Case study of Priyadarshini Mattoo murder case.

By: Mevrick Khumallambam

Introduction & facts
 Priyadarshini Mattoo (23 July 1970-23 January 1996), a law student of 25 years.
Priyadarshini finished her school in Srinagar after her family had moved to Jammu. After
completing her B Com from Jammu, she entered the University of Delhi for her LL.B.
course.
 She was in her last semester of LLB course at Campus Law center, DU.
 Santosh Kumar Singh, son of J.P Singh senior police officer now retired.
 Santosh Kumar Singh was also a student in same course and had completed his LLB in
December, 1994.
 Santosh had an affection towards Priyadarshini and several harassment was done despite
her request.
 Several complaints was filled by Priyadarshini against Santosh for stalking and harassing
her, on which he was summoned to behave. A personal security was also given for her,
Rajendra Kumar.
 Santosh also complaint to college that Priyadarshini was seeking two degree simultaneously
however this objection was cleared that the deceased had completed her M Com in 1991
 Priyadarshini was found rape and murder in her uncle’s house on 23 January 1996.
 The day

On January 23, 1996 Priyadarshini was raped, struck by a helmet and

strangled by a wire to death. Santosh was also seen entering her house by a
servant, apparently saying he wants to compromised about their legal
complaints. Consequently an FIR under section 302 of IPC was lodge
against Santosh in the assertion recorded under section 161 of CrPC.
Witness

 Kuppu Swamy, the Mattoos' immediate neighbour in Vasant Kunj,

 Virendra Prasad, the Mattoo family servant.
 Prasad who had returned from an errand was the first on the scene of the crime.
He rushed to Swamy before reporting the incident to the police.
What went wrong during Investigation
• Evidence collected were a T-shirt, a pair of jeans, a bra, an underwear and a pair of socks.
• Singh’s underwear were also apprehended.
• Two samples of vaginal swabs were taken and two slides prepared. These were sealed and
handed over to the CBI which was tempered. But both the investigating officers of the
Delhi Police and the CBI were silent on who received the items for forensic tests.
• The sealed packet reached the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB) at
Hyderabad which was supposed to conduct DNA profiling but there was no socks. At the
post-mortem stage, the victim's blue underwear as well as her jeans had no stains. But the
CCMB later confirmed the presence of white stains.
• On testing it turned out they were not semen stains. If Priyadarshini was raped, the stains
should have been of semen.
• Even Singh's underwear was sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) in
Delhi. From the few dried, white stains on it, the CFSL concluded the blood group was A.
• Whereas Singh's blood group was O-positive. This was apart from the fact that, as the
judge pointed out, there was no mention of any stains when the underwear was collected
from Singh. The stains, obviously, were created by the investigators or the laboratory.
Judgement
 Since the the prosecution place reliance on circumstantial and documentary evidence, which include:
1. The accused has been harassing the deceased form the very beginning to the end few days before her
death.
2. The accused not only once had given statements in police station that the accused would not harass
her.
3. The accused motive was to have the deceased or break her.
4. The accused was seen in the university campus on the day of occurrence while the accused was no
longer a student there.
5. At the time before the murder around 5pm the accused was seen knocking at the deceased resident i.e
B10/7098 with a helmet in his hand that has a vigor.
6. On the day of occurrence the accused had reached late to attend class at Indian Law institute, Bhagwan
Das road where the accused was a student.
7. Deceased mother had a suspicion on the accused.
8. When the accused join the investigation on the night of 23 the accused had an injury in his right hand.
There were swelling and fracture at 5th metacarpal of right hand. There were no plaster or bandages
around the wound and the wounds appears to be of fresh that had happen within 24 to 34 hrs.
continue….
9. DNA fingerprinting established the guilt of the accused.
10. The helmet of accused was taken into possession that had a broken visor, sign
of violence was detected on both the side of visor. Helmet was besmeared by
blood. At the spot piece of visor was also found near the victim besmeared by
her blood.
11. The victim had 19 injuries in her body besides three broken ribs. These injuries
were suggestive of force used for rape.
12. The accused took a false defence the injury was sustained by himself on 14
January 1996 and it was not a fresh injury.
13. The influence of the father in spoiling the investigation.
The trail court held circumstances no. 1 to 5, 7 & 10 to 13 in
favor of the prosecution. The trail court held circumstance no.
6, 8 and particularly no. 9 that could not be prove and hence
acquitted him by additional session judge G.P. Thareja. But
the high court held all the 13 circumstances in favor of
prosecution and has reversed the judgement made by the trial
court and awarded the accused death penalty. However this
sentence was reduced to life imprisonment by the SUPREME
COURT.
Trail court judgement
 During the trail in 1999 the additional session judge G.P. Thareja said of Santosh, that
although he knew “he was the one that committed the crime” and he had to acquit him,
giving him the benefit of uncertainty.
 The judge also bring down the inaction of Delhi police while commenting that the
accused father had used his power to influence other.
 The helmet found was produced badly in the court which the defense had the option to
limit it.
 According to judge the Delhi police assist the accused during investigation and trial. Lalit
Mohan, inspector was creating false evidence and false defense for the accused.
 The judgment held the CBI responsible for unfair investigation and failure to produce
Virender Prasad, Mattoo’s household help, which resulted in the obstruction of justice.
The police had claimed Prasad had gone missing and was not traceable, yet in the
aftermath, a journalist could easily find him in his Bihar village.
 The judge added that the CBI fabricated the DNA test in the rape case as it was not
obtained in accordance with the judicial procedure and could not, therefore, be admitted
in evidence in view of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act.
High court appeal
 Upon the pressure of the public, the CBI appeal the verdicts of trial court
in High court, Delhi on 29 February 2000. Initially, the trial was not a
priority, and there was no presentation of evidence or hearings in the Delhi
High Court well into 2006. However , intense public outcry and with
deceased father CL Mattoo making frequent appearance on TV bringing the
judiciary under intense pressure.
 On 31 August 2006, six years after the initial appeal by CBI, justices RS Sodhi
and PK Bhasin took up the case on a day-to-day hearing basis, which is
extremely rare in India. Judgment was reached within 42 days which is quite
unprecedented.
 T he court said the circumstances under which leniency was begged for
Santosh was not enough and the brutal rape and murder do fall in the bracket
of "rarest of rare" cases.
 On 30 October 2006 by the recommendation from CBI, Santosh Kumar
Singh was awarded the death penalty .
Supreme court appeal
 Santosh Singh claimed against capital punishment sentence
to the Supreme Court of India on 19 February 2007. The
court additionally gave a notification to the Central Bureau
of Investigation on an allure recorded by the convict against
the high court’s judgment. The guard legal advisors of the
blamed Santosh Singh scrutinized the legitimacy for the
DNA report, one of the primary drivers for which he was
given the advantage of uncertainty in the Trial court.  
 In October 2010, the Supreme Court maintained the
conviction of Santosh Kumar Singh yet decreased capital
punishment to life detainment.
Post conviction
 Santosh Singh, post-conviction, spent 4 years behind bars
and was out on parole in March 2011. Upon return, he
subsequently filed another application for grant of parole
before Delhi High Court. The High Court granted him
parole for another month on 6 March 2012.
Section applied in this case
 section 300 of IPC
 Section 302 of IPC.
 Section 375 of IPC.
 Section 376 of IPC.
 Section 313 of CrPc.
 Section 161 of Crpc.
Conclusion
 A single of piece of evidence is very important in
investigation of crime which will prove someone’s guilt or
innocent.
 Proper handling of evidence is need during an
investigation.
 Proper method in presenting evidence in court.
 Most importantly if the accused father was a civilian the
case could have been solve quickly and the justice will be
served.
 Despite every evidence the accused walk free.
Opinion
I would like to opined that the above case could have been solved perfectly if
there was no influence from the accused father.