RG Kar verdict: CBI challenges Bengal govt’s plea in HC
"CBI challenges the West Bengal government's plea in the Calcutta High Court seeking the death penalty for Sanjay Roy in the RG Kar Medical College rape-murder case. Learn about the legal arguments and upcoming hearing details."
Kolkata: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has contested the West Bengal government’s plea seeking the death penalty for Sanjay Roy, the sole convict in the rape and murder case of a woman doctor from the R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital.
The legal battle now moves to the division bench of the Calcutta High Court, which will decide on the admissibility of the state’s petition on January 27.
Table of Contents
Background of the Case
The gruesome incident occurred on August 9, 2024, when the body of the victim, a doctor at R.G. Kar Medical College, was discovered in a seminar hall on the premises.
Initially, the Kolkata Police arrested Sanjay Roy and began the investigation. However, five days later, the Calcutta High Court transferred the case to the CBI, citing the need for a more thorough and impartial probe.
The case gained nationwide attention due to its severity, leading to widespread demands for justice. On January 20, a special court in Kolkata sentenced Sanjay Roy to life imprisonment, ruling that the crime did not fall under the “rarest of rare” category to merit the death penalty.
The verdict sparked debates, prompting the West Bengal government to challenge the judgment and seek capital punishment for Roy.
State Government’s Plea
The West Bengal government approached the Calcutta High Court’s division bench of Justice Debangshu Basak and Justice Shabbar Rashidi on January 21, arguing that the life sentence was insufficient for such a heinous crime.
Representing the state, Advocate General Kishor Datta invoked Sections 377 and 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which allow the state to appeal for a harsher sentence or challenge acquittals in cases involving serious offenses.
The state government contended that the brutal nature of the crime warranted the death penalty to serve as a deterrent and ensure justice for the victim and her family.
Related Article | RG Kar Case: Calcutta High Court to Hear Bengal Government’s Plea for Death Penalty for Convict
CBI’s Opposition
During the hearing on January 22, the CBI opposed the state’s plea, questioning its legal standing in the matter. Deputy Solicitor General Rajdeep Majumdar argued that the state government, not being a party to the case, lacked the authority to appeal for an enhanced sentence.
He asserted that only the CBI, as the investigating agency, or the victim’s family could file such a petition.
Majumdar cited a precedent involving former Bihar Chief Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav, where a state government’s appeal was dismissed by the Patna High Court on similar grounds.
He further emphasized that the CBI’s role as the central investigative body made it the primary authority to challenge or endorse any verdict.
Key Legal Arguments
- State Government’s Argument: Advocate General Kishor Datta maintained that the state had the right to appeal under Sections 377 and 378 of the CrPC, especially since the crime occurred within its jurisdiction. The state argued that the special court failed to recognize the aggravated nature of the crime and the public demand for stricter punishment.
- CBI’s Counterargument: The CBI highlighted its exclusive jurisdiction in the case following the High Court’s directive to take over the investigation. It argued that the state government’s involvement was redundant and outside its purview since the case had already been transferred to the central agency.
Upcoming Hearing
The division bench of the Calcutta High Court has scheduled the hearing on January 27 to decide whether the West Bengal government’s plea is admissible. The decision could set a significant legal precedent regarding the authority of state governments to intervene in cases led by central investigative agencies.
Public and Legal Reactions
The case has ignited discussions across legal and social circles. Activists and legal experts are divided on whether the life sentence was adequate or if the death penalty is warranted in this instance. The victim’s family has yet to publicly comment on the state government’s move to seek harsher punishment.
