Awaiting Justice

Being a human rights lawyer i had to share this, i really hope justice is finally done and most of you reading this will sign up on the petition mentioned below, its high time that we as humans stand up and make sure that justice is not only done but also seen to be done..

Theres a silent protest march at India gate( New Delhi) on 23/07/2006 ie. Sunday at at 4.30 pm for reopening of the Priyadarshini Mattoo case. Please, atleast all those who live in the NCR, can come foward to attend and express solidarity, if only to feel a little human again. Theres also this online petition which you can sign :--www.petitiononline.com/mattoo/petition.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Edf0GuegTUc --- short video on the case

A brief run through

Priyadarshini Mattoo was a 23 year old law student when she was found raped and murdered at her house in New Delhi on January 23, 1996. The evidence pointed to Santosh Kumar Singh, the son of a highly placed Police Officer, but in December 1999, the judge acquitted him, pointing to serious inadequacies in the investigation.
The case is one of several in India that highlight the ineffectivenes of the criminal law system, especially when it comes to high profile perpetrators. These include Jessica Lall, who was murdered in a high-society party in Delhi in April 1999, and the accused (actually, the murderer) was acquitted despite dozens of witnesses.

The Murder

Priyadarshini was a third-year law student at Delhi University, when she was found strangled in her uncle's Vasant Kunj residence. She had been raped, injured 14 times and then strangled with a wire.
Santosh Kumar Singh, her senior in college, had been stalking and harassing her for several years, and appears to have been besotted with her, but Santosh came from an influential family - his father J.P. Singh, was then Inspector General of Police in the Indian state of Pondicherry - in the course of the trial he served as Joint Commissioner of Police in Delhi, where the crime had been committed. In view of these connections, the court handed over investigation of the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
In 1995, Priyadarshini had complained that Santosh Singh was harassing and stalking her. She had been provided with a personal security officer at the time. In retaliation, Santosh had lodged a complaint with the university alleging that she was pursuing two degrees simultaneously. However, it turned out that Priyadarshini had passed M.Com in 1991 and the complaint was probably malicious.
On the morning of January 23, Santosh was seen knocking for entrance into Priyadarshini's uncle's house, where she was living, in the Vasant Kunj area of Delhi.
The evidence indicates that Santosh entered her house on the pretext of striking a compromise in their legal complaints. Subsequently he allegedly raped her, strangled her with an electric wire and then battered her face beyond recognition with a motorcycle helmet.

The Judgment

Delivering the judgement, the Additional Sessions Judge. J.P. Thareja said of Santosh, that though he knew that "he is the man who committed the crime," he was forced to acquit him, giving him the benefit of doubt.
In a 450 page judgement the judge came down heavily on the role of Delhi Police; "There has been particular inaction by Delhi Police", he said, while commenting that the accused's father may have used his official position to influence the agencies. "The influence of the father has been there in the matter and there was deliberate inaction".
The helmet was found with a shattered safety glass - however the evidence was so poorly presented that the defence was able to discount it.
He further stated that the rule of law doesn't seem to apply to the children of those who enforce it.
The Delhi police according to the judge, attempted to assist the accused during the investigation and trial. "Lalit Mohan, the Inspector was instrumental in creating false evidence and false defence for the accused. The witnesses of the police including a Sub-Inspector deposed falsely".
The judgement 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.
The "state had failed to bring home the charge of rape against the accused", and while indicting Santosh as "the man who committed the crime", the judge was constrained to acquit him, because of "the benefit of doubt".

High Court Appeal

Following a public outcry, the CBI then appealed the district court's verdict in Delhi High Court in April 2000. But there have been no presentation of evidence or hearings in the Delhi High Court well into early 2006.

Meanwhile, according to his lawyer, Santosh Singh got married in 2004, and as of February 2006, was leading a happy family life and practising law in Delhi.