The Supreme Court has ordered a de novo investigation into the 2012 rape and murder of a 17-year-old girl in Karnataka, holding that the manner in which the investigation was conducted by multiple agencies caused serious concerns about the fairness of the process and resulted in injustice to the victim.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva directed the State of Karnataka to constitute a fresh Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising efficient investigators conversant with modern investigative technology.
Buy Now: Supreme Court Judgments E-Magazine – 5 Month Combo (2026) (1st February – 30th June 2026)
The Court specifically barred officers associated with the earlier investigations by the Belthangady Police, Karnataka CID and CBI from becoming members of the new SIT.
The case concerns the death of a 17-year-old student from Dharmasthala, Belthangady Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. On October 9, 2012, the girl had left home to attend college. She was last seen walking towards her house after getting down from a bus at around 4:15 pm.
When she failed to return home, her family and local residents searched for her and a missing complaint was lodged with the Belthangady Police.
On October 10, 2012, locals discovered the body of the girl in bushes near Mannasanka. The body was found in a half-naked condition, with one hand tied to a tree using a portion of her college clothing. A post-mortem examination indicated injuries, a strangulation mark and evidence of sexual assault.
The police subsequently arrested Santhosh Rao, alleging that he was responsible for the rape and murder. The Karnataka CID later investigated the case and filed a charge sheet against him under Sections 376, 302 and 201 of the IPC.
However, the victim’s family maintained that Rao had been falsely implicated and repeatedly raised allegations regarding the involvement of other persons. Following public protests and demands for a fresh investigation, the Karnataka Government transferred the matter to the CBI in November 2013. The CBI registered its own FIR in March 2014 but ultimately continued to attribute the crime to Rao and gave a clean chit to three persons whom the victim’s family had suspected.
Sessions Court Acquitted Accused After Finding No Evidence Connecting Him With Crime
The trial proceeded before the Sessions Court, where the prosecution examined 35 witnesses and relied on documentary and material evidence.
By judgment dated June 16, 2023, the Sessions Court acquitted Santhosh Rao of the offences under Sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC.
The trial court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish any circumstance connecting Rao with the crime. It also found significant deficiencies in the investigation, including failure to properly collect and preserve crucial medical and forensic evidence.
The Sessions Court specifically noted that the case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence and that there was no evidence showing that Rao had even been seen in the locality in connection with the incident.
The court also took note of the fact that CCTV footage had not been secured, despite cameras being installed near the relevant area. Tower-dump information relating to mobile numbers had also not been properly handed over to the succeeding investigating officer.
Court Noted Missing Evidence and Questions Over Crime Scene
One of the significant circumstances noticed by the Sessions Court was the condition of the victim’s school bag and books.
The incident occurred on a rainy day, yet the school bag and books found near the body were dry. The court observed that this circumstance raised a question as to whether the crime had actually occurred at the place where the body was discovered or whether the body had subsequently been brought there.
The investigating agency also failed to recover several articles, including the victim’s inner garments, umbrella and slippers. The post-mortem examination was not video-recorded and the condition of the victim’s watch was not properly documented.
The Sessions Court further noted that the vaginal swab, which could have constituted important forensic evidence, had not been properly preserved and was therefore unsuitable for DNA analysis.
The forensic evidence also did not establish a connection between Rao and the victim. No seminal stains were detected on his clothes and the victim’s nail examination did not reveal blood or skin particles attributable to Rao.
Sessions Court Had Earlier Ordered Further Investigation
The Supreme Court also examined an earlier order passed by the Sessions Court in February 2017 directing further investigation.
The Sessions Court had found serious lapses in the investigation and specifically pointed to material witnesses who had allegedly not been examined. It also referred to the death of a material witness, questions surrounding Rao’s arrest, the absence of injuries on his private parts despite the medical evidence concerning his condition, and the failure to properly investigate several circumstances surrounding the crime.
The court had directed the CBI to conduct further investigation by considering the relevant witnesses, documents and call detail records and to submit a report.
However, the Karnataka High Court subsequently set aside that order in 2021, observing that the trial had already commenced and that a fresh investigation could interfere with the existing investigation reports.
Supreme Court Finds Fresh Investigation Still Possible
The Supreme Court disagreed with the approach that the passage of time necessarily rendered a fresh investigation futile.
The Court noted that on April 29, 2026, it had directed the Karnataka Government to provide protection to eight potential witnesses identified by the petitioner. The State was able to locate those witnesses within three weeks.
According to the Supreme Court, this raised questions about why the earlier investigating agencies had failed to examine such leads when they were available at the relevant time.
The Court also highlighted the evidence of the DNA expert, who had stated that hairs belonging to persons other than the accused were found on one of the material objects. The expert had further stated that if suspected persons could be identified, their blood samples could still be collected and compared with the available material.
The Supreme Court therefore held that the High Court’s conclusion that useful evidence was unlikely to remain available was erroneous.
Constitutional Courts Can Order De Novo Investigation in Exceptional Cases
A significant part of the judgment deals with the legal power of constitutional courts to direct fresh or de novo investigation.
The Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in Neetu Kumar Nagaich v. State of Rajasthan, where it held that ordinarily, after completion of investigation and filing of a police report under Section 173(2) CrPC, the appropriate course is further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC.
However, where a constitutional court is satisfied that the investigation was not conducted in a proper and objective manner, fresh investigation through an independent agency can be ordered in appropriate cases.
The Court reiterated that such power may be exercised where the investigation has been conducted in a manner that potentially enables someone to escape the law, particularly where intervention is necessary to prevent a miscarriage of criminal justice.
The judgment also referred to Pooja Pal v. Union of India, holding that the power of constitutional courts to direct further investigation or reinvestigation forms part of their judicial review jurisdiction and must be exercised with due care and caution.
The Court emphasised that the victim cannot be treated as an outsider to the criminal justice process and that the objective of investigation is to discover the truth through a fair and effective process.
Fair Investigation Is Part of Constitutional Protection
The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that fair investigation is an integral part of the constitutional guarantee under Article 21, just as a fair trial is.
Referring to its earlier decisions, the Court observed that investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious and that an investigating agency cannot be permitted to conduct an investigation in a tainted or biased manner.
The Court further noted that where non-interference by the judiciary would ultimately result in failure of justice, constitutional courts can intervene. In exceptional circumstances, they may direct a de novo investigation.
The Court also relied upon Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, observing that the constitutional power to order a fresh, de novo or reinvestigation is not necessarily defeated merely because a trial has commenced or witnesses have already been examined.
The ultimate consideration remains whether such intervention is necessary to ensure a fair and just investigation.
Supreme Court: Investigation Caused Injustice to Victim
Applying these principles to the present case, the Supreme Court made strong observations regarding the manner in which the investigation had proceeded.
The Court observed that the victim was a 17-year-old girl who had been brutally raped and murdered and that the manner in which the investigation had been conducted by different agencies, including the collection and evaluation of evidence, raised serious concerns.
The Court found that the person prosecuted had ultimately been acquitted after the Sessions Court concluded that there was no material connecting him with the crime.
The Supreme Court observed that the investigation had therefore resulted in injustice to the victim and that the possibility of the real culprit or culprits having manipulated the investigation could not be ruled out.
The Court further drew a distinction between the consequences of a wrongful prosecution and the consequences suffered by the victim. It observed that while injustice to a person falsely charged may be capable of compensation, the injustice suffered by a victim of such a crime cannot similarly be compensated.
Supreme Court Orders Fresh SIT Investigation
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the Karnataka High Court’s August 30, 2024 order insofar as it dismissed the writ petition seeking reinvestigation.
The Court ordered a de novo investigation into Crime No. 250/2012 and the subsequent CBI case.
The State of Karnataka has been directed to constitute a Special Investigation Team headed by a senior State police officer, comprising investigators experienced in modern investigative technology.
Importantly, the Court directed that no officer who was part of the earlier investigation conducted by the Belthangady Police, CID or CBI shall be included in the new SIT.
Santhosh Rao Cannot Be Prosecuted Again
The Supreme Court also expressly protected Santhosh Rao from being subjected to a second prosecution.
Since Rao had already been tried and acquitted by the Sessions Court, the Court held that he enjoys the protection of Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 CrPC against being tried or prosecuted a second time.
Accordingly, the fresh investigation is not to be used to subject Rao to further investigation or prosecution.
Court Clarifies It Has Not Expressed Opinion Against Suspected Persons
The Supreme Court made it clear that its observations should not be treated as an opinion, even prima facie, regarding the role of any individual, including the persons whose involvement had earlier been suspected.
The new SIT has been directed to conduct the investigation independently and without being influenced by the Supreme Court’s observations on the merits of the case.
The Court has further directed that the fresh investigation be completed within three months, following which the police report must be filed before the competent court and the matter will proceed in accordance with law.Â
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
