oppn parties Soumya Case: Supreme Court Did Not Err

News Snippets

  • Government to introduce PF for self-emplyed and gig workers
  • Crush at Puri Rathyatra leaves 2 dead and 78 injured
  • NEET-UG, marred in controversy due to pape4r leak, saw a huge increase in top scores as two scored 715/720 and 11.2 lkah candidates cleared the exam
  • India's first hydrogen-powered train will be flagged off by PM Modi from Jind in Haryana
  • Delhi HC asks the government to monitor Sona Wnagchuk's health regularly
  • TMC Rajya Sabha MP Koel Mallick resigns from her seat, leaves TMC. Mamata asks all those wishing to leave the party to do so before July 21
  • Calcutta HC says land deed is not a proof of citizenship. Refuses to provide protection to a man facing deportation on basis of land deed
  • Supreme Court tells the government to teach the third language in the 3-language formula in Class 6 and not Class 9
  • Government to take steps to boost liquidity for small businesses
  • RBI says that banks cannot sell seized assets back to the defaulters
  • Centre decides to take equity stakes in semiconductor startups
  • Markets remain flat on Thursday: Sensex closes just 1 point ahead and Nifty ended 5 point lower
  • BCCI:Selectors have possibly decided that Rohit Sharma will not be selected for ODIs after the Lord's game on Sunday
  • Japan Open badminton: P V Sindhu stuns world no. 5 Han Yue of China 21-16, 21-14 to enter the quarterfinals
  • 2nd ODI versus England: Indian batting fails miserably except Gill, Kohli and Iyer to score just 233 all out. England win by 4 wickets
Supreme Court clarifies that it has not issued a blanket ban on use of bulldozers, and they can be used after compliance with procedure laid down in civil laws
oppn parties
Soumya Case: Supreme Court Did Not Err

By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2016-11-14 18:47:01

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack
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.