Shocks The Very Conscience Of The Court: Supreme Court Orders De Novo Probe Into 2012 Dharmasthala Minor's Rape & Murder Case
The Bench said that the Constitutional courts retain power to direct fresh investigation even after trial and acquittal, while shielding the acquitted accused under Article 20(2) from being probed or tried again.
The Supreme Court has set aside a Karnataka High Court order refusing re-investigation into the 2012 rape and murder of a 17-year-old girl in Dharmasthala, holding that the manner in which three successive investigating agencies conducted the probe "shocks the very conscience of the court" and could not be allowed to stand despite the acquittal of the sole person prosecuted.
Directing that a de novo investigation be carried out by a freshly constituted Special Investigation Team, the Court clarified that the power of constitutional courts to order reinvestigation survives the commencement, and even the conclusion, of a trial, but drew a firm line: the accused already tried and acquitted, Santhosh Rao, cannot be subjected to further investigation or prosecution in the same FIR, since he enjoys protection under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300 of the CrPC against being tried twice for the same offence.
The criminal appeal was filed by the mother of the deceased victim after the death of the original writ petitioner, her husband, during the pendency of proceedings.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva observed, “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”.
Senior Advocates Shobha Gupta, Sanjay Nuli, Shekhar G Devasa appeared for the petitioner and Avishkar Singhvi, A.A.G. appeared for the respondent.
The case arose from the abduction, rape and murder of a Pre-University student in Dharmasthala on October 09, 2012. The investigation passed successively from the Belthangady Police to the State CID and finally to the CBI, each of which pinned culpability on one Santhosh Rao, an itinerant labourer apprehended near the Bahubali statue two days after the incident and assaulted by the public before being handed to the police.
Throughout, the victim's family and local residents maintained that three other named individuals, described as influential local persons, were the real culprits, and that Santhosh Rao had been falsely implicated to protect them.
The Sessions Court, after trial, acquitted Santhosh Rao in June 2023, holding that no evidence connected him to the crime, that his own medical condition made the alleged act improbable, and that the investigation had failed to secure or preserve crucial evidence, including CCTV footage, the victim's missing undergarments and personal effects, and a vaginal swab rendered useless by improper storage.
Earlier, in 2017, the Sessions Court had itself directed further investigation by the CBI citing serious lapses, an order later set aside by the High Court on the ground that trial had already progressed too far. A subsequent application to array the three suspected individuals as additional accused was also dismissed. After the acquittal, the victim's father's writ petition seeking de novo investigation was dismissed by the High Court, which paradoxically observed that the acquittal "definitely demands reinvestigation" but held that no useful evidence remained to be found from the "golden hour."
The Supreme Court found this reasoning unsustainable, noting that it had earlier directed the State to protect eight potential witnesses named by the appellant, and that the State had traced them within three weeks, it observed this exposed the inability, or unwillingness, of three successive investigating agencies to pursue the same leads when it mattered.
It further relied on the deposition of the forensic scientist who examined the case, who confirmed that hair samples of a person other than the accused remained available on record and that fresh DNA comparison against any newly identified suspect remained possible. On this basis, the Court held that the High Court's finding that no useful purpose would be served by reinvestigation was "clearly erroneous".
“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”, the Bench noted.
Cause Title: Kusumavati Gowda v. The Government of Karnataka & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1030)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Shobha Gupta, Sr. Adv., Sanjay Nuli, Sr. Adv., Shekhar G Devasa, Sr. Adv. Rajshri Dubey, Ashutosh Dubey,. Manish Tiwari, Advocates.
Respondent: Avishkar Singhvi, A.A.G., Sanchit Garga, AOR, Mithu Jain, Himanshu Mishra, Kunal Rana, Shashwat Jaiswal, Advocates.