Govindachamy, The rapist of Soumya, acquitted of murder by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Of India yet again delivered a justice which could be seen by law makers and even as a citizen of this country as most controversial judgment just on the basis of hearsay and denying a evidence of rape and murder committed by Govondachamy, a Tamilian beggar. SC Court refused to confirm capital punishment to Govindachamy but upheld his life sentence in the rape and murder case of 23-year-old Soumya, an incident that shook the conscience of Kerala and exposed the vulnerability of women venturing out for their livelihood. 

Rapist Govindachamy alias Charly Thomas

Soumya was assaulted by Govindachamy in the empty ladies coach of a moving train and subsequently raped after she was allegedly pushed off the train -the last detail was disputed by the Supreme Court and resulted in dropping capital punishment pronounced by a trial court and the Kerala High Court. The apex court acquitted him from the murder charge and convicted him only for committing rape and sentenced him to life imprisonment.


A bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi, Prafulla C Pant and U U Lalit said that there was no conclusive evidence that Soumya was thrown out of the train by the convict. It relied on “the oral evidence of two passengers of the adjacent compartment who heard that the girl had jumped out of the train”.

Soumya had boarded the Ernakulam – Shoranur passenger train on February 1, 2011, at about 5.30 pm from Ernakulam Town railway station to go to her home at Shoranur for her betrothal ceremony the following day.

Seeing that there were no other passengers in the ladies compartment, the convict entered the coach and assaulted Soumya by repeatedly hitting her head on the walls of the compartment. According to the prosecution, the victim was pushed by the convict from the running train to the track, after which he also jumped down from the other side of the running train. The police contended that Govindachamy , a habitual offender, then sexually assaulted Soumya.

The judgment of the Supreme Court in this case clearly shows the fact that the judges purely depended on the arguments of the counsels rather than use their own knowledge and logics. Even the basic knowledge of the law in this case seems to be flaunted as a retired Justice Katju claims in his blog.  

Justice Katju says. “Govindachamy was guilty of murder, since he repeatedly hit Saumya's head on the wall of the compartment, which was sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. The head is a vital part of the body, hitting her head against a wall is sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. This was a case clearly covered by the Third Part of section 300.”

However, the Supreme Court held in paragraph 16 that it cannot be held that the accused pushed Saumya off the train, and she may have jumped off it herself. Futher Justice Katju explains, “That the statements of PW 4 and PW 40 were hearsay evidence. PW4 and PW 40 do not say that they themselves saw Saumya jumping off the train. And “hearsay evidence is inadmissible in evidence vide section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act”, except in certain limited circumstances e.g. a dying declaration or opinion of an expert. None of those limited circumstances existed in this case. So how could the Court rely on this hearsay evidence?”

He terms this as a grave error in the judgment, and surprised to note from the judges who had been in the legal world for decades. This also goes against the elementary principle that hearsay evidence is inadmissible. 

Former Chief Minister Oommen Chandy blames the LDF government for “serious lapses” in the Soumya murder case in the Supreme Court. “The SC verdict has shocked entire Kerala. The short comings in effectively intervening in the course of the conduct of the case have been pointed out as the reason for such a verdict,’’ he said, while also insisting that the government should take immediate corrective measures. “The death sentence awarded to the accused… was the result of five years of hard work and sense of justice, which guided the probe team and the counsel.”

While pressured from the different quarters and severe criticism for neglecting the case, the state government has decided to file a review or curative petition and is on the look-out for a senior counsel to initiate further proceedings in the Supreme Court in the Soumya rape-murder case. Legal experts, though, said the success rate of review petition and curative petition was extremely low. There will be no Open Court hearing. Only after verifying documents, the court decides whether it is to be heard in Open Court or not. It will be the same Bench, which pronounced the judgment that considers these petitions.

In the light of the judgment it also exposes the dilemma of ruling govt. in Kerala which is against the capital punishment and wants it to be scrapped as law from the constitution. 

CPM Politburo member M A Baby, a staunch opponent of capital punishment, stated that the Left was against the death penalty. “In general, the Left is opposed to capital punishment and we feel it should be removed from our system and Constitution through legislation.”

“The Left believes that capital punishment is highly primitive and should be done away with,” said Baby. “This is not a specific stance for Govindachamy alone. We would have held the same view even if Nathuram Vinayak Godse, who killed Mahatma Gandhi, was on trial today.”

However, a damage control is on the way to safeguard the image of ruling govt and Rejecting Baby’s view, Kerala’s Law Minister and CPM Central Committee member A K Balan said: “We will approach the court seeking maximum punishment under Section 302 (murder). There is no point in going for life imprisonment for Govindachamy, as he has already been sentenced for a life term once.” 

Despite their opposite views, both Baby and Balan have reiterated that there was no contradiction in the stance of the party and the Kerala government on the issue. Balan added that the party and the government are seeking death for Govindachamy considering the grave crime he committed. Since capital punishment is only for rarest of rare offences, the government’s attempt will be to ensure the court awards punishment to Govindachamy for murder, too.

Amidst the shock of judgment from the Supreme Court of India and heartache by the people of Kerala and elsewhere, there is one point that is missing largely as how come a beggar Govindachamy could afford a team of heavily paid lawyers to represent him in High Court and then in Supreme Court.

A 30-year -old Govindachamy alias Charly was represented by high-profile criminal lawyer, BA Aloor, appeared along with two other lawyers to defend him. Aloor also represented Govindachamy in the Supreme Court, as part of a team of four lawyers that got his sentence commuted from a death sentence to seven years’ imprisonment.

While Govindachamy or any other accused is free to hire any lawyer of their choice, what is surprising that Aloor, originally named Biju Antony, is a criminal lawyer based in Mumbai, and has appeared in a string of high-profile cases during his career. How could Govindachamy, a petty thief and a ‘beggar’ afford a lawyer like Aloor?

“How is that anyone’s concern? I charge Rs 5 lakh per criminal case and my duty is only to represent my client. Since I have represented him in three courts, the charges have exceeded Rs 15 lakhs, but that is not of anyone's concern,” Aloor told The News Minute after the SC judgment came.

When asked who approached him to represent Govindachamy, he was elusive. “There are certain people who wanted to help him. People, who have been accused along with him in other cases had approached me,” he says.

When asked why the media should not be concerned that a petty criminal could afford a good lawyer and crush a case, Aloor retorted, “When crores were spent for Achutanandan in the Supreme Court, did the media question that? Why question this now?”

He, however, defends saying that the ‘mafia connection’ is a media creation.

When Aloor’s appearance on behalf of Govindachamy gained media attention, the lawyer reportedly created more controversy when he revealed that he had appeared in the case after being engaged by “a network of criminals from Tamil Nadu with links to the Mumbai underground activities.”

Among the clients Aloor has represented are Devinder Singh alias Bunty Chor, reported to have committed 500 burglaries across the country. He is currently representing the men arrested for murdering rationalist and thinker Narendra Dabholkar.

At the time he was representing Govindachamy in the Kerala High Court, Aloor was also fighting another high profile rape and murder, representing one of the men accused in the death of Nayana Poojari, a software engineer, in Pune.

Most recently, Aloor caused a minor stir when it was reported that the lawyer will reportedly represent Ameerul Islam in the Jisha rape and murder case. Previously, Aloor had also claimed that he would represent Ajmal Kasab, convicted and hanged for the 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai.

But its noteworthy that Govindachamy was arrested in February 2011 and is simultaneously serving sentences in cases of robbery and assaulting a jail convict. This man had almost eight cases against him in Tamil Nadu, and he was known as Charley Thomas in TN police records. However, his earlier character and police record was ignored by the apex court and it purely made the judgement on the intensification of the witnesses which arguably quite controversial. More over these witnesses who gave statements of the hearsay could be bought over people. 

Arguably, if Govindachamy could mange the  Four high profile lawyers to contest his case, he could even mange the witnesses, is of any one's guess. How can the court shut their eyes on these facts? Its time that our apex court should start looking at the case beyond the evidence and use human logic based on the character and conduct of the offenders in a sensitive case of rape and murder like this. Otherwise, no sooner the credibility of SC be questioned. Normally to file a review petition is a clear criticism of the judgement. 

Now, the bigger question, prosecution knew about this habitual offender and a hard core criminal called Govindachamy who might have lost his arm in a gang war or some attack. And when not of any use the group with whom he was associated would have left him fend for his fate and in turn he was a beggar of circumstances.

It is interesting to note that which is this group who wants to spend lakhs of rupees to defend an accused in a rape-murder case? This could have been immediately sensed by the state machinery and investigating agency when a Criminal Lawyer like Aloor appeared first for him.

How did it not wake them up to get more information about this hard core criminal? Secondly, why the apex court has not shown any sincere effort to see through the open windows? In how many rape and murder cases, Lawyer like Aloor appears? Its all through, a most disturbing and alarming case for the public to note when state machinery and Court make mockery of public sentiment.

But, there is definitely more to Govindachamy’s story than just the case of a ‘one-handed beggar’? Is he part of a bigger, powerful syndicate? The very fact that Govindachamy has been enjoying support from a faceless, cash-rich group itself is reason enough to believe that the case isn’t confined to the brutal act of a one-handed beggar on a helpless girl.

Will Govindachamy case be open freshly by the state to throw some more light and find beyond the obvious issue of justice to Soumya? Certainly, it appears to have hidden connections that point to a larger scheme of challenging the govt and upholding the supremacy of mafia world as has been in numerous cases earlier.  If only the investigations and inquiry done with sincerity and honesty we might see some light through the tunnel. Otherwise, once more the public voice would be gagged by mafia influencing law and the court by proving the inefficiency of our govt.