SC verdict in Soumya murder 'wrong': / The Supreme Court judgment in the Soumya case is wrong. Katju ready to offer legal advice to Kerala govt :

Opinion
                   17/09/2016.
                        736.
                                  All Members,
                        Respected family members of this great holy Nation.

Sub : SC verdict in Soumya murder 'wrong': Katju ready to offer legal advice to Kerala govt :

Ref : - 1. Media report- Malayala Manorama

New Delhi: Former chairman of Press Council of India Markandey Katju has termed the Supreme court judgment in Soumya murder case as 'wrong'....

Katju, who has also served as a Supreme Court judge, wrote on his Facebook page, "I have found it ((Soumya case verdict) incorrect so far as it finds Govindachamy not guilty of murder but only guilty of rape."

He pointed out that the Supreme Court has relied on 'hearsay', which is not admissible as an evidence to conclude that the accused did not kill the victim.

Katju also said that there is a 'serious error' in the judgment which has ignored parts of section 300.

According to section 300 of Indian Penal Code, a person can be charged with murder even if there was no intention to kill, but the accused inflict wounds sufficient to cause death.

Katju later said that he is ready to offer legal advice to Kerala government in the case. He also said that the state government should file a review petition in the SC verdict.

Govindachamy, convicted in the sensational Soumya case in Kerala, escaped death penalty Thursday he Supreme Court dropped murder charge against him and upheld life imprisonment for raping the 23-year-old woman.

The verdict came as shock for the victim's family which dubbed it as 'heartbreaking' and expressed anguish over the 'failure' of the state prosecutor to 'properly' present the case in apex court.

Ref : -2. Facebook post of Sri Markandey Katju
15 September at 23:14

The Supreme Court judgment in the Soumya case is wrong

I have now read the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Soumya case ( Govindachamy vs. State of Kerala ).. I have found it incorrect so far as it finds Govindachamy not guilty of murder but only guilty of rape.. Let me give my reasons.

The prosecution version, which was accepted by the High Court, was that Soumya was traveling alone in a ladies compartment ( with no other passenger in the compartment ) in a train going from Ernakulam to her home town Shoranur. On the way the accused, Govindachamy, who was a habitual offender, entered the compartment, pulled her hair back and hit her head against the wall of the compartment 4 or 5 times, and then raped her, leaving her almost unconscious..

The Supreme Court has found the accused not guilty of murder and so has set aside the death sentence awarded to him. However, it has upheld the life sentence for rape under section 376, and imposed punishment of 7 years imprisonment.under section 325

In acquitting the accused on the murder charge the Court held that there is no evidence that the accused had any intention of causing the death of Soumya.
and so could not be convicted under section 302 I.P.C. The Court held that it is possible that after being assaulted on the head 4 or 5 times and then raped Soumya might herself have jumped off the train on which she was traveling. However the Court found the accused guilty of rape under section 376 and also guilty of some other provisions of the IPC.

In paragraph 15 of its judgment the Court observed that P.W. 4 and P.W. 40, who were travelling on a coach adjacent to the ladies compartment in which Soumya was travelling alone, said that they were told by a middle aged person in their compartment that Soumya had herself jumped off the train. But the evidence of P.W. 4 and 40 was hearsay, which is inadmissible in evidence. How could the Supreme Court have relied on it ? This is a gross error in the judgment.


But apart from that, there is a serious error in the judgment, which is pointed out below..

Section 300 states that it is a case of murder ( for which capital punishment can be imposed under section 302) even if there was no intention to kill, if the accused inflicts a wound sufficient to cause the death of a person in the ordinary course of nature.

Section 300 reads :

" Murder.—Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—
(Secondly) —If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—

(Thirdly) —If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be in­flicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—

(Fourthly) —If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

Illustrations
-------
(c) A intentionally gives Z a sword-cut or club-wound sufficient to cause the death of a man in the ordinary course of nature. Z dies in consequence. Here, A is guilty of murder, although he may not have intended to cause Z’s death.

With respect to the Supreme Court it has totally ignored the Third part of section 300, and Illustration (c). The head is a vital part of the body of a human, and repeated banging it against a wall is sufficient in the ordinary cause to cause death.

As regards the charge of rape, this was established by the DNA test which found traces of the accused's semen in the vagina of Soumya, which had tear marks on it. Hence the Supreme Court rightly held the accused guilty of rape, and in view of the brutal nature of the crime has rightly awarded life sentence

The High Court in its detailed judgment observed in paragraphs 398:

" Also, while committing rape he caused grievous bodily harm to Saumya by grabbing her hair and hitting her head repeatedly against the wall of the compartment. The nail clippings of the deceased contained human blood and epithelial tissues of the accused. From that itself it stands proved that there had occurred a scuffle inside the compartment of the train prior to her dropping out of the train, and the rape. MO30 button which became broken into three pieces and the thread found in one of such pieces were proved to be got detached from MO6 shirt worn by the accused. The same were seized from the said ladies compartment, along with the broken parts of the hair clip and some other materials of the deceased. The same were seized at 4 a.m. on 2.2.2011. The blood of the deceased was found on MO6 shirt worn by the accused. The vaginal swab and smear of the deceased contained the sperm and spermatozoa of the accused. Even MO1 cream shirt which was seen lifted and rolled up on the body of the deceased also contained the sperm of the accused. "

I submit that the Supreme Court has erred in law in not holding the accused guilty of murder, and its judgment needs to be reviewed to this extent...

NOTE :

FULL PICTURE OF TRUTH IS PORTRAYED, THE FAILURE IN JUDGEMENT, IS INJUSTICE TO THE VICTIM!!!

MY VIEW

FULLY AGREE WITH, SOME OUTSTANDING PROSECUTION PRESENTATION IS NEEDED, TO PROVE BORN WILD CRIMINAL GUILTY, AND HE ENTITLED  DEATH PENALTY FOR HIS CRUELTY TO INNOCENT LADY SOUMYA!!!

Thank you for reading
           JAIHIND.
    Next with another topic ...