The case came just after the acquittals in the Jessica Lal murder case, which had triggered a massive wave of public protests in the country and sharp criticism from the part of the media. Similarly, the acquittal of Santosh Singh captured the collective attention of the media as well as the public. This was followed by large mass demonstrations and the media was present on this occasion. Chaman Lal Matoo, Priyadarshini's father, was giving frequent media interviews, demanding justice for his deceased daughter. The media highlighted the fact that despite so much conclusive evidence, Singh had managed to walk out of prison, a free man, without being convicted of a single charge. A few years after his acquittal, Singh even got married, had a child and began his career as a lawyer in Delhi. The media used its powerful tool of investigative journalism to uncover the loopholes in the murder case and soon it brought to the public's attention how justice was denied to Priyadarshini Mattoo. This caused a massive uproar among the masses who demanded the case be reopened. Similar to the Jessica Lal murder case, the media used investigative journalism to uncover hidden facts and evidence in this case. In an earlier CBI report submitted to the court, it was stated that Virender Prasad, the domestic help of Mattoo's house, was in hiding and could not be found. Prasad was a prosecution witness and was considered an important witness in this case as he was the one who allowed Singh to enter Mattoo's residence on the day the crime was committed. Journalists had traced him to a village in Bihar while detectives claimed he had gone missing. Prasad's apparent absence at the time of the trial was one of the reasons for the obstruction of justice. This further created a wave of public outrage