacceptable. The case emphasized that patriarchal families often resort to violence to maintain their perceived social standing, blatantly violating the victim’s fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21.

These cases, when viewed alongside the Radhika Yadav murder, reveals a recurring pattern, while the law provides mechanisms for punishment, legal action alone cannot end honor-based violence. True change requires societal transformation, challenging the patriarchal mindsets and prejudices that continue to fuel such crimes.

Suggestions and Way Forward

The murder of Radhika Yadav is not just a personal tragedy but a stark reminder of the deep rooted societal evils of patriarchy, toxic pride, and gender based violence. While India has laws to punish perpetrators of such crimes, the recurring nature of honor killings and domestic violence indicates that punishment alone is not sufficient. There is a pressing need for preventive mechanisms, stronger legal frameworks, and societal transformation. The following suggestions outline a multi-punged approach to address the issue:

Strenghening legal Frameworks

Separate Legisalation for honor killings.

Currently, honor killings are prosecuted under general IPC provisions like Section 302 (Murder) and Section 120B (Conspiracy). The law Commission’s 242^nd Report urged creating a separte law to address the unique socio-cultural factors, ensuring stricter penalties and specialized procedures.

Effective Implementation of Supreme Court Guidelines.

In Shakti Vahini V. Union of India (2018), the SC issues guidelines to prevent honor killings, including special cells, safe houses, prompt FIRs, and fast-track investigation, with states required to ensure strict compliance and accountability.

Strengthening Witness Protection.

Fear of rehabilitation silences victims and witnesses, making it vital to implement a strong witness protection program as directed in Mahender Chawla V. Union of India (2019).

Police and Administrative Reforms

Training and Sensitization.

Police must undergo gender-sensitivity training and learn psychological profiling to protect women’s rights and identify at risk individuals before violence occurs.

Dedicated Honor Crime Units.

States should form special police units to swiftly and effectively investigate honor-related crimes.

Accountability for Negligence.\

Police or administrative authorities failing to act on credible threats must face disciplinary and legal action, ensuring that negligence does not enable further violence.

Societal and Educational Interventions

Challenging Patriarchal Mindsets.

Legal action isn’t enough; community awareness programs must challenges harmful notions of family honor, with leaders and educators promoting gender equality and constitutional values.

Educational Curriculum Reforms.

Schools should include gender-sensitization education to teach consent, autonomy, and equality, breaking the cycle of toxic masculinity early.

Media Responsibility.

Media should report sensitively, avoid victim-blaming, and promote positive narratives to challenge patriarchal norms and reshape societal attitudes.

Psychological and Counselling Support

Family counseling centers.

Community counseling centers should address familial conflicts and provide support to prevent violence driven by social pressure.

Mental Heath Screening for Perpetrators of Violence.

Individuals with histories of controlling or abusive should be psychologically evaluated and rehabilitated, reducing the likelihood of escalation into violent crimes.

Support for Survivors and Potential Victims.

Survivors of honor-based violence require long-term psychological care, safe housing, and economic support to rebuild their lives.

Role of Judiciary

Fast Track Courts for Gender-Based crimes.

Expedite trials in honor killing and domestic violence cases to ensure swift justice.

Strict Sentencing Policies.

Impose maximum penalties to deter honor based violence.

Judicial Activism and Monitoring.

Ensure compliance with guidelines and hold authorities accountable.

strengthening NGO and Civil Society Participation

The subheading emphasis the importance of non-governmental organizations and community groups in preventing honor killings, spreading awareness, and providing support to victims.

Hence, the Radhika Yadav case illustrates the urgent need for a multi-layered strategy to address honor-based violence. Legal reforms, though critical, must be accompanied by societal transformation and preventive mechanisms. Empowering women with education, providing psychological support to families, and holding state authorities accountable are essential steps towards eradicating this deeply rooted evil. Only through a collective effort of law, society, and governance can we ensure that no individual’s life is cut short by the false notions or honor and control.

Conclusion

The Radhika Yadav case is a stark reminder of how entrenched patriarchy, toxic pride, and societal prejudice can turn a home into a scene of violence and tragedy. While existing laws under IPC provide for punishment, they remain largely reactive, addressing crimes only after they occur. Honor killing are not isolated incidents but manifestations of a deeper societal malaise that equates women’s autonomy with family reputation and control. True justice lies not only in punishing offenders but also in dismantling the cultural and structural roots that fuel such violence.

Legal reforms such as a dedicated honor killing law, stricter enforcement of Supreme Court guidelines, and fast-track courts are vital to curb these crimes. However, laws alone cannot solve the problem. Education, awareness, and empowerment must take center stage to challenge patriarchal mindsets and foster respect for constitutional values of equality and dignity. Radhika’s story must serve as a catalyst for change, inspiring collective action by the state, judiciary, NGOs, and citizens to ensure that no woman’s life is cut short by archaic notions of “honor” and control.

Refrence(S):