Kusumavati Gowda v. Government of Karnataka
LOK 2026 (9) SC 218
Equivalent citations: 2026 INSC 1030 : 2026 KLT OnLine 4596 : AIR 2026 SC 4519
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Bench
- Sanjay Kumar & *Sanjeev Sachdeva; JJ.
- Case No.
- Crl.A. No. 4477 of 2026
Counsel For Petitioner(s) Ms. Shobha Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay Nuli, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shekhar G Devasa, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Rajshri Dubey, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Adv. Mr. Manish Tiwari, Adv. Mrs. Thashmitha Muthana, Adv. Mr. Prashant R Dixit, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kinni, Adv. Ms. Tog Mata Mg, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Deborah, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Amit P Shahi, Adv. Mr. Anjan Datta, Adv. Ms. Ishita Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Manish Dhingra, Adv. Mr. Rahul Sethi, Adv. Mrs. Rekha Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Yadav, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Sauvik Kumar, Adv. Mrs. Sona Khan, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sumant Khan, Adv. Mr. Anil Nishani, Adv. Mr. H B Dubey, Adv. Ms. Akansha Bhatia, Adv. Ms. Saksham Mathur, Adv. Mr. H.B.Dubey, Adv. Ms. Aakansha Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Rahul Mishra, Adv. Mr. Sunandan Mishra, Adv. Mr. Dhuli Shiva Shankar, Adv. Mr. Om Prakash Yadav, Adv. Mr. Lokesh Raghav, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, A.A.G. Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR Ms. Mithu Jain, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kunal Rana, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Jaiswal, Adv. Ms. Diksha Arora, Adv. Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Adv. Ms. Oorja Goel, Adv. Mr. Vijender Kumar, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. C B Gururaj, Adv. Mr. Naveen Chandrashekar, Adv. Ms. Pragya Smriti, Adv. Mr. Hari Abishek P, Adv. Ms. Srishti, Adv. Mr. K P Singh, Adv. M/s. Gururaj & Nayak, AOR
Provisions referred
- Penal Code 1860 - Secions 302 & 376
Headnote
Criminal Law — De Novo Investigation / Re-investigation after Acquittal — Articles 20(2), 21 & 226 of the Constitution of India — Section 173(8) (now BNSS 193) & Section 482 (now BNSS 528) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)
In a case involving the brutal rape and murder of a 17-year-old girl, the accused initially charged was acquitted by the Trial Court on finding no evidence connecting him to the crime and pointing out severe lapses in the investigation. The victim's parent filed a writ petition seeking a de novo investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT), which was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that crucial evidence might no longer be available. Reversing the High Court's order, the Supreme Court held that fair investigation is an integral facet of Article 21 of the Constitution and where the investigation conducted is biased, tainted, or shoddy, Constitutional Courts possess the plenary power to order a fresh/de novo investigation even after the conclusion of trial and acquittal, in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice and ensure the real perpetrators are brought to book.
Full text locked
The full judgment is being updated in the library. Contact the Librarian on WhatsApp for a copy.