NAME OF THE CASE :

Santosh Kumar Singh vs. State through CBI

NAME OF THE COURT:

APPELLANT : Santosh Kumar Singh

RESPONDENT : State thr. CBI

CITATION : (2010) 9 SCC 747

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: October 6, 2010

BENCH: Harjit Singh Bedi

“The present case of Priyadarshini Matto is one of the land mark case and judgment in the
history of India. This case is the Priyadarshini Mattoo trial that took place in 1999 and took 10
years to be rectified (the Supreme Court gave its decision in 2010). A case that if properly
judged and quantum of judgment wouldn’t have been reduced, might have created deterrence
in the society and would have prevented occurrence of similar cases in near future.”

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Priyadarshini Mattoo was a 25 year old law student, who was found raped and murdered at her
house in New Delhi on 23 January, 1996. Priyadarshini finished her school from Srinagar
thereafter her family migrated to Jammu. After completing her B Com from Jammu she joined
Delhi University for her LL.B. course. She had lodged several complaints of harassment,
intimidation and stalking against the accused Santosh Kumar Singh who was also a student of
LL.B. in campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi. The accused had passed LL.B.
from University of Delhi from the said Campus Law Centre in December, 1994.

Repetitive complaints made by the deceased turned out to be completely futile in as much as it
failed to deter the accused who continued to harass her. Despite the earlier two undertakings
given by the accused subsequent to the complaints registered against him by the deceased at
the R.K. Puram and Vasant Kunj Police Station on 25 February,1995 and 16 August.,1995
respectively, on 06 November.,1995, he again tried to harass the deceased at the Campus Law
Centre. After this an FIR under section 354 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 was lodged
against him at the Maurice Nagar Police Station for which he was arrested and subsequently
released on personal bond. The deceased had also filed a complaint dated 27 October, 1995 to
the Dean, Faculty of Law, and Campus Law Centre stating harassment.

As a result of these, on 30 October ,1995 the accused made frivolous complaints to the
authorities at the Delhi University against the deceased that she was concurrently pursuing two
courses at the same time. Because of this, the result of the deceased was withheld by the
university. But later on she proved that it was a false claim. She also reiterated harassment by
the accused for the past one and a half years from then. On the fateful day of the murder when
the deceased was alone at her residence at B-10/7098, Vasant Kunj the accused came at her
house. On the arrival of the security guard Rajinder Singh at the deceased’s residence it was
found that Priyadarshini Mattoo was lying under the double bed and there was no movement of
her body. Thus an FIR under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) was lodged at his instance
at the Vasant Kunj Police Station. In the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
Rajeshwari Mattoo, the mother of the deceased had suspected the accused and therefore he
was joined in the investigation.

JUDGEMENT

In the Trial Court:

The matter was taken up by the Delhi Police but there after on a request placed by C.L. Mattoo;
the deceased’s father the case was handed over to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on 25
January, 1996. After a thorough investigation made by CBI into the matter, on 11 April, 1996, the
Central Agency filed charge sheet against Santosh Kumar Singh. The accused was challaned in
accordance with law. Thereafter the case came up for hearing and the then Additional Sessions
Judge, S.C.Mittal was pleased to frame charges under Sections 302 and 376 of IPC. The
accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. On 11 August, 1997 the trial began.
On 3 January, 1998 in all; as many as fifty witnesses were examined in the court. After taking
into account all the circumstantial and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, the
trial court on 3 December, 1999 acquitted the accused giving him a benefit of doubt stating that
the CBI had failed to correctly produce the evidence and had acted in an unfair manner.
Furthermore, it was pointed out that the DNA report presented by the CBI was fabricated sand
therefore, inadmissible in the eyes of law in view of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

In Delhi High Court:

The Delhi High Court remarked that the findings of the Trial Court were perverse in nature. The
view of the Trial Court as regards the inadmissibility of the DNA test was not tenable in the eyes
of law in as much as the court ought to have accorded due and fair consideration to the reports
procured by the expert evidence at the instance of the CBI.
Justices R S Sodhi and P K Bhasin ordered that "he (Singh) shall be hanged till death. "The
court said that, he deserved nothing other than capital punishment. He does not deserve to be
pardoned. This is rarest of the rare cases," Justice R S Sodhi and Justice P K Bhasin said in
their judgment.
Additional Solicitor General Amrendra Sharan, representing the prosecution advocated for
death sentence as according to him, the present case falls under the category of 'rarest of rare
cases' and said the accused raped and murdered a defenceless victim.

In Supreme Court:

On 19 February, 2007 the accused Santosh Kumar Singh preferred an appeal in the Supreme
Court against the award of death sentence by the Delhi High Court. On 6 October, 2010 the
Bench comprising Justices H.S. Bedi and C.K. Prasad upheld the conviction of Santosh Kumar
Singh in the fourteen year old Priyadarshini Mattoo rape and murder case. It, however, reduced
the punishment of death sentence to life imprisonment saying that certain things were in favour
of the appellant. The Bench opined that, “the balance sheet was in favour of Santosh Kumar
Singh and the ends of justice would be met if Santosh Kumar Singh’s death penalty is
commuted to life imprisonment.”

CONCLUSION:

The judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, thereafter became a precedent for future rape
and murder case accused. Which , in the present circumstances, can be seen as a negative
precedent.

After a careful examination of the facts of the case it is clearly evident that the murder had taken
place in very sordid circumstances and nothing short of death punishment would have met the
ends of justice.

The Apex Court judgement may now set a precedent for future cases where rape and murder
convicts will now serve a life term. The cruel manner of killing Priyadarshini justifies the award of
death sentence to Santosh Kumar Singh. As, stated by the Hon’ble court that:
"Where the option is between a life sentence and a death sentence, the options are indeed
extremely limited and if the court itself feels some difficulty in awarding one or the other, it is only
appropriate that the lesser sentence should be awarded". Though, it may be a case of rarest of
rare circumstances, but the Court do have discretion with respect to the commutation of the
sentence. The Court have focused on many factors like there is a child of the convict, he has a
wife, the convict is very young and have responsibilities. So, personally the reason given by the
court in commuting the sentence can be justified only on the ground of responsibilities, that the
convict has on his shoulder, not only his life , he has the responsibility of two more lives, if he
gets a death penalty , then the other two lives will also be devastated, so on the grounds of
humanity ,the judgment can be justified.

Laws involved:

● Section 302 (IPC)

-Ritanshi Dogra; 4th sem; clinical edu