Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
It doesnt end with Rahul hounding
access_time 25 March 2023 4:20 AM GMT
20 years after the Iraq war
access_time 24 March 2023 8:50 AM GMT
Are  Khalistanists returning?
access_time 22 March 2023 5:12 AM GMT
Trading votes for higher rubber price?
access_time 21 March 2023 5:26 AM GMT
Unmuting democracy
access_time 20 March 2023 6:21 AM GMT
Womens Day: Building a digitally equal world
access_time 8 March 2023 4:38 AM GMT
Women must arise now and embrace equity
access_time 7 March 2023 10:52 AM GMT
The criminal case against Vladimir Putin
access_time 27 Feb 2023 9:46 AM GMT
Censorship that stifles free speech
access_time 24 Feb 2023 7:02 AM GMT
Homechevron_rightKeralachevron_rightSC 'grievously erred'...

SC 'grievously erred' in Soumya case: Katju

SC grievously erred in Soumya case: Katju

Thiruvananthapuram: Former Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju Friday said that the apex court had "grievously erred by law" in the Soumya rape and murder case in which the death sentence of the accused Govindacahamy was commuted.

In a Facebook post, he said: "The Supreme Court has grievously erred by law by not holding Govindachamy guilty of murder."

The Supreme Court had yesterday quashed Govindachamy's death penalty, but upheld life imprisonment for raping 23-year-old Soumya on February 1, 2011.

The death penalty had been imposed by a fast track court in Thrissur, which was later upheld by the Kerala High Court.

The apex court had yesterday found that there was no intention on the part of the accused to kill the victim.

It held that since it has not been proved that the accused had intention to kill, he cannot be held guilty of murder.

"What the court has overlooked is that Section 300 IPC, which defines murder, has 4 parts and only the first part requires intention to kill," Katju said.

"If any of the other 3 parts are established, it will be murder even if there was no inention to kill," the former Press Council Chairman stated.

Katju said it was "regrettable" that the court has not read Section 300 carefully.

"The judgement needs to be reviewed in an open court hearing," he said.

Show Full Article
Next Story