The Supreme Court on Monday (September 21) ordered a fresh investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into the 2012 rape and murder of a 17-year-old girl in Dharmasthala, Karnataka, holding that the manner in which the investigation was conducted by the local police, CID and CBI “shocks the very conscience of the court”.

The Court directed Karnataka to constitute an SIT comprising efficient investigators conversant with modern investigative technology and headed by a senior State police officer. Importantly, no officer who had been associated with the earlier investigations by the Belthangady Police, the Karnataka CID or the CBI is to be part of the new SIT.

Setting aside the High Court's decision dismissing the victim's father's writ petition seeking a re-investigation, a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva directed the State to constitute an SIT headed by a senior police officer and comprising investigators conversant with modern investigative technology.

“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 person who was prosecuted was held to be incapable of committing the offence. 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. Such lax and improper investigation gives premium to the Investigating Officers who failed to do their job correctly and diligently.”, the Court observed.

The victim, a student of the Sri. Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara College Dharmasthala, went missing on October 9, 2012, after college and was last seen near a bus stop. Her body was recovered the next day from bushes, half-naked, with her left hand tied to a tree stem with her college shawl. The post-mortem indicated rape and strangulation.

The case was initially registered as a missing-person case and later altered to offences under Sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC.

The investigation was first conducted by the local police, then transferred to the CID and subsequently to the CBI. All three investigations ultimately proceeded against one, Santhosh Rao, who was charged with rape and murder. However, the Sessions Court acquitted him, finding that there was no evidence connecting him with the crime.

The Sessions Court had also noted several investigative deficiencies, including failure relating to preservation and examination of the victim's vaginal swab, absence of DNA results, medical evidence concerning Rao's phimosis, inadequate examination of CCTV and other material, failure to properly pursue tower-dump data and failure to examine relevant witnesses.

The victim's father then approached the Karnataka High Court, in a writ jurisdiction, seeking reinvestigation, alleging that Rao had been falsely implicated and that other suspected persons had not been properly investigated. After his death, his wife, Kusumavati Gowda, i.e., the Appellant, continued the proceedings.

Although the High Court acknowledged that the acquittal judgment “definitely demands reinvestigation”, it declined to order so, holding that evidence not collected during the “golden hour” might no longer be available.

Aggrieved by the High Court's order, the mother of the victim moved to the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the impugned order, the judgment authored by Justice Sachdeva rejected the High Court's reasoning, finding it to be erroneous.

Relying on the expert testimony of those who conducted the DNA analysis, the Court noted that if suspected persons are found, the DNA sample collected from the victim's top can still be matched.

“Thus the observation of the High Court that it is doubtful that evidence that could not be collected at the golden hour is still available and that no useful purpose would be served even if reinvestigation was permitted is clearly erroneous and cannot be sustained.”, the Court added.

The Court referred to its earlier judgment of Neetu Kumar Nagaich v. State of Rajasthan (2020), to draw support for ordering a fresh investigation in the matter, after noting that the investigation carried out, in the present case, resulted in an escape of someone from the clutches of law.

“…where the Constitutional Court is satisfied that the investigation has not been conducted in a proper and objective manner, fresh investigation with the help of an independent agency can be considered to secure the ends of justice so that truth is revealed. It held that the power to direct fresh investigation may be exercised if the court comes to the conclusion that the investigation has been done in a manner to help someone escape the clutches of the law. In such exceptional circumstances the court may, in order to prevent miscarriage of criminal justice, direct de novo investigation.”, the Court observed.

Thus, the Court directed the de novo / fresh investigation in the matter by a SIT, directing “the Central and State Governments and other authorities to give all required assistance to such specially constituted investigating team in order to book the real culprits and for effective conduct of the prosecution.”

“...no officer who was part of the investigation teams of the Belthangady Police Station, CID or CBI who had been associated with the earlier investigation shall be part of the Special Investigation Team…fresh investigation shall be concluded within a period of three months and the police report shall be filed before the court concerned in accordance with law, whereafter the matter shall proceed in accordance with law.”, the Court ordered.

The Court also held that Santhosh Rao, having already been tried and acquitted, is protected against a second prosecution by Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 CrPC. He is therefore not to be subjected to further investigation or prosecution in the case.

The appeal was disposed of.

Cause Title: Kusumavati Gowda Vs. The Government of Karnataka & Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 970

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Shobha Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay Nuli, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shekhar G Devasa, Sr. Adv.Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, AOR Mrs. Rajshri Dubey, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Adv. Mr. Manish Tiwari, Adv. Mrs. Thashmitha Muthana, Adv. Mr. Prashant R Dixit, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kinni, Adv. Ms. Tog Mata MG, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Deborah, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Amit P. Shahi, Adv. Mr. Anjan Datta, Adv. Ms. Ishita Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Manish Dhingra, Adv. Mr. Rahul Sethi, Adv. Mrs. Rekha Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Yadav, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Sauvik Kumar, Adv. Mrs. Sona Khan, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sumant Khan, Adv. Mr. Anil Nishani, Adv. Mr. Govind Kashyap, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Davinder Pal Singh, A.S.G. Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, A.A.G. Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR Mr. Himanshu Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kunal Rana, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Jaiswal, Adv. Ms. Diksha Arora, Adv. Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv. Mr. B.K. Satija, Adv. Mr. Pradyumna Tyagi, Adv. Mr. C.B. Gururaj, Adv. Ms. Pragya Smriti, Adv. Mr. Hari Abishek P., Adv. Ms. Srishti, Adv. Mr. K.P. Singh, Adv. M/s. Gururaj & Nayak, AOR