oppn parties Soumya Case: Supreme Court Did Not Err

News Snippets

  • Amit Panghal becomes first Indian male to win silver at the World Boxing Championships
  • "Gully Boy" to be India's entry for the Oscars
  • Rajeev Kumar called an "absconder" by the CBI
  • Alipore court refuses to grant anticipatory bail to Rajeev Kumar
  • Trump likely to sign a mini trade deal with India next week
  • Government planning a loan mela to cover 400 districts in two phases
  • PM Modi says Kashmiris need a hug from all Indians
  • NPA tag will not be put on any MSME till March 20
  • Government likely to announce another economic stimulus package today ahead of the GST Council meet in Goa
  • Air Marshall RKS Bhadauria, slated to retire just a few days from now, to be the next chief of IAF
  • PM Modi slams politicians from his own party who are making irresponsible statements on the Ayodhya case and tells them to wait for the Supreme Court order
  • Telecom panel says resident welfare associations (RWA) cannot give monopoly access to any one service provider and infrastructure in public spaces and residential complexes will have to be shared by all
  • Mamata Banerjee meets Amit Shah, tells him there is no need for an NRC in Bengal
  • After 14 days, there is no hope left for reviving Vikram, the moon lander
  • CBI teams search for elusive Rajeev Kumar
Election Commission announces elections in Maharashtra and Haryana on October 21. Counting and results on October 24. Bypolls, including for 15 seats in Karnataka, will be held simultaneously
oppn parties
Soumya Case: Supreme Court Did Not Err

By Sunil Garodia

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Writes for a number of publications.
English jurist William Blackstone had said that “it is better that 10 guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer.” Obviously, when he said this, the innocence that he said meant innocence as per provisions of law and not as per the presumptions of society.

In the Soumya rape and “murder” case, society had presumed that the accused Govindaswamy raped and murdered the victim. But murder was never conclusively proved in court. The prosecution could not conclusively prove that the accused intended to kill the victim. In the light of the postmortem report, it could also not prove beyond reasonable doubt that despite not intending to kill Soumya, the accused caused her death by inflicting grievous injuries to her person.

Since the latter was not conclusively proved, the opinion of ex Supreme Court judge Markanday Katju that Supreme Court erred gravely by not using section 300 to confirm the death penalty is flawed. Though sec 300 provided for convicting the accused for murder for inflicting grievous injuries to the victim causing her death even though it was not his intention to kill her, the fact that such grievous injuries leading to the death were in fact caused by the accused needed to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the Soumya case, it was never proven.

In the absence of eye witnesses, the Soumya case was based on circumstantial, although strong, evidence. But even if the circumstantial evidence could logically prove all other charges against the accused, other conjectures and surmises could not be used to prove the guilt of murder. As the Supreme Court concluded, it was neither the intention of the accused to kill the victim nor was it conclusively proved that it was only and directly the injuries she sustained as a result of his assault that killed her. In any case of doubt, the benefit must always go to the accused. The apex court rightly remitted the sentence to life imprisonment in the Soumya case.

Society’s wish and the legal requirements are two different things. Legal procedures may seem cumbersome to the common man but are a necessary part of rule of law. If we dispense with them and let guilt be proven by conjectures and surmises, we may as well do away with law and let khap panchayats decide all cases arbitrarily on what the society thinks is best. If there are laws and legal procedures, society must learn to accept judicial verdicts. It can challenge such verdicts for legal flaws but not on perceptions.