Santosh Kumar Singh v State (through CBI)

Legal Specs October 09, 2023

 


Case: Santosh Kumar Singh v State (through CBI)

Citation: (2010) 9 SCC 747

Judges: Harjit Singh Bedi, Chandramauli Kr. Prasad

Judgment Date: 17 Oct, 2006

Facts: This case revolves around one Santosh Kumar Singh (Accused) and one Priyadarshani Mattoo (Victim/Deceased). The deceased was troubled by the accused on various occasions, by different means. There were multiple instances of stalking, at college, where the deceased used to study, and outside college as well. The deceased requested the accused to stop, however it was of no use, the accused continued to harass and intimidate the deceased. In 1995 the deceased made many formal complains in different police stations. He was summoned in the police station and was asked to behave properly. As the consequence of this the accused retaliated, by making a complain to the university, which later turns out to be false, that the deceased is pursuing two courses simultaneously, which was in violation with the university rules. The deceased after receiving the show-cause notice, proved that she wasn’t pursuing two degrees at the same time.

After this the accused continued to stalk and harass the deceased on various occasions, on 23rd January, 1996 the accused entered the house of the deceased, and raped and murdered the deceased. The body of the deceased, had 19 injury marks, and the accused had fracture in his left hand, thus showcasing the fresh injury, and proving his presence at the place where the deceased was murdered. The father of the accused was at the time a senior police officer in Delhi police, thus the chances of tempering of the case was high, therefore upon special request by the government, CBI was asked to take over the case.

Initially the trial court acquitted the accused by questioning the proofs submitted by the CBI. Later when the case went to the High Court, the accused was convicted, with death penalty. This was further argued in the Supreme Court, where by the decision of the high court was upheld, and only the punishment was changed from death penalty to life imprisonment, by the Supreme Court.

 

Prosecution/Appellants Arguments:

This case first went to the trial court, then to the High Court and finally to the Supreme Court. The appellants in the given case appealed in the Supreme Court, against the judgment given by the High Court. The High Court held the appellant guilty, and sentenced him to death penalty. In the case at hand the appellant argued in the Supreme Court, that the judgment given by High Court was mainly relied on circumstantial evidences. The appellant further more argued that the High Court reversed and acquittal judgment solely on the basis of circumstantial evidences.

Next the appellant argued that this incident happened when he was 24/25 years of age, and this incident happened as a result of “vagaries of youth”. Furthermore the appellant contended that after he was acquitted by the trial court he had married and had a baby girl, and thus concluded that he was a changed man, and after he was convicted, his father had died, now his small family solely depend upon him, and a death penalty would shatter their lives as well.

Defense/Respondents Arguments:

The Respondents on the other hand argued that since this case comes under the “rarest of the rare” category, the appellant must be punished with death penalty. The respondents argued about the brutality, with which the appellant had killed the deceased, and more importantly, there were several instances when the appellant harassed the deceased. Even after he gave his word to the police, and promised not to do this again, he broke his word, and continued stalking, harassing, and mentally torturing her, on various instances.

When the deceased complained in the police station, regarding this behavior of the appellant, he with the motive to take revenge, falsely accused her of pursuing two degrees at the same time, all this shows that the appellant is a vengeful, aggressive and habitual offender, and the crime that he has committed is of no ordinary nature, hence he should be held guilty.

Judgment:

Honorable Supreme Court, in the said case relied its ruling that there is chance for the appellant to get reformed. And since there is a doubt as to whether the appellant be given death penalty or life imprisonment, it will be better if out of the both less severe punishment should be given. The Supreme Court was of the opinion that there are chances, and hence the appellant must be given those chances, and this can only happen if he is given life imprisonment, rather than death penalty.

The Honorable Supreme Court used a series of cases, on which it relied its judgment:

1.     Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh[1]: “The murder was a particularly cruel and revolting one and for that reason /it will be necessary to examine the evidence with more than ordinary care lest the shocking nature of the crime induce an instinctive reaction against a dispassionate judicial scrutiny of the facts and law.”

2.     Ashish Batham vs. State of Madhya Pradesh[2]: Mere suspicion, however, strong or probable it may be is no effective substitute for the legal proof required to substantiate the charge of commission of a crime and graver the charge is, greater should be the standard of proof required. Courts dealing with criminal cases at least should constantly remember that there is a long mental distance between “may be true” and “must be true” and this basic and golden rule only helps to maintain the vital distinction between “conjectures” and “sure conclusions” to be arrived at on the touchstone of a dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case as well as quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record.”

3.     Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab[3] and Machhi Singh vs. State of Punjab[4]: These cases provide a concise summary of the law on the death penalty that is being talked about in this case.

Decision:

The Supreme Court gave the decision that the punishment for the appellant must be changed to life imprisonment, rather than death penalty, other part of the sentence should be kept as it is.

 

 

Critical Analysis:

The case at hand deals with murder and rape, two of the most heinous and dangerous crimes. More importantly, the degree with which such a crime have been committed, the deceased was beaten to death, she was hit with the helmet of the accused 19 times, this shows the gravity of the crime. According to the NCRB 2020 report, out of the total cases reported under IPC and special and local laws, 56.5% of cases amounted to the cases against women[5]. According to a report by Public Health Foundation of India, rape-related crimes rose by approximately 70% from 2001 to 2018. A female is raped every 16 minute in India[6]. According to the same report during the same duration out of the total cases that completed trial, it ended with 73% acquittal.

These statistics shows how crime against women, especially rape related crimes are sky rocketing. In a country like India, where from time immemorial women are considered as goddesses, this is such a shame.

The case at hand is a classic example of investigation errors. This case shows us that how at the ground level, our police force are incapable to deal with such cases. In the case at hand there is an issue where there is a delay in handing over the evidences to the CBI, without any proper reason for the same. “It has been argued that as per the findings of the trial court the record of the Malkhana with respect to the vaginal swabs and slides had been fudged and though these items had been handed over to the CBI officers on the 25th January 1996 they had been deposited in the Malkhana on the 29th January 1996 and no explanation was forthcoming as to how and why this delay had happened.”[7] Even the Supreme Court in this case agrees that there has been a gap, but again no solution for the same has been provided.

This shows the discrepancies that are present in our system. A simple job of collecting and keeping the evidences correctly is not done. The head constable in the beginning of the case missed the articles on page 3 of the forensic report and it was only later that he was able to rectify and report them.

Furthermore, the influence that people in power causes in the investigation is not hidden from anyone. In the given case the father of the convict, was on the verge of posting as Additional Commissioner of Police, Delhi, during the time of this crime. It was only after the Delhi Government requested the CBI to take this case, it was solved. Otherwise, the accused would have walked free, with his father looking after the investigation.

Yet another issue is the delay in the disposals of the cases. This case happened in the year 1996. However, the case was finally able to come to rest only in year 2010. It took nearly 14 years for this case to finally get settled.

This case is yet another example of the “rarest of the rare” cases. This case shows that good behavior plays a very important role while deciding whether an accused be given life imprisonment, or death penalty.

Conclusion:

All these instances shown in a single case shows the loopholes, that our justice system has, it is time now that these holes are filled before more of such innocent people are denied justice. Considering the background and luck of the family of the victim, it can be said that they were lucky that they got justice. The accused in this case was put behind bars, for his crime, otherwise it is nothing new, that daily a lot of people walk free despite committing crimes, either through the means of money, or power. The only people that suffer because of this are the poor people. For whom justice is nothing but an unachievable dream. Having discrepancies, gap, faults, disparities etc, is not a problem. Every judicial and justice system have gaps, however what matters is how those gaps are bridged, and what steps/measures can be taken in order to rule out such discrepancies.

 

Legal Specs

Posted by Legal Specs

Post a Comment

0 Comments