Supreme Court Orders Reinvestigation in 2012 Dharmasthala Case
In a significant development, the Supreme Court has directed a renewed investigation into the 2012 rape and murder of a 17-year-old student in Dharmasthala, Karnataka. The decision was made in the case of Kusumavati Gowda v. Government of Karnataka and Others, where a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva overturned a Karnataka High Court ruling that had dismissed the victim’s father’s request for a reinvestigation.
The Supreme Court’s order, issued on September 21, criticized the initial investigations conducted by local police, the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), highlighting serious investigative shortcomings. The Court remarked that the investigative approach was so flawed it “shocks the very conscience of the court.” It further noted that the investigation was so poorly conducted that it risked allowing the actual perpetrators to evade justice. The Court strongly condemned the investigative officers for their lack of diligence and thoroughness.
New SIT to Lead the Investigation
Justices Kumar and Sachdeva have mandated the Karnataka government to form a new Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by a senior state police officer. This team must include skilled investigators proficient in modern investigative techniques, and notably, no officer involved in previous investigations by the local police, CID, or CBI may be part of the SIT. The court has set a three-month deadline for the SIT to conclude its investigation.
The case involves the tragic events of October 9, 2012, when the student disappeared on her way home from college. Her body was discovered in a secluded area, showing signs of sexual assault and strangulation, with her left hand tied to a tree using her college uniform’s shawl. The police initially arrested Santhosh Rao for the crime, but a trial court acquitted him in June 2023 due to insufficient evidence.
Supreme Court Criticizes High Court’s Decision
The victim’s father appealed to the Karnataka High Court for a fresh probe to uncover the true assailants, but the High Court rejected the appeal, citing the potential loss of crucial evidence over time. This decision was subsequently challenged in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s decision as “clearly erroneous,” pointing out that new potential witnesses had emerged following its preliminary orders and that forensic evidence, such as hair strands found on the victim, could still be tested against other suspects’ DNA.
More Read
Although the Supreme Court emphasized the need for a thorough investigation to ensure justice, it clarified that Santhosh Rao, having been acquitted, could not be re-prosecuted. The judgment underscored the importance of delivering justice to the victim through a meticulous and proper investigation.
Senior Advocates Shobha Gupta, Sanjay Nuli, and Shekhar G Devasa represented the petitioners. On behalf of the respondents, the legal team included Additional Advocate General Avishkar Singhvi, along with Advocates Sanchit Garga, Mithu Jain, Himanshu Mishra, Kunal Rana, Shashwat Jaiswal, Diksha Arora, Bhanu Pratap Singh, Oorja Goel, Vijender Kumar, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, C B Gururaj, Naveen Chandrashekar, Pragya Smriti, Hari Abishek P, Srishti, K P Singh, Gururaj, and Nayak.
