Why SC Wasn’t Convinced If Soumya’s Rape Accused Also Murdered Her

The Supreme Court judgement said it couldn’t be proven that the accused had also thrown Soumya off the train.

The accused Govindachamy (L); the victim, Soumya (R). (Photo Courtesy: The News Minute)

On 1 February 2011, Soumya, a resident of Shoranur in Palakkad district was found along the railway track near Vallathol station. She died five days later on 6 February after battling for life in hospital.

The Supreme Court on Thursday commuted convict Govindachamy, alias Charly’s death sentence to seven years in the offence of murder. The court altered the murder charge (IPC 302) to grievous assault charge (IPC 325). However, it upheld the Kerala High Court’s order awarding him a life term for the offence of rape.

Also Read: The Quint’s ‘Fighting Rape’ Trend for August: Rape Against Minors

Why Couldn’t Prosecution Prove Murder Charges?

Soumya’s mother, Sumathi, believes that changing A Suresan, the prosecutor who fought the case in the fast track court and the High Court, had proved to be a setback.

She alleged that the special prosecutor had failed to convince the court that Govindachamy had indeed murdered her daughter.

Protests outside the Supreme Court. (Photo Courtesy: Twitter/Mario de Penha)

What Does the Judgement Say?

“It is the case of the prosecution that the victim was dropped/pushed by the accused from the running train to the track and that the side of her face hit on the crossover of the railway line.

The accused appellant also jumped down from the other side of the running train and after lifting the victim to another place by the side of the track he sexually assaulted her. Thereafter, he ransacked her belongings and went away from the place with her mobile phone.”

The judgement said it couldn’t be proven that the accused had also thrown Soumya off the train. (Photo: Altered by The Quint/iStock)

Soumya Had Two Injuries

The first injury was four or five wounds on the head that was caused by slamming her head repeatedly against a flat hard surface. Forensic expert Dr Sherly Vasu noted that this injury could have been caused by slamming Soumya’s head against the train’s wall.

This injury made her dazed and incapable to respond, says the forensic report.

The second injury was sustained from beneath the left eye up to her chin bone. This injury was sustained when she fell from a height of five to eight feet.

The forensic report says that the train must have been running on a negligible speed and the injury was caused by the face gliding on the surface of a rail.

And since Soumya was already dazed from the previous injury, her reflexes were low and she was unable to move her face away.

The judgement by Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Prafulla C Pant and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, however, says that there was not enough evidence to prove that Govindachamy was responsible for the second injury. In simple terms, the court was unconvinced that he had pushed her out of the train.

The judgment notes that Soumya’s death was caused by ‘a combination of injury no 1 and 2, and 16 complications arising therefrom, including aspiration of blood into the air passages, resulting in anoxic brain damage’.

The court noted that the rape keeping her face upwards could have caused the blood aspiration.

The court also pointed out that the fact that Soumya ‘survived for a couple of days after the incident and eventually died in hospital’, shows that Govindachamy alias Charly did not have an intention to cause death.

Taking into account the position during rape and the fact that she had survived the assault for five days, the court rules that the accused was not liable for the second injury.

Signatures on an anti-rape banner. (Photo: Reuters)

Forensic Expert Disagrees

Forensic expert Dr Vasu, who conducted Soumya’s post-mortem alleged that the prosecutor had failed to prove the murder, despite there being enough evidence.

Speaking to The News Minute, she said:

Two points in our reports clearly point to the fact that he had indeed pushed her off the train. One, that she had six wounds on the top left part of her head, that can only be caused by repeatedly hitting on a surface. Such wounds can never be caused by falling off a train. Second, Soumya’s broken hair clip and two of the convicts’ shirt buttons were recovered by our team from inside the train. This indicates that he had attacked her inside the train.

Sherly said that she finds it suspicious that the prosecutor had not once approached her before the hearing.

“I feel this is a result of an ego issue,” Sherly alleged.

Witnesses Unsure If She Was Pushed

Saying that there was no mistake from the part of the prosecution, Kerala Law Minister AK Balan told reporters that as the only two witnesses in the case were not present in the same train compartment as Soumya and Govindachamy, it was difficult for the prosecution to prove whether Govindachamy pushed Soumya off the train.

The two witnesses had said that they saw Soumya falling off the train, but was unsure whether she was pushed off or she jumped on her own.

Though senior High Court lawyer Udaya Bhanu feels that the prosecution did fail in proving the murder charge, he maintains that the apex court has raised a valid point.

Just because the lower courts had awarded him death sentence, does not mean that the apex court would automatically uphold the verdict. What we need to also consider is whether the previous verdicts had overlooked this crucial element of proving the murder charge.

He added that the debate over the court reducing the quantum of punishment was unreasonable as the prosecution had also failed to prove the murder charges.