The sessions in Kolkata court, which convicted Sanjoy Roy of rape-murder in the RG Kar case and sentenced him to life in prison on Monday (20th Jan 2025), has made strong statements on the hospital's and police's response to the discovery of a 34-year-old doctor who had been raped and killed in a hospital seminar room.

Police Response and Order Questions:

"It is not understandable to me why the police personnel of Tala PS (police station) kept everything behind a curtain and why such type of illegal acts was done by the concerned officer of Tala PS," the order states.

The accused, Sanjoy Roy, was given special attention by Assistant Sub-Inspector Anup Dutta, the judge further noted. "...he gave him an unbridled power and the accused availed the benefit of the same and started a life which does not go with the lifestyle of any member of a disciplined force," according to the judgement.

The court emphasised that officers must be properly trained to handle investigations that rely on scientific and electronic data, and it asked the police commissioner to deal with such "illegal/indifferent acts in a very strict way."

"On perusal of the evidences I am of the view that if the officers of Tala PS would take proper initiative by applying their intellect at the very first time, the matter would not become so complicated. I am sorry to comment that that the officers of Tala PS showed a very indifferent attitude from the very inception," the order says.

Hard Conversation About the Hospital's Reaction

According to the ruling, representatives of the state-run hospital informed the police and the victim's father that the doctor had committed suicide in phone conversations shortly after her body was discovered. "...it is clear that a story of commission of suicide of the victim was in the air."

"There is no doubt to consider that from the end of any authority, efforts were made to show the death as a suicidal one so that the hospital authority would not face any consequences," the order states. "Being the court of law, I condemn such attitude of the R.G Kar hospital authority," the order states.

Additionally, the order says, "It is fact that without post-mortem, the cause of death could not be ascertained but being the doctors why they did not consider that the said death was an unnatural one and it was obviously, the duty of the hospital authority to intimate the police,".

"The said act of the administrative head of the concerned hospital creates a shadow of doubt about the fact and it seems that they wanted to suppress anything and that there was dereliction of duty on their part," the order says.

"The prosecution correctly discharged the burden and placed sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of this accused," the judge stated.

The court observed that the defense was unable to prove that anyone else was in the seminar room when the incident occurred, except from Roy and the victim.

"The accused got the scope to explain the circumstances but he failed to offer any alternative explanation denying his presence at the scene of crime. He was unable to negate the contention that no one else could have inflicted the said injuries over the person of the deceased (victim). The bald plea of denial offered by the accused and his explanation made at the time of his examination U/s 351 BNSS, do not lead me to hold that the accused could place any satisfactory explanation for which any suspicion can arise in the mind of the court."

Why no death penalty for the accused:

"Particularly heinous, characterised by its brutality and the vulnerability of the victim" is how the order describes the crime.

According to the court, the death penalty is only applied in circumstances that are "exceptionally heinous and shock the collective conscience of society" because the Indian judicial system has strict guidelines for using it.

"When considering the imposition of capital punishment, courts must grapple with a complex web of legal, moral and societal considerations. The principle of proportionality is paramount - the punishment must fit the crime. In cases of extreme brutality and cruelty, where the offence shocks the conscience of society, the argument for the ultimate punishment gains strength. However, this must be balanced against the principles of reformative justice and the sanctity of human life," the order states.

It goes on to say that another important consideration for courts is the potential for reformation. "The judicial system must weigh whether the convict, given the nature and circumstances of their crime, shows any potential for rehabilitation and reintegration into society."

The order states that "the judiciary's primary responsibility is to uphold the rule of law and ensure justice based on evidence, not public sentiment," adding that there is no proof that the convicted person has ever engaged in prior criminal activity.

"In the realm of modern justice, we must rise above the primitive instinct of 'an eye for an eye' or 'a tooth for a tooth' or 'nail for a nail' or 'a life for a life'. Our duty is not to match brutality with brutality, but to elevate humanity through wisdom, compassion and a deeper understanding of justice. The measure of a civilized lies not in its ability to exact revenge, but in its capacity to reform, rehabilitate and ultimately to heal," also adding, case does not meet the 'rarest of the rare' criteria.

"The court must resist the temptation to bow to public pressure or emotional appeals and instead focus on delivering a verdict that upholds the integrity of the legal system and serves the broader interests of justice," states the court order.

 (Input from various sources)

(Rehash/Sanika Dongre/MSM)