The Supreme Court has ordered a de novo investigation into the 2012 rape and murder of 17-year-old Sowjanya in Karnataka’s Ujire, questioning why key leads were not pursued by the three agencies — local police, CID and CBI– that investigated the case. The apex court also pointed to DNA evidence that can still be used to identify the perpetrators.
In a strongly worded judgment on Monday, September 21, the Supreme Court said the manner in which the investigation was conducted had caused “injustice to the victim” and that the possibility of the real culprit or culprits manipulating the investigation could not be ruled out.
The Court ordered the Karnataka government to constitute a fresh Special Investigation Team (SIT), headed by a senior police officer and comprising investigators familiar with modern investigative technology. Officers who were part of the earlier investigations by the Belthangady police, Karnataka CID or CBI have been barred from being part of the new team.
The fresh investigation must be completed within three months, and a police report must be filed before the concerned court.
A key factor in the Supreme Court’s decision was the existence of potential witnesses and physical evidence that could still help the investigation.
The Court noted that on April 29, 2026, it directed Karnataka to protect eight potential witnesses identified by Sowjanya’s family. The state located the witnesses within three weeks.
The Supreme Court said the state’s ability to locate the witnesses within three weeks “raises questions on the inability of 3 investigative agencies to examine these leads when it was timely.”
The Court also referred to the evidence of Vinod J Lakkappan, Assistant Director of the Toxicology Division, Madivala, Bengaluru, who had conducted the DNA analysis in the case.
Lakkappan had testified that hairs belonging to persons other than Santhosh Rao, who was earlier prosecuted for the crime, were found on Sowjanya’s churidar top, marked as Material Object 15. He had also stated that if suspicious persons were identified, their blood samples could still be collected and compared with the DNA material.
The Supreme Court said this evidence showed that useful forensic evidence was still available. It held that the Karnataka High Court was wrong in concluding that evidence that had not been collected at the “golden hour” was unlikely to be available now.
The Court also took note of the fact that Santhosh Rao was acquitted by the Sessions Court on June 16, 2023. The trial court had held that there was no material connecting Rao to the crime and that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against him.
The Supreme Court said the person who had been prosecuted was “held to be incapable of committing the offence”. The court questioned the manner in which the investigation had progressed.
“Clearly, the investigation has been conducted in a manner that causes injustice to the victim,” the Court said, adding that the possibility of the real culprit or culprits 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 contrasted the consequences for the accused with those for the victim, observing that injustice to a person falsely charged can be compensated, but “injustice to the victim who was brutally raped and then murdered can never be compensated.”
The Court also referred to material suggesting that people who had information about the crime had not been properly examined. It noted that witnesses and others who had come forward with information had maintained that Rao was not the culprit and that investigators had been trying to shield the real perpetrators.
However, the Supreme Court made it clear that its order does not implicate any particular person. It specifically said that nothing in its judgment should be construed as expressing even a prima facie opinion on the role of Mallik Jain, Dheeraj Jain or Uday Jain.
While ordering a fresh investigation into the crime, the Supreme Court explicitly protected Santhosh Rao from being investigated or prosecuted again.
Since Rao has already been tried and acquitted, the Court said he enjoys the protection of Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 of the CrPC and “shall not be subjected to further investigation or prosecution.”
The new investigation will therefore focus on the crime and identifying those responsible, without reopening the prosecution against Rao.
Sowjanya, a 17-year-old college student from Belthangady, was raped and murdered in October 2012. The case was investigated by the Belthangady police, the CID and subsequently the CBI.
After Rao’s acquittal in 2023, Sowjanya’s mother, Kusumavathi, sought a fresh investigation. The Karnataka High Court dismissed her plea in August 2024, although it observed that Rao’s acquittal raised the question of whether someone else was responsible and said the case “definitely demands re-investigation.”
The Supreme Court has now set aside that order and directed a de novo investigation by a completely fresh SIT. The Court has given the new team three months to complete the investigation and file its report.