A Conviction That Raises More Questions Than Answers

Deeptangshu Kar

On August 9, 2024, India woke up to a tragedy that shook the nation—a young doctor on duty at RG Kar Medical College & Hospital (RGKMCH), Kolkata, was brutally raped and murdered. The case sparked widespread outrage, triggering protests, media debates, and political interventions. Within months, the trial concluded with the conviction of Sanjay Roy under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Sections 64, 66, and 103(1) for aggravated sexual assault and murder.

While the verdict brings a sense of closure, it raises crucial legal and systemic questions. Was justice served in full measure, or did the urgency to deliver a judgment overshadow the need for thorough scrutiny? This article critically examines the case’s handling, the judgment’s strengths and weaknesses, and its broader implications for women’s safety and legal accountability in India.

The case moved at an unusually fast pace:

*    August 9, 2024: FIR registered at Tala Police Station.
*    August 10, 2024: Accused arrested.
*    October 7, 2024: Charge-sheet filed.
*    November 4, 2024: Charges framed.
*    January 18, 2025: Verdict delivered.
*    January 20, 2025: Sentencing.

While speed in sexual assault cases is desirable, it must not compromise due process. The urgency to convict brings up the crucial question: did it limit the defense’s ability to build its case? If that is so, it surely will raise concerns about fairness in a high-pressure trial environment.

The case saw an unusual sequence of investigative transitions:

1.   Kolkata Police initially handled the case.
2.   A Special Investigation Team (SIT) took over thereafter.
3.   Subsequently, the Calcutta High Court transferred it to the CBI.

Such overlapping jurisdictions often create gaps in evidence handling. The judgement does not critically assess whether these transitions affected forensic reliability. Was the chain of custody for crucial evidence—DNA samples, CCTV footage, medical reports—maintained properly? Without addressing these concerns, the case risks setting a precedent where procedural lapses are overlooked in the name of swift justice.

The prosecution’s case rested on three main pillars:

*    Forensic and medical reports confirming sexual assault and fatal injuries.
*    Eyewitness testimonies, particularly from the victim’s father and colleagues.
*    Electronic evidence, including CCTV footage and call records.

While forensic reports indicated sexual violence and homicide, the judgement does not explore potential inconsistencies in the medical opinions as were available for the criminal trial. There remains also the possibility that as multiple agencies have handled the investigation; it could have led to conflicting interpretations. The court does not critically engage with this possibility.

The victim’s father’s emotional testimony played a key role, but circumstantial evidence alone cannot substitute for concrete forensic proof. Additionally, it is apposite to indicate that the witnesses that have rendered testimonies in this trial are hardly such whom one can call “independent”, therefore there remains a huge void vis-à-vis confirmation of crucial details of the ghastly incident by direct evidence. This is one of the weaknesses of this judgement, for which the investigative agency which was at the helm of investigation was primarily to be blamed.

In cases involving electronic evidence, courts must ensure compliance with Sections 58, 61 and 63 of the BharatiyaSakshyaAdhiniyam 2023, which mandate strict conditions for admissibility of digital records. The judgement does not clarify whether the forensic authenticity of CCTV footage and phone records was independently verified. In an era of deepfakes and digital manipulation, such oversight is concerning.

Strong on Conviction, Weak on Precedent
The accused was convicted under:

*    Section 64 BNS (Aggravated Rape)
*    Section 66 BNS (Causing Death by Sexual Assault)
*    Section 103(1) BNS (Murder)

However, the judgement lacks depth in analysing criminal intent—a key factor in distinguishing murder from culpable homicide. The judgement preferred not to explore much so as to establish what actually worked to develop the motive and intent of perpetrating such an inhumane criminal act in the mind of the accused, Sanjay Roy. Additionally, it does not cite relevant Supreme Court precedents, such as:

*    Mukesh & Anr. v. State (Nirbhaya Case, 2020): Guidelines on sentencing in rape-murder cases.
*    Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): Institutional responsibility for workplace safety.
*    Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India (1995): Victim compensation frameworks.

By neglecting these references, the judgment missed an opportunity to strengthen legal reasoning and set a precedent for future cases.

Given the brutality of the crime—a young doctor on duty was raped and murdered—the question arises: Why was Sanjay Roy not awarded the death penalty? Why did the court sentence him to life imprisonment instead?

The death penalty in India is reserved for the ‘rarest of the rare’ cases—a doctrine established in the case of Bachan Singh v State of Punjab (1980). According to this judgement, capital punishment can only be imposed when:

*    The crime is of exceptional depravity or heinousness, AND
*    The accused shows no possibility of reformation.

This doctrine was later reaffirmed in the case of Machhi Singh v State of Punjab (1983), where the Supreme Court laid down key tests for determining whether a case qualifies as ‘rarest of the rare’:

1.   Manner of Commission–Was the crime executed in an exceptionally brutal, grotesque, or inhuman manner?
2.  Motive–Was the motive shocking to societal conscience?
3.  Nature of Victim–Was the victim vulnerable (e.g., minor, disabled, helpless)?
4.  Impact on Society–Did the crime create a deep societal impact or widespread terror?
5.  Possibility of Reform–Can the convict be rehabilitated?

For example, the Nirbhaya case (2012) met these criteria, leading to the execution of the convicts. But did the RG Kar case meet the same threshold?

The RG Kar case, while horrific, did not meet all the criteria for the ‘rarest of the rare’ category, according to Justice Anirban Das, for the following reasons:

The victim was sexually assaulted and murdered, but as per the post-mortem report, the level of brutality was not on par with cases like Nirbhaya, where the victim was gang-raped, brutalised with an iron rod, and left for dead with fatal intestinal injuries.In this case, while rape and murder occurred, the judgement does not mention mutilation, post-mortem injuries, or sadistic elements beyond the sexual assault itself.

In the case of Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal (1994), the Supreme Court awarded the death penalty due to the pre-planned nature of the attack and extreme cruelty. However, in the case of the State of Maharashtra v Sukhdev Singh (1992), the Court ruled that while rape and murder were heinous, the death penalty is not automatic unless the crime exhibits extraordinary brutality.

Sole Accused vs. Group Crime
The Nirbhaya gang rape case involved multiple assailants, making it a predatory, premeditated act of extreme sexual violence. In the RG Kar case, the investigative agency could bring up only one accused (Sanjay Roy), and there was no prolonged torture, gang involvement, or planned assault. The court may have considered this a lesser degree of brutality.

Pre-Meditation and Motive
Courts consider whether the crime was pre-planned or committed in the heat of the moment. The judgement does not establish clear premeditation. Sanjay Roy did not lure the victim with an elaborate plan like in cases where minors were kidnapped, raped, and killed. In the case of V Shankaran v State of Tamil Nadu (2022), the Supreme Court ruled that lack of premeditation is a mitigating factor in sentencing. In the RG Kar case, the crime was not deemed pre-planned, which weighed against awarding capital punishment.

Possibility of Reform
It is a trite law established by the Supreme Court that if a convict can be rehabilitated, the death penalty should not be imposed. The judgement does not suggest that Sanjay Roy is beyond reform—he had no prior convictions, no history of violent behaviour, and was not part of a criminal network.This aligns with the judgement of Santosh Bariyar v State of Maharashtra (2009), where the Supreme Court held that “if the convict shows any possibility of reform, life imprisonment should be preferred over capital punishment.”

While the RG Kar case was horrific, the legal standards for capital punishment demand extreme brutality and irrefutable evidence that the convict is beyond reform. Some might argue that the murder of a doctor on duty warranted the harshest punishment to set an example and a death sentence would have sent a stronger deterrent message. However, the judiciary must balance retribution with justice. Given that the accused’s actions, while heinous, did not reach the ‘rarest of the rare’ threshold, the court followed established principles of criminal jurisprudence. It must be remembered that despite mass outrage around this case, courts must sentence based on law, not emotions.

The father’s testimony revealed that hospital authorities misled him about his daughter’s condition before revealing her death. This raises critical questions: Was this an attempt to manage media outrage before informing the family? Should medical institutions not have clear protocols for handling such cases? These questions remain unanswered.

The case saw active involvement from the West Bengal Chief Minister, who spoke directly to the victim’s father. While political intervention may offer moral support, on most occasions what it actually transpires into is an undesired influence on the legal proceedings. The judgement does not tread into the trail of finding out whether the political pressures and overwhelming public sentiments impacted the neutrality of the investigation.

Eyewitnesses, including the victim’s father, stated that authorities fast-tracked the cremation, bypassing standard procedures. This makes people to think: was this an attempt to prevent a second autopsy? If so, it reflects a dangerous precedent where evidence is destroyed before proper scrutiny. The judgement fails to delve deep into this possibility.

The victim was attacked inside her workplace—a public hospital, a space meant for healing and care. The judgement does not recommend institutional reforms such as:

*    Mandatory CCTV surveillance in critical areas.
*    Improved security protocols for female staff on night shifts.
*    Establishment of independent workplace harassment redressal mechanisms.

Though one can argue that these issues are already addressed by the Supreme Court in the suomotu cognisance case, Justice Anirban Das should have spared a few words in this regard, which could have gone long way in strengthening the jurisprudence on safety and security of women in workplaces.

This case echoes systemic issues from past sexual violence cases:

*    Delayed and insensitive police response, as seen in the Unnao and Kathua rape cases.
*    Failure to protect evidence, as in the Hathras gang-rape case.
*    Lack of institutional accountability, seen in the Bhopal shelter home abuse case.

Without police reforms, legal accountability, and a survivor-centric approach, high-profile convictions alone cannot fix a broken system.

While the conviction of the accused may bring relief, the RG Kar Rape Case judgement leaves serious gaps in legal and procedural scrutiny. Key concerns remain:

*    Was the accused given adequate time to prepare his defence?
*    Was digital evidence properly authenticated?
*    Why were hospital authorities and the police not held accountable for lapses?

This case must serve as a wake-up call—not just for judicial efficiency but for systemic reforms in hospital safety, police accountability, and gender-sensitive legal processes. True justice is not just about conviction; it is about ensuring that no woman, anywhere, ever faces such horror again.

[Deeptangshu Kar is an advocate at Calcutta High Court] 

Back to Home Page

Frontier
Vol 57, No. 34, Feb 16 - 22, 2025