Priyadarshini Mattoo Case 2006

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Priyadarshini Mattoo was a 25 year old law student, who was found raped and murdered at her home. She joined
Delhi University for her LL.B. course. She had complained of harassment, threatening and chasing against the
santosh who was also a student of LL.B. in campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi. The santosh
had passed earlier.

2. Several complaints made by the priyadarshini became completely useless in as much as it failed to frighten the
santosh who continued to tease her. She complained against the santosh because of that a Personal Security Officer
was provided to the priyadarshini. The santosh was advised to stay away from such activities.

3. As a result of this, the angry santosh out of ill will made fake complaints to the authorities at the Delhi University
against the priyadarshini that she was side by side studying two courses at the same time. Because of this, the result
of the priyadarshini was stopped by the university which issued show cause notice.

4. In her explanation, the priyadarshini said that she had completed her M.Com in 1991 and was yet to appear in her
LL.B. III year exam, she also insisted that santosh teased her for the past one and a half years from then. On the day
of the murder when the priyadarshini was alone at her home, the santosh came at her home. On the arrival of the
security guard Rajinder Singh at the priyadarshini’s home it was found that Priyadarshini Mattoo was lying under
the double bed and found dead.

5. Thus an FIR under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) was lodged. In the statement recorded under Section
161 of Cr.P.C.

6. Rajeshwari Mattoo, the mother of the priyadarshini had suspected the santosh and that is why he was joined in
the investigation.

ISSUES

1. Whether Appellant was guilty of offence under Sections 302and 376 of IPC. (Before Trial court)

2. Whether the trial court have caused miscarriage of justice or prejudice.(Before High Court)

3. Whether sentence was liable to be reduced.(Before Supreme Court)

DECISION

 Trial Court

1. CBI filed charge sheet against Santosh under Sections 302 and 376 of IPC. The santosh pleaded innocent to the
charges and claimed trial. After considering all the circumstantial and documentary evidence produced by the
prosecution.

2. The trial court acquitted the santosh giving him a benefit of doubt stating that the CBI had failed to correctly
produce the evidence and had acted in an unfair manner.
3. Moreover, it was pointed out that the DNA report presented by the CBI was falsified as a result, not acceptable in
the eyes of law in view of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

 High Court

1. The High Court reversed the trial court decision and appreciated CBI, for proving Santosh’s guilt “beyond any
doubt by reliable evidence.” the Delhi High Court convicted the santosh for rape and murder under Sections 302 and
376 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to death.

 Supreme Court

1. Supreme Court kept on the conviction of Santosh. It, however, reduced the punishment of death sentence to life
imprisonment saying that certain things were in favor of the santosh. The Bench said that, “the balance sheet was in
favor of Santosh and the ends of justice would be met if Santosh’s death penalty is commuted to life imprisonment.”

ANALYSIS OF THE CASE (Finding, Opinion, Response of the Courts)

1. The poor quality investigation and changing of evidence was the big problem faced by the prosecution in the trial.
The most important thing was the DNA test that proved rape. The broken glass of the helmet of Santosh and fracture
in his hand besides the 19 injuries on Mattoo’s body was something that conclusively put the dispute in favor of the
prosecution; also the several complaints by Mattoo to the police proved motive and eye witness statement proved
that Santosh was seen outside Mattoo’s home minutes before the murder.

2. The Trial Court during delivering its judgment had noticed that the santosh had a motive for the crimes as it was
apparent from the continuous harassment and the personal promise and apologies given by him in this relation more
than once. Moreover, the santosh was seen outside the premises of the Faculty of Law, Campus Law Centre on the
forenoon of the day of the murder by Head Constable Rajinder Singh.

3. The Trial Judge had also arrived at a clear conclusion that on 23 January, 1996 in the evening at about 4.50 p.m.
the santosh was seen standing outside the flat of the priyadarshini by her immediate neighbor Kuppuswamy. Vikas
Sharma was the witness who had sold some plastic containers on the day of incident to the priyadarshini around 4.20
p.m. just before the santosh was noticed outside the flat of the priyadarshini which showed that the priyadarshini
was in her flat around that time.

4. It had been found to be so by the Trial Court. Shri Jaideep Singh Ahluwalia, the Security Supervisor had also
seen the santosh at about 5.30 p.m. near the home of the priyadarshini. The santosh was also noticed by Shri O.P.
Singh, Advocate, on his bullet motor cycle getting out of the parking area of B-10, Vasant Kunj and proceeding
towards Vasant Kunj area around 5.30 p.m

5. It had also been accepted by the Trial Court that at that time the santosh was having a helmet with a glass and
later on when the police recovered that helmet of the santosh it was not having the glass but there were some broken
pieces of the glass sticking to the helmet which pieces later on were found to be having some blood on it.

6. When examined by the Centre Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), the helmet was in a bad shape at that time
presumably because of the santosh having attacked the priyadarshini with it with great force suggested by the 19
injuries on the person of the priyadarshini combine with her three broken ribs. At about 5.40 p.m. the priyadarshini
was found dead in her flat. As a result of these findings in favor of the prosecution there was hardly any way for the
acquittal of the santosh.
7. Moreover, during the investigation when the santosh was medically checked, his reports shown injuries on his
right hand which he claimed to have bear on 14 January, 1996. In regard to this when the expert opinion of
Dr .G.K .Choubey of Safdurjung Hospital was sought for, he said that the injuries appeared to be fresh in nature as a
result of this contradicting the false plea taken by Santosh Singh earlier.

8. As per the principles of Law of Evidence the onus lay upon the santosh to rebut the findings of the Prosecution
obtained by expert evidence that the injuries on the person of the santosh were not more than 48 hours old and the
santosh having failed to do so, the inference of the prosecution in regard to the injury had to find favor with the Trial
Court which was not the case.

9. The Trial Court came down heavily on the role of Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB),
Hyderabad contending attempt by their senior scientists to “suppress the unfairness of the CBI.” The trial court also
attacked the role played by the Delhi Police in its attempt to assist the santosh during investigation and also during
the trial. The Trial Court observed that There was deliberate inaction by the police by the means of influential
position held by the santosh’s father in the Delhi Police which encouraged Santosh to commit the crime with
exemption from punishment.

10. Despite so many circumstances in favor of the Prosecution, the Trial Court acquitted the santosh stating that the
CBI had failed on several counts namely concealing from the court the evidence collected by it, falsifying
documentary evidence on behalf of the santosh, not following official procedure in conducting the DNA test,
preventing the court of an opportunity to review it judicially. Coming to think of it, there was in fact no room for
doubt in the prosecution case.

11. The Delhi High Court awarded death sentence to Santosh .The Delhi High Court remarked that the findings of
the Trial Court were bad in nature. The view of the Trial Court regarding the non acceptability of the DNA test was
not sound in the eyes of law in as much as the court ought to have supported fair review to the reports obtained by
the expert evidence at the suggestion of the CBI. The Delhi High Court rejected the reason given by the Trial Court
making the CBI responsible for having acted in an unfair manner. There was no effort whatsoever on the part of the
CBI to conceal any material evidence from the court. Hence, the Delhi High Court removed the santosh from the
rule of “benefit of doubt”.

12. Delhi High Court said, “If the Supreme Court says that it is not the rarest of rare case, then that’s it. I felt, while
delivering the justice that this was very serious and as per the circumstances he had been troubling this girl for years.
She had approached every possible police station and was ultimately given protection. Yet, he didn’t care for the
law: he just barged into her home, raped her and murdered her. I thought this was the limit.” Balance sheet of
aggravating and mitigating factors has been elucidated both in Bachan Singh’s and Machhi Singh’s case. Guidelines
have been indicated by the Supreme Court as to when this extreme sentence should be awarded and when not.

13. The “rarest of the rare doctrine” was laid down in these cases which provide that life imprisonment is the rule
and death sentence constitutes an exception to the rule.

14. After a careful examination of the facts of the case it is clearly evident that the murder had taken place in very
bad situation and nothing like death punishment would have met the ends of justice. Coming back to the facts of the
case it is observed that the santosh had mercilessly strangulated the victim with the heat convector wire. The
brutality of the murder is obvious from the post mortem report so also the marks of scratches on the mouth, neck and
the chest of the priyadarshini combined with the blood which was oozing out from her as observed by Inspector
Lalit Mohan as on the day of the incident.
15. The cruel manner of killing Priyadarshini justifies the award of death sentence to Santosh. In Nirmal SinghIt was
held that the case fell within the rarest category and, as a result death sentence was proper. The injuries showed that
they must have been men of high depravity and brutality denuded of all human feelings.

16. In addition to these there are a couple of other aggravating circumstances to be considered in the balance sheet.
The first and foremost being the incessant harassment of the victim by Santosh and his criminal conduct which was
brought to the notice of the police authorities several times. Keeping in mind his father’s influential position, he
fearlessly landed up in killing the victim and his conduct thereafter also admits of no mitigation.

17. Supreme Court, “Undoubtedly, the appellant would have had time for reflection over the events of the last
fifteen years, and to ponder over the predicament that he now faces, the reality that his father died a year after his
conviction and the prospect of a dismal future for his young family, on the contrary there is nothing to suggest that
he would not be capable of reform.”