'Must Rise Above Eye For An Eye': Why No Death Penalty For RG Kar Convict

Order Questions Police Response

Flagging procedural lapses by multiple cops who were among the first responders of the crime, the judge has said, "The helpless father of the victim ran from pillar to post to get relief and to lodge the complaint."

"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 says.

The judge also pointed out the accused, Sanjoy Roy, was pampered by an Assistant Sub-Inspector Anup Dutta. "...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," the order says.

Asking the police commissioner to tackle such "illegal/indifferent acts in a very strict way", the court stressed the need for proper training of officers to tackle investigation that rests upon electronic and scientific evidence".

"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.

A court in Kolkata pronounced the sentence in the sensitive case yesterday

Tough Talk On Hospital's Response

The order notes that the state-run hospital's representatives, in their phone calls right after the doctor was found dead, told the police as well as the victim's father that she had died by suicide. "...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 says.

The judge added that this "illegal dream" of the authority was not fulfilled because the juniors doctors started protesting. "Being the court of law, I condemn such attitude of the R.G Kar hospital authority," 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," it adds.

"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.

'Sufficient Evidence To Establish Guilt'

The judge has stated that while the evidence on record did create "confusion", "the accused has no right to get any relief, if sufficient materials to prove his involvement can be established by the prosecution". "...think that the illegal/indifferent/lackadaisical acts on the part of the police authority of Tala PS as well as the administrative wing of R.G Kar Medical College and Hospital will not stand as a stumbling block on the way of trial of this case," the order says.

The judge said he is of the view that "the prosecution correctly discharged the burden and placed sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of this accused".

The court noted that the defence could not establish the presence of any other person other than Roy and the victim in the seminar room at the time of the incident.

"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."

What Was The Motive

The order notes that Roy had said he was drunk when he entered the hospital premises. The court said there was no hostility between the victim and Roy and he attacked her "on sudden impulse" to "meet his lust". "The victim was obviously not his target or that it was not known to him that the victim was there in the said Seminar Room and the offence committed by him was not pre-planned," the order says.

Citing precedents in law, the court said many murders have been committed without any known or prominent motive. "After all, motive is a psychological phenomenon. Mere fact that prosecution failed to translate that mental disposition of the accused into evidence, does not mean that no such mental condition existed in the mind of the assailant," the order says.

"No proof can be expected in all cases as to how the mind of the accused worked in a particular situation but the same by itself is insufficient to lead to any inference adverse to the prosecution... I hold that the prosecution case will not face the failure for want of direct evidence about the motive of the convict," it adds.

Why Not Death Penalty

The order notes that the nature of the crime is "particularly heinous, characterized by its brutality and the vulnerability of the victim".

The court said that the Indian judicial system has a stringent criteria for imposing the death penalty, reserving it for cases that are "exceptionally heinous and shock the collective conscience of society".

"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 says.

The possibility of reformation, it adds, is another crucial factor that courts must consider. "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 court cited the Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab judgment in 1980 which held that "life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence an exception".

"The judiciary's primary responsibility is to uphold the rule of law and ensure justice based on evidence, not public sentiment," the order says, noting that there is there is no evidence of prior criminal behaviour by the convict.

"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," it says, adding that the 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," the order says.

Show full article