“There are only two options before us – life imprisonment or death.” These words from the Delhi High Court today marked the culmination of what had captured the national imagination as an endless wait for justice for the family of Priyadarshini Mattoo who was allegedly killed by Santosh Kumar Singh on January 23, 1996 at her Vasant Kunj residence when she was 23.

Today, a bench of Justices R S Sodhi and P K Bhasin, reversed the trial court’s acquittal — calling it a shocking “mauling” of justice — and held Singh guilty of raping and then murdering the Delhi University Law Student who had spurned his advances.

“From an overall analysis of the circumstances that have been discussed and held to have been proved beyond doubt by unimpeachable evidence, we are of the view that those circumstances form a chain so complete which leads us to the only conclusion that it is the respondent Santosh Kumar Singh who had committed rape upon the deceased and then murdered her.”

As the Division Bench directed Singh, a practising lawyer now, “to be taken into custody forthwith,” it posted the matter for October 30 when the arguments on the quantum of sentence will take place.

Even today as Justice Sodhi concluded reading the operative part of the judgment, he posed a question to the counsel for the state Mukta Gupta and Singh’s advocate R K Naseem: “Whether life or death, we have only two options now.”

While CBI will pray for the death penalty for Singh terming the case as “rarest of rare” before the High Court, his counsel Naseem will argue for awarding life sentence to the convict. He is also likely to challenge the conviction in the Supreme Court.

Today, as the court assembled in room No. 35 amid heavy media presence, it ruled, “The trial court quite amazingly after holding almost all the crucial circumstances in favour of the prosecution ordered unmerited acquittal of the respondent by taking a perverse approach in the matter.”

Allowing the appeal which was filed in 2000, against the judgment passed by then Additional Sessions Judge G P Thareja, the HC said, “By acquitting the respondent despite being convinced that there was no doubt in the prosecution case at least for the offence of murder, the trial court has mauled justice, its decision has shocked the judicial conscience of this court.”

The High Court, which had fast-tracked the hearing in the appeal taking it up thrice a week commencing from September 5, 2006, said that the evidence was incompatible with Singh’s plea of innocence and “we held him guilty of the offence he committed”.

DEC 3, 99: The trial court’s acquittal:

Unfairness by CBI in keeping evidence on bloodstains away from the court created a hole in the case

Key witness Virender Prasad, the servant of the house, was not produced

CBI seemingly intended to help accused

Though I know he is the man who committed the crime, I acquit him, giving him the benefit of the doubt

OCT 17, 2006: The High Court’s conviction:

There is no circumstance by the defence Santosh suggesting his innocence or the possibility of anyone else having committed the crime

None of the police officers, to whom the complaints were made by the deceased, reacted as was expected of them. Obviously at every stage, they had in their mind that the accused was son of their superior officer

The trial court after holding almost all crucial circumstances in favour of the prosecution, ordered acquittal by taking a perverse approach

z The trial court mauled justice…shocked the judicial conscience of this court