The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Santosh Kumar Singh for the rape and murder of Priyadarshini Mattoo in 1996 but reduced his death sentence to life imprisonment. The DNA test conclusively proved Singh's involvement in the rape. Other circumstantial evidence included the recovery of Singh's helmet with a broken visor, glass pieces from the visor near the victim's body, and injuries on Singh's hand. While the trial court had initially acquitted Singh, the High Court convicted him and awarded the death penalty based on the circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but commuted the sentence to life imprisonment given Singh's age at the time of the crime.

1. Presented By:
Sanjeev Saurav

2. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2007
Decided On: 06.10.2010

3. Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
H.S. Bedi and C.K. Prasad, JJ.
Subject: Criminal
Subject: Law of Evidence
 Conviction based on Circumstantial Evidence

4. Case Note:

Criminal - Conviction based on Circumstantial Evidence - Offence committed
punishable under Sections 302 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sustainability thereof under challenge - Hence the Appeal - Whether Appellant
was guilty of offence under Sections 302 and 376 of IPC and if so whether
sentence was liable to be reduced - Held, DNA test conclusively proved
involvement of Appellant in rape - Recovery of helmet with broken visor;
recovery of glass pieces apparently of visor from near dead body and fact that
Appellant himself sustained injuries while mercilessly beating the deceased
with his helmet (as per the F.S.L. Report Exh. P.W.50/H4) and causing 19
injuries including three fractured ribs, were other circumstances with regard to
murder - DSP confirmed evidence of Inspector that he had received the case
property from hospital - No suggestion was put either to Doctors or to DSP or to
Sub-Inspector that seals of relevant Articles had been tampered with - No
material was placed to show as to what and in what manner the prejudice, if any,
was caused to Appellants by not putting questions to him regarding injuries
sustained by him and helmet - Appellant was 24 years of age at time of incident -
Looking towards age of Appellant sentence awarded to him was commuted from
death to life imprisonment.

5. Facts
 The deceased, Priyadarshini Mattoo, was residing with her parents at B-
10/7098, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.
 Santosh Kumar Singh had also been a student in the same faculty as a senioer
and had completed his LL.B. in December 1994.
 he had passed out from the Law Centre in 1994, he had continued to visit the
campus even thereafter on his Bullet Motorcycle bearing Registration
Number DL-1S-E/1222
 appellant harassed and intimidated the deceased and despite her requests
and then her remonstrations, did not desist from doing so. The deceased
thereupon made several complaints against the appellant in different Police
Stations during the year 1995 on which he was summoned to the Police
Station and was advised to behave properly and a Personal Security Officer,
Head Constable Rajinder Singh PW-32
 On January 23, 1996, she was found dead at her uncle's residence. She was
raped and then brutally struck 14 times with a helmet. She was then strangled
with a wire. Santosh Kumar who had been harassing her for several years
became the prime suspect in the case.

6. Continue…
 This was an open and shut case but the main accused hailed from an
influential background. His father, J.P. Singh served as Inspector General of
Police in the Indian Union Territory of Pondicherry. Hence, the battle for
justice began. The case was transferred to CBI.
 One year before the murder, in 1995 Priyadarshini had filed an FIR against
Santosh who had been stalking her. Infuriated over the FIR, Santosh lodged a
complain against Priyadarshini with the University authority alleging that she
had been pursuing two degrees at same time. However, the complaint turned
out to be false as she had already passed M.com in 1991.
 According to eye witness account, Santosh was seen seeking entrance to
Priyadarshini's uncle's house in Vasant Kunj area of Delhi. A servant saw him
entering the house. Santosh lied by saying that he was there to resolve legal
issues with Priyadarshini.
 Eventually, Santos's original intentions came to be known after he raped
Priyadarshini, hit her face with a helmet to an extent that her face became
could not be recognized. He then strangled her with a wire.
 In April 1996, the CBI filed a charge sheet in which Santosh was accused.
Within a span of few months charges were framed against him and the trail
began in the court of Additional Sessions Judge S C Mittal.

7. Continue…
 After two year long trial, Santosh Singh was acquitted by ASJ G P Thareja in
1999. Next year, the CBI appealed in Delhi High Court which was admitted.
After six years of fight for justice, the High Court convicted Santosh Singh and
was awarded a death sentence.
 Santosh Singh challenged High Court's decision and appealed in Supreme
Court. In 2007, Supreme Court put stay on High Court's death sentence.

8. Issues
 Whether DNA finger printing test conclusively
established the guilt of the accused?
 Whether guilt of accused and the circumstantial
evidences can be proved beyond reasonable doubt he
has to be convicted for the offence committed?

9. Hyderabad requesting for DNA profiling. Several
articles were accordingly entrusted to PW-39
Sub-Inspector R.S. Shekhawat on 31st January
1996, they being (BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE):
 1. One sealed parcel containing clothes of the deceased
such as T-shirt, brassiere, jeans and underwear.
 2. One sealed packet containing underwear of the accused
Santosh Kumar Singh.
 3. One sealed jar containing vaginal swabs/vaginal slides of
the deceased and
 4. The blood samples of the appellant taken in the Dr.
R.M.L. Hospital.

10. In the course of a rather verbose judgment, the trial court noted
that there were 13 circumstances against the appellant. We quote
herein below from the judgment:
 1. The accused had been continuously harassing the deceased right
from the end of 1994 to January 1996, a few days before her death.
 2. The accused had more than once given an undertaking that the
accused would not harass the deceased in future while admitting that
the accused had been doing so earlier.
 3. The motive of the accused was to have the deceased or to break her.
 4. On the day of occurrence, the accused was seen in the premises of
Faculty of Law, University of Delhi in the forenoon, where the deceased
had gone to attend LL.B. class. While the accused was no more a
student of Faculty of Law at that time.
 5. At the crucial time before murder, i.e. about 5 p.m. on 23.1.96, the
accused was seen outside the door of the flat of the deceased, i.e. B-
10/7098 with helmet in his hand which had a visor.
 6. On the day of occurrence after murder, the accused had reached late
to attend class at Indian Law Institute, Bhagwan Dass Road, where the
accused was a student too.
 7. Immediately after the murder, the mother of the deceased had raised
suspicion that the accused had a hand in the murder of her daughter.

11. Continue…. 8. When the accused joined investigation on the night between 23/24.1.96, the
accused had an injury on his right hand. There was swelling and fracture on 5th
metacarpal of right hand. There was no plaster or bandage on his hand. That
injury was fresh, having been caused 24 to 38 hours. The blood pressure of the
accused at that time was high which showed anxiety.
 9. DNA Finger Printing Test conclusively establishes the guilt of the accused.
 10. On 25.1.96, the helmet Ex.P.3 of the accused which was taken into
possession had broken visor. On 23.1.96 before murder, it was found by PW2
Shri Kuppuswami, PW Personal Security Officer Rajinder Singh that the
helmet of the accused had a visor. Violence was detected on both sides of visor.
Helmet was besmeared with a spec of blood. At the spot pieces of visor were
found near the body of the deceased besmeared with her blood.
 11. The deceased had 19 injuries on her person besides three broken ribs. These
injuries were suggestive of force used for rape. A tear mark over the area of left
breast region on the T-shirt of the deceased suggested that the force was used
for molestation.
 12. The accused took a false defense that fracture on the hand of the accused
was sustained by the accused on 14.1.96 and it was not a fresh injury. The
accused also gave false replies against proved facts.
 13. The influence of the father of the accused resulting in deliberate spoiling of
the case

12. Contentions Of Respondent
 i) The accused in January, February 1995 tortured the deceased by following her
upto the residence at Safdarjung Enclave at the place of Colonel SK Dhar and also
by telephoning at All India Institute of Medical Sciences and at her residence.
 (ii) On 25.2.95 the accused followed the deceased and tried to stop the car of the
deceased by shouting at her which was the cause of lodging the report Exh. PW6/A.
The accused submitted the apologies Exh.PW6/B and Exh.PW6/DB.
 (iii) The accused took the false plea that the accused was going to IIT on the said
date. The accused also took a false stand that there was no friendship between the
accused and the deceased. The plea of the accused that such report was result of
refusal of accused to allow the deceased to sing in the Cultural Festival of the
University has not been substantiated. The plea is false to knowledge of the accused.
 (iv) The subordinate staff of Delhi Police attempted to assist the accused during
investigation and during trial. Sh. Lalit Mohan Inspector was instrumental in
creating false evidence and false defence of the accused. The witness of police
including Rajendra Kumar Sub Inspector deposed falsely with respect to role
assigned as an agent of law in the matter of complaints in writing preferred by the
deceased. The subordinate staff of Delhi Police has not discharged the agency of law
in accordance with basic principles of fair play in action. Had Rajinder Kumar SI
and the SHO of Police Station RK Puram, SHO Vasant Kunj, ACP Satinder and
Parbhati Lal acted in accordance with law vis-à-vis accused, as they act towards an
ordinary citizen whose father is not a senior officer in police department perhaps the
incident would not have occurred.

13. Continue…
 (v) The accused went to the house of the deceased at B-10, Vasant Kunj, New
Delhi and banged the door of the house of the accused when the deceased was
alone at home.
 (vi) On 6.11.95, the accused tortured the deceased in the Campus Center of Law
which resulted in lodging of FIR at police station, Maurice Nagar, Delhi.
 (vii) The accused even mentally tortured the deceased in December, 1995.
 (viii) The accused preferred petition against the deceased to the University
against her appearing in both examinations of M. Com and LLB in order to
pressurize the deceased to succumb to the ulterior design and motive of the
accused.
 (ix) The accused had the intention to have the deceased and to convert the said
intention in reality and if it is not possible on account of attitude of the
deceased not allow the deceased to be of anybody else. The facts proved and
the acts of the accused lead to inference that the accused had the motive to
have the deceased at all event and failing to not to allow her to be of anybody
else. The state has established the motive.

14. Ratio Decidendi:

"Once the guilt of accused and the circumstantial
evidences are proved beyond reasonable doubt he
has to be convicted for the offence committed."

15. HELD
 Santosh Singh appealed against the death penalty
sentence to the Supreme Court of India on February 19
2007.The court also issued a notice to the Central
Bureau of Investigation on an appeal filed by the
convict against the high court's judgment. The defense
lawyers of the accused Santosh Singh questioned the
validity of the DNA report, one of the main causes for
which he was given the benefit of doubt in the Trial
court. Further the issue of Trial by Media is likely to be
raised and whether excessive media coverage has
influenced the verdict.
 In October 2010, the Supreme Court upheld the
conviction of Santosh Kumar Singh but reduced the
death sentence to life imprisonment

16. Conclusion
 Santosh Singh, post conviction, barely spent 4 years behind
bars and was out on parole in March 2011. Upon return, he
subsequently filed another application for grant of parole
(subject matter of Criminal Writ Petition 224/2012) before
Delhi High Court. The High Court granted him a parole in
March 2011. Upon return, he subsequently filed another
application for grant of parole (subject matter of Criminal
Writ Petition 224/2012) before Delhi High Court. The High
Court granted him a parole of another month on March 6,
2012.
Is this Justice?????????????????