Supreme Court orders fresh SIT probe into 2012 Belthangady rape-murder; acquitted accused protected by Article 20(2)
The Supreme Court ordered a de novo investigation into the 2012 rape and murder of a 17-year-old college student in Belthangady, Karnataka. The case was first investigated by the local police and the State CID, and then by the CBI from 2014. The man the police arrested two days after the crime was later tried and acquitted by the Sessions Court.
The girl's father had asked the Karnataka High Court to order a fresh investigation, and after his death her mother pursued the appeal. Relying on its decisions including Dharam Pal and Neetu Kumar Nagaich, the Court restated that constitutional courts may order fresh investigation even after a police report or trial, where the investigation was not fair and objective. It said a fair investigation is part of the right under Article 21, and that the victim is not a stranger to criminal proceedings.
The Court said the way the agencies investigated 'shocks the very conscience of the court' and that manipulation by the real culprits could not be ruled out. It directed Karnataka to form a Special Investigation Team led by a senior officer, excluding every officer from the earlier probes, to finish within three months. It held that the acquitted man cannot be investigated or prosecuted again, because of Article 20(2) and Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Quick checkWhy did the Supreme Court direct that the person already acquitted in the Belthangady case could not be investigated or prosecuted again?- Because the limitation period for murder had expired
- Because the CBI had closed the case
- Because of the protection against double jeopardy in Article 20(2) and Section 300 CrPC
- Because a de novo investigation can never cover the same offence
Show the answer ↓
Answer: C. Having been tried and acquitted for the offence, he is protected by Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 CrPC from being prosecuted and punished again for it.
Issued by Supreme Court of India. If this summary and the source differ, the source is right — tell us and we will correct it.