The Supreme Court on September 21 ordered a fresh investigation into the unsolved 2012 rape and murder case of a 17-year-old college student near the prominent temple town of Dharmasthala in coastal Karnataka.The botched case, which was investigated by three agencies, had sent shockwaves through Dakshina Kannada district and sparked protests.The lone suspect was a mentally unwell man who had been arrested soon after the body of the girl, Sowjanya, was found. But a special CBI court acquitted him in June 2023, categorically stating that there was no evidence against him.In 2024, the girl’s family moved the Karnataka High Court seeking a reinvestigation, but the court dismissed this plea. It was then that the family moved the Supreme Court, which has now set aside the High Court’s dismissal and pulled up the investigating agencies.What happened in this case? How was it botched? Why did the High Court deny the family’s plea for reinvestigation, and why has the Supreme Court now called for a fresh probe with a three-month timeline? We explain.It was on October 9, 2012 that the student went missing when she was returning to her home in Dharmasthala from her pre-university college in a nearby town.Her body was discovered the following morning inside a nearby forested area. Police in Belthangady town initially took up the case. The next day, some local residents, who worked with the trust that manages the town’s famous Manjunatheshwara Temple, nabbed a man named Santhosh Rao and handed him over to the police, who arrested him.Story continues below this adThe girl’s autopsy report noted that she had suffered a number of injuries, including to her neck (strangulation marks) and private parts.Also Read | After Supreme Court order, new SIT set up to probe 2012 Karnataka rape-murderThe state’s Criminal Investigation Department (CID) took over the case in 2013, and handed it over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the same year amid a public outcry and campaigns for justice.But 10 years later, in June 2023, Rao was acquitted by a special CBI court in Bengaluru, which ruled that the CBI had not produced enough evidence to prove a direct link between the accused and the crime.The problems with the probeStory continues below this adThe investigation was marked by lapses from the very beginning. For instance, though Sowjanya was carrying an umbrella as well as a bag, police managed to recover only the latter.The court that acquitted Rao had also pointed out that the doctor who conducted the autopsy at the government hospital in Belthangady “did not collect the viscera from the body, and he has not properly collected the vaginal swab, which made the DNA expert not carry out a proper investigation.”“The investigation was not properly conducted in the golden hour. The doctor (who also did the autopsy) who collected the vaginal swab virtually demolished the entire case of the prosecution at the inception,” it had said.Also Read | 2012 Karnataka rape-murder: Victim’s mother demands reconstitution of SITStory continues below this adThere have also been allegations that there were discrepancies in the statements of the locals who had initially nabbed Rao. One of them later allegedly died by suicide.There were also allegations, referred to by the Supreme Court years later, that the girl may not have been raped or killed in the spot where her body was found because neither her clothes, nor the books in her bag, were wet — it was a rainy day. This means her body may have been moved. And if so, more than one person could likely have been involved. Incidentally, hair strands of other persons, besides Rao, were found on the victim’s clothes.What did the High Court rule?A year after the acquittal of the sole accused, Rao, Sowjanya’s family moved the Karnataka High Court seeking a fresh investigation. But the court, in its August 30, 2024 verdict, said that no purpose would be served by a reinvestigation. It said it was doubtful whether DNA evidence that was not collected at the initial stage would still be available.Also Read | Dharmasthala ‘secret burials’: SIT files final report, says allegations falseStory continues below this ad“Nobody saw the girl being forcibly taken by the suspects or somebody else. Medical evidence cannot be improved, and so also the forensic evidence. It is doubtful that evidence that could not be collected at the golden hour is still available,” the court observed while rejecting the plea for reinvestigation.Incidentally, the same judgement also rejected a CBI plea against Rao’s acquittal, essentially reiterating the trial court’s finding that there was no evidence connecting him with the crime.What has the Supreme Court now said?The Supreme Court bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva found that the Karnataka High Court’s statement on availability of evidence was “clearly erroneous”.The top court referred to the opinion of a forensic expert who said that suspects could still be identified by using the DNA of the hair strands from the victim’s clothes.Story continues below this adAlso Read | ‘Painful parallel to Nirbhaya case’: Supreme Court takes note of Delhi rapesIn fact, Vinod J Lakkappan, assistant director of the toxicology division, who had conducted the DNA analysis soon after the rape-murder, had said the following in the trial court: “Apart from the hairs of this accused (Rao), hairs of other persons were also found in Material Object No. 15. In case there are any suspicious persons their blood samples could be collected even now and on its DNA examination, comparison could be made.”Referring to this, the Supreme Court order said: “This deposition thus shows that if suspected persons are found, the DNA sample collected from the victim’s ‘Chudidhar Top’ marked as material object no.15, can still be matched.”The bench ruled: “The observation of the High Court that it is doubtful that evidence that could not be collected at the golden hour is still available and that no useful purpose would be served even if reinvestigation was permitted is clearly erroneous and cannot be sustained.”Story continues below this adAlso Read | Delhi bus rape case: Chargesheet filed, semen & hair strands among key evidenceOn April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court had directed the Karnataka government to provide adequate protection to eight potential witnesses listed in the petitioner’s additional affidavit.“The State of Karnataka has complied with the order, found the potential witnesses within three weeks of its passing. The State’s ability to successfully locate the witnesses within 3 weeks, raises questions on the inability of 3 investigative agencies to examine these leads when it was timely,” the court said.The court directed the state government to constitute a new five-member special investigating team and complete the probe within three months. The government has now done so.