SC Orders SIT De Novo Probe in 2012 Dharmasthala Minor’s Rape-Murder, Rejects ‘Golden Hour’ Reasoning & Holds Fair Investigation Is Constitutional Right Under Art. 21

Kusumavati Gowda vs Government of Karnataka [Decided on September 21, 2026]

September 22, 2026

The Bar Bulletin

Setting aside the Karnataka High Court’s refusal to reinvestigate, the Supreme Court has ruled that commencement of trial is no bar to de novo investigation where the probe was conducted in a manner that shielded the real culprits. The Apex Court set aside the Karnataka High Court’s order dismissing the writ petition and ordered a fresh SIT probe into crime originally registered by Belthangady Police and later re-registered by CBI, SCB Chennai.

The Apex Court also directed the State of Karnataka to constitute a Special Investigation Team comprising efficient investigators well-versed in modern investigative technology, with no member drawn from the earlier Belthangady Police, CID, or CBI teams. At the same time, it held that Santhosh Rao, who was acquitted by the Sessions Court, cannot be subjected to further investigation or prosecution in light of the protection under Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 CrPC.

The Apex Court overruled the High Court’s view that evidence not collected during the golden hour is no longer available, noting that DNA from hairs of other persons found on the victim’s clothing can still be matched against suspected persons whose blood samples can now be collected. The Court held that the power of constitutional courts to order reinvestigation is a dynamic component of judicial review under Article 21, and cannot be enervated or moderated by any legislation, even after commencement of trial and examination of some witnesses.

Also read NCLAT Upholds Swiss Challenge Buyout in Cheers Interactive Family Feud, Says Vacation of Office of Director Requires Strict Proof of Board Meeting Notices

A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed that the manner in which the investigation was conducted by the Belthangady Police, the CID, and the CBI raised serious concerns about shielding the real perpetrators. The Sessions Court had noted that the vaginal swab, which was the most crucial piece of medical evidence, had been purposefully disintegrated and was unfit for forensic testing. The CCTV footage from the main gate of Prakruthi Chikithsalaya was never collected, the inner garments of the victim were missing from the spot, and a fresh set was later collected from the victim’s house.

The school bag and books found near the body were completely dry despite heavy rain on the day of the incident, indicating that the body had been brought to the spot from elsewhere. The medical evidence showed that Santhosh Rao was suffering from phimosis, which would have made it extremely painful for him to commit rape on a minor girl, yet no injuries were found on his private parts. The injuries on his body were explained as having been caused when he was beaten by the public at the time of his arrest. The DNA report disclosed that hairs of other persons were found in the victim’s chudidhar top, and the Forensic Scientific Laboratory expert deposed that if suspected persons were found, their blood samples could still be collected and matched, noted the Bench.

The Court further noted that the State of Karnataka had successfully located 8 potential witnesses within three weeks of the Supreme Court’s order dated April 29, 2026, which raised serious questions about the inability of three investigative agencies to examine these leads when it was timely. The Court observed that the person prosecuted was held to be incapable of committing the offence, and the possibility of the real culprits manipulating the investigation could not be ruled out.

Also read Project-Affected Persons Rehabilitation Claims Cannot Survive IBC’s Clean Slate Doctrine Against Successful Resolution Applicant: Madhya Pradesh HC

Briefly, the father of a 17-year-old girl, who was brutally raped and murdered on 09.10.2012 in Belthangady, Karnataka, filed a petition seeking a direction to the CBI to conduct a reinvestigation/de novo investigation. The deceased was a second-year Pre-University Course student at Sri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara College. After she failed to return home from college, her body was found the next day in a half-naked condition in a thick bush near Mannasanka, with her left hand tied to a tree using her college shawl. One Santhosh Rao was caught by two persons near the Bahubali statue and handed over to the Belthangady Police, who projected him as the perpetrator of the crime.

The investigation was subsequently transferred to the CID and then to the CBI, both of which ultimately filed charge sheets against Santhosh Rao. The Sessions Court, however, acquitted Santhosh Rao by holding that the prosecution had failed to connect him with the crime. The petition filed by the father seeking reinvestigation was dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka. During the pendency of the proceedings, the original petitioner (father) passed away, and the present appeal was prosecuted by the mother of the victim.

Appearances

For Appellants: Ms. Shobha Gupta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sanjay Nuli, Sr. Adv., Mr. Shekhar G Devasa, Sr. Adv., Mrs. Rajshri Dubey, Adv., Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Adv., Mr. Manish Tiwari, Adv., Mrs. Thashmitha Muthana, Adv., Mr. Prashant R Dixit, Adv., Mr. Rakesh Kinni, Adv., Ms. Tog Mata Mg, Adv., Ms. Jyoti Deborah, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Adv., Mr. Amit P Shahi, Adv., Mr. Anjan Datta, Adv., Ms. Ishita Srivastava, Adv., Mr. Manish Dhingra, Adv., Mr. Rahul Sethi, Adv., Mrs. Rekha Chaudhary, Adv., Mr. Gaurav Yadav, Adv., Mr. Rishabh Bhardwaj, Adv., Mr. Sauvik Kumar, Adv., Mrs. Sona Khan, Adv., Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv., Mr. Sumant Khan, Adv., Mr. Anil Nishani, Adv., Mr. Govind Kashyap, Adv., Mr. H B Dubey, Adv., Ms. Akansha Bhatia, Adv., Ms. Saksham Mathur, Adv., Ms. Aakansha Bhatia, Adv., Mr. Rahul Mishra, Adv., Mr. Sunandan Mishra, Adv., Mr. Dhuli Shiva Shankar, Adv., Mr. Om Prakash Yadav, Adv., Mr. Lokesh Raghav, Adv., Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, AOR

For Respondents: Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, A.A.G., Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR, Ms. Mithu Jain, Adv., Mr. Himanshu Mishra, Adv., Mr. Kunal Rana, Adv., Mr. Shashwat Jaiswal, Adv., Ms. Diksha Arora, Adv., Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Adv., Ms. Oorja Goel, Adv., Mr. Vijender Kumar, Adv., Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR, Mr. C B Gururaj, Adv., Mr. Naveen Chandrashekar, Adv., Ms. Pragya Smriti, Adv., Mr. Hari Abishek P, Adv., Ms. Srishti, Adv., Mr. K P Singh, Adv., M/s. Gururaj & Nayak, AOR