Hair belonging to people other than Santosh Rao were found on the victim’s clothing, providing DNA material that the Supreme Court said can still be compared with samples from suspects identified in a fresh investigation into the Dharmasthala rape and murder case.
The evidence, recovered from Material Object 15, identified as the victim’s churidar top, was cited by the Supreme Court while rejecting the argument that the passage of time had made a meaningful reinvestigation impossible.
Vinod J Lakkappan, assistant director of the Toxicology Division, Madivala, Bengaluru, who conducted the DNA analysis, told the court that the hairs found on the garment did not belong to Rao.
Lakkappan also testified that blood samples could still be collected from people who emerge as suspects and compared with the DNA material recovered from the clothing.
The Supreme Court held that this left useful forensic evidence available for the fresh investigation. The court also took note of eight potential witnesses whom the earlier investigating agencies had failed to identify and examine.
The petitioners had named the eight in their plea, following which the apex court ordered protection for them on April 29, 2026. The Karnataka government traced and protected them within three weeks.
{{/usCountry}}The petitioners had named the eight in their plea, following which the apex court ordered protection for them on April 29, 2026. The Karnataka government traced and protected them within three weeks.
{{/usCountry}}The court questioned why the earlier investigations by Belthangady police, the Criminal Investigation Department and the Central Bureau of Investigation had not identified and examined the eight people when the state government was able to locate them within weeks.
The Supreme Court has directed Karnataka to constitute a new Special Investigation Team, headed by a senior state police officer and comprising officers with expertise in modern technology.
Officers who were part of the earlier investigations cannot be included in the new team. The SIT has been given three months to complete its investigation.
The court has excluded Santosh Rao from the fresh probe because the Sessions Court acquitted him on June 16, 2023. The trial court had found no material connecting him to the crime and held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges.
The Supreme Court held that Rao cannot be investigated or prosecuted again for the same offence under Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 of the CrPC. It noted that the person prosecuted had been “held to be incapable of committing the offence”.
The SIT has nevertheless been allowed to investigate the roles of Malik Jain, Dheeraj Jain and Uday Jain. The court made clear that this should not be understood as expressing even a prima facie opinion about their roles.
The SC also took issue with the manner in which the earlier investigation was conducted. “Clearly, the investigation has been conducted in a manner that causes injustice to the victim,” it said, adding that the possibility of the actual perpetrator or perpetrators manipulating the investigation could not be ruled out.
The court further said that “such lax and improper investigation gives premium to the Investigating Officers who failed to do their job correctly and diligently.”
It also said that while an injustice to a person falsely charged could be compensated, “injustice to the victim who was brutally raped and then murdered can never be compensated.”
The court referred to material suggesting that people who had information about the crime had not been properly examined. It noted that witnesses and others who came forward had maintained that Rao was not the culprit and had alleged that investigators were attempting to shield the actual perpetrators.
The Supreme Court’s order follows the Karnataka high court’s 2024 decision, which accepted the need for reinvestigation but rejected the plea on the ground that evidence was unlikely to remain available because of the passage of time.
Home minister Priyank Kharge said the state government would discuss the Supreme Court’s directions with chief minister Siddaramaiah and D K Shivakumar before deciding on further action.
“The Supreme Court’s order has not officially come out yet. It might be released by this evening. I will speak and discuss this with chief minister DK Shivakumar, and we will take whatever action needs to be taken,” Kharge said.