Soumya murder case: Prosecution shot on its foot

THIRUVNANTHAPURAM: The murder charge against convict Govindachamy in the Soumya case fell flat on a contradiction in the prosecution argument that the assailant had pushed the victim out of the train and the eyewitness statement that a passenger had seen her jump off the train. Relying on expert findings by forensic expert Dr Shirly Vasu, the prosecution had contended that injuries suffered by Soumya were the result of a fall after being pushed off the running train and not caused by herself jumping off the train.

But the prosecution incorporated statements by two prosecution witnesses — PW 4 and 40 —  saying that a passenger sitting near the door had told them he saw Soumya jump off the train. The identity of the passenger has still not been established. This was apparently contradictory. Justice Uday Lalit pointed out this contradiction when the court sought proof to substantiate the prosecution charge of Govindachami pushing Soumya off the train, resulting in her fateful injuries. Former high court judge Thomas P. Joseph, appearing on behalf of the prosecution, then contended that the victim was forced to flee the site of imminent danger and that the assailant had aided and abetted in the act. He cited a 1981 SC verdict, to bring in the aid and abetment provision.  

Justice Lalit pointed out that this “alternative contention”, different from that of the main contention that the victim was pushed out off the train, was not permissible in criminal law. The aid and abetment argument would stand, provided the prosecution had not incorporated the eyewitnesses’ statement, quoting the unidentified passenger seeing the girl jump off the train. This was not the only setback for the prosecution. The media’s one-sided reporting of on the verdict, claiming a mere seven-year imprisonment for Govindachami, lent a totally negative picture till was corrected late afternoon. Sources say the defence team was solely responsible for spreading the canard.