SANTOSH KUMAR VS STATE THROUGH CBI

FACT OF THE CASE

 Priyadarshini was 25 years old studying in campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law,
University of Delhi. She had lodged several complaints of harassment,
intimidation and stalking against the accused Santosh Kumar Singh who was in
the same campus but senior and already did his course.
 Though there were many FIR lodged against him by the deceased at the R.K.
Puram and Vasant Kunj Police Station he again tried to harass the deceased at
the Campus Law Centre. After this an FIR under section 354 of Indian Penal
Code (IPC), 1860 was lodged against him.
 Santosh Kumar also filed FIR against Priyadarshini that she has doing two
different courses from the same campus which is against the rules of the
campus and for which her exams for the last semester of her course were
withheld.
 On the day of the murder when the deceased was alone at her residence, the
accused, came at her house. On the arrival of the security guard Rajinder Singh
at the deceased’s residence it was found that Priyadarshini Mattoo was lying
under the double bed and there was no movement of her body.
ISSUES RAISED
 Whether the crime which renders sentence of imprisonment for life
inadequate and calls for the death sentence?
 CONTENTION
 The murder had taken place in very sordid circumstances and nothing short of
death punishment would have met and the accused had mercilessly
strangulated the victim with the heat convector wire. The ghastliness 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 deceased coupled with the blood.
 The cruel manner of killing Priyadarshini justifies the award of death sentence
to Santosh Kumar Singh. In Nirmal Singh (State of Haryana Vs. Nirmal Singh
1998) , it was held that the case fell within the rarest category and, therefore
death sentence was proper. The injuries showed that they must have been men
of high depravity and brutality denuded of all human feelings.
 There were no mitigating circumstances indeed in favour of the accused as he
raped her, strangled her with an electric wire and then battered her face
beyond recognition with a motorcycle helmet.










 IN FAVOUR OF SANTOSH KUMAR

The DNA test is reliable to the extent of 99.3 per cent so there is doubt that the
DNA does not belong to Santosh kumar

Also to the matter of death penalty how high so ever the crime is death penalty
should not be given as it violates the human rights and is unconstitutional as per
article 21 of the Indian constitution Though what constitutes ‘rarest of rare case’ or
‘special reasons’ has not been answered either by the legislature or by the supreme
court. One should get a chance to reform. It is against human rights, all are equal.
No one is the owner of one another’s life.

Death penalty is against the human rights and it violates the article 21 of
constitution of India. There can be various alternative methods for punishing the
convict such as rigorous life imprisonment without any possibility of parole and no
protection of good behaviour relief which is provided for in the prison manual.
JUDGEMENT
 The court held that as per section 302 and 376 of IPC
shall be liable for life imprisonment.