‘Eye For An Eye’ Rejected: Why RG Kar Convict Got Life, Not Death Penalty?

A Kolkata court has sentenced Sanjoy Roy, the convict in the RG Kar rape-murder case, to life imprisonment while making strong observations regarding the response of the hospital authorities and police. The case pertains to the brutal rape and murder of a 34-year-old doctor within the hospital premises, an incident that exposed significant lapses in the handling of the situation by the authorities.

Court Points to Police Negligence

In his 172-page verdict, Judge Anirban Das highlighted several procedural lapses by the police, particularly officers from Tala Police Station, who were among the first responders. The court observed that the victim’s father had to struggle significantly to have his complaint registered, questioning why the police initially attempted to withhold information. The order specifically mentioned that an Assistant Sub-Inspector, Anup Dutta, allegedly provided undue support to the accused, enabling him to lead a life unbefitting of a disciplined force member. The judge urged the police commissioner to take strict action against such misconduct and emphasized the need for better training in handling cases involving electronic and scientific evidence.

Hospital’s Response Under Scrutiny

The court also criticized the state-run hospital’s initial response, noting that hospital representatives misinformed both the police and the victim’s family by suggesting that the doctor had died by suicide. The order stated that there were clear attempts to suppress the truth to avoid scrutiny and potential consequences. The judge condemned the hospital authorities’ failure to consider the possibility of unnatural death and their reluctance to notify law enforcement in a timely manner. The court credited junior doctors for their protests, which played a crucial role in ensuring the case received proper attention.

Convict’s Guilt Established Beyond Doubt

Despite confusion over certain aspects of the case, the judge asserted that the prosecution had provided sufficient evidence to prove Roy’s guilt. The court noted that Roy failed to offer a credible explanation for his presence at the crime scene and dismissed his claims during his examination under BNSS provisions. The court also observed that Roy’s actions were impulsive and not premeditated, emphasizing that motive, though not always evident, is often a psychological phenomenon beyond direct proof.

Why Life Imprisonment Over Death Penalty

Addressing the question of sentencing, the court justified its decision to impose life imprisonment rather than the death penalty, citing the principle of reformative justice. The judgment referred to precedents, such as the Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab case, emphasizing that life imprisonment is the rule and the death sentence should be reserved for the ‘rarest of the rare’ cases. The court stated that justice should focus on rehabilitation rather than vengeance and that public sentiment should not dictate judicial decisions. It further noted that there was no prior criminal record for the convict, making life imprisonment an appropriate punishment.

This landmark ruling has not only delivered justice in the case but also highlighted the urgent need for systemic reforms in both law enforcement and healthcare institutions to prevent such lapses in the future.