Supreme Court orders fresh SIT probe in 2012 Dharmasthala rape-murder case

The Supreme Court recently ordered a fresh Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the 2012 rape and murder of a 17-year-old student in Karnataka’s Dharmasthala. [Kusumavati Gowda v. Government of Karnataka and Others]

By an order passed on September 21, a Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva set aside a Karnataka High Court order that had rejected the victim’s father’s plea for reinvestigation into the case.

The Court found serious lapses in the investigations conducted by the local police, the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

It observed that the manner in which the investigating agencies had collected and evaluated the evidence “shocks the very conscience of the court”.

“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 said.

Thus, the Bench directed the Karnataka government to constitute an SIT headed by a senior State police officer and comprising efficient investigators familiar with modern investigative technology.

Pertinently, no officer associated with the earlier investigations conducted by the local police, CID or CBI can be included in the SIT. The Court directed the SIT to complete the fresh investigation within 3 months.

The case concerned a student who disappeared while returning from college on October 9, 2012. Her body was found in thick bushes near Mannasanka in a half-naked condition. Her left hand had been tied to the stem of a tree using the shawl of her college uniform. The post-mortem examination revealed signs of sexual assault and strangulation.

The police subsequently arrested Santhosh Rao, who was prosecuted for the crime. However, a trial court acquitted him in June 2023 after finding no material connecting him with the offence.

The victim’s father then approached the Karnataka High Court seeking a fresh investigation to identify the actual perpetrators. The High Court declined the plea, reasoning that evidence not collected during the “golden hour” might no longer be available. The victim’s family subsequently challenged the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court noted that 8 potential witnesses had been located within 3 weeks pursuant to its April 2026 order. It also cited forensic testimony that hair strands belonging to persons other than Rao had been found on the victim’s chudidhar top and could still be compared with the DNA of suspects.

The Court termed the High Court’s conclusion “clearly erroneous”. However, it clarified that Rao could not be investigated or prosecuted again because he had already been acquitted.

"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 judgment stated.

Senior Advocates Shobha Gupta, Sanjay Nuli and Shekhar G Devasa were among those who appeared for the petitioners.

Additional Advocate General  (AAG) Avishkar Singhvi, 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 appeared for the respondents.

[Read Judgment]