This Case commentary is written by Sushmita Rawat, a Second-Year law student of Mewar institute of law

Citation: (2010) 9 SCC 747

Court: Supreme Court

Bench: Harjit Singh Bedi, Chandramauli Kr. Prasad

Date of Judgment: 06-10-2010

Accused: Santosh Kumar Singh

Victim: Priyadarshani Mattoo

ABSTRACT

In this case, a girl named Priyadarshini Mattoo a student of law faculty at the University of Delhi was brutally murdered and raped by a boy named Santosh Kumar Singh who was the son of a high-ranking police officer. The victim reported to police about the stalking but due to the negligence of police, no FIR or steps had been taken. On November 6, 1995, an eyewitness stated that the accused was seen entering the house of the victim with the intent to rape her but ended up killing. He hit her 14 times in the head with his helmet which resulted in the dismantling of the visor of his helmet and later strangled her with a wire with an intent to kill her.

FACTS OF THE CASE

● BACKGROUND: This case is about a girl who was a law student at Delhi University faculty law campus named Priyadarshini Mattoo and the appellant Santosh Kumar Singh had also been a student in the same faculty. The girl had told the police before that the appellant Santosh Kumar had been stalking her. She had been found dead and police reported several marks and injuries and that someone had choked her. The Central Bureau of Investigation took over the case after the negligence of the police.

● CHARGES: In 1999 Singh was cleared of the charges by the lower court because of incomplete proof and evidence but CBI didn't agree with the court's decision and later found Singh to be guilty of assault and murder who was then sentenced to death by the high court.

● INVESTIGATION: circumstantial evidence and forensic reports proved that a heinous crime had happened although evidence was tampered with they were able to prove that Santosh Singh hurt himself while conducting a crime moreover, evidence like the helmet visor of Singh was found to be missing.

ISSUES

● Whether Santosh Kumar Singh’s trial adheres to principles of justice and fair trial contemplating the procedural aspects?

● Whether the death penalty or life imprisonment was imposed on the accused?

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

● The trial court judge was certain of the fact that the accused was guilty of the charges and that he had committed this crime but based on poor evidence he was given the benefit of the doubt.

● According to learned ASG the CBI cannot be held responsible for the disappearance of the deceased servant who was a witness. The CBI tried to find him but unfortunately could not succeed.

● Learned ASG argued that the evidence was tampered with and the lab technicians used improper methods or unfair practices to tamper with the evidence.

● According to the ASG the head constable Rajendra Singh was appointed as the personal security of the deceased had seen the accused Singh wearing the same helmet on the college campus which has been found at the crime place however, this thing has not been considered moreover the accused accepted that the helmet belongs to him then why the helmet has not been sent for the forensic investigation as evidence the trial court failed to do that.

● It was argued that the trial court's decision was flawed, as it provided a verdict that is against the prosecution despite having documented arguments supporting it. Consequently, the verdict should be overturned, as it was entirely unjust.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

● The counsel arguing on behalf of the accused Santosh Kumar Singh states that harassment with the deceased is the motivating factor and that harassment itself proved everything.

● They argued that the examination of evidence seems like the accused wanted to befriend the victim and that cannot be considered as rape or murder.

● Council further argued that the prosecution tried to show that the injury of the accused is recent and that it has something to do with the crime supported by the evidence as Dr. G.K. Chaubey testified that swelling and haemorrhage will last for around two weeks following a fracture.

● The learned council said that about rape the inspector Lalit Mohan testified that he did not find any evidence at the crime spot which indicates that the victim has been raped.

● The council further stated that the evidence like vaginal swabs and slides were all exhibits and that the respondent's blood type is O+ but the semen they found in the underwear of the victim was of A.

RELATED PROVISIONS

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860

1. Section 302 (Punishment for murder): Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

2. Section 354 (Assault or criminal force to women with an intent to outrage her modesty): Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.

3. Section 376 (Punishment for rape): Whoever, except in the cases provided for in subsection (2), commits rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which [shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine]

(Subs. by Act 22 of 2018, s. 4, for “shall not be less than seven years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine” (w.e.f. 21-4-2018)

JUDGEMENT

High Court: By reversing the trial court's decision, the Delhi High Court sentenced the death penalty to the accused and found him guilty of the offence. He was found guilty of offence under sections 302 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on October 17, 2006. The court also objected to the work of the police for negligence. The court's decision was based on several compelling arguments. Santosh Kumar Singh was awarded the death penalty as the court convicted him.

Supreme Court: In 2007 accused Santosh Singh appealed in Supreme Court and challenged the high court's decision. The Supreme Court then put the stay order on the decision of the high court. The court also issued a notice to the CBI about the appeal filed by Santosh Kumar Singh against the judgment of the high court. In October 2010 the Supreme Court changed the decision of the high court from the death penalty to life imprisonment.

Conclusion

When we talk about equality before law then this should also apply to the politically superior one. Everyone is equal and every crime conducted by them will get the same punishment as one is getting. The legal system should be free from any kind of bias.

References:

[1] /https://lawfoyer.in/state-through-cbi-vs-santosh-kumar-singh/ (Shukla)

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/760449/ (Bedi)

https://lawlex.org/lex-bulletin/case-summary-santosh-kumar-singh-vs-state-through-cbi/24777