The Supreme Court has ordered a fresh investigation into the 2012 rape and murder of a 17-year-old student in Karnataka’s Dharmasthala, holding that the earlier investigations suffered from serious shortcomings.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva, in its September 21 judgment in Kusumavati Gowda v. Government of Karnataka and Others, overturned the Karnataka High Court’s refusal to order a reinvestigation.
The Court was sharply critical of the manner in which evidence had been gathered and assessed by the local police, the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and later the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
It observed that the investigation had been conducted in a manner that caused injustice to the victim and said the possibility of the actual perpetrators influencing or manipulating the investigation could not be ruled out.
The Bench directed the Karnataka government to constitute a new Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a senior State police officer. The team must include experienced investigators familiar with modern investigative techniques.
Importantly, none of the officers involved in the earlier investigations by the local police, CID or CBI can be part of the new team.
The SIT has been given three months to complete the fresh investigation.
What happened in 2012
The teenager disappeared on October 9, 2012, while returning from college. Her body was later discovered in bushes near Mannasanka.
The victim was found in a half-naked condition, with her left hand tied to a tree using the shawl from her college uniform. A post-mortem examination indicated sexual assault and strangulation.
Santhosh Rao was subsequently arrested and prosecuted. However, a trial court acquitted him in June 2023, finding that the evidence did not establish his involvement in the crime.
Following the acquittal, the victim’s father sought a fresh investigation to identify those actually responsible.
The Karnataka High Court rejected that request, reasoning that evidence that might have been available during the initial stages of the investigation could have been lost with the passage of time.
The family then moved the Supreme Court.
Fresh evidence still available, Supreme Court notes
The Supreme Court pointed to developments that occurred after an earlier order passed in April 2026.
Within three weeks, investigators had identified eight potential witnesses, the Court noted.
It also referred to forensic evidence indicating that hair strands found on the victim’s chudidhar top belonged to individuals other than Rao. According to the Court, those samples could still potentially be subjected to DNA comparison with suspects.
Against this background, the Bench found the High Court’s conclusion that a fresh investigation would no longer be meaningful to be erroneous.
At the same time, the Supreme Court made it clear that Rao cannot be subjected to another investigation or prosecution for the same offence following his acquittal.
The Bench stressed that the purpose of the fresh probe is to determine whether the investigation can now be properly pursued and whether the persons actually responsible for the crime can be identified.
The Court said that the justice system has a responsibility to ensure that a serious crime is properly investigated and that the real perpetrators are brought before the law.
The new SIT will therefore have to revisit the case independently, without relying on officers who handled the earlier investigations.
