Supreme Court: Orders Fresh Probe into 2012 Soujanya Rape-Murder Case

Home / Top Stories / Supreme Court Judgments Supreme Court Orders Fresh Probe Into 2012 Soujanya Rape-Murder Case X Supreme Court orders fresh probe into 2012 Soujanya rape-murder case. The Supreme Court ordered a 90-day SIT probe into the 2012 rape and murder of 17-year-old Soujanya at Dharmasthala after finding serious lapses in the Karnataka Police, Crime Branch and CBI investigations. The Supreme Court has directed a de novo investigation into the 2012 rape and murder of 17-year-old Soujanya at Dharmasthala, observing that the manner in which various agencies, including the CBI, conducted the investigation and gathered and evaluated evidence “shocked the very conscience” of the Court. The 2012 case triggered widespread protests in Dakshina Kannada amid allegations that the investigation was not properly examining other possible suspects and that the sole accused, Santhosh Rao, had been falsely implicated. The protests, joined by public groups and the victim’s family, led to demands for a CBI probe. The investigation was handed over to the CBI on December 12, 2012. A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva directed the Karnataka government to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising efficient investigators well-versed in the use of modern investigative technology. The SIT has been directed to complete the fresh investigation within 90 days. Why did Supreme Court order a fresh investigation? Court found that the investigation had been conducted in a manner that caused injustice to the victim and said the possibility of the real culprit or culprits manipulating the investigation could not be ruled out. “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 Bench said. Court also observed that in a case involving the brutal rape and murder of a 17-year-old girl, the person prosecuted was ultimately held incapable of committing the offence. Court allowed a petition filed by Kusumavati Gowda, the victim’s mother, challenging the Karnataka High Court’s August 30, 2024 judgment. The high court had dismissed a writ petition filed by the victim’s father after the sole accused, Santhosh Rao , was acquitted. The Supreme Court ordered that the fresh investigation in the FIR, originally registered with the Belthangady police in Dakshina Kannada district, be conducted by a senior officer-led SIT. No police officer who had previously been associated with the investigation at the concerned police station, Crime Branch or CBI will be part of the fresh probe. What did victim’s family allege about the investigation? The victim’s family claimed that the CBI investigation was not properly conducted and that Rao was falsely implicated while the real culprits were shielded by the investigating agency. The petitioner claimed Rao was falsely implicated at the instance of Malik Jain and Ashith Jain . Malik Jain was one of the persons suspected to have committed the offence. However, instead of examining his role, he was cited as a prosecution witness. The Supreme Court, after noticing other suspicious circumstances, clarified that Rao, who has already been tried and acquitted by the Sessions Court in the FIR, would not be subjected to any investigation. Court also made it clear that nothing in its judgment should be construed as expressing even a prima facie opinion on the role of any individual, including Mallik Jain, Deeraj Jain and Uday Jain. “The Special Investigating Team shall conduct the investigation without being influenced by anything stated on merits in this order,” the Bench said. What evidence did the Supreme Court find could still be examined? Court noted that eight potential witnesses identified by the petitioner were located by the Karnataka