Back
orders de novo SIT probe into 2012 Dharmasthala rape-murder case
In a landmark decision that promises to reignite the quest for justice after 14 long years, the on Monday ordered a into the brutal 2012 rape and murder of a 17-year-old girl in Dharmasthala, Karnataka. A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva set aside a order that had refused to direct a , and instead directed the state to constitute a to conduct a fresh probe from scratch.
The court’s order comes as a major victory for the victim’s mother, Kusumavati Gowda, who had approached the apex court after the death of her husband, the original petitioner. The judgment pulls no punches in condemning the manner in which three successive investigative agencies—the , the , and the —handled the case.
A 14-Year Wait for Justice: The Story of Sowjanya
The victim, Sowjanya, a second-year Pre-University student at Sri. Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara College, went missing on , while returning home from college. Her body was discovered the next day in a thick bush near Mannasanka, half-naked, with her left hand tied to a tree stem using her college shawl. The post-mortem confirmed that she had been raped and strangled to death.
The initial missing person complaint was filed by her father, Chandappa Gowda, and after the body was found, the case was altered to include offences under . The investigation was first handled by the local police, then transferred to the CID, and eventually to the CBI. All three agencies zeroed in on one man—Santhosh Rao, an itinerant labourer who was apprehended near the Bahubali statue by two locals on , and handed over to the police after being assaulted by the public.
Throughout the proceedings, the victim’s family maintained that Rao was innocent and that three influential local persons—Mallik Jain, Deeraj Jain, and Uday Jain—were the real perpetrators. Despite repeated pleas, the investigating agencies never seriously pursued this line of inquiry.
‘Shocks the Very Conscience of the Court’
The ’s judgment is scathing in its assessment of the investigations. “In a case where a minor girl of 17 years of age is brutally raped and murdered, the manner in which the investigation had progressed and the manner in which the various investigating agencies conducted the investigation and gathered and evaluated the evidence shocks the very conscience of the court,” the bench observed.
The court noted that the person who was prosecuted—Santhosh Rao—was held by the to be incapable of committing the offence, and that the investigation had been conducted in a manner that caused injustice to the victim. “The possibility of the real culprit(s) manipulating the investigation cannot be ruled out. Such lax and improper investigation gives premium to the Investigating Officers who failed to do their job correctly and diligently,” the judgment stated.
The court also rejected the High Court’s reasoning that no useful purpose would be served by a because evidence from the “” was no longer available. The pointed to the deposition of the forensic expert, who confirmed that hair samples of a person other than the accused were still available and that DNA comparison with any newly identified suspect remained possible. “Thus the observation of the High Court... is clearly erroneous and cannot be sustained,” the bench held.
Why the High Court Was Wrong: The Legal Precedent
The High Court had acknowledged that the acquittal of Santhosh Rao “definitely demands ” but declined to order one. The found this contradictory and relied on its earlier decision in Neetu Kumar Nagaich v. State of Rajasthan (2020) to clarify the law.
Citing that precedent, the bench explained that while normally only can be ordered under , constitutional courts have the power to direct a when the investigation has not been conducted in a proper and objective manner, or when it appears that the investigation was done to help someone escape the law. “A is as much a part of a guaranteed under as a , without which the trial will naturally not be fair,” the court observed.
The judgment also referred to and to underscore that courts must deal with deficient investigations with an “iron hand” and that the power to direct is a dynamic component of .
Key Observations: The Court’s Unsparing Words
The ’s judgment is replete with powerful observations that underscore the gravity of the investigative failures:
- “Injustice to a person who was falsely charged can always be compensated, however injustice to the victim who was brutally raped and then murdered can never be compensated.”
- “Society would be failing in its duty if it does not provide justice to the victim of such a heinous crime by conducting a proper investigation and bringing the real culprits to the book.”
- “Clearly the investigation has been conducted in a manner that causes injustice to the victim. The possibility of the real culprit(s) manipulating the investigation cannot be ruled out.”
The court also noted that the state was able to locate eight potential witnesses within three weeks after being directed to provide them protection, which raised serious questions about the failure of three investigative agencies to pursue these leads when it mattered.
What Happens Next: A Fresh Start with a New SIT
The directed the to constitute a Special Investigation Team comprising efficient investigators conversant with modern investigative technology, headed by a senior police officer of the state. Crucially, no officer who was part of any of the earlier investigation teams—from the , the CID, or the CBI—shall be part of the SIT.
The fresh investigation must be concluded within three months, and the police report shall be filed before the court concerned in accordance with law. The court, however, made it clear that Santhosh Rao, having already been tried and acquitted, enjoys the protection of and , and cannot be subjected to or prosecution.
The court also emphasized that nothing in its order should be construed as expressing an opinion on the role of any individual, including the three suspects named by the victim’s family. The SIT is to conduct the investigation without being influenced by anything stated in the judgment.
Speaking to the media after the verdict, the victim’s mother, Kusumavati Gowda, expressed hope that justice would finally be served. “After 14 long years, I am hopeful that my daughter will finally get justice. I always believed that, with the blessings of Lord Annappa Swamy and Lord Manjunatha, the truth would prevail and those responsible for her murder would be punished,” she said.
The ’s decision marks a significant step towards ensuring that the real perpetrators of this heinous crime are brought to book, and serves as a reminder that no lapse in investigation will be allowed to stand in the way of justice.
