Mattoo case: Santosh gets death

Tracking the Mattoo Trial
Sep 20:	HC hauls CBI over delay
Sep 19:	Accused rejects doc test
Sep 14:	Mattoo was not raped: Defence
Sep 13:	Accused turns tables on CBI
Sep 12:	Accused alleges CBI foul play
Sep 7:	CBI seeks death for killer
Sep 6:	HC raps CBI in Mattoo case
Jul 19:	Father demands retrial
Jul 6:	J&K Youth rally for Mattoo
Apr 9:	Father demands fresh probe
Mar 22:	Hopes for fresh appeal

Featured Blog

Rajdeep Sardesai

Maharaj or Dada, Ganguly's legacy lives on

Featured Slideshows

New Delhi: Almost 11 years after the rape and murder of 23-year-old Priyadarshini Mattoo, convict Santosh Kumar Singh was on Monday sentenced to death by the Delhi High Court.

Pronouncing the judgement in a jam-packed court room, Justice R S Sodhi and P K Bhasin ordered that "he (Singh) shall be hanged till death".

The court said the mitigating circumstances under which leniency was begged for Santosh was not enough and the brutal rape and murder does fall in the bracket of "rarest of rare" cases.

Dressed in grey trousers and white shirt, Singh, a practising lawyer who is married and has a child, was sitting just five-feet away from the jam-packed court when the verdict was pronounced. The court had convicted Santosh of the crime earlier this month.

The two-judge bench, comprising Justice R S Sodhi and Justice P K Bhasin, heard both sides before pronouncing the verdict.

The court said Santosh Singh had been given many chances to reform by the police when Priyadarshini had complained that he was stalking her. However, he didn't mend his ways and eventually raped and killed her.

"Keeping this in mind, we can say that he is a threat to society and, therefore, deserves the harshest punishment," the court ruled.

The court order came after three-hour long arguements by the Defence and prosecution over the quantum of sentence.

"We are of the opinion that a case of this kind in which the crime is committed in a pre-meditated approach and grotesque manner, the convict deserves nothing other than death penalty," the Bench observed

Earlier, the CBI pressed for death penalty for Santosh Kumar Singh.

Appearing for the prosecution, Additional Solicitor General Amrendra Sharan submitted before the Bench that this case fell under the category of 'rarest of rare' cases because after assessing all circmustances, the offence committed by Singh was 'diabolical, gruesome and brutal'.

He also argued that the convict had stalked the victim for two years prior to the incident and made the life of Mattoo and her family miserable.

"Even the trial court, in its December 1999 order, had said that the killing was brutal and barbaric. Therefore, the convict deserves capital punishment," he said.

The Bench was hearing arguments on the quantum of sentence to be awarded to Singh, who was held guilty in the case on October 17.

Countering the prosecution's argument, Singh's counsel R K Naseem submitted that the conduct of his client since the incident till conviction had been clean.

"Even while in jail for three-and-a-half years, his good conduct has been appreciated by the jail authorities," he said.

He also said that the convict was married and had a two-year-old girl child besides a mentally-challenged elder brother.

In the light of specific responsibilities, a lenient view should be taken against him, he argued.

Singh was acquitted by the Sessions Court in 1999, a judgement that was described as "perverse" by the High Court.

The Sessions Judge G P thareja had held that though he knew that Singh had committed the murder, he was acquitting him because of lack of evidence.

A long-drawn trial

The Priyadarshini Mattoo trial lasted for six years.

A retrial appeal, filed by the CBI in 2000, was taken on priority basis following a public outcry and media pressure.

The High Court, in the retrial hearing, had observed that CBI had committed a fraud by not keeping the case material in safe custody.

The CBI too had argued that the agency had recommended disciplinary action against two Delhi Police officers as they had failed to properly investigate the case.

On September 27, the HC bench reserved its final judgement on the case.