The SC verdict, which has traumatised Kerala, has drawn flak from all sections of society. Soumya, 23, was assaulted by the accused Govindachamy in the empty ladies compartment of a moving train and subsequently raped after she was allegedly pushed off the train on February 1, 2011 at abour 5.30 p,m,

The Supreme Court, after going through all the evidence, came to the conclusion that Govindachamy had brutally raped the victim. But it refused to accept the police version that he had pushed Soumya off the train. It, however, upheld the the life sentence in the case.

Legal experts are sharply divided over the SC verdict. While a section feels that the apex court has done the right thing by not upholding the death sentence, there is another school of thought which feels death sentence could have been confirmed in the most brutal and shocking case, which has seared Kerala’s collective conscience.

Prominent among those who have criticised the SC judgment is former SC judge Markandeya Katju, who said the apex court had ‘grievously erred by law’ in commuting death sentence. “What the court has overlooked is that Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, which defines murder, has four parts and only the first part requires intention to kill. If any of the other three parts are established, it will be murder even if there was no intention to kill,” held Katju. It was regrettable that the SC has not read Section 300 carefully, he added.

The SC, Katju further said, had relied on oral evidence of two passengers in the adjacent compartment who said Soumya had jumped out of the train. This was nothing but hearsay and does not constitute conclusive evidence. This was the most glaring mistake in the judgment, Katju claimed.

The post-mortem report also says that Gonvindachamy had dashed Soumya against the wall of the train a few times, injuring her seriously before she jumped off the train or was pushed out by the convict. This was only opinion of an advisory nature and cannot be relied upon as credible evidence of intention to kill. That was the argument.

Whatever the merits and demerits of the arguments against Government’s negligence, the fact is that the verdict has pushed the Pinarayi Vijayan government on to the backfoot. The LDF Government is finding it difficult to erase the growing perception that it did not do all that could have been done to ensure that the SC confirmed the death sentence.

The blame game has added traction in the wake of the verdict. Law Minister A K Balan has sought to point the finger at the erstwhile Oommen Chandy Government. The Chandy Government is answerable to lapses, if any, in the case, Balan asserted.

Incidentally, investing officers in the case had suggested, way back in September 2015, that advocate A Sureshan be asked to appear before the Supreme Court. Soumya’s mother, Sumathi had also favoured the case being argued by Sureshan. Her reasoning: Sureshan had appeared in the case with utmost sincerity and without charging any fee. Sureshan was arguing the case as if his own daughter was the victim. Incidentally, his own daughter’s name is also Soumya!

The UDF Government however, issued a direction appointing senior advocate Thomas Joseph and assigning Sureshan to assist him. However, ADGP B Sandhya, who was supervising the investigations, asked the Government to issue another order clearly delineating the role and responsibilities of Sureshan in the case. This was a turning point in the case which ultimately resulted in the commutation of the death sentence, the LDF circles argue.

The UDF circles however, deny the charge. They rebut the criticism saying that the LDF government had also failed to concede the request to allow Sureshan to argue the case before the SC.

The LDF Government has promptly swung into action to undo the ‘damage’ caused by the verdict. The Government is planning to file a review petition demanding death sentence to the accused Govindachamy in the sensational case. But the legal community feels it would not serve any purpose at this stage and that it will be an exercise in futility.

The Kerala CPI(M) itself is divided on the verdict. While Law Minister A K Balan is on record that the government will try its utmost to ensure death sentence for Govindachamy, party veteran V S Achuthanandan and Politburo member M A Baby are opposed to the death sentence on the ground that the CPI(M) is against capital punishment. (IPA Service)