SC orders reinvestigation in 2012 Karnataka rape case:Demands SIT report within 3 months, says ‘earlier investigation shocked court’s conscience’

The Supreme Court on Monday ordered a fresh probe into the 2012 rape and murder of a 17-year-old student in Dharmasthala, Karnataka. A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjiv Khanna directed the Karnataka government to form a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and complete the investigation within three months. The court said the manner in which the case was investigated earlier had “shocked the conscience of the court”. The order came on a petition filed by the victim’s mother. SIT to exclude officers from earlier investigations 1. The court directed Karnataka to form an SIT of officers skilled in modern investigation techniques, led by a senior state police officer. 2. No officer who was part of the earlier investigations by Belthangady Police Station, Karnataka CID or the CBI will be included in the SIT. 3. The bench said the person earlier prosecuted was considered incapable of committing the crime, showing that the investigation was conducted in a manner that caused injustice to the minor victim. 4. The court said no further investigation should be conducted against the person who was already tried and acquitted. Order issued on mother’s petition The Supreme Court issued the order on a petition filed by the victim’s mother. The 17-year-old student went missing on 9 October 2012 while returning home from college. She was studying in Ujire, near Dharmasthala. Her body was found the next day. Evidence of sexual assault and murder was found on the body. Former investigating officers to be excluded from SIT The court directed the Karnataka government to constitute an SIT comprising investigating officers who are skilled and capable in using modern investigative techniques. It said the SIT should be headed by a senior police officer from the state. The bench made it clear that no officer who had been part of the earlier investigation teams from Belthangady Police Station, the Karnataka CID or the CBI would be included in the SIT. Investigation conducted from local police to CBI The case was initially investigated by the local police. It was subsequently investigated by the Karnataka CID and then by the CBI. In June 2023, the CBI special court acquitted Santosh Rao, the only person accused in the case, citing a lack of evidence. The Supreme Court said that there would be no further investigation or trial against Santosh Rao in the FIR under which he was prosecuted and acquitted. Court raised questions over the manner of investigation The Supreme Court said that the manner in which the investigation into the brutal rape and murder of a 17-year-old minor girl had proceeded was a matter of serious concern. The court said it was deeply shocked by the manner in which different investigative agencies conducted the investigation, gathered evidence and assessed it. The bench said the person who was prosecuted was considered incapable of committing the crime. This clearly shows that the investigation was conducted in a manner that caused injustice to the victim. The court said the possibility that the actual perpetrators may have influenced the investigation cannot be ruled out. Such a lax and flawed investigation benefits the investigating officers who did not perform their duties properly and honestly. It is society’s duty to ensure justice for the victim The Supreme Court said the injustice caused to a person wrongly accused can be remedied. However, the injustice suffered by the victim of a brutal rape and murder can never be fully redressed. The court said that if society fails to deliver justice to the victim of such a heinous crime by ensuring a proper investigation and punishment for the actual perpetrators, it will have failed in its duty. The bench also said that the power of constitutional courts to order further investigation or reinvestigation is an important and evolving aspect of the power of judicial review. The court clarified that nothing stated in the order would be treated as a preliminary opinion on any person’s role. The SIT will have to conduct the investigation without being influenced by anything said in the order about the merits of the case. ​