Introduction of Govindaswamy vs State of Kerala

The case of Govindaswamy vs State of Kerala 2015, also known as Soumya Rape and Murder Case. The case revolves around the brutal rape, assault and murder of 23-year-old Soumya, an incident that deeply shocked the whole country. The Trial Court awarded the death penalty to the accused which was also upheld by the High Court of Kerala. However, the Supreme Court overturned the decision for conviction of offence of murder while upholding the charge of rape and sentencing under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code.

Historical Context and Facts of Govindaswamy vs State of Kerala

The case at hand revolves around the death of a 23-year-old woman, Soumya who was brutally attacked and raped while traveling by train in Kerala. This incident raised significant concerns regarding safety and justice, leading to a fast-tracked legal process.

Assault on the Train

Soumya was traveling by train from Ernakulam to Shornur, Kerala, on 1st February, 2011. She was returning home for her engagement. The accused, a habitual offender, noticed that she was alone in the ladies compartment. He took advantage of that and violently assaulted her by repeatedly banging her head against the compartment. 

Post-Fall Actions

Soumya fell from the moving train onto the tracks. The accused jumped off the train, moved Soumya to a nearby location, raped her and ransacked her belongings.

Witnesses Accounts

Witnesses traveling in adjacent compartments reported hearing cries of Soumya for help. A pastor in the next compartment was dissuaded from activating the emergency alarm by another passenger, who falsely claimed that Soumya had escaped. Upon reaching Shornur railway station, fellow passengers alerted the train guard about the incident. 

Discovery and Medical Examination

Soumya was found alive but severely injured on the side of the tracks and was rushed to the hospital where she later succumbed to her injuries. The medical examination revealed that multiple injuries caused the death of Soumya. The post-mortem report highlighted two critical injuries-

1. resulting from being struck against a hard surface
2. another due to the fall from the train estimated at a height of 5-8 feet. 

The combination of these injuries and the position in which she was left contributed to her death. Additionally, the accused reportedly confessed to the crime during a medical examination shortly after his apprehension.

Arrest and Investigation

The accused was arrested within 48 hours of the incident, and the investigation was completed within 90 days. 

Trial in Fast Track Court

The Thrissur Fast Track Court awarded the death sentence to the accused nine months after the incident. 

Findings of the High Court of Kerala

The Kerala High Court upheld the decision of the Fast Track Court and remarked on the impact of the incident on the conscience of the community.

Appeal in the Supreme Court

Against the decision of the High Court of Kerala, the Appellant filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.

Issue addressed in Govindaswamy vs State of Kerala

The main question which was addressed in this case was 

• Whether the accused can be held guilty for the relevant charges under the Indian Penal Code or not?
• Whether the accused is liable for the murder of the deceased or not?

Legal Provisions involved in Govindaswamy vs State of Kerala

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 302 of the Code provides punishment for murder. It states that whoever commits murder shall be punished with -

• death or 
• imprisonment for life and
• fine

Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 325 of the Code provides punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt. It states that anyone voluntarily causes grievous hurt shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 376 of IPC provides that-

(1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for in sub-section (2), commits rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

(2) Whoever

(a) being a police officer, commits rape

(i) within the limits of the police station to which such police officer is appointed; or

(ii) in the premises of any station house

(iii) on a woman in such police officer’s custody or in the custody of a police officer subordinate to such police officer

(b) being a public servant, commits rape on a woman in such public servant's custody or in the custody of a public servant subordinate to such public servant

(c) being a member of the armed forces deployed in an area by the Central or a State Government commits rape in such area

(d) being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or other place of custody established by or under any law for the time being in force or of a women’s or children’s institution, commits rape on any inmate of such jail, remand home, place or institution

(e) being on the management or on the staff of a hospital, commits rape on a woman in that hospital

(f) being a relative, guardian or teacher of, or a person in a position of trust or authority towards the woman, commits rape on such woman

(g) commits rape during communal or sectarian violence

(h) commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant

(j) commits rape, on a woman incapable of giving consent

(k) being in a position of control or dominance over a woman, commits rape on such woman; or

(l) commits rape on a woman suffering from mental or physical disability

(m) while committing rape causes grievous bodily harm or maims or disfigures or endangers the life of a woman

(n) commits rape repeatedly on the same woman, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

According to Section 6 of the Act facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction are relevant whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.

Section 366(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

According to Section 366(1) when the Court of Session passes a sentence of death, the proceedings shall be submitted to the High Court and the sentence shall not be executed unless it is confirmed by the High Court.

Judgment and Impact of Govindaswamy vs State of Kerala

In the present case the Supreme Court had to determine whether the accused, Govindaswamy, was responsible for the death of Soumya or not? The Supreme Court highlighted that it could not conclusively determine if Soumya had jumped out of the train or had been pushed and ultimately acquitted the accused of murder.

The failure of the Court to consider these principles of causation and instead relied on hearsay evidence led to an erroneous acquittal of Govindaswamy for murder. While he was found guilty of the rape of Soumya, the charges of murder were set aside. The Court altered the murder charges to rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code for causing grievous hurt. The ruling in this case reflects a significant shift in accountability for the actions leading to the death of the Soumya and highlighted the need for a nuanced understanding of causation in criminal liability.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court in Govindaswamy vs State of Keraal had to determine whether the accused was responsible for the death of Soumya. In this case, Govindaswamy was convicted for the offence of rape but the Court acquitted him of murder due to the uncertainty of whether the victim had jumped or was pushed from the train. The Court convicted him under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code for causing grievous hurt and sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. The decision in this case underscores the importance of understanding causation in criminal liability and raises concerns about how the Court assessed the evidence.