Kerala: Soumya verdict big error

Contending that a grave miscarriage of justice has occurred and there is error apparent on the face of the record, the Kerala government on Friday moved the Supreme Court seeking review of the September-15 judgment in the Soumya rape and murder case, setting aside the murder charge on the accused Govindachamy and awarding him life imprisonment for brutal rape.

In its petition settled by Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, the Kerala government said the September-15 judgment rests principally on one issue, i.e., that there is no evidence that the deceased was pushed out of a moving train and that the statements of prosecution witnesses who were traveling in the next compartment to the effect that they were told by a middle-aged person who was sitting near the compartment door that a girl jumped. Expressing concern over increasing incidents of crimes against women, the Kerala government said in a situation where the deceased is facing such heinous offences and crimes day-by-day, it is necessary to deal with such cases with stern hand. “If a person like the accused is let off from the charge of murder, lawlessness will increase and the fear of the law will diminish. This will lead to a catastrophic situation in the state and the entire country.” The state, therefore, prayed that the judgment under appeal requires to be reviewed and the sentence for murder as imposed by the courts below is required to be upheld.

The state said that it is established beyond doubt that the deceased was beaten black and blue and she suffered from severe injuries as a result of at least four blows on her head which were lethal in nature.

It is obvious that the intention of the accused was clear either to kill the deceased in the moving train and/or to molest her. Even if the deceased jumped out from the train, it was occasioned by the accused since otherwise she would loose her life or honour.

The petition said conviction of the accused, therefore, could not depend on the factum of the accused actually pushing the deceased. Fearing for her life and honour, the deceased, in an injured state may have jumped from the train. The intention of the accused was to kill as also to molest and that the accused knew that the acts of violent beating would lead to death. It pointed out that both the courts below including the High Court had convicted the accused of murder. Even assuming that the testimony of witnesses is of any relevance and/or found to be correct yet the fact that the circumstances of an impending horrible death awaited the deceased at the hands of the accused would lead to no doubt that this was a case of a murder.

The manner of commission of offence by the accused beginning from trespassing into the train, injuring her, pushing the victim so as to suffer injury, thereafter dropping of the victim on the railway track, then the manner of the conduct of the accused by returning to the place where the victim was dropped by jumping down from the train, then carrying the victim to the place of commission of rape by lifting the victim on his shoulder, which is evident from the forensic report obtained from the clothing and undergarment of the accused, (blood of the victim) then the commission of the offence in open place on the side of the railway track and on the side of the main road were neglected by the Supreme Court and seems to have considered separately, which is improper. The State also wanted the review petition should be heard in open court, as normally such petitions are heard in judge’s chamber.