Santosh Rao, Kusumavati file SLPs in Supreme Court, seek reinvestigation into Soujanya case

Bengaluru/New Delhi

Santosh Rao, acquitted accused in the the Soujanya case and Kusumavati Gowda, mother of the victim, have separately filed Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) in the Supreme Court (SC) seeking reinvestigation into the 2012 rape and murder case that was not solved by any Indian investigation agencies so far.

While Rao filed the petition on September 2, Kusumavati moved the SC on November 19. Both the petitions are currently under defect list. The advocates representing the petitioners have to correct the defects in 90 days. Failure to do so will result in automatic rejections. 

17-year-old Soujanya was sexually assaulted and murdered on October 9, 2012. Her dead body was found the next day. The Belthangady police arrested a man identified as Santosh Rao on October 11. 

Following protests, the Karnataka government handed over the probe to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID). The CID submitted a chargesheet against Rao in 2013.  As the public again demanded a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the same was done by the government. The CBI also submitted a chargesheet naming Rao, but the CBI court in July 2023 acquitted the accused. 

In 2024, Karnataka High Court rejected petitions filed by the victim’s family and Rao seeking fresh investigation. The HC rejecting the petitions observed that “no purpose will be served due to reinvestigation.” 

Now Rao and Kusumavati have knocked the doors of the SC. Rao apart from praying for fresh probe, has also sought for compensation. His advocate, Gururaj talking to blrpost.com said “his petition is under the defect list. There is six weeks time to correct the errors and it will be done in coordination with the advocate/advocates representing Kusumavati.” 

What are the defects in Rao’s petition

The petition has been filed with a delay of 276 days, for which an application seeking condonation has been submitted. However, multiple procedural and drafting issues remain. The nature of the matter has been incorrectly mentioned throughout the petition, and the index lacks a proper description of the appendix, with several annexures missing pagination. 

Important columns in the Listing Proforma have not been filled correctly, and the cause title does not match the one in the impugned judgment, including discrepancies in the petitioner’s age. Since the case involves Section 376, the Registry has pointed out that the details of the prosecutrix must be fully redacted across all documents, and sensitive annexures, along with the affidavit and vakalatnama, must be placed in a sealed cover. 

Additional errors include an incorrect order date in paragraph 3 of the SLP, omission of required content in paragraph 8, and failure to mention the interim relief prayer on the cover page. The affidavit filed is also defective, with mismatched age details and blank content. These issues collectively indicate significant formatting, compliance, and confidentiality lapses that must be rectified for the petition to proceed.

What are the defects in Kusumavati’s petition

Several entries indicate that while the documents are generally clear and typed properly, essential components are missing. A copy of C.R. No. 250/12 is yet to be filed, and the advocate has been instructed to ensure that no victim details appear in the petition. The memo of parties has not been filed, and the cause title requires later verification. 

Many annexures are in vernacular languages, and their descriptions need to be checked. Some applications remain unsigned, and although the case involves delay, no condonation-of-delay application with affidavit and court fee has been submitted. Additional applications—such as for abatement, delay in abatement, and permission to file the SLP—also remain to be filed. 

The paper books require a thorough review before refiling, and copies of the declaration must be placed in all sets. Signature requirements have also not been complied with in the paper books.