.
Judicial temperament should be one based on
rationality, sobriety and equanimity, and not based on sentimentality and
populism. Through the judgment in ‘Soumya Murder’ case, the Supreme Court has
emphasized that fact, and has proved that judiciary is not intended to appease
popular sentiments, but to administer justice in accordance with law and
reason.
Indeed, the ‘Soumya murder case’ is an unfortunate
incident. A poor young girl supporting her economically backward family through
her meager income getting raped and killed during the course of her journey in
a public transport, viz the Railways, is a tragic event which should not have
happened in a civilized society. Understandably, the incident sent shock waves
across the society, disturbing its conscience. That the criminal was an
immigrant having a history of habitual offences, who had no compunction in
subjecting a dying girl to brutal rape to satisfy his lust added to the fury of
the society. Mounting public pressure got the police into swift action, and the
criminal, Govindaswamy, was nabbed within two days. The investigation was over in 90 days, and the
trial was completed in a record time of four and half months, whereby he was
sentenced to death. The appeal before the High Court was disposed of sooner
than usual, confirming the death sentence. Things seemed to attain a sense of closure,
with Keralite society seeing the triumph of justice in sending a wretched
criminal to the gallows.
However, when the Supreme Court held by its judgment
dated 15.09.2016 that there was no evidence to hold Govindaswamy guilty of
murder of Soumya, and consequentially acquitted him of charges of murder, the
general public got really aggrieved. The
sentence for murder was altered to sentence for causing grievous hurt, with
seven years of imprisonment. The Supreme Court sustained the sentence of life
imprisonment awarded by the trial court for rape and robbery. Thus, the award
of death penalty was annulled.
The media and politicians went berserk on knowing the
judgment, which in effect reduced the sentence of Govindaswamy to that of life
imprisonment. The judiciary, and the advocate who appeared for the State, were
subjected to harsh criticism, based on half-baked information and subjective
inferences. Self-declared pundits of law, and self-appointed guardians of
social conscience hyperventilated in news room discussions about ‘miscarriage
of justice’. The mother of the victim was
also dragged into the show, and her emotional vulnerability was exploited to
the hilt to add to the drama. Politicians with their own vested interests
complicated the situation with their own interpretations. In short, a lot of
noise and clutter, but no meaningful discussion on what actually weighed with
the Court.
Away from all the maddening noises, let us attempt to
analyze the case with a detached and rational mind. It is important to bear in
mind that this was a case which is resting solely on circumstantial evidence,
with no direct eye witnesses. The cause
of death of the victim as per the medical evidence, as extracted in the
judgment of the Supreme Court, is as follows. “The
decedent had died due to blunt injuries sustained to head as a result of blunt
impact and fall and their complications including aspiration of blood into air
passages (during unprotected unconscious state following head trauma) resulting
in anoxic brain damage.”
The
blunt injuries on head were a result of fall from train on to the rail tracks.
The Trial Court, as well as the High Court proceeded on the premise that the
fall was caused by the push of the accused. Hence, both the Courts held that
injury leading to death was caused by the accused. The inference made was that the
accused tried to assault the victim inside the empty ladies’ compartment, and
forcefully hit the head of the victim against the walls of compartment by
holding her head by the hair. This factual finding is specifically made in the
judgment of the High Court. It also corresponded to the opinion of the doctor
who led the post-mortem, Dr. Sherly Vasu, that the head injury could have been
the result of a forceful hit against a blunt surface made for three-four times.
However,
the problem is that the above said factual inference does not tally with the oral
testimony of witnesses. There is one crucial witness, one Tomy Devassy, who was
examined as Prosecution Witness-4(PW4).
He was standing at the door of the general compartment, which was right
in front of the ladies’ compartment in which the victim was travelling. When
the train halted at Vallathol Nagar Station,
Tomy Devassy saw the accused getting out of the general compartment and
entering the ladies compartment. After a short while, the train started moving.
Then, Tomy Devassy heard cries of a woman from the ladies compartment. He
informed the other passengers, and some of them too agreed that they too heard
such noises. When he attempted to halt the train by pulling the chain, a
middle-aged passenger, who was standing at the opposite door, stated that the
girl had jumped out of the train and had escaped. It may be borne in mind that the train was
moving at an exteremely slow speed, around 15 kmph. Taking the words of the ‘middle-aged
passenger’, no further action was taken by Tomy Devassy, until the train
reached its final destination at Shornur a short while thereafter. Another
witness, Abdul Shukkur, who was Prosecution Witness 40(PW40), testified exactly
as Tomy Devassy.
What
follows from the testimonies of Tomy Devassy and Abdul Shukkur is that they got
information from another ‘middle-aged passenger’ that the victim had jumped
from the compartment and escaped. They had not seen the victim being pushed by the
accused. The inference from their testimony is that the victim, after jumping
from the train, was fit and able, and she ran away from scene. The ‘middle-aged
passenger’, who saw the jumping and running away of the victim from train
compartment, was not traced and produced as a witness. Tomy Devassy and Abdul Shukkur did not
themselves see the ejection of victim from the train compartment, whether
voluntary or otherwise, and they got the information from another person, the
‘middle-aged passenger’. Hence, their evidence is only in the form of ‘hearsay’,
which has no evidentiary value. Be that
as it may, their testimony militates against the factual finding of the Trial
Court and High Court that the accused had pushed the victim out of the
compartment after hitting her head against the compartment. Since the
prosecution evidence itself suggests that the victim had jumped out of
compartment and ran away thereafter, the finding that accused pushed her out of
compartment does not seem to be well-founded.
At least, there are some missing links, and a room for doubt is created.
While
trying to understand criminal law judgments, one has to bear in mind certain
fundamental principles of criminal law. The crime has to be proved ‘beyond
reasonable doubt’ as against the accused to convict him. The burden of proving
it is entirely on the prosecution. If there is any element of doubt, the
benefit of doubt should be given to accused. These are well-settled principles
which have stood the test of time. Since punishments involve deprivation of
liberty, and in some cases the life, of the accused, extreme safe guards are
ensured by law in the form of these principles so that no innocent person is
punished. Moreover, in a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the
prosecution has to establish a convincing chain of events, without any missing
links.
The
above fact situation will create an element of doubt in the minds of any
prudent person. The Supreme Court merely granted the benefit of such doubt to
the accused.
The
further cause of death was stated to be the aspiration of blood into air
passages. As a result of head injury, there occurred bleeding inside head.
Since the victim was kept in a supine position by the accused with the intent
of having sexual intercourse, the blood seeped into air passages and respiratory
tracts, accelerating process of death.
The High Court in its judgment observes that ‘had she been left in the prone position as
such she laid when she sustained injury No. 2, there would have been minimum
chance for aspiration of blood. But, since she was brought in the supine
position probably for sexual intercourse as indicated by the vaginal findings,
she had aspirated blood into the air passages resulting in anoxic brain damage. According to the High Court, the knowledge
that the head of a person who had suffered head injury should be kept tilted to
one side to prevent aspiration of blood was a ‘universal knowledge’.
However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the said finding and held that The requisite knowledge that in the circumstances such an
act may cause death, also, cannot be attributed to the accused, inasmuch as,
the evidence of P.W. 64(Dr. Sherly Vasu) itself is to the effect that such knowledge
and information is, in fact,parted with in the course of training of medical
and para-medical staff. In short, it was
held that it was a special knowledge, which was available only to medically
trained professionals. Obviously, an uneducated person like Govidaswamy cannot
be presumed with such professional knowledge.
To convict a person for criminal act, it is essential to
prove criminal mentality on his part, either in the form of intention or
knowledge. Here, there was no evidence
to prove that Govindaswamy acted with the intention to kill Soumya; or with the
knowledge that he was likely to cause her death with his acts. Yes, he had the
intention to rob and rape, for which he was found guilty and convicted. But the
evidence to establish intention or knowledge for murder was found lacking by
the Supreme Court. Hence, in the circumstances of the case, the Court held him
guilty for having caused grievous hurt.
The criticism launched on the advocate of the State is
most unfortunate and unreasonable. A lawyer in the appellate stage can only
argue on the basis of evidence on record. He is not at a liberty to submit
whatever he wishes, which are not part of the record. Therefore, the unsavoury
comments regarding the conduct of prosecutor are childish, betraying a thorough
misunderstanding of Court procedure. A lawyer can only strive to present the
case on the basis of available records and evidence, and cannot concoct fanciful
stories to suit his case, at least at the level of Supreme Court. In fact, the
advocate of the State deserves applause for having presented the case in the
best way possible and for having secured the maximum sentence possible on the
basis of available records.
The public may be justified in having a feeling of moral
outrage against the judgment. But, it is also important to bear in mind that a
Court cannot convict a person on the basis of conjectures, surmises or any
cock-and-bull story. If there was any lacuna in the evidence of prosecution,
the blame should lie elsewhere, not with the Court. Analysed on the basis of
available facts and materials on record, it has to be said that the judgment of
the Supreme Court in this case is concise, lucid, and written with a logical
flow, without being influenced by any popular sentiments. If judiciary is meant
only to play to the gallery, what is the requirement of persons trained in law
to hold the posts? Judiciary is supposed to be the repository of truth, and it
shall always declare it, howsoever unpleasant and unbearable it be to the
general public, as it was done in this case. It was demonstrated in this case
that the judiciary is guided by reason and logic, and not by sentimental
rhetoric and media propaganda.
Published in 'The Kochi Post' as http://www.kochipost.com/2016/09/16/the-sc-judgment-in-soumya-murder-case-reflects-a-voice-of-reason/
