A view of the High Court of Karnataka building.
| Photo Credit:
Stating that “no purpose would be served even if reinvestigation is permitted”, the High Court of Karnataka has rejected the plea for a fresh probe into the 2012 case of rape and murder of 17-year-old Soujanya, who was a student of SDM College, Ujire, near Dharmasthala, in Dakshina Kannada district.
Also, the High Court upheld the acquittal of the sole accused by observing that the trial court had “properly discussed the evidences” to come to the conclusion that “no circumstance is proved by the prosecution” against the accused.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice J.M. Khazi passed the order recently by dismissing petitions filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the victim’s father, Chandappa Gowda, and the acquitted person, Santhosh Rao.
Both Mr. Gowda and Mr. Rao had sought direction to the CBI to reinvestigate the case to trace the real culprits. Mr. Rao, in addition, had sought a direction for payment of ₹50 lakh as compensation to him for wrongful prosecution. The CBI had filed an appeal against the June 6, 2023 trial court order of acquitting Mr. Rao.
After 12 years
“…the incident occurred on October 9, 2012. There were no eyewitnesses, and the case depended on the circumstances. Nobody saw the girl being forcibly taken by the suspects or somebody else. Medical evidence cannot be improved, and so also the forensic evidence. It is doubtful that evidence that could not be collected at the golden hour is still available,” the Bench observed while rejecting the plea for reinvestigation.
On the CBI’s appeal, the Bench said the trial court properly appreciated the evidence and rightly came to the conclusion that there were nothing even in either forensic analysis or DNA reports of samples to connect Mr. Rao with the victim’s remains.
Observing that “there cannot be interference if the evidence appears to have been evaluated properly” by the trial court, the Bench dismissed the CBI’s appeal.
On compensation
Regarding compensation claimed by Mr. Rao, the Bench said the quantum of compensation to be fixed is a question of fact and therefore he would be at liberty to initiate an independent action in the appropriate forum.
On the complaint that the acquittal committee has not taken any action against the erring police official of the State who initially conducted the probe, for faulty investigation as directed by the trial court, the Bench said the process, already initiated before the committee, be expedited.
The case was initially probed by the jurisdictional police and was later handed over to the Criminal Investigation Department, which had filed a chargesheet against Mr. Rao. However, in 2014 the case was handed over to the CBI, which too filed a chargesheet in 2015 against him. The High Court in 2021 dismissed Mr. Gowda’s earlier petition filed in 2018 seeking a reinvestigation.
Published – September 13, 2024 10:25 pm IST