The final verdict on the Priyadarshini Mattoo case is out as the Supreme Court has upheld the guilty verdict awarded to accused Santosh Singh by the Delhi High Court. But the Supreme Court has upturned the justly deserved death sentence given to the criminal who raped and murdered a defenceless woman, arguing that the tragic incident did not amount to a "rarest of rare crime". This is a sad reflection of our times when such ghastly misdeeds are no longer considered to be out of the ordinary. What makes the Priyadarshini Mattoo case unique is that the same set of evidence has led to three different verdicts that can only raise questions about the criminal justice system in our country. The case has taken several twists and turns over the past decade. Priyadarshini Mattoo, a 23-year-old law student, was stalked by the guilty man for two years before being raped and brutally murdered in January 1996. Santosh Singh, her senior at college, battered her face first with a helmet and then strangled her to death. But the trial court acquitted him due to "lack of evidence". The judge famously pulled up the investigating agency, saying, "I know he is guilty… but my hands are tied." Critics had then pointed out that Santosh Singh had got away because he was well connected. That created a furore and the Delhi High Court, when it heard the appeal, concluded that Santosh Singh was indeed guilty and sentenced him to death in 2000, terming the murder as a "rarest of rare crime" because the accused was educated and aware of the consequences of such a heinous crime. Four years later, the apex court has commuted the death sentence to life sentence, giving merits to his appeal.
The case is definitely a comment on the inconsistency of our judiciary and the prolonged legal process. Interestingly, Santosh Singh's helmet, which was later recovered and presented as substantial evidence against him, and critical DNA tests conducted on him that directly linked him to the rape and murder of Priyadarshini Mattoo were rejected by the trial court. But the same evidence was later accepted as "incriminating evidence" by the High Court. The case came under public scrutiny when the trial court delayed it under hilarious pretexts like unable to conduct hearing due to lack of time and severe power cuts. The police played an accomplice because Santosh Singh's father was a top cop who did his best to tamper with the evidence. In a bid to save the face of one of their own, the police told the court it couldn't trace the key witness — the domestic help — when the media found him living in his village. The case has now come to a closure. But the Supreme Court's verdict may not serve the ends of justice because Santosh Singh has not been made to pay for his crime: He snuffed out a life ruthlessly, remorselessly; he is not deserving of any mercy. He should have gone to the gallows for killing Priyadarshini Mattoo.
