Freed by fraud

Less than two months after Additional Sessions Judge G.P. Thareja delivered his judgement acquitting prime accused Santosh Kumar Singh 8212; was accused of raping and murdering Priyadarshini Mattoo, 20, in 1996 8212; the CBI filed its appeal. In October 2002, the high court issued bailable warrants against Singh. A year later, the CBI in a petition requested an early hearing.

In November 25, 2002, the high court ordered regular hearings in the case. That8217;s when the labyrinth called the Indian legal system took over. The last the CBI heard of this case was on March 26, 2003, when the court dismissed Singh8217;s petition to inspect some documents.

CBI spokesperson G. Mohanty says, 8216;8216;The case has not come up in the court so far.8217;8217; It must; and soon. Wherever she is, Priyadarshini Mattoo is waiting for justice.

ON January 23, 1996, Priyadarshini, a third-year law student at Delhi University, was found strangled in her uncle8217;s Vasant Kunj residence. She had been raped, injured 14 times and then strangulated with a wire. The evidence pointed to Santosh 8212; son of J.P. Singh, then joint commissioner of Delhi Police 8212; and Mattoo8217;s senior at law school. In 1995, Priyadarshini had complained that Singh was harassing and stalking her. She had been provided with a personal security officer at the time.

Yet, despite the seemingly watertight case, Singh was acquitted. It was a most unusual acquittal.

While delivering the judgement, Judge Thareja publicly asked the CBI if it had fabricated DNA evidence in favour of the accused. The 449-page judgement indicted Delhi Police and the CBI: 8216;8216;Though I know he is the man who committed the crime, I acquit him, giving him the benefit of the doubt.8217;8217;

He noted the CBI had not followed 8216;8216;official procedure8217;8217;, fabricating documentary evidence as well as 8216;8216;fabricating DNA technology8217;8217; and keeping away the fingerprint report from the court: 8216;8216;The CBI in the matter of DNA evidence has not acted fairly. It tampered with the evidence of clothes of the deceased and also the blood sample of the accused.

It even fabricated the documentary evidence and also the Malkhana Register of the CBI as is clear from the discrepancies.8217;8217;

The CBI didn8217;t know where to look.

On December 14, 1999, days after ASJ Thareja8217;s judgement, the issue was raised in Parliament. Responding to questions, then minister of state for home Vasundhara Raje said, 8216;8216;The learned judge has expressed strong reservations about the adequacy of the investigation. That a court should feel compelled to express such reservations is by itself a matter of grave concern for the government.8217;8217; She added that the CBI believed there were 8216;8216;sufficient grounds to appeal against the acquittal8217;8217;.

MEANWHILE the villain of the piece seems to be living a cushy life. Police sources say Singh is married and lives in Delhi. His defence counsel, R.K. Naseem says he doesn8217;t know where Singh is but confirms that he got married two years ago. His father has retired from Delhi Police and lives in Delhi as well.

Ask Naseem how long it could take for the case to come again in the high court and he says, 8216;8216;Usually two sort of appeals are given priority. Those involving an appeal in a case where there is a conviction and the accused has been given bail or against an acquittal where no bail has been awarded. I have just received the hearing date in a case against conviction of a person who was granted bail just now. The appeal was filed in May 1994.8217;8217;

Such an appeal, he adds, is not on a high priority list.

Just as justice for Priyadarshini Mattoo, killed by a policeman8217;s son, was not on the police8217;s priority list.