FIRST FREED AND then sentenced to death. Hidden in the primary and the secondary court ruling against accused Santosh Singh in the Priyadarshani Mattoo rape and murder case is the underlying shift in media’s power to force an issue and build up enough public pressure to not only ensure a judicial review, but also speedy justice. The October 30 Delhi High Court’s ruling in the Mattoo case marks a watershed, seen from this perspective.

 

It’s not the verdict, but the backdrop of this ruling that assumes greater significance in this case — what had happened before, and what and how did it lead to the present ruling. Though there are lot of details, it can be broadly summarized in the following background points.    

The Mattoo case tragically saw putrefaction at almost all levels — at the police level, when Priyadarshini appealed and re-appealed against her stalker Santosh Singh; at the investigation level, when the CBI apparently goofed up the DNA evidence; and, finally, at the judicial level.

 

Delivering the ruling in 1996, Additional Sessions Judge G P Thareja said, “I know that he (the accused) is the man who committed the crime. I acquit him, giving him the benefit of the doubt.” This was tough to swallow and a stinging criticism of the judicial process. The court knew the killer, but was bound by the law to let the accused go scot-free.

 

The case slipped out of media focus as further court proceedings continued at the usual tardy pace. In the meanwhile, Priyadarshani’s 72-year-old father Chaman Lal Mattoo kept the fire going in his quest for justice by frequently appearing on television channels and raising the issue. For 10 excruciating years, the dejected father carried on his efforts to bring to books his daughter’s stalker and murderer. He finally got justice yesterday when the High Court pronounced death for Santosh.

 

The verdict came in only 42 days after it was opened for a review, with the court holding hearings on a day-to-day basis. There was a clear change and that raises the question: what brought it about? It was the pressure of public opinion that was built by the raging debate in the media over the police functioning and the system flaws.

 

Media did what the Editor-in-Chief of Outlook, Vinod Mehta, is quoted as having said, “We have to keep stone-walling the authorities, keep on asking questions. They have to answer and in case they don’t, they will look silly. By posing a question and not getting an answer in itself is an answer.”

 

It’s heartening to note that these profit-oriented business houses are contributing their bit to meet their public service obligations too. For why otherwise, in the aftermath, a journalist got down to the task and tracked the “missing” servant, who was an indispensable witness in the Mattoo case, in Bihar?

 

SMS campaigns, devoted bloggers, candle-lit processions, rallies reflected the citizenry outcry. For watchdog journalists, the verdict has come as reiteration of the changing scenario of media impact. Had it not been the relentless media campaign and the hundreds of peace marches at Delhi’s India’s Gate and Jantar Mantar, the culprit would have probably roamed free and fearless.

 

The trial of Santosh Singh, who had almost escaped punishment through his high connections, took a U-turn when Mattoo approached the Fourth Estate with the tale of sordid collusion between lawmakers and lawbreakers.

 

Not many would know that it was a news channel and not the Delhi Police or any investigative authority that tracked Bharti Yadav in London who has been the missing link to conclude the Nitish Katara murder case. Not only this, journalists have clandestinely digged Manu Sharma’s hidden confessions. The instances are numerous and growing, but at the moment it would be more pertinent to ask the authorities to take over their baton from media.

 

A watchful media and an agile judiciary can rid the country of lot of problems that currently plague it.

Related Articles:
Mattoo case: Justice delayed, not denied