R.G.kar Judgment 20.01.2025
R.G.kar Judgment 20.01.2025
77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
Father of the victim (complainant) Ld. Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover, Ld.
Advocate Soutik Banerjee, Ld.
Advocate Arjun Gooptu and Ld.
Advocate Devika Tulsiani (since retired
on 11.12.2024).
Ld. Advocate Rajdeep Halder, Souvik
Ghosh (since 12.12.2024).
1
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
Form – B
Accused Details:
2
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
Form – C
PW 4 Dr. Arko Sen First Year PGT of Chest Department of RG Kar Medical
College and Hospital
PW 5 Dr. Pooja Rai First Year PGT of Chest Department of RG Kar Medical
College and Hospital
PW6 Dr. Sumit Roy Tapadar Associate Professor of department of Respiratory Medicine,
R.G.Kar medical College & Hospital
PW7 Dr. Pali Samadder EMO, RG Kar Medical College and Hospital.
PW8 Dr. Biswanath Saren Assistant Professor, department of FMT, SSKM Hospital.
PW9 Jayanta Rajbanshi Constable, Detective Department, Scientific Wing, Kolkata
Police.
PW10 Shibasish Dey Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Sealdah.
PW-11 Shekhar Roy ASI, Detective Department, Scientific Wing, Kolkata
Police.
PW12 Dr. Antra Burman PGT, 3rd year, R.G Kar Medical College and Hospital.
3
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
PW26 Sanjoy Lohar ASI of police at Detective Department, Kolkata Police, W.G
Cell.
PW30 Anup Dutta ASI of Police & Executive Member of Kolkata Police
Welfare and Development Redressal Committee.
PW38 Sanjoy Roy ASI of Police attached to Welfare Cell of Kolkata Police, 4 th
Battalion.
PW39 Sanat Kumar Saha Senior Scientific Officer, Mobile Forensic Unit, Kolkata
Police.
PW44 Dr. Rina Das Associate Professor of FMT, RG Kar Medical College and
Hospital.
PW46 Dr. Braja Kishore Mohapatra Deputy Director, Biology , CFSL, New Delhi.
PW49 Rupali Mukherjee First IO posted as Additional OC, Women Grievance Cell,
Detective Department, Kolkata Police
4
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
DW 1 N/A
DW 2 N/A
DW 3 N/A
CW 1 N/A
CW 2 N/A
CW 3 N/A
5
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
Exbt.P-19/1(12)
28 (related to Mat Exbt Signature of Diyasini Roy in the envelope
IV)
Exbt.P-20(12)
29 (related to Mat Exbt Signature of Antra Burman in the envelope
V)
Exbt.P-20/1(12)
30 (related to Mat Exbt Signature of Diyasini Roy in the envelope
V)
Exbt.P-21(12)
31 (related to Mat Exbt Signature of Antra Burman in the envelope
VI)
Exbt.P-21/1(12)
32 (related to Mat Exbt Signature of Diyasini Roy in the envelope
VI)
Exbt.P-22(12)
33 (related to Mat Exbt Signature of Antra Burman in the envelope
VII)
Exbt.P-22/1(12)
34 (related to Mat Exbt Signature of Diyasini Roy in the envelope
VII)
Exbt.P-23(12)
35 (related to Mat Exbt Signature of Antra Burman in the envelope
VIII)
Exbt.P-23/1(12)
36 (related to Mat Exbt Signature of Diyasini Roy in the envelope
VIII)
Exbt.P-24(12)
37 (related to Mat Exbt Signature of Antra Burman in the envelope
IX)
6
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
Exbt.P-24/1 (12)
38 (related to Mat Exbt Signature of Diyasini Roy in the envelope
IX)
Exbt.P-25(12)
39 (related to Mat Exbt Signature of Antra Burman in the envelope
X)
Exbt.P-25/1(12)
40 (related to Mat Exbt Signature of Diyasini Roy in the envelope
X)
Exbt.P-26(12)
41 (related to Mat Exbt Signature of Antra Burman in the envelope
XI)
Exbt.P-26/1(12)
42 (related to Mat Exbt Signature of Diyasini Roy in the envelope
XI)
Exbt.P-27(12)
43 (related to Mat Exbt Signature of Antra Burman in the envelope
XII)
Exbt.P-27/1(12)
44 (related to Mat Exbt Signature of Diyasini Roy in the envelope
XII)
Signature of Antra Burman in the envelope
45 Exbt.P-28(12)
Exbt.P-29(12)
47 (related to Mat Exbt Signature of Antra Burman in the envelope
XIV)
Exbt.P-29/1(12)
48 (related to Mat Exbt Signature of Diyasini Roy in the envelope
XIV)
Exbt.P-30(12)
49 (related to Mat Exbt Signature of Antra Burman in the envelope
XV)
Exbt.P-30/1(12)
50 (related to Mat Exbt Signature of Diyasini Roy in the envelope
XV)
Exbt.P-31(12)
51 (related to Mat Exbt Signature of Antra Burman in the envelope
XVI)
Exbt.P-31/1(12)
52 (related to Mat Exbt Signature of Diyasini Roy in the envelope
XVI)
Exbt.P-32(12)
53 (related to Mat Exbt Signature of Antra Burman in the envelope
XVII)
Exbt.P-32/1(12)
54 (related to Mat Exbt Signature of Diyasini Roy in the envelope
XVII)
55 Exbt.P-33(12) Signature of Antra Burman in the envelope
56 Exbt.P-33/1(12) Signature of Diyasini Roy in the envelope
7
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
8
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
Exbt.P-49(14)
83 Signature of PW14 in the envelope of Micro SD Card
Exbt.P-50(14)
84 135 snaps
9
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
10
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
11
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
Exbt.P-128(21)
185 2 Snaps regarding Injury no. 15 & 16
(Objected to)
Exbt.P-129(21)
186 Snaps regarding Injury no. 15 (external Injury)
(Objected to)
Exbt.P-130(21) Snaps regarding Injury no. 8 (external Injury) (taken
187 (Objected to) from PM Video)
Snaps regarding taking out of the endocervical Swab
Exbt.P-131(21)
188 and Uterus during PM (external Injury) (taken from PM
(Objected to)
Video)
Exbt.P-109/1(22) Signature of PW 22 in the Copy of relevant receipt by
189 the Police Authority
Exbt.P-95/1(23) Signature of DC(DD), Special with his lac-seal and
190 official rubber stamp
Exbt.P-132(24)
191 UD case No. 861 dated 09.08.2024
Exbt.P-133(24)
192 Certified copy of 6 pages of Malkhana Register
Exbt.P-134(24)
193 Specimen Seal impression sheet
Exbt.P-40/2(24)
194 Seizure list dated 09.08.2024
Exbt.P-141(26)
201 Signature of PW 25 in the seizure list dated 10.08.2024
Exbt.P-142/1 (27)
204 Particular entry in CDR
Exbt.P-142/2 (27)
205 Particular entry in CDR
Exbt.P-143(28)
206 Requisition dated 20.08.2024
12
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
Exbt.P-146(28)
209 Specimen Seal Impression sheet
Exbt.P-147(28)
210 Signature of PW 28 on the envelope
Exbt.P-148(29)
211 Signature of PW 29 on the envelope
Exbt.P-149(29)
212 Signature of PW 29 on the envelope
Exbt.P-150(29)
213 CFSL report dated 21.08.2024 (3 Sheets)
13
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
14
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
15
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
B. Defence: N/A
C. Court Exhibits:N/A
16
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
D. Material Objects:
17
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
18
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
J U D G E M E N T
It was 9th day of August, 2024. The day started as normal as of regular.
Suddenly a news was spread like a wildfire that one on duty lady doctor was
brutally raped and murdered at her place of work, which was R.G.Kar Medical
College & Hospital, Kolkata (hereinafter it will be shown as RGKMCH).
This 9th day of August is also famous in world history as on that day atom
bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan in the year 1945.
This incident of 9th August 2024 shook the nation as the incident of 9 th August,
1945 shook the world.
Fact of the case:-
The father of the said victim had lodged a complaint at Tala PS, in the
jurisdiction of which the RGKMCH situates.
The said complaint was written not by ink but by the tears of the said father of
the victim.
From the said complaint it came out that his daughter (the victim) joined her
regular duty at RGKMCH on 08.08.2024 as usual and on 09.08.2024 in the morning
the father of the victim was informed from the said hospital and he was asked to go to
the said hospital, which was the place of work of the victim. He was also informed
that his daughter was taken to the hospital as she was unwell.
Later, after reaching to the RGKMCH he came to know that his daughter was
raped and murdered while she was on duty.
The FIR:-
On the basis of the said written complaint, Tala PS case No. 52 dated
09.08.2024 was started for offence U/s 64/66/103(1) BNS.
Investigation by Police:-
Prior to starting the specific case, the concerned PS had started one UD case
vide Tala PS UD Case No. 861 dated 09.08.2024.
Afterwards an investigation was started by the said PS.
Subsequently, one Special Investigation Team (SIT) was formed, and the case
was handed over to the SIT.
The said SIT had arrested one accused person, took the custody of all the
seized alamats of this case, sent the required exhibits to the State/ Central Forensic
Laboratory.
Afterwards, on the basis of the direction of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta,
the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was directed to take up the investigation
and from the time of order of the Hon’ble Court, the CBI took up the entire
investigation of the case and they have started a new case vide No.
RCO482024S0010 dated 13.08.2024.
19
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
20
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
which caused the death of the victim or caused the said victim to be in a
persistent vegetative state.
(c) Whether the accused had committed any act/acts by which death of the victim
was caused or whether the death was caused by the act which was done with
the intention of causing such bodily injury as the accused knows to be likely
to cause death
(d) Whether it was within the knowledge of the accused that the act by which
death of the victim was caused, was so imminently dangerous that it must, in
all probability, would cause death.
Evidence of prosecution:-
1. The father of the victim was examined as the P.W-1.
2. According to his evidence, in the year 2022 his daughter (the victim)
got chance to continue her PGT in Chest Medicine at RGMCH.
3. On 08.08.2024 the victim left home at 08.10 am to join the hospital
and on that date her OPD duty and night duty was for 36 hours.
4. On that day (08.08.2024) the mother of the victim had received the last
call from the victim at 11.15 pm and she did not pick up the call from her
mother in the morning on 09.08.2024 and on that day (09.08.2024) at around
10.53 am the PW-2 had received a phone call from the Assistant
Superintendent of RG Kar Hospital and he was asked to go to the hospital as
his daughter was not well but no details about her condition was stated to him.
5. It was his evidence that when he was ready to go to RG Kar, he had
called to that number from which he had received the call at 10.53 am and he
was informed that his daughter was taken to emergency department of the said
Hospital but in spite of his repeated request, he was not informed about the
actual condition of his daughter.
6. His evidence ran in the fashion that he was told by the person on the
other side of the phone that she was not a doctor and as such, she was not in a
position to say the condition of his daughter.
7. He deposed that when they had boarded the vehicle and was about to
move towards the RGKMCH, he had received another call from the same
number and he was informed that his daughter might have committed suicide.
8. On his way to the RGKMCH he had received another call from
another number and one male voice had asked him to reach to hospital
immediately and that police personnel already arrived at the hospital and after
reaching to the hospital at around 12.15 pm, they first went to the Emergency
Department and one security guard and two doctors escorted him, his wife and
one assistant to the Chest Medicine Department at 3 rd floor of the hospital and
that there were police personnel in front of Seminar room.
21
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
9. He stated that at that time he understood that his daughter was kept
inside the said Seminar Room and that he and his wife tried to take entry into
the said room but police personnel prohibited them by applying force and
pushed them to the Chest Medicine department and he was asked to take entry
in one room and his wife was asked to enter into another room.
10. It was his version that from the discussion going on there he
understood that his daughter was murdered.
11. From the said evidence it came out that the doctors of the said hospital
started agitation with demand that inquest should be done in presence of the
Magistrate and they also demanded that the entire episode of post mortem
should be videographed and there should be representatives of Junior Doctors.
12. He stated that the said junior doctors gave a written representation to
the Principal of RG Kar Medical College and Hospital and he was one of the
signatories of the said representation and he had proved the said
representation and his signature on it as Exbt. P-2(2).
13. It came out from his evidence that at around 1.30 pm some persons
tried to take himself to the Chamber of the Principal, but he denied to go with
them and he demanded that the Principal should come there
14. It was his evidence that on that day at around 3.30 pm, the
Commissioner of Police (CP), Kolkata Police came out from the Seminar
Room and met them and he took himself and his wife into the said seminar
room.
15. That after taking entry there, he had noticed that the body of his
daughter was lying on the mattress on the dais of the Seminar Room and her
daughter’s body up to the chest was covered with a green colour hospital bed
sheet and her jeans pant and under garments were kept beside her body and
the upper part of the body was more or less open and that he had seen that
blood was coming out from her eyes and lips and that there were blackish
colour bruise mark over her shoulder and chest and he had also noticed
several marks of injuries over her face.
16. It was also his evidence that the hairs of the victim were scattered on
the mattress and that her lap-top was kept open on the mattress and her
mobile was also lying there.
17. He deposed that when they were about to leave the said seminar hall,
he met the MLA Panihati Mr. Nirmal Ghosh and his neighbor Sanjib
Mukherjee at the said Seminar Hall and the CP was talking with someone
over telephone.
18. He stated that the Hon’ble Chief Minister West Bengal had talked with
him over phone of the CP and that the Hon’ble CM assured him that she
22
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
would take proper steps to arrest the person(s) behind it and that she would
meet them.
19. He also deposed that during his presence the Principal, RG Kar
Medical College and Hospital and the Supervisor of his daughter (VP),
namely Dr. Sumit Roy Tapadar did not meet them.
20. As per his evidence, at around 04.00 pm the Magistrate went to the
Seminar Hall to conduct the inquest and his wife had signed in the inquest
report. He had proved the signature of his wife as Exbt.P-3(2) Objection was
raised from the defence for marking the signature of the mother of the victim,
but it was marked as Exhibit by noting the objection.
21. It was his evidence that one of his neighbor Manas Deb was present at
the time of post mortem and that when the post mortem was under progress,
he, along with Sanjib Mukherjee went to Tala PS to lodge complaint at
around 06.00 pm and the said complaint was written by Sanjib Mukherjee
under his instruction and he had proved his signature in the said written
complaint as Exbt. P-1/1(2)].
22. He deposed that after lodging of the complaint he again came back to
RG Kar hospital and noticed that from the morgue the dead body of his
daughter was shifted to the hearse and that after coming out from the main
gate of RG Kar Hospital the said hearse rushed at high speed and they could
not follow it. So they went to Tala PS again to trace out the whereabouts of
the said dead body bearing cart and himself and his wife decided that they
would make a prayer at Tala PS for second PM of the dead body of the victim
but police did not pay any heed to it.
23. That at around 10.00 pm they came back to their residence and at that
time local MLA Nirmal Ghosh and Sanjib Mukherjee took DC North to the
first floor of his premises and the DC, North gave him a packet and stated
that some liquid cash was there for their purpose, but he had refused to accept
the same.
24. It was his evidence that after performing the last rituals, the police
personnel hurriedly took the dead body to crematorium and there, by
breaking the queue the dead body of his daughter was taken for cremation
and Cremation Certificate was issued.
25. During cross examination he stated that there was something fishy for
which the cremation was done hurriedly and that the Hon’ble Chief Minister,
WB visited his residence and stated to him that as his daughter died on duty,
her family members were entitled to get some compensation but at that
moment he had refused to accept any compensation.
23
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
26. He also deposed that the marriage between his daughter and Dr.
Sayantan Chattopadhyay was fixed in the month of November 2025.
27. He also admitted that he heard that the research papers of his daughter
was given to another by the guide of his daughter Dr. Tapadar.
28. The writer of the complaint namely Sanjib Mukherjee, one of the
neighbours of the victim, was examined as the PW-1.
29. According to him, on 09.08.2024 at around 11.30 am he had received
a phone call from the father of the victim (PW-2) and that he was crying and
stated to him that some untoward incident occurred with his daughter at her
place of work and he was requested by him to visit his place immediately.
30. He stated before this court that within 15 minutes he had received
another call from the PW-2 and at that time the PW-2 informed him that his
daughter was murdered due to infliction of torture upon her.
31. As per the evidence of the said PW, he had reached to RG Kar
Hospital at around 01.00 pm and that he was informed that the parents of the
victim and her other relatives were waiting at the chamber of HOD close to
the Seminar Room of the said hospital.
32. According to him, in his presence, the dead body of victim was sent
for Post mortem examination and thereafter at around 6.00/6.30 pm he along
with the father of the victim went to Tala PS to lodge the complaint and that
on request of the father of the victim he wrote down the complaint as per the
instruction of the father of the victim, sitting at Tala PS. He had proved the
said complaint as Ext-P-1(1).
33. According to him, after lodging of the complaint he along with the
father of the victim went back to RG Kar Hospital.
34. He also stated that that the cremation of the dead body of the victim
was done at Panihati Municipal Crematorium and he was present at the time
of the said cremation.
35. He also stated that the cremation of the body of the victim was done
out of turn when other two dead bodies were there for cremation on the
queue.
36. He had named the persons present there at the crematorium in his
examination in chief (Paragraph-15)
37. During cross examination he stated that he had stated to the CBI
authority that when he went to RG Kar Hospital, he had noticed that the
parents of the victim were not allowed to take entry into the Seminar Hall by
the police and that the attitude of the police personnel were not sympathetic
to the family of the victim.
24
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
38. He also stated that he had stated to CBI that the Chief Minister of
West Bengal visited the house of the victim but he did not say that the CM
Madam offered some condolence amount to the father of the victim but he
refused.
39. He admitted during cross examination that he had received a call from
the OC, Ghola PS on 11.08.2024 at 10.11 pm and he was asked by OC, Ghola
PS whether the family of the victim had stated to the Media that police officer
tried to give them bribe to suppress the issue but he did not call the parents of
the victim after getting the call from OC, Ghola PS.
40. His evidence ran in the fashion that subsequently, he got a call from
the father of the victim, and he went to the place of the victim and at that
time, he had received another call from the OC, Ghola PS.
41. Prosecution examined one House Staff of Chest Department of RG
Kar Medical College and Hospital namely Dr. Gulam Azam as the P.W-3.
42. According to his evidence, the victim of this case was known to him
as his senior colleague of RG Kar Medical College and Hospital.
43. His deposition was that on 02.05.2024 he had joined as House staff of
Chest Medicine Department of RG Kar Medical Collage and Hospital after
completion of his internship and that as House Staff he was provided night
duties twice in a week from 09.00 pm to 09.00 am and that generally he used
to do his duty in the ground floor of Emergency Building in the General
Emergency Ward.
44. He stated that on 08.08.2024 he had joined his duty at around 09.10
pm and that it was the convention of Chest department that the seniors
generally provide the dinner and on their call all had to attend the dinner.
45. It was his version that on 08.08.2024 while he was on duty, Dr. Arka
Sen had called him at around 11.10 pm and at that time, he told him that he
was busy with a patient and that he would call him later.
46. From his evidence it came out that Dr. Arka Sen again called him at
11.20 pm and told him that food packet already came and he had asked him to
go to the third floor of Emergency Building (Chest Department) and then on
purchasing of drinking water, he went to the third floor at around 11.40 pm.
47. We came to know from his evidence that usually they take their dinner
at the Sleep Room situated at the third floor and accordingly, he went to the
said Sleep Room but did not find his seniors in the said room and then he
went to the Seminar Room adjacent to the said Sleep Room and noticed that
Dr. Arka Sen, the victim and Dr. Soumitra Roy were there in the said room
and were doing their respective works and then on request of the victim, he
25
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
had called Dr. Subhadip Singha Mahapatra and asked him to come to the said
Seminar Room to take dinner.
48. Then himself, the victim, Dr. Soumitra Roy, Dr. Subhadip Singha
Mahapatra, Dr. Arka Sen took dinner at the said room and were observing the
Olympic events in his mobile at the time of taking dinner and their dinner
was completed at around 12.45 am and they gossiped there upto 01.05am and
he went back to his Ward at around 1.30 am.
49. It was his evidence that on that date Dr. Arka Sen was on duty at the
Emergency Ward as PGT from Chest Department.
50. From his evidence we came to know that during his visit to the patient
he had noticed that the condition of one of the patients deteriorated and
accordingly, he had called Dr. Arka Sen and took advice from him and he was
suggested by Dr. Sen to perform ABG Test (Arterial Blood Gas) and he had
drawn the blood from the patient for the said test at around 02.40 am and
went to R.C.U Room ( Respiratory Care Unit) situated at third floor of Chest
department for the said test as the apparatus of the Emergency Ward was not
working at that time and at 2.50 am he got the Report and went to the
Seminar Room to get Dr. Arka Sen to show him the Report.
51. According to him, the entry gate of the Seminar Room was partially
open and that from the gate he had seen that the victim was sleeping on the
dais of the said Seminar Room on a mattress.
52. As per his evidence, he had called Dr. Arka Sen but no one gave reply
from the said Seminar Room and then he went to the Sleep Room and found
that Dr. Arka Sen was there and he had placed the ABG report to Dr. Sen and
that Dr. Sen advised him to discharge the patient and to ask the patient to
come to OPD and on getting the advice, he went to Emergency Ward at
around 3.00 am and at around 3.20 am he left Emergency Ward and went to
his hostel to take rest.
53. His evidence was that at around 08.55 am, he again went to the
Emergency Ward after having his breakfast at around 09.05 am he left
hospital and went to private Nursing Home.
54. He deposed that while he was working at the Nursing Home, his
colleague Dr. Kriti had called him at around 10.28 am and asked him whether
it was within his knowledge about the commission of suicide of the victim at
the Chest Department of RG Kar Medical Collage and Hospital and on
hearing the same, he had called on duty intern Dr. Anjanashru Abhishek and
he informed him that victim was found dead in the Seminar Room.
55. During his cross examination he stated that the RG Kar Police Out
Post situated at the ground floor of the Emergency Department and it takes
26
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
27
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
66. His deposition was that on 08.08.2024 the victim placed the order
through the food delivery App for the dinner for 5 heads including himself,
the victim, Dr. Golam Azam, Dr. Soumitra Roy and Dr. Subhadip Singha
Mahapatra and within 11.10/11.15 pm, all the orders placed by them, were
delivered.
67. As per his evidence, there was one Seminar Room at the third floor of
Emergency building inside the Chest Department and that they took their
dinner at the said Seminar Room by placing table and chairs on the dais of the
said room.
68. It was his evidence that they have completed the dinner at around
1.00/1.15 am and after washing hands he went to the Sleep Room to visit a
patient and was working there.
69. He deposed that at around 02.00/2.15 am he went to the Seminar
Room to bring his bag and he found that the victim was sleeping on the dais
in the Seminar Room by covering herself with a red colour blanket and that
he came back to the Sleep Room with his bag.
70. It was also his evidence that at around 2.15 am Dr. Golam (PW-3) had
called him seeking advice about a patient in the Emergency ward and he had
advised for ABG test and that at around 3.00 am Dr. Golam met him at the
sleep room and placed the ABG report and he had advised him to discharge
the patient and would ask him to visit the OPD on the next date and after
taking advice Dr. Golam left the Sleep Room.
71. According to him, at around 3.30 am Dr. Soumitra came to the Sleep
Room and he and Dr. Soumitra took rest in the Sleep Room.
72. His evidence ran in the fashion that at around 09.00 am he went to the
nursing station from the Sleep Room to join his regular duty as usual and at
around 09.30 am Dr. Soumitra Roy informed that he tried to call the victim as
the round would start and as she was on duty and he had requested him to call
the victim and that he tried to call the victim but could not connect.
73. His evidence was that then he went to the Seminar Room to call the
victim and that the door of the said Seminar Room was kept ajar and that he
alone entered the said Seminar Room and had seen the victim in naked
position (lower portion) and the upper portion kurti was also moved upwards
and breasts were visible and that he had also noticed some injury marks over
her nose.
74. He stated that then he got panicked and went to the Nursing Station
and met his colleague like Dr. Puja, Dr. Priya, Dr. Venila and he somehow
narrated what he had seen in the Seminar Room.
28
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
75. According to him, then Dr. Priya and Dr. Venila had intimated Dr.
Sumit Roy Tapadar, who was the Visiting Physician (VP) of the unit of the
victim and the victim was the PGT under Dr. Tapadar and that Dr. Sumit Roy
Tapadar went to the Seminar Room and examined the victim and tried to get
the heart bit by using stethoscope.
76. His evidence was also that he was present at the said spot and on
seeing the body it seemed that the victim was no more and that under the
instruction of Dr. Sumit Roy Tapadar, the body was covered with one bed
sheet.
77. He was cross examined in full and during his cross examination he
stated that there was no CCTV in the corridor in between the Sleep Room and
the Seminar Room.
78. It also came out from his evidence that the First year PGT students
usually would prepare their own roster.
79. He deposed during cross examination that on 08.08.2024 the mother
of one Sayan Das was there in the Sleep Room for her sleep study and that at
around 1.00/1.15 am he found that the patient was not asleep and as the Sleep
Study came to an end, he had asked the said Sayan Das to take the patient to
the ward.
80. Prosecution had examined Dr. Pooja Rai as the P.W-5.
81. According to the said doctor, on 09.08.2024 she went to join her duty
at around 09.00 am and that at that time, Dr. Venila, Dr. Priya Giri, Dr. Arko
Sen were present at the Nursing Station situated at 3 rd floor of Emergency
Building of RG Kar Medical College and Hospital.
82. When she was checking the files of patients, Dr. Arko Sen (PW-4)
came to the said Nursing Station in a panicked condition and he had asked to
go to the Seminar Room and stated that something happened with the victim.
83. As per the evidence, then the P.W-5, Dr. Arko Sen, Dr. Priya Giri and
Dr. Venila went to the Seminar Room and after taking entry into the Seminar
Room he had noticed that victim was lying on the mattress on the dais of the
said Seminar Room.
84. She had described the colour of wearing of the victim, which was a
pink colour kurti and that she had noticed that the said kurti was moved
upward by exposing breast part and there was no clothing in her lower
portion and the lower portion was naked.
85. She also stated that she had noticed that the blue colour jeans pant of
the victim was lying beside her body but she did not notice any under
garments and she had also noticed that her shoes were on the dais and her
29
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
books, laptop and mobile were kept in between her head and the wall of the
Seminar Room on the dais.
86. As per her evidence, she had noticed bruise mark over both sides of
face of the victim and that her eyes were partially opened.
87. According to her, Dr. Priya and Dr. Venila went to intimate this matter
to Dr. Sumit Roy Tapadar, Associate Professor of Chest Medicine Department
of RG Kar Medical College and Hospital and at that time, Dr. Tapadar was in
Chamber of HOD and that within a few moment Dr. Tapadar along with Dr.
Priya and Dr. Venila came to the Seminar Room.
88. She deposed that after coming to the spot, Dr. Tapadar had examined
the body of the victim to ascertain the condition of the victim and that he had
examined the eyes of the victim by using the flash light of his mobile and Dr.
Tapadar told them that the pupils were fixed and dilated which implied that
the victim was no more. She specifically stated that at that time she was
present at the said spot during examination of the body by Dr. Tapadar.
89. It was stated by her that to maintain the dignity of the victim, Dr.
Tapadar instructed to cover the body with a bed sheet and one GDA namely
Robi had produced one blue colour bed sheet and the PW-5 had covered the
body of the victim with that blue colour bed sheet.
90. It was also her version that from the Seminar Room Dr. Tapadar had
called someone over phone but she could not say exactly with whom he had
talked/communicated.
91. During his cross examination she deposed that Dr. Priya Giri was also
a first year PGT.
92. It was also her version that there was a lift in the close proximity of
the nursing station and that after coming out from the said lift, one has to take
right turn to reach to the corridor and at the right side of the said corridor the
Seminar Room was situated and that at the end of the said corridor, the MDR
TB ward is situated and that from the MDR TB ward one can take entry into
the Seminar Room through the corridor.
93. She admitted that the victim was her room-mate while she spent her
days at hostel as PGT.
94. She stated during her cross examination that one day prior to this
incident, while she was taking rest at the said Seminar Room at night, one
person in intoxicated condition entered there and she raised voice and that she
had brought it to the notice of the her HOD but no action was taken.
95. Prosecution had examined Dr. Sumit Roy Tapadar as the P.W-6.
According to him, the victim was known to him as she was a second year
PGT under him.
30
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
96. He had explained his usual duty hours as 09.00 am to 04.00 pm from
Monday to Friday and on Saturday it was 09.00 am to 02.00 pm and Sunday
was holiday.
97. According to him, the PGT students generally engaged for two shifts
of 12 hours each and that it was the prevailing practice that the PGT students
of every year would have to prepare their roster sitting between themselves
and the same was placed to the HOD for approval.
98. According to him, on 08.08.2024 he had joined his duty at around
09.00 am and had conducted the OPD and the victim was also with him in the
OPD and that on 08.08.2024 the victim, Dr. Soumitra Roy and Dr. Arko Sen
were on night duty.
99. He introduced Dr. Golam was the house staff and Dr. Suvadip Singha
Mahapatra as the intern.
100. It was his evidence that on 09.08.2024 he had joined within 09.30 am
and went to the chamber of HOD to sign in the attendance register and took
some rest there before going to the ward and was alone at the said chamber of
HOD.
101. He stated that at that time, two first year PGT namely Dr. Priya Giri
and Dr. Venila came to the chamber of HOD and they were sorbing and were
very much disturbed and that they could not complete any word but told him
the name of the victim and asked him to go to the Seminar Room
immediately and then he had rushed to the Seminar Room with Dr. Priya Giri
and Dr. Venila.
102. According to him, immediately after taking entry to the Seminar
Room he had noticed that at the furthest end of the Seminar Room, where the
dais was placed, the victim was lying on a mattress on the said dais in a very
unnatural way and that he had noticed that the two lower limbs of the victim
were wide open and she was in half naked condition. As per his evidence, the
lower limbs and the abdomen were completely exposed, the kurti of the
victim were moved upwards and breasts were exposed, the head of the victim
was leaning towards right side and that there was no body movement or
respiratory movement of the victim.
103. According to him, it seemed to him that the victim already expired
and that in order to confirm about the condition of the victim, he went to the
dais and checked the left eye of the victim by using the flash light of his
mobile and had noticed that the pupil was dilated and fixed and that he had
also noticed several injury marks over the nose and mouth area of the victim.
31
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
104. As per his version, at that time, he was confirmed that the victim was
no more and that on seeing the condition of the victim, he was of the self-
opinion that the said victim was subjected to sexual assault and murder.
105. He deposed that to keep the dignity of the body he had asked the Ward
Sister to cover the body with a bed sheet and that the Ward Boy brought one
bed sheet and under his instruction, Dr. Pooja had covered the dead body with
the said bed sheet.
106. He also deposed that he had instructed the Sister to intimate the RG
Kar Medical College and Hospital Police Out Post as he thought the said area
should be cordoned by police immediately and that he had instructed the
PGTs not to take entry in the said room.
107. According to him, then he had called the HOD, who was the
Administrative Head of the department and that he was instructed by the said
HOD (Dr. Arunava Dutta Chowdhury) to intimate the matter to the MSVP
(Dr. Sanjoy Basisth) and the Principal (Dr. Sandip Ghosh).
108. According to his evidence, he had called the MSVP but somehow the
MSVP could not receive his call at that moment and that then he had called
the Deputy Superintendent (Non-Medical) Mr. Surajit Sen and he had
received his call and informed him that as he was not on duty at that time, the
Assistant Superintendent (Non-medical) Ms. Sucharita would come to him.
109. He also deposed that he had tried to contact with the Principal,
RGKMCH but somehow he also could not receive the call and then he sent
one SMS to the Principal from his mobile asking him to call immediately for
an urgent matter and within 5 minutes the Principal had called him and he had
informed the Principal about the incident.
110. According to the evidence, the Principal had instructed him to send
the body to morgue immediately to prevent any sort of problem in the
hospital and that he told the Principal that the body could not be sent to
morgue without any investigation by police as the matter was already
intimated to police and he also told him that as the Principal had directed him
(PW-6) to inform the Assistant Superintendent (Non-Medical), he would
communicate her.
111. As per his evidence, subsequently the HOD came to the department
and went to the Seminar room and came back to his chamber with the
Assistant Superintendent (Non Medical), Sucharita Madam and as Police
already cordoned the place the PW-6 also left the said place and went to the
chamber of HOD.
112. According to him, the police personnel asked for the identity proof of
the victim and at that time, it came to his mind that Declaration Form of
32
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
every PGT are sent to NMC (National Medial Council) and obviously, the
copy of the Aadhar Card of the victim might be there in the bunch and
accordingly, under his instruction Dr. Debabani Biswas brought out the
Declaration Form of the victim from the bunch and copy of the Aadhar Card
of the victim was scanned and handed over to police immediately and then
they have decided to inform the family members of the victim and from Dr.
Alapan who was also a second year PGT, they got the phone number of the
parents of the victim and the Assistant Superintendent (Non Medical)
Sucharita Madam had called the family members of the victim from the
official mobile in presence of the PW-6 and informed the family members
that the condition of the victim was serious and that she had asked them to
come to RG Kar Medical College and Hospital immediately.
113. From his evidence it also came out that the father of the victim
immediately called back to the said official number as he was anxious to
know the condition of his daughter and at that time, Assistant Superintendent
(Non Medical) replied him that probably the victim committed suicide.
114. According to him, he and the others present there, had asked Sucharita
Madam why she had used the term suicide during conversation with the
father of the victim and they have protested it.
115. He deposed that, as the other PGTs were not in the mental state to
continue their OPD, Dr. Debaban went to do their work in the OPD and the
PW-6 alongwith other doctors went to meet the indoor patients.
116. According to him, during his round in the indoor ward, he had noticed
that the Principal had already arrived and he was talking with the PGTs
standing on the corridor in front of Chest Department.
117. From his evidence it also came out that the Principal had called an
urgent meeting over the issue and after completion of his round in the indoor
ward he went to attend the meeting at the Platinum Jubilee Building with two
other doctors of Chest Department namely Dr. Silajit Sarkar and Dr. Debasish
Karmakar and that after arriving there they have noticed that the said meeting
room was closed. So, after waiting there for a while they were about to come
back to their department.
118. It was his evidence that as there was assembly of so many persons,
they have decided to wait at the room of EMO at the ground floor of the
Emergency Building and was there for around an hour and during that time
he got a call from Dr. Soumya and he told him that the Principal had
constituted one Investigation Committee and that the PW-6 was asked to
present in the meeting in the said Committee at the chamber of HOD and
33
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
accordingly, he along with Dr. Silajit and Dr. Debasish went to their
department by using the staircase.
119. According to the evidence of the said witness, the said Investigation
Committee was constituted by the Principal with around 7 Faculty Members
of different departments of RG Kar Medical College and Hospital except any
faculty of Chest Department and the PW-6 alongwith the others were called
one by one to make their statements to the said Committee.
120. He also deposed that as directed by the Principal, they did not leave
the hospital till 11.00 pm.
121. During his Cross-Examination he stated that he made his statement to
the CBI and he told the CBI that he had no idea regarding the whereabouts of
the victim from 04.00 pm to 08.00 pm on 08.08.2024 and that the members of
forensic team, police authority were there in the chamber of HOD.
122. He also admitted that he did not take any effort to lodge any
complaint.
123. He also stated that he had intimated the CBI team that the victim had
suffered a minor accident while returning home from the hospital on any day
prior to the date of incident and that she had sustained injuries on her tongue
lips and abrasion on her hands and leg and he voluntarily stated that the said
accident took place a few months ago from the date of incident.
124. Prosecution had examined Dr. Pali Samaddar as the P.W-7, who was
the EMO on 09.08.2024 in the morning shift.
125. According to her, on that day (09.08.2024) at around 10.00 am the
HOD of Chest Department (Dr. Arunava Dutta Chowdhury) came to
Emergency as the Biometric Device to note the entry and exit, was kept close
to her place of seat.
126. It was her specific version that she did not know the HOD and the said
HOD told her that he came to know over telephone from Dr. Sumit Roy
Tapadar that there was an incident of death of one Second Year PGT at the
Seminar Room of Chest Department and he wanted to know from her the
next procedure to be followed in such type of matter.
127. She had deposed that she told him that she was not in a position to
opine without examining the dead body and as such the HOD had requested
her to go to the Seminar Room and she went there after doing her some
urgent works.
128. She stated that after reaching there, she had noticed that one officer of
RG Kar Police Out Post was present there, the door of the Seminar Room was
closed and the HOD, Chest Department was also there.
34
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
129. Her evidence was also that under the instruction of the HOD, the
police officer opened the door, and she took entry into the Seminar Room
with the said police officer and the Group D staff who had accompanied her
namely Dilip Kamti.
130. As per her evidence, the body was covered with bed sheet and the
body was lying on a mattress on the dais of the said Seminar Room.
131. She deposed that without touching the body she became sure from her
experience that the said victim was no more.
132. Her deposition before this court ran in the fashion that she then went
to the chamber of HOD situated opposite to the Seminar Room and informed
the HOD that she required three items – 1. emergency ticket with registration,
2. ID proof of the victim, 3. brought by someone to the emergency
department and left the chamber of HOD and went to the Emergency
Department.
133. It was her evidence that at around 12.45 pm she had received a phone
call from a person and she was asked to meet the HOD, Chest department and
accordingly she went to meet the HOD and the HOD had instructed her to
issue the Death Certificate and she had asked the HOD to provide her the
Emergency Ticket and the same was produced to her by one police officer
alongwith the scanned copy of Aadhar card of the victim.
134. According to her, she had instructed the police officer to bring the
body to the emergency department but due to ongoing agitation, the police
officer told her that it was not possible to remove the dead body from the
place and to take it to the Emergency Department.
135. It was her evidence that then under the instruction of the MSVP Dr.
Sanjoy Basisth, she had examined the body in the Seminar Room and
prepared the Death Report and Injury Certificate in the prescribed format of
the hospital sitting at the Emergency Department and she had proved the
same as Ext-P6(7) & P7(7).
136. According to her, SI S.K.Jha of Tala PS also signed in the said
document and the entire procedure was completed by 01.47 pm.
137. She also deposed that as per the process, the said Certificate of Death
was placed to the Morgue Office, which was an administrative office and at
04.00 pm, she went the Morgue Office and pen through the PS of the
residence of the victim. She stated that previously the PS was written as
Panihati but it would be Ghola and accordingly, she had rectified the same by
putting initial.
138. During her cross examination she stated that there was no crowd
during her first time visit but when she had visited the said room for the
35
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
second time, there were huge number of persons there including the police
personnel and that her first visit was at around 10.00 am and the second visit
was after 12.45 pm.
139. She admitted that in the injury certificate she did not mention any
injury over the body of the victim and the same was clarified by her by
making the following voluntary statement “(Voluntarily says):- This is our
usual practice that when from the medicine side we send any body for post
mortem, we do not mention any injuries over the body of the subject”.
140. She admitted that she did not mention this usual practice to the CBI
authority.
141. She also stated that it was not written in the certificate of death or the
injury certificate that she had examined the dead body. She also gave an
explanation by saying “(Voluntarily says):- As without examination of any
body we did not issue the certificate of death, the question of writing of the
line that I have examined the dead body do not require”.
142. Prosecution had examined the doctor, who had examined the accused
at SSKM Hospital, Kolkata on 10.08.2024 namely Dr. Biswanath Soren as
the P.W-8.
143. According to him, on 10.08.2024, he had received a requisition from
Rupali Mukherjee of DD, Kolkata Police for medico legal examination of one
person namely Sanjay Roy in connection with the Tala PS/DD case No. 52
dated 09.08.2024.
144. As per his evidence, the said person was identified to him by Sofia
Mollick, OC, WG Cell and that the said person Sanjay Roy gave his consent
for such medical examination in his own handwriting in the format of said
report and the same was proved as Ext-P8(8).
145. The said doctor had described the injuries noticed by him over the
body of the said person namely Sanjay Roy (the accused of this case) and the
same were properly noted in paragraph no. 11 to 13 of the examination in
chief and as such I do not mention it in details here.
146. On examination of the said injuries, the said PW gave the opinion that
the injuries mentioned as one brownish, red, scabbed abrasion over the left
malar prominence (0.2 inch X 0.2 inch), one brownish, red scabbed abrasion
(0.2 inch X 0.2 inch) over left side of chin- 0.2 inch below vermilion line of
lower lip and 0.5 inch left to the midline of chin, brownish, red scabbed
abrasion over dorsal aspect of left hand at the web space in between the root
of ring and little finger (0.6 inch X 0.3 inch) could be produced due to friction
with rough surface and that the injuries like brownish, red, scabbed, linear
abrasion (0.5 inch) placed transversely over left side of chin- 0.4 inch below
36
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
vermilion line of left lower lip and one inch led to midline of chin and
brownish, red, scabbed, linear abrasion (1 inch) placed above downwards
over back of left thigh 9 inch above left knee crease and 2.5 inch left to
midline of thigh could be caused due to friction with pointed tip of pin like
object or with nails of finger or toe and that all the said injuries occurred at
any time between 24 hours and 48 hours prior to the time of examination.
147. As per the evidence, the time of examination of the said person was
12.00 pm on 10.08.2024.
148. As per the evidence, the nail cuttings and scrapping were preserved
for detection of any foreign body and the same were handed over to police
along with urethral swab and smears which were preserved as per procedure
and the concerned document was marked as Ext-P9(8).
149. It was also the version that the entire medico legal examination was
done under videograpy arranged by the concerned police department.
150. The said video was played in the court and the witness identified the
accused in the court room.
151. During cross examination he stated that in the report it was not written
that the accused was informed that the report of the said medico legal
examination might go against him.
152. It was his evidence during cross examination that prior to examination
of Sanjay Roy another report regarding his examination by the Emergency
Medical Officer SSKM was shown to him and he had stated it to the CBI
authority.
153. Prosecution had examined the photographer of Detective Department
Scientific wing, Kolkata Police, who had recorded the video of the medico
legal examination of the accused. (Jaydeb Rajbanshi P.W-9)
154. According to him, on 10.08.2024 he had conducted videography of
the medical examination of a person at SSKM Hospital and that one
Rathindranath Das was with him to take the still photographs.
155. He had mentioned the details of the camera used for this purpose and
the place of storages of the said still and video.
156. He had proved the Certificate U/S 63 BSA alongwith the Hash Value
certificate and the SD card where the said still and videos were stored and the
seizure memo under which the same was seized by the CBI [Ext-P10(9) to
P14(9) & Mat Ext-I(P-9)]
157. During his cross examination he stated that the date and time of any
digital camera can be changed manually prior to taking of photographs but
not after the same.
158. He also admitted that his statement was not recorded by the CBI.
37
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
38
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
39
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
185. She deposed that, at around 11.00/11.10 am Dr. Apurba Biswas, Dr.
Sankhadeep Mahanta, Dr. Rajorshi Dutta, Dr. Rishav Mukhopadhyay and
herself visited the said Seminar Room. She stated that Dr. Biswas entered into
the Seminar Room first and they were waiting outside and that they were
allowed to take entry after 10 minutes waiting.
186. She also deposed that she had also noted that the Principal, RGKMCH
Dr. Sandip Ghosh and some police personnel from Tala PS were also there in
the said room and the FSL team, from State Forensic came to the said place
and started to take photograph and evidence.
187. The said doctor stated that the body was covered with a bed sheet and
one of the lady police personnel was asked by police officer to remove the
bed sheet so that FSL team could do their work properly and that after
removing of the bed sheet she had noticed that the body of the victim was in
half naked condition, the left leg of the victim was lying outside the mattress,
her left hand was on the top of her head and the right hand was kept beside
the body in straight condition.
188. She also stated that the jeans pant and lower undergarment of the
victim was lying at the left side of her body beside the mattress and that at the
right side close to her head, her laptop, mobile phone, water bottle,
radiological view box were there.
189. From the evidence we came to know that the upper garment of the
victim was a pink colour kurti which was rolled upto her neck and that the
victim was wearing white colour upper undergarment, which was intact but
her left breast was visible and came outside the undergarment.
190. It was her deposition that the shoes and laptop bag of the victim were
kept beside her body but at two different places.
191. She stated that at around 3.30 pm she again went to the said Seminar
Room as all the PGTs assembled in front of the said Seminar Room and at
that time, she had noticed that the then Principal, RGKMCH Dr. Sandip
Ghosh, the MSVP, Dr. Sanjoy Bashist, the parents of the victim, police
personnel were there at the said place.
192. She also deposed that on request of the PGTs she alongwith Dr.
Diyasini Roy remained present at the time of inquest being the PGTs from
FMT department.
193. She deposed in the fashion that at that time of holding of inquest, she
got the scope to come closure to the dead body and on closure look she had
noticed multiple scratch abrasion over the face and neck of the victim and
that there was one bite mark on the right side below her chin alongwith some
superficial injuries over her stomach/belly.
40
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
194. The said witness also noticed the signs of bleeding from both the eyes
of the victim and also bleeding from her mouth as she used metal braces over
her teeth. She had also noticed an injury over the ring finger of her right hand
and one injury over her right ankle.
195. She deposed that she had noticed that one glass of spectacles of the
victim was lying behind her back on the mattress and the rest part of the
spectacles was at the right side of her leg.
196. She narrated that both the legs of the victim were wide apart and one
hair clip (clutch) was found on the mattress between the legs.
197. She had also noticed that there was trail of blood from vagina and the
mattress was soaked with blood and some other fluid.
198. She had noticed that there was a bunch of long hairs between her legs.
199. From her evidence we came to know that at the time of said inquest,
she, Dr. Diyasini Roy, the videographer, were close to the body of the victim
and mother of the victim was sitting at some distance from the body.
200. She had proved her signature and the signature of Dr. Diyasini Roy as
Ext-P3/2 (12).52.
201. According to her, after the Inquest, the body was taken for PM but that
she was not present at the time of the said PM.
202. She deposed in the manner that at around 07.30/08.00 pm she had
received a call from one lady police officer of Tala PS and she was requested
to be a witness of seizure as she was present at the time of holding of inquest
by the Magistrate and that in her presence some articles were seized. She had
proved her signatures on the labels of the seized articles and also identified
the said articles. As the details are there in the deposition, I am not
mentioning the same here again.
203. The next witness from the prosecution was Mr. Sourodip Lahiri, who
was examined as the P.W-13. He was the Architect of CPWD and that on
14.08.2024 he had visited the RG Kar Hospital with the CBI team under the
direction of Chief Architect, CPWD, Kolktata, alongwith three officials from
the CPWD.
204. As shown by Dr. Sumit Roy Tapadar, they took the measurement of
the entire room along with its adjoining area, wherefrom the dead body was
found and snaps were taken and sketch map was prepared. According to him,
a joint Inspection Report was also prepared and the same was proved as ExtP-
43(13) collectively.
205. During cross examination he deposed that it was not possible for him
to say whether anyone can take entry into the Seminar Hall without crossing
41
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
the Nursing Station situated at the third floor, which was shown in yellow
colour in the sketch map.
206. Biren Roy Chowdhury was the next witness from the prosecution side
(P.W-14). According to him, on 09.08.2024, under verbal direction of
Additional OC, Scientific Wing, he went to RG Kar Medical College and
Hospital, Police Out Post and met SI SK. Jha and OC, Tala PS and that he
was taken to the third floor of Emergency Building into the Seminar Hall and
that there he took 40 snaps of the said Seminar room and its adjoining
corridor and the body of the victim by using Nikon-D 3500 Digital camera
with one 8 GB micro SD card of company namely Master.
207. As per his evidence, after coming back to office he had kept the
camera and the SD card in safe custody and took the print outs in the official
laboratory.
208. His deposition ran in the fashion that on 11.08.2024 he again went to
the said hospital under the verbal direction of additional OC, Scientific Wing
and met Inspector Rupali Mukherjee, Addl, OC, WG Cell and under her
instruction, he took 135 snaps of the third floor, ground floor and outside of
the Emergency Building and handed over the print outs to Inspector Rupali
Mukerjee without any seizure Memo and subsequently the same were handed
over to the CBI authority under proper seizure memo. He had proved the said
photographs and the Micro SD cards.
209. During his cross examination he stated that he did not sign in any
register about his movements dated 09.08.2024 and 11.08.2024 and that he
did not make any GDE at RG Kar police Out Post.
210. He had identified two Nursing Stations situated at the third floor. He
also deposed that he did not issue any certificate U/s 63 BSA.
211. Prosecution had produced Dr. Pauline Ara Parven as the P.W-15. This
witness collected the blood of the accused on 17.08.2024 while he was in the
custody of CBI, for the DNA analysis.
212. According to the evidence of the said witness, before collection of
blood, she had informed Sanjoy Roy the purpose of collection of blood and
he gave his consent.
213. She had filled up two Blood Sample Authentication Forms in original
and procured the signature and left and right thump impression of the accused
Sanjoy Roy and the said form was duly signed by Medical Technologists Mr.
Kuntal Banerjee and one CBI official as witness. The said Form was proved
as Ext-P 51(15). She also proved the vials in which the blood samples were
taken as [Mat. Exbt. XXV(P15)].
42
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
214. During cross examination she had placed the requisition received from
the CBI for this purpose and the same was marked as Exbt. D-2(15).
215. Dr. O Gambhir Singh was the next witness from the prosecution tent
and he was examined as P.W-16. This witness was the Professor and Head of
department of FMT, AIMS, Kalyani, WB on 18.08.2024 and on that date by
forming a Board with Dr. Arijit Dey and Dr. Venkatesh J and the said Board
had perused the videograph of the Inquest and the Post Mortem conducted
over the dead body of the victim and they have also perused the hard copy of
the Inquest Report and the Post Mortem Report.
216. He had identified the Mat Exbt. II(P-11) as the video clip of the
inquest of the dead body and opined that the video clippings and the Inquest
Report were consistent with each other.
217. He had identified the Mat Exbt. II(P-11) as the video clip of the post
mortem of the dead body and opined that the video clippings and the Post
Mortem Report were consistent with each other.
218. He had proved the report of the Board as Ext-P 53(16).
219. During cross examination he stated that the date and time stamps were
not visible over the Mat Exbt. II(P-11)
220. Dr. Soma Roy Assistant Director and Scientist-C (Biology), CFSL,
Kolkata was examined as the P.W-17.
221. According to her evidence, on 13.08.2024 the CFSL Kolkata had
received some papers from DCP, Kolkata police bearing Memo No. 47 /WG
Cell/DD. And subsequently on 16.08.2024 & 17.08.2024 the said office had
received Memos from CBI bearing Memo No. 2456/RC0482024S0010 dated
16.08.2024, 05/ RC0482024S0010 dated 17.08.2024 and 12/
RC0482024S0010 dated 17.08.2024.
222. As per her evidence, since 13.08.2024 to 17.08.2024 the CFSL
Kolkata had received several samples for DNA examination and she was
entrusted the job of the said DNA analysis and that she had started the
examination on 14.08.2024 and it continued till 20.08.2024 and that on
21.08.2024 she had prepared the report which was marked as Ext-P-55(17) &
P-56(17).
223. As per her evidence, the description of the articles, which were in total
37 items, examined by her and the description of the same were noted in a
table.
224. According to her version, the procedure and method adopted for the
examination of the said exhibits were noted in Para no. 1 and 2 under the
heading “Results of Examination” at page 5 of the report, the results of DNA
examination in tabular form were noted in page No. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 of the
43
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
said report, her observation were noted under 7 points demarcated as (a) to
(g) in page no. 11 and 12 of the report and her final conclusion was also
noted in 9 points demarcated as (a) to (i) in page no. 12 and 13.
225. She had mentioned during her evidence that in conclusion part it was
noted under point no. (a) in which articles blood could not be detected and in
point no. (b) she had noted the articles in which semen could not be detected
and in point no. (c) it was noted on which articles she found presence of
human blood.
226. From her evidence as well as the said report it appears that the said
witness found human blood over jeans pant (E-1), panty(E-2), blanket(G),
bed sheet(I), cloth piece (J), synthetic cotton (L), nail cuttings and scrapings
(M), pubic hair combing (O), blood sample (P), lip swab (S), endocervical
swab (T), vaginal swab (U-1), brassiere (W-1), inner (W-2), kurti (W-3) and
the same were from the victim and the description of the said articles were
noted in the letter of the DCP, Kolkata Police, dated 13.08.2024.
227. It was also her evidence that in the said list under heading E one blue
colour jeans pant and one brown colour panty was sent to CFSL and for their
convenience they have marked the jeans pant as E-1 and panty as E-2.
228. She also deposed that in the said list under heading F some hair
samples were sent to CFSL and it contained long hair and short hair and for
their convenience they have remarked the long hair as F-1 and short hair as F-
2.
229. It was her evidence that in the said list under heading W one sealed
packet was sent to CFSL by Kolkata police containing wearing apparel and
on opening of the said packet, three items were found therein, which were
one white brassiere, one white inner and one mauve colour embroidery kurti
and for their convenience they have demarcated as W-1, W-2 and W-3
respectively.
230. It was also deposed by the said witness the packet marked as X & Z
were opened at the CFSL and on opening of the same, one blue jeans pant
having some reddish-brown stains and one pair of black and orange Kito
slipper having some reddish brown stains were found.
231. It was her opinion that on examination human blood was found over
E-1, E-2, G, I, J, L, N, O, P, S, T, U-1, W-1, W-2, W-3 and the same matched
with the DNA of blood sample of the victim. She also deposed that during
examination she also found human blood over the articles marked as X and Z
and the said blood samples also matched with the DNA profile of blood of the
victim and the source of blood of the victim was the postmortem blood
sample as was sent to CFSL.
44
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
232. It was her opinion and observation that saliva was detected in the
nipple swab of victim (which was sent to CFSL as Exbt. R) and DNA profile
of the saliva found in the said nipple swab of the victim matched with the
DNA profile of Sanjay Roy as found in the blood sample of Sanjay Roy,
which was sent to CFSL as Exbt. B-7.
233. She also observed that on examination of short-hairs (Exbt-F-2) was
the short hair and the DNA of the said short hair matched with the DNA
profile of Sanjay Roy.
234. It was her observation that no foreign materials could be detected on
the nail scrapings of the accused.
235. She had identified all the articles examined by her and her signatures
over the labels of the said articles (the details were mentioned in the Form,
which is the part of this judgement).
236. During her cross-examination she stated that no quality control
certificate was annexed with her report and that from the report the validity of
anti-virus protection of the system could not be ascertained.
237. She denied the fact that the examination was not done following the
norms and she also denied that there was any possibility of getting any wrong
result in their system.
238. The private security personnel, who was on duty at R.G.Kar Hospital
on that day namely Sanoj Kamti, was examined as the P.W-18. According to
him, on 09.08.2024 he was on duty as Security Guard at Main Gate of Chest
Department of RG Kar Hospital and that his duty hours was from 7.00 am to
1.00 pm.
239. He deposed that on that date while he was working in the Ward of the
Chest Department, one senior doctor had asked him to go to the RG Kar
Police Out Post and to call one police official therefrom and he acted
accordingly. He could not say why he was asked to call police personnel by
the senior doctor but subsequently, he came to know that one lady doctor
expired in the Seminar Room of the Chest Department.
240. Prosecution had placed SI of Police Bikash Chandra Majee as the
P.W-19.
241. According to him, on 11.08.2024 as per the verbal order of Additional
OC, Scientific Wing, DD, Lalbazar he went to R.G.Kar Police Out Post and
met Inspector Rupali Mukherjee in connection with Tala PS case no. 52 of
2024 dated 09.08.2024 and he was taken to the third floor in front of Seminar
Room of the Emergency Building by Rupali Mukherjee and SI Prithiraj
Mukherjee.
45
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
242. As per his evidence, the said Seminar Room was sealed and locked
and police officials of Tala PS were present in front of the said room and they
have opened the room and he along with Inspector Rupali Mukherjee and SI
Prithiraj Mukherjee took entry into the said Seminar Room.
243. As per his version, he had noticed that one wooden dais was there at
the South West corner of the said Seminar Room and that there was one
mattress (Godi) on the said dais and the place where the said mattress was
there, was identified to him as the place of occurrence.
244. He deposed that he was asked to prepare the sketch map of the said
PO and its surrounding, i.e the entire third floor, ground floor, 2 nd floor and
fourth floor of the said Emergency Building and he had prepared the same
and prepared the Final Sketch map in his office computer.
245. The said rough and final sketch maps were proved by him as Ext-P-96
(19) & Ext-P-97 (19) respectively.
246. We came to know from his evidence that on 16.08.2024 the IO of CBI
had seized the four Final Sketch maps from him by preparing one seizure list
and he had proved his signature as Ext-P98(19).
247. He deposed that to go to all floors the general public can use the lift
numbers 2-6 situated at the Western side of the Emergency building and the
other lifts like lift nos 7,8,9,10 are used exclusively by the hospital staff,
doctors etc and that opposite to the lift no. 2-6 there is existence of ramp.
248. We came to know from his evidence that lift nos. 2-6 opens to a
corridor and after coming from the said lifts if anyone takes right turn, they
will go to another corridor extended from North to South and after crossing
two glass doors the person has to take a right turn and by crossing two glass
doors one can take entry into the department of Pulmonary Medicine and then
by taking another right turn there are two glass doors and through the said 2 nd
glass door the Nursing Station of pulmonary medicine can be reached.
249. He also deposed that after crossing the said Nursing Station, one can
reach to the lift no. 9 and 10 and from the said lift one has to take left turn
and then a right turn and then there is a collapsible gate and after crossing the
collapsible gate there is one of the doors of the said Seminar Room at the
North East Corner of the said Seminar Room and the said door is always kept
open and it is the only entry and exit point of the said Seminar Room. (This
route direction as stated by the witness from lift nos. 2-6 to the Seminar Room
was marked during evidence by using green ink for identification)
250. It was his evidence that there was only one CCTV in the entire area
which is marked by using green ink and the same was installed at the outer
wall of the Female Ward and Procedure Room.
46
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
251. During his cross examination he stated that there were five doors at
the Eastern side of the said Seminar Room and three doors at the Western side
and that there was one Sleep Laboratory at the North East corner of the
Eastern side corridor and at the Southern side of the Sleep Room there was
Resident Doctors’ room and there was Teachers’ Corner at the south and that
the said Teachers’ Corner could be accessed through the Sleep Room by
crossing the glass door.
252. It was also his version that at the Eastern side of the Teachers’ Corner
there were rooms of teachers, faculty members etc.
253. He deposed that by coming out from lift no 7 and 8 the TB Center
Nursing Station can be accessed by taking left and from the said Nursing
Station the Eastern side corridor of the Seminar Room can be accessed.
254. He also deposed that the staff members of hospital can use the
staircase situated at the Eastern side of the Nursing Station of TB Centre.
255. We came to know that the corridor at the Eastern side of Seminar
Room could be accessed by taking right turn from the said staircase but the
said staircase was for exclusive use of the staff members.
256. The said witness also added that there was one corridor at the Western
side of the Seminar Room and that by taking right turn from lift no. 7 and 8
the corridor at the Western side of the Seminar Room could be accessed by
crossing the Dialysis unit.
257. He also deposed during his cross examination that there was a Male
Ward of Pulmonary Medicine at the North-East Corner of third floor and the
said Male Ward could be accessed by taking the route already shown from lift
no. 2-6 without crossing or without touching the Nursing Station and the
same was only for the outsiders.
258. According to him, as per the sketch map, the distance between lift no.
2-6 to the department of Pulmonary Medicine (Male Ward) was 54 meter.
259. He deposed that he had mentioned existence of three curtains at the
left side of the entry gate of the Seminar Room and he denied the existence of
any removable curtain in front of the dais of the said Seminar Room.
260. He also mentioned that the said dais in the Seminar Room was at a
distance of 20 meters from the opening door.
261. Prosecution side’s next witness was Constable Chandan Bhowmik
(P.W-20) who was posted at 4th Battalion, Kolkata Police.
262. From his evidence it came out that the accused Sanjay Roy used to
stay at the barrack of 4th battalion at Salt lake and that he was a Civic
Volunteer.
47
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
263. It was his evidence that the said barrack was for the armed Kolkata
police.
264. He stated that on 05.08.2024 he went on duty at Salua, Paschim
Medinipur and Sanjay Roy was in the team and they came back on
07.08.2024.
265. As per his evidence, ASI Anup Dutta was the superior of the battalion
and on that date at around 10.30 pm the said ASI had instructed him to leave
Sanjay Roy to ASI Samar Babu at R.G. Kar Police Out Post and he had
complied the same and dropped the accused Sanjay Roy there in his bike.
266. During cross examination he stated that it took about 20/25 minutes to
reach to RG Kar Hospital in bike from the battalion if there was no traffic
congestion.
267. The Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Apurba Biswas was examined by the
prosecution as P.W-21.
268. According to him, on 09.08.2024, he had conducted post mortem over
the dead body of victim, which was identified by N. Jadab, ASI of Tala PS in
connection with Tala PS UD case No. 861 dated 09.08.2024, Tala PS inquest
No. 1139 of 2024.
269. As per his evidence, a team was constituted consisting of himself, Dr.
Rina Das and Dr. Moly Banerjee and that he and Dr. Rina Das were
appointed by the MSVP R.G.Kar Medical College & Hospital and Dr. Moly
Banerjee was appointed by the Director of Medical Education, WB as she
was posted at NRS Medical College and Hospital as Assistant Professor.
270. He stated that the dead body was arrived at the morgue at 05.10 pm
and as the said time crossed the specific time mentioned in the SOP and the
Memorandum of Government of West Bengal vide No. HF/SPSRC/160/2015
dated 03.01.2020, one of the team members, Dr. Rina Das had asked for
specific police order and accordingly, the same was forwarded to Tala PS for
necessary order and they have received the order from Tala PS and the said
order was proved as Ext-P-102(21).
271. According to him, as per the Memorandum of Government of India
dated 15.11.2021 any Post Mortem conducting after sunset must be
videographed to rule out any suspicion and same would be preserved for
future reference and the said circular was forwarded by the Govt. West
Bengal vide Memo No. M/285(4) dated 23.12.2021 and the same was the last
circular in this regard.
272. The said witness proved the representation duly signed by the father
of the victim, neighbours of the victim namely Sanjib Mukherjee and Manas
Kumar Deb and the Resident doctors and that the same was forwarded to DC
48
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
(north) by the Principal, RG Kar Medical College and Hospital and the same
was handed over to police by the PW-21 after conducting the post-mortem.
He had proved his signatures in the said memorandum.
273. According to him, Manas Kumar Deb attended on behalf of the father
of the victim during the post mortem and that the junior doctors namely Dr.
Titas Paul, Dr. Nirmita Saha, Dr. Riya Bera, Dr. Rama Bera, Dr. Moutrisha
Ghorai were also present at the time of post morterm.
274. The witness added that the said procedure of post mortem was
videographed by Shekhar Roy and that it was conducted from 06.10 pm to
07.10 pm.
275. As per his evidence, the victim was brought dead to RG Kar Medical
College and Hospital at 12.44 pm.
276. He deposed that Rigor Mortis was present all over the body, the
eyelids were closed, conjunctiva was congested and stuffy and that there was
bilateral sub-conjunctival hemorrhage. The corneas were hazy, pupils dilated
and fixed bilaterally. The fingertips, nail beds were cyanosed.
277. He stated that the wearing apparel of the victim was one pink colour
kurti, one white colour slip, one white collour brassiere, which was displaced
sideways exposing both breasts and the lower garments were missing.
278. He had noticed that blood tinged, moist secretion was coming out
from introitus and that metal dental brace was present inside mouth of the
victim over the teeth.
279. According to him, on external examination of the body of the victim,
the team found multiple crescentic abrasions of 0.3 inch X 0.1 inch to 0.2
inch X 0.1 inch over both chicks, one abrasion of 1 inch x 0.4 inch was found
over mid-part of lower lip with underlining bruise, multiple abrasion of 0.2
inch x 0.2 inch were found over inner side of upper and lower lips, one
abrasion of 0.3 inch x 0.1 inch was found over left side of bridge of nose,
one abrasion of 0.5 inch x 0.3 inch was found over left ala of nose, two
abrasions of 0.4 inch x 0.1 inch were found over philtrum and left supra labial
area, one abrasion of 1 inch x ½ inch was found over undersurface of right
side of jaw between right angle of mandible and chin.
280. The said team had also noticed multiple crescentic abrasion of 0.5
inch x 0.1 inch over left side of anterior surface of neck, one circular
intradermal bruise of 2 inch x 2 inch was found over undersurface of right
side of jaw and adjacent to right upper neck and the said witness had termed
these injuries as sucking mark/love bite mark.
49
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
281. The said team had also noticed one bruise of ½ inch x ½ inch over
mid-part left side of jaw and three crescentic abrasion of 0.3 inch x 0.1 inch
over lateral surface of left arm.
282. The said team had also observed that there were one bruise of 2 inch x
2 inch over posterior surface of left shoulder, one abrasion of ½ inch x ½ inch
over left knee, one abrasion of 0.4 inch x 0.3 inch behind left lateral
malleolus, one bruise of 0.2 inch x 0.2 inch over right side of hymen at 10 O”
clock position, one full thickness tear of hymen at 3 O’Clock position with
oozing of blood.
283. On dissection of the dead body, the team members have noticed
extravasated blood ½ inch x ½ inch under scalp tissue over left side of
coronal suture, extravasated blood 1 inch x 1 inch over left posterior parietal
areas of scalp tissues, extravasated blood ½ inch x ½ inch diffused under left
side temporal areas scalp tissue.
284. It was also the evidence of the said witness as the head of the said
team that on dissection of the dead body they have noticed extravasated blood
1.5 inch x 1. 5 inch diffused under right temporal areas scalp tissue,
extravasated blood 1 inch x 1 inch diffused in muscle of right lateral side of
neck, extravasated blood of 0.3 inch x 0.3 inch diffused in muscle of left
lateral side of neck, extravasated blood 0.5 inch x 0.5 inch at posterior aspect
of right superior cornu of thyroid cartilage, extravasated blood ½ inch x ½
inch over posterior aspect of left superior of cornu of thyroid cartilage.
285. The said team had also noticed on dissection punctate hemorrhagic
spots on inner side of epiglottis.
286. It was the opinion that all the said injuries were ante mortem showing
evidence of vital reactions.
287. It was noticed during the PM that the arachnoid layer of membrane
was congested and veins and venules were engorged.
288. The brain was congested having weight 1199 gram.
289. It was observed that on examination of thorax, the walls, ribs and
cartilage were found healthy, pleurae were congested, both lungs were
congested and punctate hemorrhagic spots were detected on surface, the
pericardium was healthy, heart was congested having weight 212 gm, the
vessels were found healthy.
290. It was stated by the said witness that on dissection of abdomen it was
noticed that the walls and peritoneum was healthy, on examination of the
stomach and its contents it was found that it was congested and it contained
185 grams of partly digested food residue with no peculiar smell, the mouth
pharynx and esophagus were found congested, the small intestine and large
50
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
intestine were congested and contained feces and gas, the liver was congested
having weight 1134 grams, the spleen was healthy having weight 90 grams,
the kidneys were congested having weight 82 grams and 88 grams of right
and left kidneys respectively, the bladder was healthy.
291. The said witness also deposed that on examination of internal
genitalia, the team had noticed white thick viscid liquid inside endocervical
canal and the same was collected by swab.
292. It was the specific version that the weight of internal genitalia, more
precisely uterus and ovary, was noted as 151 gram.
293. From the evidence wea also came to know that on examination of
muscles, bones and joints beside the thorax and abdomen the team did not
find any injury or fracture and they also did not find any disease or deformity
over any of the limb and there was no dislocation of any bones or joints.
294. The said team formed the opinion that the death was due to the effects
of manual strangulation associated with smothering and the manner of death
was homicidal and they were also of the opinion that there was medical
evidence of forceful penetration/insertion in the genitalia of the victim and
the same was suggestive of possibility of sexual assault.
295. It was evidence that the viscera, PM blood, a few plucked scalp hairs,
nail cuttings and scrapping from both hands, wet vulvar mop, pubic combings
were collected, preserved, sealed and packed and handed over to the
concerned police personnel. The vaginal swab, two endocervical swab, swab
from inner side of lips, swab from all around of both nipples, anal swab were
collected, smear was made and the same were preserved, sealed and packed
and handed over to the concerned police personnel.
296. The witness proved the post mortem report duly signed by himself,
Dr. Rina Das and Dr. Moly Banerjeee as Ext-P-105(21).
297. The available wearing apparels of the victim which were noted in the
post-mortem report, were also collected and preserved and handed over to
police but due to inadvertence it was not noted in the PM report.
298. He had also proved the Form of report for sending to Chemical
Examiner, Government of West Bengal [Ext-P-106(21)] which had the lac-
seal impression of Mortuary of R.G.Kar Medical College and Hospital, and it
was signed by him.
299. He had identified and proved the said materials sent to the Chemical
Examiner.
300. It was his evidence that subsequently the CBI authority placed some
questioners to him and he had informed them that the PM examination was
51
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
52
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
311. By showing Ext-P125(21) the witness deposed that the injury found in
the photograph was detected on dissection and it signified that it was caused
by none other than by compression of right hand thumb and it was not visible
from outside and the extravasation of blood was synonymous to
bruise/contusion.
312. By showing Ext-P127(21) the witness deposed that it was the
photograph of the specific injury noted on dissection in point nos. 2 and 3 of
the PM report and the said particular injury mark signified that it was caused
by pushing the head of the deceased repeatedly with force against any
background – hard or not so hard.
313. As per the evidence, the term “not so hard” meant it might be ground,
wooden floor, like bench, chair but not any metal floor or cement floor. As
per the opinion of the said expert, it was because if there were any such floor,
then there must have been some laceration which was not visible from
outside and as such the firm opinion of the expert was that there might be any
cushioning effect.
314. By showing Ext-P128(21) the witness deposed that the same were the
photographs of the specific injury noted on external examination in point no.
15 and 16 of the PM report as well as blood-tinged moist secretion coming
out from introitus and it signified insertion of something, which was hard
blunt but the surface was smooth with some force for which two injuries
occurred. It was the opinion that the penile penetration might also cause the
same injuries but no metallic foreign body was inserted.
315. The doctor also opined that in case of penile penetration there was
possibility of getting the trace of male pubic hair if the said person would not
shave his pubic hair.
316. The said witness being an expert also opined that in case of penile
penetration semen might or might not be found and that when ejaculation was
inside the vagina, then only constituent of semen or spermatozoa be found
and in case of only penetration without ejaculation, no semen be found. If the
person used any condom or like that barrier, no semen be found.
317. By showing Ext-P129(21) it was opined that the victim was alive
during the act of penetration/insertion as in case of bruise/extravasation of
blood, it requires damaged/injured blood vessel with pumping heart.
318. By showing Ext-P130(21) the witness deposed that the same showed
the external injury noted against point No. 8 of the PM Report and it signified
nails of multiple fingers and the same would be possible when a right-handed
person grasp the neck of a person with a thumb on the right side and the rest
of the fingers on the left side of the deceased.
53
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
319. By showing Ext-P131(21) the witness deposed that it showed that the
uterus was taken out and endocervical swab was taken and the thick whitish
fluid mentioned in column No. 11 of PM report was found.
320. It was evidence that at the time of holding of the PM the samples were
taken.
321. The said witness voluntarily opined that all the external injuries and
the internal injuries except the injuries noted in point no. 5, 6,7 and 8 of the
P.M. Report, were simple in nature and medico-legal classification wise those
injuries were defence injuries and it occurred due to the resistance during
struggle. He also opined that on dissection injuries mentioned in point no. 5,
6, 7 and 8 of the Post Mortem Report, were grievous in nature, which might
endanger the life.
322. The said doctor also opined that most of the defence injuries found
over mouth, nose, chicks and neck are over a localized area, confined to
mouth, nose and neck and the type, site, distribution of the injuries indicated
that there was involvement of only one person behind this incident.
323. He also said that the team did not find any resistance mark over the
rest of the body excluding the injuries over left knee and left ankle.
324. From the evidence we also came to know that on 09.08.2024 at around
11.50 am he along with Dr. Antra Barman and Dr. Rajarshi went to the
Seminar Room by the taking the permission from Second Officer of Tala PS
Inspector Pallab Biswas and that after taking entry into the Seminar Room he
had noticed that one male SI, one female SI, the SI (homicide) Kousikbrata
Majumdar along with some police personnel were there.
325. He also deposed that at that time, the then Principal of R.G.Kar
medical College, Dr. Sandip Ghosh came to the Seminar Hall and was
talking with SI (homicide) Kausikbrata Majumdar and one Sister and that the
witness was in the Seminar Room for around 40 minutes.
326. From his evidence it also came out that due to mismatch of one label
over the wearing apparels of the victim and pubic hair, the police did not take
the sample on 10.08.2024 and it was collected by police on 12.08.2024 as
11.08.2024 was holiday (Sunday). According to him, SI (Homicide)
Kausikbrata Majumdar collected the same from him and he had handed over
the same by making rectification in the labels of pubic hair and that on his
request the wearing apparel were also taken by police.
327. From his evidence it also came out that the samples were kept at the
temperature of the Mortuary.
328. During his cross examination he deposed that fixed temperature of the
mortuary was 18 degree.
54
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
329. It was the opinion during cross examination that it was not possible of
fracture of nasal bone in case of any external pressure by hand and that in
case of application of force by hand over the nose, there might be possibility
of injury of cartilage but the said possibility is rare.
330. The said doctor admitted during cross examination that in case of
throttling by using one hand there was possibility of marks of pressure of
thumb and finger tips on either side of windpipe.
331. It was also his opinion that the struggle injuries noted in the PM
Report were simple in nature and it was not possible of fracture of any ribs or
bone for such injury. It was also the opinion of the said doctor that the
grievous nature of injury mentioned by him during his evidence could not be
the cause of fracture of any underline bone (cervical vertebra).
332. He admitted that in the instant case there was possibility of fracture of
hyoid bone but there was no such fracture.
333. The next witness from the prosecution side was SI Kausikbrata
Majumdar (P.W-22)
334. According to him, on 09.08.2024 in connection with Tala PS case No.
52 dated 09.08.2024 he along with his team members went to the Chest
Medicine Department of R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital at 3 rd Floor
of Emergency building and also the scene of crime.
335. He also deposed that on 12.08.2024 as per the instruction of Inspector
Rupali Mukherjee, of the SIT formed by Kolkata Police, he went to the Police
Morgue of R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital and collected the original
post-mortem report, original medical certificate cum death certificate of the
victim, original viscera forwarding letter, medico legal exhibits in sealed,
packed and labelled condition by putting his signature along with the date,
time and mobile number and designation in the relevant register kept at
police morgue of RG Kar Medical College and Hospital and he had proved
the same as Ext-P109/1(22).
336. He also deposed that there was one overwriting at the said entry of the
said register. According to him, the name of the victim and the description of
the articles/documents were written by the Dom of the police morgue of R.G.
Kar Medical College and Hospital. The said Dom had handed over the PM
report, medical certificate and death certificate of the victim and the viscera
forwarding letter in a sealed cover. The witness had requested him to provide
the PM report, medical certificate and death certificate of the victim and the
viscera forwarding letter by bringing it out from the sealed envelop and
accordingly, the said Dom had done it and as such, there were some pen
through in the said register.
55
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
337. During cross examination the witness deposed that he went there on
verbal direction of Inspector Rupali Mukherjee.
338. Inspector of Police Chinmoy Banerjee was examined by the
prosecution as the P.W-23.
339. According to him, on 13.08.2024 in connection with Tala PS case No.
52 dated 09.08.2024 he went to Maniktala Central Blood Bank with accused
Sanjay Roy as per the verbal direction of Inspector Rupali Mukherjee, the IO
of the case. It came out that at the said blood bank he had submitted a
requisition to collect the blood of Sanjay Roy for his DNA profiling on the
basis of the order of the Ld. ACJM, Sealdah and he proved the said Blood
Sample Authentication Form [Ext-P-92(17)].
340. He deposed that blood sample was collected in his presence and the
doctor, the witnesses as well as the accused have signed in his presence and
thumb impression of both hands of the accused were also taken in his
presence.
341. According to him, Inspector Rupali Mukherjee had sent all the sealed
exhibits to him at the Maniktala Central Blood Bank in a sealed cardboard
box and he had deposited the same to the CFSL and the CFSL authority had
received all except the said blood sample of accused by issuing the
acknowledgment receipt.
342. According to him, as per protocol, the seal impression of the blood
sample collecting authority should be there in the said form at the specified
space and also in the envelop where the blood sample was kept. But in the
said form dated 13.08.2024 the said seal impression was not affixed and for
that reason the CFSL authority did not receive the said blood sample. He had
identified the accused in open court.
343. During cross examination he stated that he was verbally instructed by
Inspector Rupali Mukherjee to deposit the sealed exhibits to CFSL.
344. SI Subrata Chatterjee of Tala PS was examined as P.W-24.
345. According to him, on 09.08.2024 he had joined duty at 3.00 pm and
after joining at around 03.15/3.20 pm he had received a call from SI Chinmoy
Biswas who was at that time at R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital and
he was informed that an incident of rape and murder of a lady doctor
occurred at the said Hospital.
346. According to him, in such cases Police generally starts one UD case at
first and if after starting of the UD case any ingredient of cognizable offence
was/were found, police generally start a specific case by lodging FIR.
347. As per his evidence, on that date over that incident of unnatural death
of the lady doctor, he had started one UD case vide No. 861/2024 dated
56
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
09.08.2024 and the Form was filled up after 11.30 pm and the same was
proved as Ext-P-132(24).
348. According to him over this matter, he went to the Seminar Room
situated at 3rd floor of Emergency Building R.G. Kar Medical College at
04.24 pm on 09.08.2024 and noticed that the FSL team was collecting
samples from the spot.
349. As per the evidence, the said samples were kept on a table/bench and
he had prepared a seizure list sitting there in presence of two witnesses. The
said seizure list was proved [Ext-P40/2(24)].
350. He deposed that the seized articles were properly sealed and labelled
and kept in the Tala PS Malkhana by making proper entry in the Malkhana
register vide MK No. 52 dated 09.08.2024 and the same was proved as [Ext
P-133(24)]. He also proved the specimen brass seal impression used at the
time of sealing of the seized articles.[ Exbt. P-134(24)].
351. It came out from his evidence that after coming back to PS, it came to
his notice that one written complaint was filed by the father of the victim and
on the basis of the said written complaint, a specific case vide Tala PS case
No. 52 dated 09.08.2024 was started for offence U/s 64/103 (1) BNS at 11.45
pm. He had proved the Formal FIR [ Exbt. P-135(24)] by deposing that the
same was duly filled up by him and duly signed by the then OC, Tala PS and
the same was noted in the GD book vide GDE no. 577 dated 09.08.2024.
352. As per the evidence of the said witness, the death of the victim was
declared at around 12.45 pm and the said death certificate was received at the
end of the Tala PS at around 02.00 pm.
353. He firmly deposed that one UD case number was already kept blank in
the register of Tala PS vide No. 861 dated 09.08.2024 and the said number
was collected by ASI Debi Prasad Das and when the present PW arrived to
RG Kar Hospital, this UD number was provided to him and accordingly, he
had entered the said UD case number in the seizure list.
354. The witness again deposed very casually that the process of seizure
and the starting of UD case was noted in the GD book vide GD No. 576 dated
09.08.2024 and the said entry was done by him after 11.30 pm on 09.08.2024.
355. According to him, GD number 542 dated 09.08.2024 of Tala PS was
relating to receiving of information of unnatural death of the doctor at the
hospital and departure of police team for that purpose.
356. He deposed that the entire seizure procedure was videographed by the
person from Kolkata police and that subsequently, the said memory cards
were received by the CBI under Memo dated 02.09.2024.
57
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
357. He admitted that the GD number No. 542 dated 09.08.2024 was in his
handwriting and that he made the entries after coming back from the scene of
crime. It was his evidence that he was instructed to make the said entry in his
handwriting when the time of the GD was 10.10 am and when he was not
physically present at Tala PS.
358. During cross examination he deposed that he did not make any GD
when he left PS for RG Kar Hospital on 09.08.2024.
359. He denied that Dr. Diyasini Roy and Dr. Antra Burman have signed in
some blank papers.
360. The ASI of Police Suman Lama was examined by prosecution as P.W-
25. His deposition was that being the Malkhana in charge of Tala PS, he had
received the articles and entered in the Malkhana Register.
361. He also deposed that on 12.08.2024 all the said exhibits in connection
with this case were sent to Lalbazar and he was physically present at Lalbazar
at that time with the then IO SI Subrata Chatterjee and another officer
Chinmoy Biswas and that the seized articles were received by ASI Sanjoy
Lohar at Lalbazar, WG Cell and that the exhibits were in sealed condition.
362. The said ASI Sanjay Lohar was the next witness from the prosecution
side (P.W-26).
363. According to him, on 10.08.2024 he took part in the seizure procedure
as a witness at WG Cell, Lalbazar, when one mobile phone of the accused
Sanjay Roy along with SIM card and Memory chip were seized by Inspector
Rupali Mukherjee. He had proved his signature in the seizure list [Exbt. P-
140(26)].
364. He also deposed that some personal property of the accused were also
seized by another seizure list and he had proved his signature in the said
seizure list as Exbt. P-141(26)
365. He also proved the Malkhana Register of Tala PS.
366. He also deposed that he had received the seized articles in connection
with the Tala PS UD case no. 861 dated 09.08.2024.
367. During his cross examination he deposed that at the time of seizure at
Lalbazar, some police officers were present.
368. The Nodal Officer from Vodafone, Mr. Sanjay Dutta was examined as
the P.W-27.
369. According to him, as per requisition of CBI, he had provided the
SDR,CDR in connection with the service connection No. 9051461112, SIM
No. 8991301804790404373 and deposed that as per their report, the name of
the subscriber was Sanjay Roy, son of Sarjit Roy of 55B, Sambhunath Pandit
Street, Kolkata-25 and the system generated copy of the said application
58
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
form, CDR, SDR, in respect of the said service connection no. 9051461112,
SIM No. 8991301804790404373 was proved as Exbt. P-142(27).
370. According to him, the CDR of the said service connection was sought
for by the CBI for the period from 08.08.2024 to 10.08.2024.
371. According to him, in the said CDR the first column was regarding the
phone number of the subscriber which was shown as “Target/A Party
Number” and the second column of the CDR showed the call type
(incoming/outgoing). He also deposed that the Column No. 4 of the CDR
showed the number with whom the conversation was made which was
denoted as “B Party Number”. According to him, column no. 7 of CDR refers
to call date and column no. 8 denoted the call initiating time and column no. 9
showed the call duration in second. It also came out from the said evidence
that Column no.10 and 12 of the CDR showed the tower location wherein the
call was initiated and where the call ended respectively. The column no.15 of
CDR referred to service type-whether it was voice call or SMS.
372. According to his evidence, the tower location as noted in column no.
10 and 12 of the CDR showed the active connection within a radius of 500
meter to 1 km in the Metropolitan areas from the location of tower.
373. During his evidence, the Ld. PP CBI attracted the attention of the
witness to a particular entry in the CDR in page No. 7 in third row and the
witness replied that as per the said particular entry, there was an incoming
SMS from mobile No. 7044042078 at 2.31.21 hours and at that time the
location of Party A was at SSKM II Nursing college building 244 AJC Bose
Road, Lala Lalpat Roy Sarani Kolkata-700020 and the said entry was marked
as Exbt. P-142/1(27).
374. The Ld. PP CBI attracted the attention of the witness to another
particular entry in the CDR in page No. 7 in fourth row and the witness
replied that as per the said particular entry, there was an incoming SMS from
a service number of SBI (VM-ATM SBI) at 4.38.32 hours and the tower
location of the said handset was changed. It was at 123 Bidhan Sarani,
Kolkata-4.
375. The witness deposed that Column 16 of CDR referred to the IMEI of
the mobile handset of the Party A. [Exbt. P-142/2(27)]. His version was that
as per the CDR IMEI number of Party A is 864712051844300 and the said
IMEI number of the mobile handset used by Party A with the connection
number (already mentioned above), was automatically detected by the server.
376. From his evidence it also came out that the IMEI number consisted of
15 digits but when the same is generated in the system of the Service
Provider, the first 14 digits remained the same but the last digit (which is
59
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
called as check digit) is converted to zero in every cases, which could not be
changed manually.
377. During cross examination, he denied the fact of preparation of the
CDR manually.
378. Prosecution had examined the Sergeant of Kolkata Traffic Police,
Sourav Paul as P.W-28. The said witness had proved the CCTV footages of
some traffic points.
379. The Assistant Director and Scientist-C, CFSL (L Nato Singh) was
examined as P.W-29.
380. According to his evidence, he had examined some seized articles at
CFSL Kolkata.
381. He had received one VIVO mobile phone along with one Jio SIM card
which were marked as MBQ1 and SCQ1 respectively but the MBQ1 was
found to be protected with biometric finger print security and as such, the
data from the said mobile phone (MBQ1) could not be extracted with the
tools available at the laboratory of CFSL, Kolkata and he had mentioned it in
Point no. 6 of page no. 4 of his report. His evidence was that he had examined
the SIM card (SCQ1) and data from the said SIM card was retrieved and the
same was stored in a pen drive.
382. As per the evidence, he had examined another mobile phone which
was one old used Navy-blue colour Redmi mobile having IMEI numbers
864712051844293 and 864712051844301 fitted with one Vodafone SIM card
and the same were marked as MBQ2 and SCQ2.
383. He deposed that data was retrieved from MBQ2 integrated with SCQ2
and the same were analyzed and the data retrieved from MBQ2 and SCQ2
were also kept in the same pen drive.
384. According to him, he had examined one blue and black colour
bluetooth ear phone of LUMA and the same was marked as EPQ1 and the
MAC of the said blue tooth earphone was also noted in the report and that
data was retrieved from the said Bluetooth earphone (EPQI) and the extracted
generic device name and MAC address of EPQ1 was stored in the PDF file
labelled as annexure EPQ1 /RD. he made a combine report of MBQ2 and
EPQ1as those were related to each other.
385. According to him, in page no. 4 (point no. 5) of his report he had
mentioned the footprint data concerning connectivity and pairing between
MBQ2 and EPQ1.
386. It was his evidence that at the time of examination of EPQ-1 he had
found out the identity of the said device including its MAC ID and the
generic device name was extracted, and the same data were found in MBQ2.
60
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
387. His specific observation was that during examination he found only
one connectivity between MBQ2 and EPQ1 and that the EPQ1 and MBQ2
were verified to each other which implied that both the devices were paired
with each other.
388. He, being an expert, opined that if the mobile phone and the blue tooth
earphone device be kept in auto connectivity mode, there was no need of any
further permission for connectivity.
389. He stated that all the data retrieved from SCQ1, MBQ2, SCQ2, EPQ1
were stored in a pen drive and were demarcated as Annexure SCQ1, MBQ2,
MBQ2RD and EPQ1 RD and the pen drive was labelled as FED-49-2024-PD
and the hash value was also mentioned and he had proved and identified the
said pen-drive. He had proved his report as [Exbt. P-150(29)].
390. It was the evidence of the said PW that on 25.08.2024 he had
submitted another report in connection with the examination of one DVR
make Dahua, model no. DH-XVR4116HS, serial No. 3JO289FTAPCFB29
along with adopter in sealed packet and the same was demarcated as DVRQ1.
He had also submitted the report in connection with examination of one 4 TB
internal hard disc make Toshiba consisting of CCTV footage of RG Kar
Medical College and Hospital and the same was demarcated as HDQ1.
391. According to him, on 25.08.2024 he had submitted report in
connection with the examination of another DVR make Dahua, model no.
DHI-XVR5208A-S2, serial No. 4E060CBAAZD90F4 along with adopter in
sealed packet and the same was demarcated as DVRQ2 and that he had also
submitted the report in connection with examination of another 4 TB internal
hard disc make Toshiba consisting of CCTV footage of RG Kar Medical
College and Hospital and the same was demarcated as HDQ2.
392. As per the evidence, on 25.08.2024 he had submitted report in
connection with the examination of the other DVR make Dahua, model no.
DH-XVR4116HS, serial No. 3J01CAEPAZ2EE3D along with adopter in
sealed packet and the same was demarcated as DVRQ3 and that he had also
submitted the report in connection with examination of one 2 TB internal
hard disc make Toshiba consisting of CCTV footage of RG Kar Medical
College and Hospital and the same was demarcated as HDQ3.
393. His evidence was that on 25.08.2024 he had submitted report in
connection with the examination of another DVR make Dahua, model no.
DH-XVR4B16-1, serial No. 7M01CFBPCABE519 along with adopter in
sealed packet and the same was demarcated as DVRQ4 and that he had also
submitted the report in connection with examination of one 4 TB internal
61
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
62
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
63
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
Tarun Barman, Chandan Bhowmick, Asit Hembram and others and that he
came back on 08.08.2024.
413. H deposed that on 09.08.2024 at around 10.32 pm, he had received a
call from ASI Samar Paul of RG Kar police Out Post and he was asked to
send Sanjay Roy to the RG Kar Police Out Post as he was found in the CCTV
footage in connection with an incident occurred at RG Kar Hospital. As per
his evidence, he could not contact with Sanjay Roy over telephone and as
such, he had requested constable Chandan Bhowmick to take Sanjay Roy in
his bike and to drop him at RG Kar Police Out Post.
414. He deposed that at the office of CBI at CGO Complex, he had
identified the accused Sanjay Roy in a CCTV footage dated 09.08.2024 at
04.03.31 am to 04.03.49 am and 04.31.40 am to 04.31.54 am and 04.32.25
am to 04.32.30 and he had proved his signature in the document prepared on
the basis of this identification as Ext P-167(30).
415. Before this court he had identified the said CCTV footage, which was
shown to him at the office of CBI and according to him in Channel 8 of folder
name HDQ2 regarding time slot 04.00 am to 05.00 am of 09.08.2024 is
played bearing file No. XVR_ch8_main_20240809040000_
20240809050001.dav, the accused was found to take entry in the CCTV
coverage area with one helmet in his hand and one blue tooth earphone was
found hanging from his neck and that the footage of 04.31.40 am, Sanjay Roy
was found to come out and was again found to turn around to the direction
from where he came and it was found that Sanjay Roy is coming out and the
helmet was found in his hand but the said blue tooth earphone was not found
hanging from his neck and it appears that he turned to his left.
416. During his cross examination he deposed that he was entrusted the
duty of looking after the works of the staff members of Kolkata Police
Welfare and Development Redressal Committee and he admitted that under
his instruction the accused Sanjay Roy used to go NRS Hospital, SSKM,
Hospital, RG Kar Hospital to look after the police personnel and their family
members for their ailments.
417. He denied the fact that he would ask Sanjay Roy to do his personal
works too.
418. He admitted that Mritunjay Ghosh, Kartick Biswas, Kutubuddin
Molla, Sagar Bhattacharyya became ill and they all were admitted at RG Kar
Hospital and that they all were police personnel.
419. It also came out from his cross examination that he did not entrust any
duty to Sanjoy Roy on 08.08.2024 but he and Sourav Bhattacharyya went to
64
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
RG Kar Hospital without his order to look after brother of Sourav namely
Sagar Bhattacharyya.
420. Prosecution had examined ASI Samar Paul as P.W-31. According to
him, on 08.08.2024 and 09.08.2024 he was posted at R.G.Kar Medical
College & Hospital Police OP.
421. He stated that on 09.08.2024 after 10.00 am he had received a call
from OC, R.G. Kar Out Post and he was asked to go to 3 rd floor of
Emergency Building at Chest department and he went there and had noticed
that the body of one woman was lying in the Seminar Hall.
422. He stated that at that time, ASI Basudev Kundu and the officers of
Tala PS were there outside the said Seminar Hall and at around 11.40 am
Principal of R.G. Kar Hospital came to the said spot.
423. It was his deposition that on that date at around 09.30 pm he had
received a personal call from ASI Anup Kumar Dutta and he had requested
him to look into the matter of admission of one patient at RG Kar hospital.
424. He deposed that at that time he had noticed that the police officers
were checking the CCTV footage of the hospital and one of the Civic
Volunteer posted at RG Kar Hospital, namely Dilip Kumar Saha, had
identified one person as Sanjay Roy, who was found in the said CCTV
footages and it was intimated to OC, R.G. Kar Out Post and that he was
instructed by OC, R.G. Kar Out Post to call said Sanjay Roy, who was a Civic
volunteer.
425. It was his version that Sanjay was known to him as he used to visit
RG Kar Hospital frequently with patient and his contact number was with me
and accordingly, under instruction of OC, R.G. Kar Out Post, he tried to
contact Sanjay Roy two times at around 10.30 pm and 10.31 pm and had
asked him to come RG Kar Hospital but he denied.
426. He also deposed that as Sanjay used to come to RG Kar Hospital
through Anup Dutta, ASI, he had called him with request to instruct Sanjay to
come to RG Kar Hospital and left hospital at 11.00 pm and that on the way he
had received one call from constable Chandan Bhowmick and Chandan told
him that he was at R.G. Kar Hospital with Sanjay Roy and he had asked him
to place Sanjay before the OC, R.G. Kar Police Out Post.
427. Like the P.W-30, he also identified the CCTV footages and when the
same file was played before this court, he had identified the said CCTV
footage.
428. The said witness also identified one CCTV footage of Traffic
Department, Kolkata Police dated 08.08.2024 from 16.07.20 hours to
16.07.25 hours and deposed that it resembled that Sanjay Roy was driving a
65
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
police bike with one pillion rider and this footage is Bhupen Bose Avenue and
JM Avenue Crossing Rajballav Para (objected to).
429. During his cross examination he stated that the DVRs of the CCTVs
installed at RG Kar Hospital complex are kept at R.G. Kar Police Outpost
with the screen, but he could not say whether any sharing screen was
available at the chamber of the MSVP.
430. The next witness from the prosecution side wass the private Security
Guard Jagendra Shaw (P.W-32).
431. According to him, from 01.00 pm on 08.08.2024 to 07.00 am on
09.08.2024 he was on duty as Security Guard at R.G. Kar Trauma Centre.
432. He also deposed that he knew Sanjay Roy, a Civic Volunteer by
profession, who used to visit RG Kar Hospital more or less regularly.
433. The said witness had identified the accused in the CCTV footage (Mat
Ext LX), which was the CCTV footage of main gate of Trauma Care Centre
of RG Kar Hospital and he deposed that Sanjay Roy was found to take entry
into the Trauma Centre at 03.34.10 am and he was found to talk with the
Civic Volunteer and the police personnel at the Trauma Centre main gate and
then he took entry into the Trauma Centre.
434. He also deposed that the said Sanjay Roy was again found to come out
from the Trauma Centre at 03.36.04 am having the helmet in his hand and the
earphone hanging from his neck and he had identified the said accused
Sanjay Roy before this court.
435. During his cross examination he deposed that the CBI authority did
not seize any paper from him to show that he was on duty at R.G. Kar
Hospital on that date.
436. Prosecution had placed Sourav Bhattacharyya (Ex-Civic Volunteer) as
P.W-33.
437. According to his evidence, he was employed as Civic Volunteer but he
was dismissed by his department.
438. According to him, on 08.08.2024 and 09.08.2024 he was in the
profession of Civic Volunteer and that at that time, his brother Sagar
Bhattacharyya was admitted at R.G. Kar Hospital.
439. He had identified the accused Sanjay Roy as he was also a civic
volunteer.
440. According to him, on 08.08.2024 at around 10.30 pm Sanjay went to
RG Kar Hospital with him by availing one bike of Police department and the
last four digit of the number of the bike was 5021 and that at around 12.00
night both of them left RG Kar Hospital and went to the red light area of
Sova Bazar and consumed alcohol there and then they went to the red light
66
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
area of Chetla locality by availing the said bike and that after reaching to
Chetla, both of them consumed beer.
441. His version was that he took entry in a room with one prostitute but
Sanjay did not take entry in the room of any prostitute and he was consuming
beer and that when he came out within 20/25 minutes, he had noticed that till
then Sanjay was consuming beer.
442. As per his version, from Chetla both of them proceeded towards RG
Kar Hospital in the said departmental bike and Sanjay dropped him at the
main gate of Trauma Care Centre of R.G. Kar Hospital and he took entry
inside the hospital.
443. The said witness identified him and the accused Sanjay in the CCTV
footage (Mat Ext-LX).
444. The said witness also identified him and Sanjay in the CCTV footage
of Traffic Department, Kolkata Police dated 08.08.2024 from 16.07.20 hours
to 16.07.25 hours.
445. During his cross examination he stated that it was within his
knowledge that Sanjay used the said official bike on regular basis.
446. He also deposed that on 08.08.2024 he and Sanjay went to the Bank to
deposit the personal cash of ASI Anup Dutta.
447. He also admitted that ASI Anup Dutta gave him Rs. 50,000/- to
celebrate the Annaprashan(first rice eating ceremony) ceremony of his son.
448. Inspector of Police Subhendu Das was examined in this case as
P.W-34.
449. As per his evidence, on 25.08.2024 his office got one requisition
[ExtP-17(34)] from CBI authority by which some documents were sought for
and that on the basis of the said requisition he had supplied the relevant
documents to the IO, CBI in a sealed cover bearing the signature of DCP
(HG) and he had proved the said documents which were the full details of
employment of three Civic volunteers including Sanjay Roy.
450. During his cross examination he stated thatthe civic volunteer can use
the official bike only under the direction of any superior officer.
67
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
453. During cross examination he deposed that he did not mention any time
under his signature in the seizure memo.
455. According to him, on 09.08.2024 his duty hour was 09.00 am to 03.00
pm and that on that date at 10.00 am he had received a telephone call from
R.G. Kar Police Out Post and he was informed that one doctor of the said
hospital had committed suicide and then he went to the R.G. Kar Hospital at
around 10.25 am by taking the official motor bike of Tala PS and went to the
Seminar Hall of Chest Department at 3 rd floor, where, as per information
received by him, was the said place, where the commission of suicide took
place.
456. He deposed that he took entry into the said Seminar Hall and cordoned
the place where the dead body was lying, by using the chairs of the said
Seminar hall and then he had informed the matter to the OC, Tala PS
Inspector Abhijit Mondal and asked for force from PS.
457. As per the evidence, the on duty nursing staff were there and he had
asked them whether the family of the deceased was informed or not and he
was informed that the family members of the deceased were duly informed
and they were on the way to the hospital.
458. As per evidence, the said witness have recorded the statements of four
doctors who were on night duty on that date and then he had recorded the
statements of the Private Security Guards.
459. It came out from his evidence that at around 11.15 am OC, Tala PS
came there and afterwards the senior police officials came there and he came
out from the Seminar Hall and was managing the law-and-order situation.
460. It was stated by him that one of his colleague officer had prepared one
requisition for holding of inquest and he had singed therein and he proved the
same a Ext-P-104(21).
461. He also deposed that he was present at the time of search and seizure
at the said Seminar Hall, which was conducted by SI Subrata Chatterjee of
Tala PS.
462. From his evidence it also came out that the FSL team and other
officials of Kolkata police were also there and that the entire procedure of
search and seizure was videographed and that in his presence four envelops
were sealed and labelled and that two doctors were there at the time of said
search and seizure procedure.
68
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
463. He also deposed that the FSL team collected some articles and kept
the same on a bench and that all the seized articles were sent to Malkhana of
Tala PS in sealed condition and that he was present at that time with SI
Subrata Chatterjee.
467. Dr. Adrash Kumar was examined by the prosecution as the P.W-37.
468. According to his evidence, in connection with this case the Director
AIIMS, New Delhi had received one requisition from the CBI and he was
nominated to act as expert and he had visited the scene of crime at RG Kar
Medical College and Hospital being of the members of the team consisting of
CPWD officers, officials from CBI and the doctors and police officials. He
had proved the sid Inspection Memo dated 14.08.2024.
469. According to his evidence, the said team took the photographs and
videos of the said scene of crime and collected several items which were
properly mentioned in the Inspection Memo.
470. They have collected the information about the position of dead body
and others from the persons present there.
471. From his evidence it also came out that the CBI authority had
requested the Director General of Health Services, Govt. of India to constitute
a Multi Institutional Medical Board (MIMB) and accordingly, the Board was
constituted comprising of himself and 11 other experts from different
disciplines of different institutes and he was nominated as the Chairman of
that MIMB.
472. He deposed that the first meeting of the Board was held on 04.09.2024
and in the said meeting the DIG, CBI was invited and was requested to
provide all the documents to the Board and a brief chronology of the
investigation so far conducted by the CBI and thereafter, he had nominated
69
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
one Professor of Forensic Medicine from Dr. R.M.L Hospital, New Delhi as
the Member Secretary of the MIMB.
473. That the next meeting held on 12.09.2024 and in that meeting all the
documents received from CBI were placed to the Board Members. The said
meeting was followed by another meeting dated 17.09.2024 on receipt of
supplementary questions from the CBI.
474. It was his evidence that in the meeting dated 18.09.2024, all the video
recordings and micro SD cards were played in the screen and an interim
report was prepared on that date with the recommendation and a request was
made to coopt Forensic DNA Expert and Forensic Odontologist in the said
team.
475. As per the evidence, the said Board accepted the cause of death
mentioned by the Board, which conducted the PM examination and MIMB
was also of the opinion that the cause of death was due to asphyxia as a
combined effects of throttling (manual strangulation) and smothering.
477. In order to ascertain whether there was any sexual assault on the
victim, the Board considered the injury no. 15 and 16 of the PM report and
also photographs, videographs etc and they have also considered the column
no. 1 of external examination of the dead body as mentioned in the
P.M.Report.
478. The said MIMB also considered the external injury no. 9 of the P.M
report alongwith the CFSL report about the examination of swab taken from
both the nipples and the same showed the presence of saliva belonging to
Sanjay Roy.
479. As per his evidence, the MMIB opined on interim basis that the
possibility of injuries found over the body of the victim having been inflicted
by a single person.
480. His deposition was that on 09.10.2024 two other members have joined
in the Board and the final meeting of the Board was held on 17.10.2024 and
on that date the final report was prepared by the Board addressing all the
queries of CBI and the inputs received from the other members of the Board
and the documents and articles perused by the Board and the said reply was
with proper reasons behind it.
70
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
481. According to him, in the said final report the Board had specifically
mentioned the nature of ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased and
possible causes of the said injuries, the injuries over the vaginal part of the
decease and its possible causes, whether the injuries found on the body of the
accused during his medico legal examination were due to resistance/struggle
by the victim at the time of commission of crime and also the time of the said
injuries and that the Board also opined whether the Inquest Report, autopsy
report and injuries report were in consistent with each other.
482. According to him, the Board also opined about the reasons for non-
presence of semen in the vaginal swab/smear when there is medical evidence
of forceful insertion/penetration in the genitalia of the victim.
485. During cross examination the said witness, being an expert of the field
opined that in case of throttling there was no scope of fracture of any ribs.
486. He also opined that in case of X-ray of any dead body, usually no
hairline fracture of ribs can be detected.
488. During cross examination a specific question was put to the witness in
the manner “is it true that in case of homicidal smothering of adult, it is
difficult unless they are given drugs or drinks or overpowered by number of
persons?”
489. The reply of the witness was :- “It is not necessary always that the
single person cannot do homicidal smothering as there are many factors
which come into picture like suddenness of attack, disparity between the
victim and the accused in respect of their physical condition.”
490. It was the specific opinion on this point that if the person is in sleeping
stage, in that case also there is possibility of homicidal smothering by a single
person.
71
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
491. It was his opinion that by examination of blood, the presence of any
drugs or narcotic substance or intoxicants can be detected and for detection of
the same preservation of intestine is not required.
492. He denied that there is need of using any ultra violet rays for
collection of the swabs including the nipple swab and that the said ultraviolet
rays for collection of the nipple swab can only be used if the victim be alive
and that to coming to hospital at the early stage.
493. During cross examination he again opined that the injuries noticed by
the Board were all ante mortem in nature and obviously, the Board had ruled
out any incident of post mortem sexual assault upon the victim in this
particular case.
495. According to him, he was posted as ASI of police at the Welfare Cell
of Kolkata Police, 4th Battalion and his duty was to look after their colleagues
and their family members about their ailments and treatment at government
hospital and that he was entrusted with the said job since 2018.
496. From his evidence it came out that in the year 2020 Welfare Board
was formed and a committee of 7 persons was formed at the 4 th Battalion and
that he and ASI Anup Dutta were the members of the said committee.
497. From his evidence we came to know that the accused Sanjay Roy was
in 4th Battalion as Civic volunteer and ASI Anup Dutta entrusted him to look
after the patients of police department at various hospitals though he was not
a member of the Central Committee of the Welfare Board formed for the 4 th
Battalion and that in the month of August, 2024 Sanjay Roy used to stay at
Barrack no. B14K of 4th Battalion and that the said accused would use the
official bike no. WB01-AE-5021, which was officially allotted for the
Welfare Cell, under the direction of ASI Anup Dutta.
499. He also stated that as per rule, the Civic Volunteers are not entitled to
stay at the Barrack and to use the official bike of the department.
500. He also stated that the present accused Sanjay Roy used to occupy
Barrack under the instruction/permission of ASI Anup Dutta.
501. Prosecution had placed Mr. Sanat Kumar Saha (P.W-39), who was the
Senior Scientific Officer at Mobile Forensic Unit, Kolkata Police at Lalbazar.
72
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
503. As per his evidence, after reaching there, he had noticed that good
number of police personnel were there.
504. He stated that after taking entry into the said Seminar Hall they
noticed that a body was lying on the dais, which was covered with green
colour bed cover but the face was visible.
505. The said witness had noticed a good number of injury marks over the
face of the said dead body and he had also noticed that there was blood in the
eyes and over the lips. It was also noticed by him that there were one long
exercise book, one laptop, one spiral binding diary, one mobile phone, one
water bottle and one surgical mask towards the head of the body of the
victim.
506. According to him, after removing the body by police for post mortem,
they have started to collect the evidence and the said long exercise book,
laptop, spiral binding diary, mobile phone, water bottle, surgical mask and
other articles were collected by them and those were kept over a table.
507. It was also his evidence that after removing of the body they have
noticed that the bed cover, over which the victim was lying, contained stains
looks like blood and that they have also found one spectacle but one glass
was missing there. The said team also found the said missing glass at a place
under the body. One female head clutcher on the said bed sheet was also
found at the point where they found the stains of blood.
508. As per the evidence, the said team had also found one use and throw
pen and bunch of hairs at the shoulder point of the dead body over the said
bed sheet.
509. The said team also found one blue tooth head phone under the
mattress.
510. One jeans pant and panty at the left side of the dead body in reverse
condition was also found.
73
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
511. According to the evidence, they have cut a portion of the mattress
cover and brought out some synthetic fiber with dark brown stains and some
fresh synthetic fiber from other side of the said mattress and kept it on the
table.
512. He had proved the Note prepared at the spot and according to him, the
said note was prepared by his Assistant Gautam Kumar Bose under his
instruction and that the said note do not bear any signature as per the
procedure and standard protocol and that the same was handed over to CBI
on 28.08.2024.
513. According to him, in item no. 7 about the hair it was specifically
written “few locks of hairs”.
514. According to him, the entire search and seizure procedure was
videographed and he had identified the said video, when played during his
evidence.
515. During his cross examination he stated that it was not the fact that no
Bluetooth earphone was collected.
518. She also deposed that specific portions of the said DVRs were
collected in one pen drive by the CBI official and the hash values of the video
footages were generated and she had signed therein on 17.08.2024. she also
stated that her junior colleague Sucharita Sarkar, who was also the Assistant
Superintendent (Non-Medical) of RGKMCH also had signed in the said
Memorandum and the hash value generation report.
519. During her cross examination she stated that she did not put her
designation seal or time under her signatures and that she did not have any
certificate to deal with any computer hardware.
74
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
523. He stated that he had noticed that only one camera was there in the
entire 3rd floor (Chest department).
524. From his evidence we came to know that the DVRs were installed in
the R.G Kar Hospital Police Out Post but parallel connection were there in
the chambers of Principal and MSVP.
525. His evidence ran in the tune that he went to the chamber of MSVP and
collected the footages of the said camera installed at the 3rd floor of
Emergency building (Chest Department) for the period 10.00 pm on
08.08.2024 to 10.00 am on 09.08.2024 and that Dr. Debasish Som handed
over one pen drive to him and he had stored the said footages of the particular
time span, in the said pen drive. He also deposed that he had stored the
backups of the MBBS examination in another pen drive sitting at the chamber
of the MSVP. His evidence was that under the instruction of Dr. Debasish
Som the said pen drive was handed over to one junior doctor, but he could not
say the name of the said doctor.
526. From his evidence we came to know that on 09.08.2024 he went to the
RG Kar Hospital Police Out Post and there he was asked to show the
previous recordings of the cameras installed at various floors of Emergency
Building and at that time, some police officials from Lalbazar were also
present at the said Out Post.
527. He also deposed that on 12.08.2024 the Kolkata police officials had
seized four hard discs from him and one seizure Memo was prepared and I
have signed therein and he had proved his signatures in the seizure Memo
dated 12.08.2024 as Exbt. P-187(41)
528. The said witness also proved the certificates issued by him u/s 63 BSA
with the hash value generation report and the said Certificates were proved as
Exbt.P-188(41) collectively.
529. From his evidence it also came out that on 16.08.2024 CBI official
had asked him to go to the Police Out Post of RG Kar Hospital and they have
seized two DVRs with internal hard discs from the said police Out Post and
75
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
one seizure Memo was prepared and he had signed therein. He had proved his
signatures in the seizure list and the memorandum as Exbt. P-186/1(41) &
Exbt. P-184/2(41) respectively.
531. During his cross-examination he deposed that the said DVRs were
standalone machine and he denied that the hash values were generated
manually.
532. The next witness from the prosecution side was Puran Kumar, who
was attached to SC-I, Branch, CBI, New Delhi, camping at Kolkata (P.W-
42).
534. He also deposed that on the same date (17.08.2024) he had handed
over two number of parcels to the CFSL, Kolkata containing the EDTA vial
and he had proved the said documents as Exbt. P-192(42), Exbt. P-189/1(42)
and Exbt. P-193(42)
535. No such relevant question were put to the witness during his cross
examination.
536. The next witness from the prosecution side was Mr. Suraj Bhan (P.W-
43).
538. Prosecution had placed Dr. Rina Das, Associate Professor of FMT, RG
Kar Medical College and Hospital as the P.W-44.
539. As per the evidence of the said doctor, on 09.08.2024 she was one of
the team members which conducted the autopsy of the dead body of the
victim of this case. According to her, they were three members in the team
76
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
540. She deposed that the entire post mortem procedure was videographed
and that during the post mortem procedure, she took some snaps of the said
post mortem in her personal mobile phone.
541. From her evidence we also came to know that the said victim was an
on duty doctor (PGT) of R.G.Kar Hospital and as her death took place while
she was on duty in the hospital, the said PW thought that it would be
considered as custodial death as the said deceased doctor was under the
custody of head of the Institute of R. G Kar Medical College and Hospital
and as such, she took the snaps.
542. According to her evidence, after taking the videograph of the post
mortem procedure, the said Memory Card was kept in the custody of Dr.
Apurba Biswas, the Chairman of the team and subsequently, the same was
handed over to Kolkata Police in a sealed envelope and Dr. Apurba Biswas
had signed in the label of the said envelop but she did not sign anywhere in
the said envelop and that she was not present at the time of said handing over
of the memory card.
543. It was her evidence that afterwards, in her presence the CBI authority
had placed the said sealed envelope before her and she had identified the
signature of Dr. Apurba Biswas and the seal was opened in her presence and
the said content of the said memory card was shown to her and that she
admitted to the CBI authority that it was the said Memory Card containing
the videography of entire post mortem procedure of the victim and in that
regard, one memorandum was prepared and she, Dr. Moly Banerjee along
with the officials of CBI and one independent person have singed in the said
Memorandum.
544. It was her evidence that the expert from the CBI team had extracted
the hash value of the said memory card and it was noted in the said
memorandum. The said memorandum was proved as Exbt. P-195(44). She
had also proved her signatures in the said memorandum dated 18.08.2024 as
Exbt. P-195/1(44).
545. It was he specific evidence that she had stored the said still
photographs in one pen drive by extracting the same from her mobile phone
and that she had handed over the said pen drive to the CBI authority and in
that regard she had issued proper certificate U/s 63 BSA along with the Hash
77
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
Value generation report of the said pen drive and she had proved the said
certificate as Exbt. P-197(44).
546. The said PW had proved the said 13 snaps taken by her.
547. From her evidence it also came out that as it was already crossed
04.00 pm when they got ready for postmortem, she made an endorsement that
specific police order is required for performing the post mortem after 04.00
pm as per order no. HFW/38099/57/2021-DIR-MES.
548. She had proved her signature in the said Post Mortem Report.
549. During her cross examination she stated that her signature in annexure
A of the certificate under section 63 BSA, does not bear any date.
550. It was also stated by her that her personal mobile phone was not
seized.
551. In reply to a specific question put to her during the cross examination,
she stated that it was not always necessary to climb over the chest of the
victim for the incident of manual strangulation associated with smothering as
the team found in this case and in that case the chance of fracture of any ribs
is remote.
553. According to him, on 10.08.2024 the accused Sanjay Roy was arrested
by Kolkata police and under the instruction of Additional OC, WG Cell,
Rupali Mukherjee, he had prepared one personal property list of the said
arrested person and he had proved it as Exbt. P-141/1(45)].
554. Dr. Braja Kishore Mahapatra, Deputy Director, Biology, CFSL, New
Delhi was examined by the Prosecution as P.W-46.
556. They have inspected all the relevant areas including the corridor,
Nursing Station, Seminar Hall, the room of the HOD and examined
forensically.
557. According to him, Dr. Sumit Roy Tapadar of R.G Kar Hospital
conveyed that the dead body of the victim was lying on a wooden stage
available in the Seminar Hall of Respiratory Care Unit of RG Kar Hospital.
78
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
558. It was his evidence that upon detailed examination, the material like
long hairs were found over the table, long hairs were found in the mattress,
one medicine wrapper was found, one mobile back cover was found and two
suspected stains were found over the mattress and the said materials were
collected and handed over to the IO of the CBI.
559. He deposed that one Inspection cum Seizure Memo was prepared and
he had signed therein. He had proved his signature as Exbt. P-43/5(46).
560. According to him, the said team had prepared one detailed Crime
Scene Examination Report and the same was signed by him, Mithilesh Jha,
Anuj Kumar Bhati, P. K Gottam and A.D Tiwari and the said report was
proved as Exbt. P-201(46).
561. During his cross examination he deposed that if anyone touch any
object, his DNA can be extracted from the said object, only if sufficient
biological cells are available over the said objects.
562. He deposed that in the said Report it was noted that except the
mattress located on the wooden stage, no biological stains could be detected
on the floor surface in the said seminar room and that the evidences of
possible struggle between the victim and assailant were found missing in the
area of occurrence.
563. He also deposed that inside the Seminar Hall opposite to the entry
door, there were four doors which stated to be remained closed, the IO was
suggested to take note of it for the purpose of investigation.
564. He deposed that opposite to the said Seminar Hall they have noticed
that some walls were demolished and that the team conducted forensic search
in the said demolished area but they did not find any forensic clue material.
565. Mr. P. Paul Ramesh, Deputy Director, Physics, CFSL, Kolkata, was
examined as the P.W-47.
567. As per the said evidence, the said packets consisted of one black
colour spectacles having one glass and one glass missing, one transparent
power glass of the spectacles, one blue colour jeans, one brown colour panty,
one white colour bra, one white colour ganji, one red colour kurti and one
79
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
blue jeans and the same were marked by him as Exbt. C, D, E1, E2, W1, W2,
W3, and X respectively and he had examined the same thoroughly, physically
and microscopically.
568. As per his opinion, the Exbt D was the part of Exbt. C and they were
separated due to application of force.
569. It was also his opinion that the breaking of stitching threads at the
elastic joint, breaking of stitching threads between the cloth and elastic in
Exbt. E-2 was due to dragging it down forcefully.
570. It was also his opinion that both sides of waist portion of the kurti
(Exbt. W3) were found to be torn and it could be due to sudden pulling up.
571. The report was proved as Exbt. P-202(47). He had proved and
identified all the said articles examined by him.
572. He opined during cross examination that due to use threads may come
out from the undergarment.
575. He stated that the said videography was for 5/6 minutes and that at
around 08.00 pm another constable, namely Sk. Sahanawaz from Scientific
Wing came there and he started to take the videograph he had handed over
the camera with the micro SD card used by him, to Sk. Sahanawaz. He had
proved the portion of the entire videography done by him.
576. Inspector Rupali Mukherjee, the Addl. O.C, W.G Cell Kolkata Police,
was examined as the P.W-49.
80
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
578. She deposed that on 10.08.2024, on the basis of some suspicion and
information they have detained one person namely Sanjay Roy and he had
confessed his guilt and then he was arrested on 10.08.2024 and his statement
was recorded.
579. As per the evidence, on search of the said person, his personal
properties were found and one of the SIT members, SI Prithwiraj
Mukhopadhyay had prepared a list of the said personal properties of the of
the detained person.
580. She also deposed that at the time of his search, his mobile phone was
found which was in switch off condition and the same was seized by her
[Exbt. P-140/1(49)] and the said person was arrested by her at the office room
of W.G Cell at Lalbazar by preparing the proper Memo of Arrest and
Inspection Memo [Exbt. P-140/1(49)] and the arrested accused was sent to
SSKM Hospital for his medical examination and that on 10.08.2024 the said
accused was produced before the court of Ld. ACJM, Sealdah and the said
accused was taken into PC.
582. They have made the prayer to the Ld. Court for retention of the seized
mobile of the accused and the said four pen drives and the same were kept at
the Malkhana of Detective Department, Kolkata Police for its safe custody.
583. She deposed that during the medico legal examination of the accused,
some materials were preserved and the OC, W.G Cell had collected it and the
same were handed over to her in sealed condition in the intervening night of
10/11.08.2024.
584. She also recorded the statements of some witnesses of R.G Kar
Hospital.
585. From the evidence it came out that on 11.08.2024 she again went to
R.G Kar Hospital with the photographer and plan maker from the Scientific
Wing of DD Lalbazar and took the snaps of the place of occurrence and the
sketch map was also prepared.
586. That on 12.08.2024 she made two prayers before Ld. ACJM, Sealdah
for extraction of data of the seized mobile and for collection of blood samples
of the accused for DNA profiling and for tagging of Tala PS UD case No. 861
81
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
dated 09.08.2024 with the main case (Tala PS case No. 52 dated 09.08.2024)
and for getting the original Inquest Report.
588. She also deposed that on 12.08.2024 another member of the SIT had
seized four internal hard disks from the DVRs of the CCTVs, which were
kept at the chamber of OC, R.G Kar Medical College and Hospital Police Out
Post. On the same date, another member of the SIT SI Kausikbrata Majumdar
had collected the PM report, MCDC and the Medico Legal exhibits from the
Morgue office of R.G Kar Hospital.
589. It was her evidence that on 12.08.2024, she had recorded a statement
of the accused Sanjay Roy and at that time the said accused had disclosed that
he could show IO his wearing worn at the time of incident and the footwear
used by him. The portion of the said statement of the accused was marked as
Exbt. P-214 (49).
590. She deposed that on the basis of the said statement, a team of police
officers went to the 4th Battalion of Kolkata Police at Salt Lake along with the
accused and the accused had shown them the separate room where he used to
stay in the barrack, which was under lock and key and the accused had shown
the place where he kept the key of the said room and the room was opened.
591. That after taking entry into the said room, the accused had shown his
wearing on the date of incident, the key of his bike, his footwear and other
articles and the same were seized by her by preparing proper seizure list and
the said procedure of seizure was videographed as per the statutory provision
and that on that date the said team had also seized one motor bike kept in the
compound of 4th battalion. The witness proved the seizure lists and the labels.
592. She had proved the micro SD card contained the videography of the
entire procedure of search and seizure and that the same was produced before
the court of Ld. ACJM and as per the direction of the court it was retained
with the IO.
82
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
593. The micro SD card showing the seizure procedure of the mobile of the
accused, extraction of CCTV footage on 11.08.2024 were also proved.
594. It was also evidence that data was extracted from the mobile of the
accused.
595. She had proved the Memorandum of handing over the relevant papers
to CBI as per the order of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta.
596. During her cross examination she stated that on 09.08.2024 she was at
RG Kar Hospital from 05.30 pm to 11.30/12.00 night and that on 10.08.2024
at around 10.00/10.30 am she had received the CD of this case from Tala PS.
She also deposed that she had received the seized articles on 12.08.2024 in
the evening.
597. It was her evidence during her cross examination that in the
intervening night of 09/10.08.2024 at 12.00 night, she made first entry in the
CD by noting her appointment as the IO of this case for further investigation.
598. According to her, it took about one hour to reach to 4 th battalion from
Lalbazar in the police vehicle as there was heavy traffic on the road.
600. She also deposed that on 10.08.2024 at 22.30 hours she went to the
R.G Kar Medical College Campus for seizure of CCTV footages but she did
not go to the PO or its surroundings at that time and that she left R.G Kar at
02.00 am and the date was 11.08.2024.
601. She deposed that on 11.08.2024 she again visited R.G Kar Medical
College and Hospital but the time is not mentioned in the CD and that on that
date she had recorded the statements of witnesses namely Swarojit Sikdar,
Hiralal Sarkar, Alip Roy, Biswajit Roy, Sk. Iqbal Gir Hossain.
602. She also stated during her cross examination that on 11.08.2024 she
again visited the surrounding of the PO for preparing the sketch map by the
person from Scientific Wing and also took the entry into the Seminar Room,
which was kept under lock and key.
603. It is fact that she could not recollect who had handed over the key to
her but she had returned the key in the same process and that afterwards, prior
to handing over CD to CBI on 13.08.2024, she did not visit RG Kar Hospital.
83
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
604. From her evidence we came to know that during her visit to the PO,
she had noticed that for taking entry to the Seminar Room by any outsider,
the Nursing Station should be crossed.
605. It was stated by her that she did not seize any duty roaster of the
Nursing Staff for the intervening night of 08.08.2024/09.08.2024 at the Chest
Department.
607. From her evidence we came to know that the members of the SIT had
prepared the list of on duty doctors, nursing staff (male and female) and the
attendants and they were examined by the SIT members and not by this
witness and the same was available in the CD.
608. From her detailed cross-examination it came out that the day on which
she had seized the CCTV footage, one Ranjan Paul was present for the
maintenance from maintenance firm, who were entrusted to look after the
CCTV of RG Kar Hospital. She also stated that she did not mention any time
of the footages, the extracts of which were collected by her in respect of the
3rd floor of Emergency Building and that she did not hold any investigation
whether except she, any other person had procured the extracted CCTV
footage prior to her.
609. She also stated that she did not examine any person namely Dr.
Debasish Som and Rajashree Roy.
610. She admitted that she stated to CBI that on 09.08.2024 at around 11.00
pm she was present at the Platinum Jubilee Building of R.G Kar Hospital
along with her superior colleague officials of Kolkata police and that on that
date at 11.30 pm one person was brought by police and his examination was
started and his name was later disclosed to her as Sanjay Roy. She admitted
that she had stated to CBI that on checking of the mobile of the said person it
was found that the battery was very low and that as she was on her way to
Tala PS, she was asked by OC, W.G, Cell to take the mobile phone to Tala PS
and to arrange for its charging and she had done it and that she was instructed
to go back to R.G Kar Hospital by keeping the mobile at Tala PS for its
charging.
611. It was her evidence that she stated to the CBI that after sometimes,
being instructed by her superior, she went to Lalbazar with the suspect and
that in the morning of 10.08.2024 the case diary along with mobile of suspect
was received by her from the OC, W.G Cell.
84
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
612. It was her voluntary statement that on 10.08.2024 in the morning the
mobile of the accused was returned to him at Lalbazar. Afterwards, he was
interrogated and when he had confessed his guilt, he was arrested and
afterwards, the seizure procedure of mobile was done.
613. She denied the specific suggestion of the defence that the exhibits
which she had received from Tala PS were in unsealed condition except 4
items.
614. She stated that on 09.08.2024 at 05.30 pm when she went to the said
Seminar Hall, she had noticed that a search and seizure procedure was going
on but she was not present there throughout.
615. She denied the fact that the videography of search and seizure was
going on under her instruction.
616. It was her reply during cross examination that during her presence at
the time of search and seizure, she had noticed that the seized articles were
kept in proper packets.
617. She admitted that she did not collect any specimen finger print of
accused Sanjay Roy.
618. It was also her reply during cross examination that she did not seize
the wallet of the accused but the videography showed that the said wallet of
the accused was kept on her table along with the mobile.
619. She stated during cross examination that immediately after arrest of
Sanjay Roy his medical examination was done as per procedure at SSKM
Hospital and as per the OPD ticket the time was 10.39 am and that
afterwards, the medico legal examination of the accused was done after 12.00
noon.
620. She deposed that during investigation she got that this accused Sanjay
Roy was attached to Welfare Board of Kolkata Police and that he used to look
after the patients related to police department who admitted at hospital.
621. It was also her version that during enquiry she got that on
08/09.08.2024 the relative of one Civic Volunteer was admitted at R.G Kar
Hospital for the surgery of said patient but she did not interrogate any such
patient or patient party.
622. It was her evidence that during her course of enquiry, she did not get
anything about any criminal antecedent of Sanjay Roy at R.G Kar Hospital.
623. Prosecution had examined the IO CBI Sima Pahaja as the P.W-50.
85
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
624. According to her, she was entrusted with the investigation of this case
on 13.08.2024 and she had proved the FIR drawn by the CBI as Exbt. P-
225(50).
625. She deposed that on 13.08.2014 and 14.08.2024 they have collected
the documents and records from the local PS and that on 14.08.2024 the team
of CBI, CPWD, CFSL and AIIMS, New Delhi had visited the scene of crime
(SOC) at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital, which was the Seminar
Room situated at the 3rd floor of Emergency Building of R.G Kar Hospital
and the said SOC was kept under lock and key and it was opened by the IO
from Kolkata Police Rupali Mukherjee (PW-49) by arranging the key.
626. That the CBI team met the HOD, Chest Department and the faculty
Dr. Sumit Roy Tapadar and that as shown by Dr. Sumit Roy Tapadar, the
scene of crime was inspected by the team.
627. That during that inspection, the CFSL experts forensically examined
the scene of crime and they captured photo and videos of the scene of crime.
The architect of CPWD took measurement of the said scene of crime.
628. According to her evidence, during such inspection, some articles were
found, which deemed to be relevant for the purpose of investigation of this
case and the CFSL team had collected the same and placed it in sealed cover
and handed over to her and that after inspection of the scene of crime, it was
locked by CBI and also sealed the same by the CBI.
629. It was also stated by her that they have also received some articles
from Kolkata police in sealed packet and those articles along with the articles
found by CFSL team during inspection, were handed over to CFSL for its
examination on various dates. They have also received the articles related to
the accused Sanjay Roy, from Kolkata police alongwith the custody of the
accused Sanjay Roy.
630. According to her, they have also procured 40 still photographs of the
place of occurrence including the photographs of victim.
631. They have also received the floor plan prepared by Kolkata Police.
632. It was her evidence that they have also seized the DVRs and internal
hard disks of the CCTVs installed at R.G Kar Hospital. The DVRs were
seized from the R.G Kar Police Out post as those were installed there and that
they have procured 51 CCTV footages of Kolkata Traffic Police at different
places.
86
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
633. It came out that during investigation, the accused Sanjay Roy was
identified by some police officer like ASI Anup Dutta, ASI Samar Paul and
security guard Jagendir Saha by seeing the CCTV footage.
634. She also stated that during investigation, blood samples of the accused
Sanjay Roy was collected by the CBI team for the purpose of DNA profiling
and that all the exhibits were sent to CFSL, Kolkata for its forensic
examination on various dates.
635. She deposed that she had received the report of DNA profiling from
CFSL Kolkata and the toxicology report and that they have also received the
details report of regarding the examination of hard discs of the electronic
materials like mobile phone, earphone, laptop etc.
636. According to her, at the time of investigation, MIMB was formed and
the post mortem videos, inquest videos along with the original report and the
photographs were placed to them for examination and the CBI had received
the report. She also deposed that the inquest and autopsy videos were also
examined by the doctors of AIIMS, Kalyani and they got the report.
638. She also stated that they have collected the list of doctors, nurses or
the other staff members of RG Kar Hospital, who were on duty on that fateful
night and the said Duty Roster alongwith the seizure memo was proved as
Exbt. P-229(50) and Exbt. P-230(50).
639. It was the evidence that the CBI team had examined several witnesses
and recorded their statements, collected the cremation certificate of the
victim, the report from SFSL, Kolkata, the certified copies of Malkhana
register of Tala PS and DD Lalbazar, the supported document regarding
employment of Sanjay Roy as the Civic Volunteer, Kolkata Police from the
office DCP (HG) Kolkata Police.59. During investigation, we have re-seized
the motor bike which was already seized by Kolkata police.
640. She deposed that they have also collected the CDR as well as
Customer Application Form of the mobile number of the accused from
concerned service provider.
641. It was her conclusion that from the documents and material collected
during the investigation, it was prima facie established that this accused was
the only person who was involved with the incident of rape and murder of the
87
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
victim and accordingly they have filed charge sheet against this accused
Sanjay Roy under section 64/66/103(1) BNS.
642. During cross examination she stated that she had interrogated Dr.
Debasish Som, Dr. Rajashree Roy and Dr. Sandip Ghosh and recorded their
statements and that she did not collect any finger print impression of the
accused or did not attempt to get any chance finger print from the seized
article, specially the Bluetooth earphone.
643. The said IO also deposed that she personally did not examine any
nursing staff, Aaya, or the group D staff of R.G Kar Hospital but that her
team members have examined some of them.
644. She deposed during cross examination that they did not cite the names
of any such nursing staff/Aaya/Group-D employees in the charge sheet as
witness and that though they have examined the person from MDR, TB ward
and their statements were recorded, but they were not mentioned as witness in
the charge sheet.
645. She stated that she had perused the statement of Gobinda Phusti (PW-
41) but even after perusal of his statement she did not take initiative to collect
the pen drive from Dr. Rajashree Roy in respect of the CCTV footage of the
camera installed at the 3rd floor of Emergency Building (Chest Department)
for the time span 10.00 pm on 08.08.2024 to 10.00 am on 09.08.2024.
646. She admitted that after seizure of the DVRs of the CCTV footages, the
data were extracted and they have perused all the footages of the relevant
time span of 08.08.2024/09.08.2024 and that she had perused the CCTV
footage of the 3rd floor of Chest Department of R.G Kar Hospital for the
period around 03.00 am to 04.30 am dated 09.08.2024. she stated that she did
not collect any pen drive from Dr. Rajashree Roy even after perusal of
statement of Gobinda Phusti (PW-41).
647. In this regard she made the voluntary statement that as the entire
DVRs were seized, there was no need to collect the pen drive from Rajashree
Roy.
648. She strongly denied the prosecution suggestion that the Seminar
Room of R.G Kar Hospital (Chest Department) was not the actual scene of
crime or that she did not take any endeavor to locate the actual scene of crime
and that she had blindly followed the investigation conducted by the Kolkata
police or that this accused was falsely implicated to shield the real culprit
behind the incident.
88
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
The accused person was examined u/s 351 BNSS by following the guideline
of the Hon’ble High Court Calcutta as passed in CRA 609 of 2012 (CRAN 03 of
2024).
The incriminating materials came out in the evidence of the PWs were placed
to the accused in his mother tongue (Bengali) and its exact English translated version
was recorded in open court in presence and hearing of the Ld. Counsel for the
accused, Ld. PP CBI and the Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
The entire recording is reproduced here :-
“Q.1. I am putting some questions to you, and you may or may not reply. But
remember that your reply may be used for or against you. Do you understand?
Ans. Yes.
Q.2. Are you aware about the evidence on record, which were recorded either in
your physical presence before this court or when you were produced through VC?
Ans. Yes.
Q.3. From the evidence of PW-34 (Inspector Subhendu Das), it appears that in
terms of requisition of CBI he had handed over all the relevant documents regarding
your employment as Civic Volunteer and it appears that you were selected as the
Civic Volunteer vide order dated 21.12.2018, which was proved as Exbt. P-172 (34).
(The document is shown to the witness) What do want to say?
Ans. This is the document of my selection as the civic volunteer.
Q.4. From the documents attached with your appointment it appears that you
participated in the Junior Boxing Championship organized by Bhowanipur Boxing
Association in the year 2004 and became the runner. Are you a right-handed person?
What do want to say?
Ans. I am a right handed person and it is fact that I was the runner up in the
said Boxing Championship.
Q.5 From the documents attached with your appointment it appears that you have
one savings account in the State Bank of India vide account No. 38193528017 at
Gokhel Road branch and you receive regular SMS from the bank regarding your
transactions or account related issues and this is your salary account. What do want
to say?
Ans. Yes. This is my account, and I receive SMS regarding this account.
Q.6. From the evidence of PW-38 (ASI Sanjay Roy), it appears that you were
attached to 4th Battalion of Kolkata Police as the Civic Volunteer and ASI Anup
Dutta (PW-30) entrusted you to look after the patients of police departments at
various hospitals though you were not a member of the Central Committee of the
Welfare Board formed for the 4th Battalion. What do want to say?
89
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
Ans. It is true.
Q.7. From the evidence of said PW-38 (ASI Sanjay Roy), it also appears that you
used to occupy barrack of 4th battalion under the instruction/permission of ASI Anup
Dutta (PW-30) and that you were allowed to use the officials bike of Kolkata police
vide No. WB-01-AE-5021, which was officially allotted for the Welfare Cell, under the
permission of ASI Anup Dutta. What do want to say?
90
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
Ans. It is fact that both of us consumed beer and then Sourav took entry into
the room of one prostitute but came out within 2/5 minutes probably due to some
disagreement but in the meantime I have completed the consumption of beer.
Q.12. From the evidence of said PW-33, it appears that from Chetla both of you
proceeded towards RG Kar Hospital in the said official bike of Kolkata Police and
you had dropped the PW-33 at the main gate of Trauma Care Centre of RG Kar
Hospital and took entry there. What do want to say?
Ans. Yes. It is fact but I did not ask him to get down from bike, he voluntarily
got down from the bike as he was in a hurry. I have asked him to wait but he did not
pay heed to me and went out. Then I again turned my bike to search him out but I
could not get any trace of him and I again took entry into the RG Kar Hospital
premises and entered the Trauma Care Centre.
Q.13. One CCTV footage of RG Kar Hospital was seized by police and the same
was proved as Mat Exbt. LX by the prosecution and the same was shown to the PW-
33 and during the time slot 3.00 am to 4.00 am dated 09.08.2024 you along with the
PW-33 were seen to take entry into the RG Kar Hospital (the said clippings is shown
to the accused). What do want to say about this clipping where your presence at RG
Kar Hospital is found at 03.00 am on 09.08.2024?
Ans. Yes. In this entry myself is found to park the bike and to take entry into
the Trauma Care Centre and my exit from the Trauma Care Centre is found at 3.36.15
am on 09.08.2024.
Q.14. One CCTV footage of the Traffic Department of Kolkata Police was shown to
the PW-33, which was a footage of Rajballavpara and the said footage was dated
08.08.2024 from 16.07.20 hours to 16.07.25 hours and the same shows that you are
driving a police bike with the PW-33 as the pillion rider (the said footage, which was
proved as Mat Exbt. LV is shown to the accused). What do want to say about this
footage?
Ans. I admit my presence along with Sourav as the pillion rider in the said
CCTV footage.
Q.15. From the evidence of the PW-32 (Jogendra Shaw), who was posted as
security guard from one private security agency at RG Kar Hospital Trauma Centre,
it appears that during the time slot 3.00 am to 4.00 am on 09.08.2024, you were
found to take entry into the Trauma Centre at 03.34.10 am and you took entry into the
said Trauma Centre with a helmet in your hand and one blue tooth ear-phone was
hanging from your neck and this witness had identified you in the CCTV footage,
which was proved in this case as Mat Exbt. LX. What do want to say?
Ans. It is fact that this is the CCTV footage where I was found to take entry
into the Trauma Care Centre through the main gate and I am carrying one helmet
91
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
Department situated at 3rd floor of the Emergency Building and it was deposed by
the said witness on perusing the particular CCTV footage, which was marked as Mat
Exbt. LVII and from the said footage it appears that you took a right turn from the
point where the CCTV was installed and took entry into one corridor and at that time
one helmet was in your hand and one ear-phone was hanging from your neck. What
do want to say about this particular footage?
Ans. Yes. This is me who is found in this particular CCTV footage and my
helmet is with me and my Bluetooth earphone is hanging from my neck. It is fact that
I was found in this footage to take my right turn and followed a corridor and then it is
found that I took entry to somewhere to the left side which is not within the coverage
of this CCTV.
Q.19. From the evidence of said PW-31 and on perusal of the said CCTV footage
(Mat Exbt. LVII) it appears that at 04.31.40 am on 09.08.2024, you were found to
come out and again you have turned around to the direction from where you came
and subsequently you were again found in the CCTV to come out and at that time the
helmet was found in your hand but the said Bluetooth earphone is not found hanging
from your neck and it appears that after coming out you have turned to your left and
went outside the coverage area of the said CCTV. What do want to say?
Ans. It is fact when in the footage I was found to come out, my helmet is
found with me but the Bluetooth earphone, which was found hanging in my neck at
the time of my entry, is not found at the time of my exit.
Q.20. The said particular CCTV footage (Mat Exbt. LVII) is showing to you now in
the system of this court. It appears that the version of PW-31 in respect of your entry
and exit at the Chest Department situated at 3 rd floor of the Emergency Building, is
clearly visible in the said footage and it also appears from the said footage that when
92
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
you took entry at the said Chest Department you had one helmet in your hand and
one Bluetooth device earphone was hanging from your neck but when you came out,
the helmet is found in your hand but the earphone, which was hanging from your neck
at the time of your entry, was not found. What do want to say about the said footage
and what is your explanation about your presence at the Chest Department, RG Kar
Medical College and Hospital situated on the 3rd floor of the Emergency Building,
from 04.03.31 am to 04.31.40 am on 09.08.2024 ?
Ans. It is true.
Q.21. From the evidence of PW-31 (ASI Samar Paul) it appears that on 09.08.2024
at around 10.00 am on receipt of a call from the OC, RG Kar Police Out Post he went
to the Chest Department situated at 3rd Floor of Emergency Building and noticed
that body of one woman was lying in the seminar hall attached to the Chest
Department of RG Kar Hospital. What do want to say?
Ans. I can not say anything about it.
Q.22. From the evidence of the said PW-31, it also appears that on 09.08.2024 at
around 09.30 pm the police officials were checking the CCTV footage of the hospital
and at that time, one of the Civic Volunteer posted at RG Kar Hospital namely Dilip
Kumar Saha had identified you, when you were found in one of the CCTV footages.
What do want to say?
Ans. I can not say anything about it.
Q.23. From the evidence of said PW-31, it also appears that you used to visit RG
Kar Hospital frequently, with patients and as such, you were known to the said PW-31
and that your contact number was with him. What do want to say?
Ans. I used to meet ASI Samar Paul at his place of posting and his residence
under instruction of ASI Anup Dutta and I was also asked by ASI Anup Dutta to
deliver his personal belongings like the bottle of liquor to ASI Samar Paul at several
times and accordingly, I was known to ASI Samar Paul and my contact number was
with him.
Q.24. The said witness also deposed that under the instruction of OC, RG Kar
Police Out Post, he tried to contact you at around 10.30 pm and 10.31 pm on
09.08.2024 and asked you to come to RG Kar Hospital but you denied. What do want
to say?
Ans. It is fact that I have received the call from ASI Samar Paul and I was
asked by him to go to RG Kar Hospital and at that time, I was with ASI Anup Dutta
and I told him that I would go there.
Q.25. From the evidence of said PW-31, it appears that you used to visit the said
hospital under the reference of ASI Anup Dutta and as such, he had called ASI Anup
Dutta and requested him to instruct you to come to RG Kar Hospital. What do want
to say?
93
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
Ans. I can not say whether ASI Samar Paul had called ASI Anup Dutta on
09.08.2024 after 10.30 pm.
Q.26. From the evidence of PW-20 (Constable Chandan Bhowmick) it appears that
94
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
95
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
96
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
appears that you were examined on 10.08.2024 at 12.00 noon and the opinion was
that the injuries found over your body were between 24 to 36 hours prior to 12.00
noon of 10.08.2024 and on mathematical calculation the said time falls within time
span 4.00/4.30 am on 09.08.2024, when you were found at the Chest Department
the said statement you have stated that if you would be taken to the Barrack at 4 th
battalion, you would produce your wearing apparel and footwear which were used by
you on 09.08.2024, when you were found at RG Kar Hospital. What do you want to
say?
Ans. I did not say anything like this.
Q.38. From the evidence of PW-49 it also appears that on the basis of the said
statement, you were taken to 4th battalion of Kolkata police at Salt Lake and you had
shown a separate room in the said Barrack vide No. B 14K where you used to stay in
the barrack and the said room was under lock and key and you have shown the place
where the key of the said room was kept and the room was opened by you. What do
you want to say ?
Ans. The actual fact is that my wearing were taken out on 09.08.2024 while
was at Lalbazar and on 12.08.2024 the same was orchestrated. We generally keep the
keys of the room at a particular place which is known to everyone and when I was at
Lalbazar I was shown the place of keeping the keys by way of video callings.
Q.39. It also appears from the evidence of PW-49 that they took entry into the said
room with you and you have shown your wearing used by you on the date of incident
(09.08.2024) and you have also produced the key of the bike and your footwear and
other articles and the same were seized by the PW-49 by preparing a proper seizure
list and you have also signed in the said seizure list. What do you want to say ?
Ans. It is a planted incident.
Q.40. The said seizure list [Exbt. P-215(49)] is shown to you and my question is
whether you find your signature in the said seizure list ? What do you want to say?
Ans. This is my signature in the said document shown to me.
Q.41. From evidence of PW-49, it appears that said search and seizure procedure
was videographed and the said video was shown to the court (Mat Exbt. LXXIII)
and the same is also shown to you today and it appears from the said video that you
have identified your wearing, footwear, key of the bike, helmet, charger and other
articles and the same were seized in your presence. What do you want to say?
97
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
CCTV, installed at 3rd floor of Chest Department, Emergency Building, R.G. Kar
Medical College & Hospital, you were found to carry one earphone at your neck but
when your exist was captured by the said CCTV, no earphone was found with you and
the earphone which was seized from the dais of the seminar room found paired with
your mobile phone. What do you want to say ?
98
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
situated at 3rd floor of Emergency Building of R.G Kar Hospital and noticed that one
dead body of a lady was lying on the dais which was covered with green colour bed
cover and that he had noticed good number of injury marks over the face of the dead
body and that there was blood in the eyes and lips of the dead body and that they
found one spectacles but one glass of that spectacle was missing there and after
removing of the dead body they found the said Bluetooth earphone under the
mattress, which was subsequently found paired with your seized mobile phone. What
do you want to say?
Ans. I can not say.
Q.49. It appears that the said search and seizure was properly videographed and
the location of the earphone in the said video (Mat Ext LXXVI) . What do you want
to say?
Ans. I have no relation with the said bluetooth earphone.
Q.50. It appears from the evidence of PW-15 (Dr. Paulin Ara Parven) that on
17.08.2024 she had collected the blood of you at the CGO Complex at the office of
CBI after taking your consent and the said blood was collected for DNA profiling and
the said Blood Sample Authentication Form was duly proved as Exbt. P-51 (15),
which bears your signature. What do you want to say?
Ans. Yes. It is true that my blood was collected at CBI office.
Q.51. It appears from the evidence of PW-39 (Sanat Kumar Saha, Senior Scientific
Officer, MFU, Kolkata Police) that on 09.08.2024 the forensic team had conducted
collection of articles at the scene of crime and after removing of the body they found
one spectacle but one glass of the said spectacle was missing and the said missing
glass was also found at a place under the body of the victim. What do you want to
say?
Ans. I can not say.
Q.52. It appears from the evidence of PW-12 (Dr. Antra Burman) that on
09.08.2024 police had conducted search and seizure at the said place of occurrence
and at that time, one spectacle with one glass was seized by police and she had
proved the same as Mat Exbt. XX(P-12). What do you want to say?
Ans. I can not say.
Q.53. It appears from the evidence of PW-47 (P. Paul Ramesh, Deputy Director,
Physic, CFSL, Kolkata) that he had examined the said spectacle and the glass which
was separated from the said spectacle and he opined that the said glass was the part
of the spectacle and the same were separated due to application of force. What do
99
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
100
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
101
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
area of the victim and he was of self opinion that the victim was murdered and was
sexually assaulted. What do you want to say?
Ans. I can not say.
Q.67. From the evidence of PW-7 (Dr.Poli Samadder), it appears that on 09.08.2024
after 12.44 pm she had issued the Certificate of Death of the victim and the same was
proved in this case as Exhibit P-6(7) and the dead body was sent for post mortem
examination. What do you want to say?
Ans. I can not say.
Q.68. From the evidence of PW-10 (Shibasis Dey, Ld. JM, 2 nd Court, Sealdah), it
appears that in terms of the direction of the Ld. ACJM, Sealdah dated 09.08.2024 he
had conducted inquest over the dead body of the victim of this case in connection with
Tala PS UD case No. 861 of 2024 and that he deposed that the said inquest was
conducted on 09.08.2024 at 04.20 pm in presence of two lady doctors namely Dr.
Diyasini Roy and Dr. Antra Burman. What do you want to say?
Ans. I can not say.
Q.69. From the evidence of PW-12 (Dr. Antra Burman), it appears that she had
supported the version of the PW-10 by saying that she along with Dr. Diyasini Roy
were present at the time of holding of inquest by the PW-10. What do you want to
say?
Ans. I can not say.
Q.70. From the evidence of PW-10 (Shibasis Dey, Ld. JM, 2 nd Court, Sealdah ) , it
appears that the body of the victim was lying on a blue colour mattress in half naked
condition and one jeans pant and brown panty were lying at the left side of the body
of the victim and on examination he had noticed bleeding from both eyes and mouth,
injuries over face, bleeding from vagina, injuries over left leg and abdomen, injuries
over left leg ankle, injury marks at her neck, right hand, right finger and lips. What
do you want to say?
Ans. I can not say.
Q.71. From the evidence of said witness (PW-10) , it appears that that there were
multiple hair over the mattress and blood was socked over the blue mattress and he
had proved the inquest report as Exbt. P-3/1(10) . What do you want to say?
Ans. I can not say.
Q.72. From the evidence of the PW-10 it also appears that the entire process of
inquest was videographed. What do you want to say?
Ans. I can not say.
Q.73. From the evidence of PW-11 (ASI Shekar Roy of Scientific Wing, DD, Kolkata
Police) it appears that on 09.08.2024 he conducted videography of the entire process
of inquest in the official Sony video camera of Kolkata Police by using one 16 GB
micro SD card of Master company and the same was exhibited as Mat Exbt. II(P-11)
102
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
(The video clipping is shown to the accused in the system of the court). From
the said video it is found that the detailed version of the PW-10 is true. What do you
want to say?
Ans. I have no idea.
Q.74. From the evidence of PW-21 (Dr. Apurba Biswas) it appears that he had
conducted the post mortem over the dead body of the victim in connection with Tala
PS UD case No. 861 dated 09.08.2024, Tala PS inquest no. 1139 of 2024 and that the
said PM was conducted by forming a team which included Dr. Rina Das and Dr.
Moly Banerjee. What do you want to say?
Ans. I can not say.
Q.75. From the evidence of the said PW-21 (Dr. Apurba Biswas) it also appears that
the dead body was received at the Morgue for the post mortem at 05.10 pm and as the
said time crossed the specific time mentioned in the direction of Government of West
Bengal, the PM was conducted after getting the requisition from Tala PS. What do
you want to say?
Ans. I can not say.
Q.76. From the evidence of the said PW-21 (Dr. Apurba Biswas) it appears that the
said postmortem was attended by the junior doctors like Dr. Titas Pal, Dr. Nirmita
Saha, Dr. Riya Bera, Dr. Rama Bera and Dr. Moutrisha Ghorai and one Manas
Kumar Deb also attended on behalf of the father of the victim. What do you want to
say?
Ans. I can not say.
Q.77. From the evidence of the PW-21 (Dr. Apurba Biswas) and the PM report
[Exbt. P-105(21)], it appears that the injuries, both internal and external, were
specifically mentioned in the said report and the viscera, PM blood, scalp hair, nail
cuttings and scrapings from both hands, wet vulvar mop, pubic combings were
properly collected, preserved, sealed and packed. What do you want to say?
Ans. I can not say.
Q.78. From the evidence of the said PW-21 (Dr. Apurba Biswas) it also appears that
vaginal swab, endocervical swab, swab from inner side of lips, swab from all around
of both nipples and anal swab were collected and smear was made and the same were
properly preserved. What do you want to say?
Ans. I can not say.
Q.79. The said doctor opined that the death was caused any time within 19 hours
prior to the time of conduction of PM examination and this PM examination was
done from 06.10 pm to 07.10 pm on 09.08.2024 and if we calculate 19 hours back
from the said time, it comes within the span of 04.00 am to 4.30 am dated 09.08.2024.
What do you want to say?
Ans. I can not say.
103
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
Q.80. From the evidence of the PW-37 (Dr. Ardash Kumar) and the report MMIB
[Exbt. P-178(37)], it appears that the death of the victim was caused between 12.00
mid night to 06.00 am of 09.08.2024. What do you want to say?
Ans. I can not say
Q.81. From the evidence of the said PW-21 (Dr. Apurba Biswas) it appears that
some photographs during PM were snapped by Dr. Rina Das (PW-44) in her personal
mobile and the said photographs were exhibited in this case as P-118(21) to
P-129(21) and Dr. Rina Das (PW 44) also supported that the snaps were taken by her
(The said 13 photographs are placed to the accused). What do you want to say?
Ans. I can not say anything.
Q.82. From the evidence of the said PW-21 (Dr. Apurba Biswas) and Ext-P-124(21)
it appears that there was sub-conjunctival hemorrhage and the same signifies that it
was violent asphyxial death due to compression effect over neck and the bleeding
found from the eyes and nose was due to that compression and that there were no
direct internal injuries over the eyes and nose. What do you want to say?
Ans. I can not say.
Q.83. From the Exbt. P-125(21) and the evidence of PW-21 it appears that the
particular injury mark in the said photograph signifies that it was caused by none
other than by compression of right hand thumb and it was not visible from outside
and the extravasation of blood is found only on dissection. What do you want to
say?
Ans. I can not say.
Q.82. From the Exbt. P-126(21) and the evidence of PW-21 (Dr. Apurba Biswas) it
appears that there was extravasated blood over left posterior parietal area of scalp
tissue and diffused blood under left side temporal areas of scalp tissue and the
opinion of the doctor was that the same was caused by pushing the head repeatedly
with force against any background which was not so hard and for that reason no
external lacerated injuries were found. What do you want to say?
Ans. I can not say.
Q.84. From the Exbt. P-128 (21) and evidence of the PW-21 (Dr. Apurba Biswas) it
appears that the bruise over right side of hymen at 10 O’ Clock position and full
thickness tear of hymen at 3 O’ clock position with oozing of blood signifies insertion
of something which was hard, blunt but the surface is smooth and the same was
inserted with some force for which the said injuries occurred. What do you want to
say?
Ans. I can not say.
Q.85. From Exbt. P-129 (21) and from the evidence of the said PW-21 (Dr. Apurba
Biswas) it is clear that the victim was alive during the act of penetration/insertion as
in case of bruise/extravasation of blood, it requires damage/injured blood vessel with
104
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
pumping heart and the same means that at the time of the said penetration/insertion
the victim was alive and might be in moribund situation. What do you want to say?
Ans. I can not say.
Q.86. From the evidence of the said PW-21 it also appears that the injuries found
over nose, filtrum and left supra labial area, over undersurface of right side of jaw,
over left side of anterior surface of neck were simple in nature and occurred due to
resistance during struggle . What do you want to say?
Ans. I can not say.
Q.87. From the evidence of the said PW-21 (Dr. Apurba Biswas) it also appears that
he had noticed most of the defence injuries over the mouth, nose, cheek and neck of
the victim and the same were over a localized area. What do you want to say?
Ans. I can not say.
Q.88. As per the evidences of the PW-21, PW-37 and Exbt. P-178(37) it appears that
such injuries were inflicted by a single person. What do you want to say?
Ans. I can not say.
Q.89. From the evidence of the PW-17 (Dr.. Soma Roy) and Exbt. P-56(17), it
appears that your wearing apparel like the jeans pant and T-shirt (Mat. Exbt. XXVI
and Mat Exbt. XXVIII) along with your footwear (Mat Exbt. XXVII) were sent for
forensic examination and on examination of the same, human blood was found over
your jeans pant and footwear and the said blood matched with the DNA profile of the
blood of the victim and the same suggests that you were at the scene of crime. What is
your explanation?
Ans. I can not say.
Q.90. From the evidence of the PW-21 (Dr. Apurba Biswas) it appears that nipple
swab of the victim was taken and it also appears that the same was sent for forensic
analysis by the IO and the DNA profile of the saliva found in the said nipple swab of
the victim matched with your DNA profile as found in your blood samples collected
by PW-15 on 17.08.2024 at the CGO Complex when you were in the custody of CBI
and matching of the said DNA also shows your presence over the body of the victim.
What do you want to say?
Ans. I can not say.
Q.91. From the evidence of the PW-21 (Dr. Apurba Biswas) it is clear that the
throttling was made by using a single hand (right hand only) and as per evidence of
PW-6 (Dr. Sumit Roy Tapadar) the head of the victim was leaning towards her right
side and the same suggests that force of hand was used for such throttling and as
such, the neck was leaned towards the right side of the dead body. What do you want
to say?
Ans. I can not say.
Q.92. As per evidence of PW-37 (Dr. Ardash Kumar), the inquest report, autopsy
105
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
report and the injury report were consisted with each other. What do you want to
say?
Ans. I can not say.
Q.93. From the evidence of the said PW-21 (Dr. Apurba Biswas) it appears that no
incident of any fracture of ribs or bones could be possible due to the injuries noted in
the PM report. What do you want to say?
Ans. I can not say.
Q.94. From the evidence of the PW-17, it appears that there was human blood over
the jeans pant of the victim, the panty of the victim, blanket used by the victim, the
bed sheet, brassier, inner, kurti of the victim and the said human blood matched with
the DNA of the blood sample of the victim. What do you want to say?
Ans. I can not say.
Q.95. From the evidence of PW-10 (Shibasish Dey, Ld. JM), it appears that he had
noticed multiple hairs over the mattress and the same was collected by forensic team
and sent to CFSL for forensic examination and as per evidence of P.W-17, the said
hair sample contained some long hair and short hair and as per the evidence of PW-
17 and Exbt. P-56(17) the DNA profiling of the said short hair matched with your
DNA profile and the same again shows your presence over the said mattress. What is
your explanation?
Ans. I can not say.
Q.96. As per the evidence of PW-10 (Sri Shibasish Dey, Ld. JM), the body was lying
on a blue colour bed sheet and the same had socked blood and the said bed sheet was
forensically examined by PW-17 (Dr. Soma Roy) and she stated that the blood stains
in the said blue colour bed sheet was of the victim. What do you want to say?
Ans. I can not say.
Q.97. From the video clippings of the inquest proceeding [Mat Exbt. II(P-11)] it
appears that blood is found over the said blue bed sheet at that point where the
vaginal portion of the victim was lying and it came out from the inquest report that
blood came out from the vagina and as per the post mortem report and the evidence
of PW-21 there were bruise and full thickness tear of hymen and the same caused
oozing out of blood. What do you want to say?
Ans. I can not say.
Q.98. From the evidence of PW-47 (P. Paul Ramesh, Dy. Director, Physics, CFSL,
Kolkata), it appears that the wearing apparels of the victim like jeans pant, brown
colour panty white colour bra, white colour ganji (inner) and read colour kurti were
also examined by the CFSL Kolkata (Physics Division). Showing the breaking of
stitching thread at the elastic joint and breaking of stitching thread between the cloth
and elastic of the panty of the victim, it was opined that the said breaking of stitching
was due to dragging it down forcefully.
106
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
As your presence over the body of the victim was forensically established,
what is your explanation about such opinion of PW-47?
Ans. I can not say.
Q.99. From the explanation of PW-6 (Dr. Sumit Roy Tapadar) it appears that kurti
of the victim was moved upwards and the breasts were exposed and the said kurti was
examined by PW-47 and his specific opinion was that he had noticed that both sides
of waist portion of the kurti were torn and the same was due to sudden pulling up.
As your presence over the body of the victim was forensically established,
what is your explanation about such opinion of PW-47.
Ans. I can not say.
Q.100. From the evidence of PW-37 (Dr. Ardash Kumar) and the final opinion of
MIMB (Exbt. P-178(37), it appears that the injury mark on the right side of the neck
of the victim shows two sets of indentations of the biting edges of the front teeth of
one dental arch and the same were consisted with human bite marks.
As your presence over the body of the victim was forensically established,
what is your explanation about such opinion of PW-37.
Ans. I can not say.
Q.101. From the evidence of PW3 and PW-4 it is clear that the victim went to deep
sleep when they have seen her at around 2.15 am/2.50 am on 09.08.2024 and as the
attack upon her was sudden and unexpected, she could not give proper resistance.
What do you want to say.
Ans. I cannot say.
Q.102. What is your explanation about your presence at the RG Kar Hospital
premises from 3.00 am to the time after 4.30 am on 09.08.2024?
Ans. I went to the Trauma Centre as the operation of one of Civic Volunteer was
going on. Then I went to the Emergency Building and straight went to the fourth floor
but I did not find the patient there and somebody informed that the patient might be
at 3rd floor and then I came to 3rd floor and went to the Male Ward but did not get my
patient there and as I was very much tired, I started to wait there but as no patient
came, I put my helmet and Bluetooth earphone over a bed there at the 3 rd floor of
Emergency Building (male Ward) and when I came out the helmet was with me but I
forgot to bring my Bluetooth tooth ear-phone.
After coming out I could not locate the way to go out and as such, in the
CCTV footage I was found to turn around and then I could locate the exist point and
went out.
Q.103. Do you want to say anything more?
Ans. I am innocent and was falsely implicated.
Q104. Do you want to adduce any D.W?
Ans. No. Sd/- Sanjay Roy
107
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
108
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
109
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
110
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
(d) This version of the P.W-3 of taking dinner with the victim, the P.W-
4, Dr. Golam Azam, Dr. Soumitra Roy, Dr. Subhadip Singha
Mahapatra was corroborated by the P.W-4 (Dr. Arko Sen) in Para
No. 10 to 17 of his examination in chief. According to him, the
dinner was completed at 01.00 am.
The Ld. Counsel for the accused as well as the Ld.
Counsel for the Complainant argued that there was
contradiction about the time of completion of dinner and the
said time gap goes against the case of the prosecution that the
time of completion of dinner was not proper.
I have considered the evidences of the said PWs as well
as their cross examination and the Ext-P-229(50).
The flow of the evidences adduced by the said two PWs
were very natural one. They have mentioned the tradition of
having dinner together during night duty. Moreover, the Ext-P-
229(50) shows that the names of the PGTs mentioned in their
evidences including the PW-4 were on duty on that night. The
defence failed to create any doubt about the said evidences.
It was argued by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant
and the accused that though the said doctors had dinner
together and though orders were placed from a food delivery
application, but no such food delivery person was examined or
the said containers were not seized. In their view, this was a
major lacuna of the investigation process.
I have considered the said argument. In my view, this
argument has no strong base. This is because, it is not the case
of the prosecution that the death of the victim was due to
consumption of any toxic substance. The case is that the death
was due to manual strangulation and sexual assault. The case of
defence or the complainant was not different from the said
claim of the prosecution. The defence never denied the fact of
taking dinner together. It was also not the case of prosecution
that the victim was forced to consume any toxic substance,
which caused her death.
It was the claim of the Ld. Counsel of the complainant
that to get the truth, the CBI was duty bound to interrogate all
the said persons, who took dinner together, by taking them in
custody.
111
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
112
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
113
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
114
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
stethoscope and that on seeing the body it seemed to him that the
victim was no more and that Dr. Tapadar instructed to cover the
body with one bed sheet (para 28 to 42 of the examination in chief
of the P.W-4).
The argument of the defence as well as the Ld. Counsel for the
complainant was that it was known to the said witness that the
victim was no more and for that reason he went to the said Seminar
Room alone and his act creates suspicion and may touch his
involvement with the death of the victim.
In my view, this argument is an imaginary one having no strong
base at all. By way of cross examination, no such question was put
to the said witness. From the evidence (cross examination) it
appears that no question was put from where any hostility of this
witness and victim can be established and as such I do not find any
ground why the complainant raised the slogan that this witness had
nexus with such unnatural death of the victim and as such his
evidence can in no way be relied upon.
I want to say again that the evidence of the said witness was
very natural and as such I want to rely upon his oral testimony.
(c) According to the P.W-4, he had narrated the fact seen by him at the
Seminar Room, to Dr. Puja, Dr. Priya, Dr. Venila and others and
out of them the Prosecution had examined Dr. Pooja Rai as the
P.W-5.
The said witness fully corroborated the evidence of the P.W-4.
According to her evidence, she alongwith the PW-4, Dr. Priya, Dr.
Venila went to the said Seminar Room and noticed that the victim
was lying on the mattress on the dais of the said Seminar Room
and that the said victim wore a pink colour kurti and it was noticed
by her that the said kurti was moved upward by exposing breast
part and there was no clothing in her lower portion. She also
noticed that the blue colour jeans pant of the victim was lying
beside her body but she did not notice any undergarments. The
shoes of the victim were on the dais and her books, laptop and
mobile were kept in between her head and the wall of the Seminar
Room on the dais. According to her evidence, she had noticed
bruise mark over both sides of face of the victim and that her eyes
were partially open.
She stated that Dr. Priya and Dr. Venila went to intimate this
matter to Dr. Sumit Roy Tapadar (PW-6), who was in the Chamber
115
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
of HOD and that within a few moment Dr. Tapadar along with Dr.
Priya and Dr. Venila came to the Seminar Room and Dr. Tapadar
had examined the body to ascertain the condition of the victim in
presence of the said PW and had examined the eyes of the victim
by using the flash light of his mobile Dr. Tapadar told them that the
pupils were fixed and dilated which implied that the victim was no
more and then to maintain the dignity of the victim Dr. Tapadar
instructed us to cover the body with a bed sheet and one GDA
namely Robi had produced one blue colour bed sheet and the PW-5
covered the body of the victim with that blue colour bed sheet.
Over this evidence, the argument on the part of the Ld. Counsel
of the accused as well as Ld. Counsel of the complainant was that
why the doctors did not try to contact the PW-6 over phone and
why they went to intimate him at the chamber of the HOD and that
how the said doctors became sure that the PW-6 was at the
chamber of the HOD at that time. According to them, the said
points shows that the story was planted to shield the real incident.
Again I am surprised to hear such type of argument.
From Ext-P-96(19) and P-97(19) it appears that the said
Chamber of the HOD is situated opposite and close vicinity to the said
Seminar Room. If that be so, the question comes up in my mind why
there was necessity to contact with the PW-6 over phone, when he
could be reached physically immediately. I think that the said PWs did
not make any mistake and the said act of them should be viewed with
suspicion.
It must be kept in mind that the death was a bolt from the blue
to the doctors of the hospital and as such their mental state at that
relevant time should also be kept in mind and it should also be kept in
mind that the victim was the room mate of the PW-5.
Moreover from the cross examination of the said PW-5, I did
not find any material which can prompt me to view the said evidence
with any suspicion.
(d) Dr. Sumit Roy Tapadar was examined by the prosecution as the
P.W-6. He deposed that on 09.08.2024 he had joined duty at 9.30
am and went to the chamber of the HOD and when he was alone at
the said chamber, two first year PGT namely Dr. Priya Giri and Dr.
Venila came to the chamber of HOD and they were sorbing and
were very much disturbed and that they could not complete any
word told him the name of the victim and asked him to go to the
116
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
117
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
118
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
119
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
120
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
It was opined that the death was due to the effects of manual
strangulation associated with smothering and the manner of death was
homicidal. The word “associated” carries a weight in this opinion. By
putting the said word, the autopsy team wanted to mean that prime
cause of death was throttling (manual strangulation) but smothering
was also done. They never opined that smothering and throttling took
place at the same time.
Let us now consider what is meant by the term smothering. In
smothering, respiration is prevented by the closure of the mouth and
the nasal opening end. In all cases of smothering, death is due to
asphyxia. Homicidal smothering is caused by pressing the face and the
nose of the victim by hand. In case of homicidal smothering caused by
hands, there must be abrasions and contusions over and around the
mouth and nose. The abrasions are usually crescent shaped nail scratch
abrasions. There may be fracture of nasal cartilage and there maybe
bleeding from the nose with occasional bleeding from the mouth. The
inner aspects of the lips will show abrasions, contusions or even
laceration due to friction with the teeth. In case of face is pressed
against some hard surface, there will be gross abrasion, contusions and
even laceration on the skin around the mouth and the nose. Injury to
the inner aspect of the lips, soft gum are more common. In case of
homicidal smothering there may be signs of struggle or resistance over
other areas of the body.
From the Ext-P-118(21) it appears that there were multiple
abrasions over the face, nose and lips of the victim. Ext-P-119(21) &
P-120(21) shows the multiple abrasions over the upper and inner side
of the lips and presence of dental brace. The said photographs are the
evidence that the face of the victim was pressed with hands and the
victim tried to resist and there was friction and due the presence of
metal dental brace, multiple abrasions took place over the upper and
lower lips of the victim.
Ext-P-121(21) shows that there were multiple crescentic
abrasions over both chicks and the left side of the bridge of nose. All
these injuries, no doubt were suggestive of smothering. The defence
failed to place any confusion during the cross examination about the
opinion of the autopsy team.
It is fact the smothering may cause death but in the instant case,
smothering was not the only cause of death it acted as an associate.
Once again, I want to stress on the word “associate”, which bears a
121
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
122
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
that no one cannot import its own medical knowledge but the views
taken by the authors of the books on Medical Jurisprudence can be
considered by the court to weigh the findings of the post mortem
doctors. I have borrowed the findings from the book of Modi, Dr.
Apurba Nandi to compare the opinion of the autopsy team as well as
the MIMB. I did not find any contradiction. At the same time, the
defence also failed to place anything from which the said opinions can
be viewed with suspicion.
The entire videography of the postmortem procedure was
proved in this case and from the same all the signs of throttling by
using the right hand from the front side of the body of the victim are
found. The PW-21 specifically pointed out the external and internal
injuries found by the team at the time of autopsy of the body of the
victim. The said opinion of the PW-21 was corroborated by the PW-37
Dr. Adarsh Kumar, who was the Chairman of Multi Institutional
Medical Board (MIMB) formed by Director General of Health
Services Government of India. The said MIMB had examined the
videography of the Inquest Examination, and the postmortem
examination and the Board opined that that the findings of the autopsy
team was correct and that they did not find any contradiction in
between the inquest report and the postmortem report.
The PW-37 was thoroughly cross examined by the defence but
they could not break the nut. Accordingly, the opinion formed by the
autopsy team during the examination of the dead body of the victim is
proved beyond the shadow of any doubt.
The cause of death of the victim was obviously due to manual
strangulation (throttling) associated with smothering.
8. Time of death
(a) The PW-21 deposed on the basis of the findings of postmortem
examination that on examination of stomach and its contents of the
victim, they found that it was congested and it contained 185 grams
of partly digested food residue and they did not find any peculiar
smell in the same. The CBI authority had asked the question to the
said witness about the probable time of death. The said witness
vide his letter dated 20.08.2024 opined that depending upon the
quantum of partly digested food residue the time of death was
within four to five hours after the time of last meal.
(b) If we consider the evidence of PW3 and PW4, it will come out that
that dinner was completed at around 12.45/1.00/1.15 am on
123
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
124
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
which can lead me to disbelieve the version of the said PWs about
the approximate time span within which the death of the victim
occurred. The PW-21 opined that the death occurred within 4-5
hours from the time of taking of last meal and the PW-37 described
the time of death by mentioning a span of time. The time span
calculated by the PW-21 and the same calculated by the PW-36
matched each other and the defence could not place any confusion
in this regard.
So, the time of death of the victim was within 12 night to 6.00
am on 09.08.2024 or more particularly around 4.45/ 5.00/5.15
am on the same date.
9. Whether there was any evidence of sexual assault on the victim
(a) As per the evidence of the PW-21, during PM, the team had
noticed one bruise of 0.2 inch x 0.2 inch over right side of hymen
at 10 O’ clock position and one full thickness tear of hymen at 3 O’
Clock position was also found with oozing of blood.
(b) By placing the photographs [Exbt. P-128(21)] the said witness
opined that those two were the photographs of the specific injury
noted on external examination of hymen and the same showed that
blood tinged moist secretion was coming out from introitus and the
same signified insertion of something, which was hard blunt but
the surface was smooth with some force to the vagina of the victim
for which two injuries occurred.
(c) It was also opined that the said injuries might also be caused due to
penile penetration but no metallic foreign body with rough surface
was inserted.
(d) By placing the photograph marked as Ext P-129(21) the said
witness opined that it signified that the victim was alive during the
act of penetration/insertion. This was because in case of
bruise/extravasation of blood, it required damaged/injured blood
vessel with pumping heart.
(e) The said view of the Autopsy Team was corroborated by the PW-
37 being the Chairperson of MIMB and the defence could not
place any doubt on the point that there were no such
penetration/insertion into the vagina of the victim.
(f) The Ld. Counsel for the accused stressed upon the portion of the
evidence of the PW-21, when he deposed in the fashion that “It
signifies insertion of something, which was hard blunt but the
surface is smooth with some force for which two injuries occurred”
125
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
126
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
127
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
128
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
129
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
footage.
(c) This footage was also shown to the accused when he was asked questions
during his examination u/s 351 BNSS and the accused admitted that the
person shown in the footage was he.
(d) The accused admitted that in the intervening night of 08.08.2024 and
09.08.2024 he went to the R.G.Kar Hospital. He specifically admitted the
fact about his entry and exit at the Chest Department situated in the 3rd.
floor of the Emergency Building, which was clearly visible in the said
footage and he also admitted on the basis of the said footage that when he
took entry at the said Chest Department he had one helmet in his hand and
one Bluetooth device earphone was hanging from his neck but when he
came out, the helmet was found with him but the earphone, which was
hanging from his neck at the time of his entry, was not found. He also
admitted his presence at the Chest Department, R.G Kar Medical College
and Hospital situated in the 3rd floor of the Emergency Building, from
04.03.31 am to 04.31.40 am on 09.08.2024.
(e) From the evidence of PW-33, Ex-Civic Volunteer, it appears that he and
the accused went to the red-light area of Sovabazar and consumed liquor
and then they went to the red-light area of Chetla and again consumed
liquor. The accused admitted the fact of consumption of liquor only at
Chetla but he denied the fact of consumption of liquor at Sovabazar.
According to him, he had proceeded to Chetla through Sovabazar but did
not stop there at Sovabazar.
(f) The PW-33 deposed that he alongwith the accused Sanjay Roy went to
R.G.Kar Hospital from Chetla and Sanjay dropped him at the gate and
entered into the hospital premises. The said witness identified the
connected CCTV footage (Mat Ext-LV) in that regard.
(g) The accused, during his examination u/s 351 BNSS was asked the same by
showing the said CCTV footage and the CCTV footage which was proved
and marked as MAT Ext-LX and he admitted the fact that he came back to
R.G.Kar Hospital with the PW-33. It was also his admission during his
examination that during the time slot 3.00 am to 4.00 am dated 09.08.2024
he along with the PW-33 were seen to take entry into the R.G Kar Hospital
and that he had parked the bike vide No. WB01-AE-5021 and took entry
into the Trauma Care Centre and came back therefrom at 3.36.15 am on
09.08.2024.
(h) The accused never denied the truthfulness of the said footages.
(i) The DVRs of the relevant CCTVs were properly seized either by Kolkata
Police or the CBI alongwith the internal hard discs from the authority and
130
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
Certificate u/s 63 BSA in proper format were also procured. The said
DVRs and the hard discs were sent for forensic examination and the report
was placed, which shows that the footages were continuous and the
concerned authority (PW-29) did not opine that any tampering took place
in the said footages. Over this aspect, reliance is placed on the evidence of
the PW-29 (L.Nato Singh) and Ext-P-152(29),P-156(29). The said internal
hard discs containing the entire footage, after examination was placed
before the court.
(j) On perusal of the procedures adopted by the investigating agencies
regarding the seizure of the DVRS, I did not find anything to draw any
adverse inferences. I also do not find anything in the expert opinion, which
can lead me to hold that the said CCTV footages were not genuine.
(k) Moreover, when the person concerned (the accused) did not raise anything
regarding the said footages and when he admitted his presence, the said
footages can be considered as genuine.
(l) So, from the evidence, reply of the accused during his examination u/s 351
BNSS, the presence (entry and exit) of the accused at the Trauma Centre
on 09.08.2024 at 3.36.15 am is proved.
(m) Entry and exit of the accused in the Trauma Centre was also corroborated
by the Security Guard on duty at the Trauma Centre on 09.08.2024 during
3.00 am to 4.00 am (PW-32 Jogendra Shaw). The connected CCTV
footage for the period 03.00 am to 4.00am was shown to the said witness
and he also identified the entry and exit of the accused at the Trauma
Centre.
(n) This evidence also came in support of the prosecution to show that the
accused was present at the R.G Kar Hospital premises in the early hours
3.00 am on 09.08.2024.
(o) During the examination of the accused u/s 351 BNSS specific part of the
evidence of the PW-31 (ASI Samar Paul) was placed and he was asked
that on 09.08.2024 at 04.03.31 am he was spotted in the CCTV installed at
the entry point of Chest Department situated at 3rd floor of the Emergency
Building and the said CCTV footage (Mat Ext LVII) was shown to the
accused and he was informed that from the said footage it appeared that
the accused took a right turn from the point where the CCTV was installed
and took entry into one corridor and at that time one helmet was in his
hand and one ear-phone was hanging from his neck and he replied on
perusing the said footage that it was he, who was found in that particular
CCTV footage and his helmet was with him and his Bluetooth earphone
was found hanging from his neck. He admitted that he was found in that
131
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
footage taking his right turn and followed a corridor and then it was found
that he took entry to somewhere to the left side which was not within the
coverage area of that particular CCTV.
(p) This CCTV footage along with the original DVR and internal hard disc
was examined by PW-29 and he opined that there was no tampering of the
said footage.
(q) Therefore, the entry of this accused at the 3 rd floor (Chest Department)
R.G.Kar Hospital at 04.03.31 am on 09.08.2024 was established by the
CCTV footage and the admission of the accused during his examination
u/s 351 BNSS.
(r) Question may come why the accused was asked about this particular
frame of the CCTV installed at the Chest department. The reply is that the
scene of crime situated in the close proximity of the said CCTV but
outside the coverage area and as per the reports of experts the time of
death of the victim also was during this period and that this accused was
seen there. So, to my understanding, those were the incriminating
materials and as such those were placed to him. He was cautioned that the
replies may or may not be used for or against him and even after
understanding everything he gave the reply by supporting the contents of
the said footage. So, the said version of the accused became relevant in
this case.
(s) He was shown the said footage again and his exit from the said area was
shown to him, which was 04.31.40 am on 09.08.2924. He was asked that
at 04.31.40 am on 09.08.2024, he was found to come out and again he had
turned around to the direction from where he was coming and
subsequently he was again located in the CCTV to come out and at that
time the helmet was found in his hand but the said Bluetooth earphone
was not found hanging from his neck and that after coming out he had
turned to his left and went outside the coverage area of the said CCTV and
his reply was that at the time of his exit, he was found to come out, with
his helmet but the Bluetooth earphone, which was found hanging in his
neck at the time of his entry, was not found at the time of his exit.
(t) During his examination u/s351 BNSS, he again admitted his presence at
the Chest Department, RG Kar Medical College and Hospital situated on
the 3rd floor of the Emergency Building, from 04.03.31 am to 04.31.40 am
on 09.08.2024.
(u) If the relevant evidences as well as the replies of the accused during his
examination u/s 351 BNSS be placed on the same table, the presence of
this accused in the said area is established.
132
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
(v) The Ld. Counsel for the accused attracted my attention to the presence of
two other persons found in the said footage. I have perused their
movements too. The accused went a far away from the place from where
the said two other persons were found to come out and take entry.
(w) I have also carefully examined the entire footage prior and after the entry
and exit of the accused in the coverage area. I did not notice anything
which might be exceptional, or which can show that there were movement
of so many persons at that time zone. Everything was found to be normal.
(x) The accused was asked to explain the circumstances why he was there at
that wee hour. His reply was that he went to the Trauma Centre as the
operation of one of Civic Volunteer was going on. Then he went to the
Emergency Building and straight went to the fourth floor but he did not
find the patient there and somebody informed him that the patient might
be at 3rd floor and then he went to the 3rd floor and went to the Male Ward
but did not get his patient there and as he was very much tired, he started
to wait there but as no patient came, he put his helmet and Bluetooth
earphone over a bed there at the 3rd floor of Emergency Building (Male
Ward) and when he came out, the helmet was with him but he forgot to
bring his Bluetooth tooth ear-phone and that after coming out he could not
locate the way to go out and as such, in the CCTV footage he was found to
turn around and then he could locate the exist point and went out.
(y) The question comes in my mind whether this explanation is cogent and
convincing or not.
The accused admitted his presence in the 3 rd floor of the Emergency
Building of the R.G.Kar Hospital at the specific time zone. The points
raised by him, were within his special knowledge. He stated that surgery
of one of the Civic Volunteer was going on for which he went to the
Trauma Centre. He did not mention the details of the said patient or did
not adduce any DW in that regard.
He also took the plea that he was asked by someone that the patient
might be at the Male Ward, 3rd floor and accordingly he went to the Male
Ward and started to wait there by keeping his helmet and earphone on a
bed.
The question comes up in my mind whether at that time there were
none in the said Male Ward, who had seen the accused to take entry and to
come out. Is it possible for any outsider to take entry into the Ward and to
take rest there outside the surveillance of anyone.
The accused got the opportunity to adduce evidence on his behalf to
establish his presence at the Male Ward as stated by him but he did not try
133
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
134
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
convincing evidence which can tag the person behind such barbaric and brutal
act.
It is clear that there was no eyewitness of the incident as the
victim took place in the lap of her Creator and a such we have to
consider this case only on circumstantial evidence.
We have to bear in mind the five golden principles to prove a
case on circumstantial evidence.
In this regard reliance can be placed on the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court as reported in (2024)3 SCC 481(Raja Naykar v.
State of Chhattisgarh).
The law with regard to keeping reliance on the circumstantial
evidence has very well been crystalized in the judgment of Hon’ble
Apex Court as reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 Birdhichand
Sarda v. State of Maharashtra. The relevant paragraph is mentioned
here:
135
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
From the Inquest Report, video footage of the Inquest proceedings, the en-
tire video footage of the post-mortem proceedings, the photographs taken dur-
ing the post-mortem examination, the opinion of the Autopsy team of R.G.Kar
Hospital and the MIMB and more particularly the evidence of the PW-37
proves beyond the shadow of doubt the incident of brutal attack upon the vic-
tim. Oozing out of blood from the genitals of the victim also set an evidence
of sexual assault upon her.
During the post-mortem, the swabs like anal swab, vulvar mop, nipple
swab were collected and the same was sent for forensic analysis. From the ev-
idence of the PW-15 it appears that blood sample of the accused was collected
following all the norms and the accused admitted the same during his exami-
nation u/s 351 BNSS. The post-mortem blood of the victim was also collected.
These two blood were the source before the Forensic Expert for matching
and to generate the DNA structure of the accused and the victim.
From the evidence of the PW-17 (Dr. Soma Roy) it appears that she had
received good number of articles either from the Kolkata Police or from the
CBI for analysis and for the sake of proper identification, she had marked
them separately and the same was explained by the said witness in details dur-
ing her evidence before this court. Her report was proved as Ext-P-56(17).
From the analysis of the nipple swab, it appears that it contained 100%
DNA profile of the accused Sanjay Roy and there was obviously full DNA
profile of the victim. But in the said nipple swab, very poor percentage of an-
other female DNA was found.
The Ld. Counsel for the Complainant attracted my attention to the same. It
was their argument that the said mixed DNA profile proved the presence of
some other person particularly any female at the scene of crime. They strongly
argued that this accused obviously was there but he was not the only person,
for which the existence of another female DNA is found in the said profile.
It was the argument of the Ld. PP CBI that the PW-17 did not rule out the
probability of contamination in the said swab and it was the reason to get
mixed DNA in the said swab..
The Ld. Counsel for the Complainant relied upon this argument of prose-
cution and submitted that the Autopsy team did not take utmost care to collect
the swab and this contamination proved that there were other persons at the
scene of crime.
It is fact that during cross-examination of the PW-17 this point of mixed
DNA profile was not raised by the defence for the reason best known to the
Ld. Defence Counsel and it was argued by the defence for the first time on
getting the written notes of argument filed by the complainant.
Now let us consider the standard operating procedure for collection of
swab for the DNA analysis.
136
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
137
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
From the Ext-P-56(17) it appears that the profile of another female chromo-
some were found in the anal swab, nipple swab and vulvar mop collected at the time
of post mortem examination of the victim, which was not of the said victim. The ar-
gument of the Ld. Counsel for the complainant was that some other female was in-
volved in the incident of rape and murder of the victim, but she was kept behind the
curtain intentionally and as such there was need of re-investigation of this case.
On the basis of this argument of the complainant, the Ld. Counsel for
the accused submitted that the said DNA examination report cannot be relied
upon and the accused cannot be tagged on the basis of the said DNA report.
In order to take decision over these arguments, I have perused the
video clipping of the Inquest proceedings as well as the Post mortem proce-
dure.
In the post-mortem video it was found that other female dead bodies
were lying on the floor and it also came out that the tray where the post
mortem of this victim was done, was not sterilised prior to the examination. It
also appears that the concerned assistant (Dom) did not change the gloves or
dress/ apron prior to taking of the swab or vulvar mop. It is also clear from the
said video that the knifes/scissors used for post mortem, were not sterilised.
This shows that the proper protocol was not followed due to lack of model in-
frastructure at the post- mortem centre to conduct the ideal post-mortem. The
doctors, who have conducted the post-mortem had no other option but to do
their duty in such poor infrastructure. The said video shows that there was ev-
ery possibility of contamination in the said post-mortem room and for that
contamination, the doctors, who had conducted the post mortem, should not
be blamed.
From the DNA analysis report of the nipple swab it appears that it con-
tains the full DNA profile of the accused as well as of the victim and very neg-
ligible profile of another female. Presence of full DNA profile of the accused
in the said nipple swab means that the accused was in contact with the body of
the victim.
Opportunity was given to the accused to explain the circumstances
during his examination u/s 351 BNSS. The accused wanted to explain that
when he was in PC, he was beaten and saliva came out. On the basis of the
said statement of the accused, the Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the
saliva of the accused might be implanted over the breast of the victim.
This argument is too weak to consider. This is because, when the ac-
cused was detained by police, the body of the victim was burnt into ashes. Ob-
viously there was no scope of implantation of saliva of the accused.
In the vulvar mop several mixed profiles was found.
In that regard, I again want to rely upon the video clipping of post-
mortem procedure when this vulvar mop was collected. It appears that the
same was collected in a gauge piece taken from a stack of gauge kept open in
the autopsy room. In my view, the procedure adopted is enough for highest
degree of contamination.
138
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
This case became very sensational and as such the post-mortem exami-
nation or collection of samples became vital. This case is an eye opener, and it
leads us to hold that there was no scope for the doctors to conduct the post-
mortem in the manner which is ideal. In my view, the doctors are bound to do
their duty knowing it fully well that there was lack of infrastructure. Before
raising fingers to them, it must be considered.
On these grounds I am not inclined to accept the argument of the Ld.
Counsel of the Complainant on the point that the autopsy surgeons intention-
ally sent contaminated sample for DNA analysis or the accused was not at all
involved.
Per contra, the accused failed to place any cogent ground how his full
DNA was found matching in the nipple swab of the victim.
The PW-17 had also examined the jeans pant and footwear of the ac-
cused and she got stains of blood on the same.
It was the opinion that the said blood matched with the blood of the
victim. Obviously, the burden is on the accused to establish what was the cir-
cumstances for which the blood of the victim was found in the wearing of the
accused.
This was placed to the accused during his examination u/s 351 BNSS
and the accused placed the explanation that while he was in police custody,
the officers of Detective Department went to his barrack and examined his
wearing and the same was identified by him through video call.
This point was not taken during the cross examination of the PW-49
and the accused had placed it for the first time during his examination. There
is no evidence from the side of the accused on this point.
Accordingly getting of stains of blood of the victim over the wearing
and footwear of the accused goes against the accused as the said accused
failed to place reasoned circumstances of the same or any incident of implan-
tation by the investigating agencies.
Let us now consider the DNA analysis of the hair strands as was recov-
ered from the said dais of the Seminar Room.
The evidence of the PW-10, the video clippings of the Inquest process,
the photograph no.9 of Ext-P-47(14), evidence of the PW-39, evidence of the
PW-12, Ext-P-181(39), item no.14 of the Seizure list dated 09.08.2024, evi-
dence of the PW-24 show that there were bunch of hairs on the bed sheet over
which the body of the victim was lying.
According to the evidence of the IO, the said hairs were seized and
sent to the CFSL for forensic examination.
As per the evidence of the PW-17, she had noticed that there were long
and short hair strands in the sealed packet sent to the CFSL for forensic analy-
sis and that the said hair strands were separated by the said PW-17 prior to the
examination of the same and the said PW marked the said long and short hair
strands as Ext-F1 & F2. As per the examination report, DNA profile of the
139
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
said short hair matched with the DNA profile of the accused and the long hair
strands matched with the DNA profile of the victim. From the evidence of the
PW-17 and the Ext-P56(17), no mixed DNA profile were found during the
examination of the said hair strands.
As it is one of the vital incriminating material against the accused,
question was placed to him during his examination u/s 351 BNSS. The reply
of the accused was that while he was in the custody of police at Lalbazar, he
was beaten by the police team and his hairs were pulled. The Ld. Counsel of
the accused raised the suspicion that the said hairs might be planted to impli-
cate the accused falsely. It is surprising that no such suggestive question were
put to the concerned officers of Kolkata Police during the cross examination
of the PW-49. It was also not placed anywhere during the cross examination
that the accused was beaten while he was in the custody of police. From the
case record I did not find anything that such allegation was ever placed before
the Ld. ACJM Sealdah during investigation process.
Accordingly, there is enough scope to hold that such defence was pre-
pared by the accused after hearing the evidence of the witnesses and that the
same had no base at all.
Moreover, from the date and time stamp of the specific photographs
[Ext-P-47(14)] it appears that the same were snapped on 09.08.2024 at 16.56
hrs and at that time the accused was not under detention of Kolkata Police and
as such the plea that while he was in custody, his hairs were pulled and the
same were planted, do not match. The defence could not place any confusion
over the date and time stamp of the said photographs. Side by side the PW-10
and the PW-12 also have mentioned in their evidence about the existence of
the hairs on the bed sheet. The Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the
PW-12 mentioned that she had noticed long hair strands and did not mention
that she had noticed any short hair strands. It was also placed that the PW-39
being a forensic expert mentioned locks of hair and did not specify any short
or long hairs separately. Based on the same the Ld. Counsel for the accused
argued the said hair strands created confusion.
On this point my observation is that from the photograph no.9 of Ext-
P-47(14) in naked eye existence of bunch of long hairs are prominent. It is
very much difficult to identify any short hairs in the said bunch. The camera
also took the snap of the said bunch of hairs and the PW-39 collected the said
bunch of hairs alongwith the other articles on 09.08.2024 after holding of the
inquest. The said bunch of hairs were sent to the CFSL and it was opened by
them and long and short hair strands were found and the same were separated.
I did not find any inconsistency in the related evidences.
Getting of hairs of the accused at the place where the body of the vic-
tim was found, leads us to hold his presence. The burden was shifted to the ac-
cused to state anything against it. The accused failed to discharge his burden.
140
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
Matching of the DNA profile of the accused in the hair strands recov-
ered from the spot proved the presence of the accused with the body of the vic-
tim.
The accused was placed to the SSKM Hospital, Kolkata for his medico
legal examination and the PW-8 (Dr. Biswanath Saren) had examined the said
accused. Videography of the entire medico legal examination procedure was
done.
The opinion of the said doctor was that he had noticed abrasions over
the facial region and left thigh of the accused and fingers of left hand. The
specific opinion of the said PW-8 was that the said injuries were due to fric-
tion with rough surface and friction with pointed tip of pin like object or with
nails of finger or toes.
The said report alongwith the video footage of the said medico legal
examination of the accused, was sent to the MIMB and the PW-37 had proved
the said report. It was the opinion of the said MIMB that the said injuries were
due to resistance from the end of the victim.
The PW-8 opined that the accused sustained the said injuries within 24
hours to 48 hours from the time of examination. The MIMB and the PW-37
opined that it was within 24 to 36 hours from the time of examination.
According to the PW-8 the accused was examined at 12.00 pm on
10.08.2024. so, if we consider the opinions of the PW-8 and the PW-37, the
time of receiving the injuries was 09.08.2024 after midnight.
As the opinions of the said PWs placed some incriminating circum-
stances, the accused was asked on this during his examination u/s 351 BNSS.
The accused submitted that he went to Salua with the team and the PW-30 and
PW-20 were also in the said team and there he (the accused) tried for a mock
rock climbing and fell down and sustained the said injuries.
Obviously this fact was within the knowledge of the accused when the
PW-8 was examined. Let us see what defence was taken during the cross ex-
amination of the said PW. It was suggested that the injuries found over the fin-
gers and hands of the victim might be caused due to fall from bike and that the
injuries in the facial region might be caused due to punch without using
141
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
gloves. The doctor also opined that landing of punch on face with/without
gloves would cause blunt injuries and not scratch marks. It was also the opin-
ion of the said doctor that there was possibility of scratch mark by nail over
face it there would be punch by exposed thumb.
The defence of the accused as per the cross examination, is that the in-
juries over his hand and fingers were due to sudden fall from bike. The expla-
nation of the accused was that all the injuries noted by the PW-8 were due to
fall on hard substance during mock rock climbing at Salua.
Defence taken during cross examination and the same during the ex-
amination of the accused u/s 351 BNSS are different from each other. The de-
fence failed to place any incidents that the accused fell from the bike on any
particular day and sustained the injuries. The accused also did not take such
plea of fall from bike on any day prior to his examination by the PW-8, during
his examination u/s 351 BNSS. Similarly the accused failed to place any evi-
dence to establish that he tried for mock rock climbing at Salua and sustained
injuries. It is fact that the PW-30 and PW-20 supported the version of the ac-
cused that he went to Salua with them and came back on 07.08.2024 at night
but no question were put to them about any such accident of the accused at
Salua.
Accordingly, the defence taken by the accused about fall from bike or
sudden fall during mock rock climbing at Salua, were not established.
It was the case of defence that the injuries found over the facial region
of the accused was due to punch during boxing practice without gloves. The
opinion of doctor was that in case of punch with/without gloves, blunt injury
will be there, and the doctor ruled out the possibility of any scratch marks.
The accused did not take the plea of any such boxing practice during
his examination u/s 351 BNSS. This means that the accused and his Ld. Coun-
sel were swimming in a whirlpool and could not understand what would be
the appropriate defence. All the said defence went against the accused.
The case of prosecution was that the abrasions found over the facial re-
gion of the accused were due to resistance from the victim and the same were
caused due to use of finger or toes.
On the other hand, the case of the accused was also that the injuries in
facial part were due to scratch by nails, but it was caused at the time of boxing
practice without gloves.
So, both sides’ case was that the injuries were due to scratch with nails,
but the aspects were different.
During argument my attention was drawn to the evidence of the PW-
17 and the Ext-P-56(17). It was the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the ac-
cused that nail cutting and scrapings of the victim were collected during the
post mortem examination and presence of blood of the victim was found there
but no other biological materials were noticed by the PW-17 and it put a big
142
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
question mark over the case of the prosecution that the injuries found over the
facial region of the accused were due to resistance from the end of the victim.
The submission of the Ld. PP was that from the injuries it appears that
the same were scratches and the depth of the injuries were not so deep for
which any tissues could be accumulated in the nails of the victim and for that
reason, no tissues were found in the nails and accordingly no biological ele-
ments were found therein.
I have considered the arguments of both sides. It is fact that presence
of biological evidence, like tissues must be there for any forensic analysis.
The Ld. Counsel for the accused got the copy of the report of CFSL long ago
and during cross examination of the PW-8, they did not think it proper to ask
question whether there was scope of getting tissues in the nails of the victim in
case of injuries over the facial region of the accused. In absence any such
queries how it can be considered that there was scope of accumulation of tis-
sues of the accused in the nails of the victim. Moreover, on scrutiny of the
video footage of the injuries over the facial region of the victim, it is very hard
to hold that in case of such type of resistance wounds, there was scope of ac-
cumulation of tissues in the nails of the victim.
So, I am of the view that absence of any human tissues in the nail
scrapings of the victim did not become fatal for the case of the prosecution or
to establish that the said injuries were not related with the present case.
On the basis of my discussion mentioned above, the CCTV footages,
the version of the accused during his examination u/s 351 BNSS, the contra-
dictory defence pleas without any evidence, the DNA examination reports
points the arrows towards this accused only behind the incident of rape and
murder of the victim and the involvement of any other person behind the said
incident can easily be ruled out.
143
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
covery of the said headphone was also found in the corresponding video
footage and the same was seized by police.
From the evidence of the PW-49 it came out that the mobile phone of
the accused was seized and the same was shown to the accused during his ex-
amination u/s 351 BNSS and the accused identified his mobile.
The PW-29 (Asst. Director & Scientist-C, CFSL) had examined
various articles including the said mobile phone and the headphone. The said
witness retrieved the data from the said headphone including its generic
device name and MAC id. He had mentioned that at the time of
examination of said earphone, only one connectivity between mobile
of the accused and the said headphone was found. He had mentioned
the date and time of connectivity between the two in the Meta data
and it was his opinion that the said mobile and the Bluetooth
earphone device were paired with each other. The said expert witness
also mentioned that if the mobile phone and the blue tooth earphone
device be kept in auto connectivity mode, there is no need of any
further permission for connectivity. The said data was digitally kept in
a pen drive and the same was proved as Mat Ext-LVI (29).
I have perused the said report of the PW-29. It appears that
there was continuous pairing between the mobile phone of the
accused and the Bluetooth earphone seized in this case from the
scene of crime.
The accused stated during his examination u/s 351 BNSS that
the said Bluetooth earphone was not of him but he identified his
mobile phone and he failed to give any explanation as to how the said
Bluetooth device showed continuous pairing with his mobile phone.
The plea of the accused was that his earphone was of “Boat”
company whereas the Bluetooth device proved in this case was not of
the said company.
During argument the Ld. Counsel for the accused attracted my
attention to the cross examination of the IO (PW-49). The said IO
deposed that when on the night of 09.08.2024, the accused Sanjay
Roy was detained on suspicion, his mobile phone was taken from him
and as the battery had no charge, the said IO took it to Tala PS and
placed it for charging and subsequently the same was returned to the
accused and on the next morning when the accused had confessed his
guilt to police authority, he was arrested and his mobile phone was
seized.
The argument of the Ld. Counsel for the accused was that there
was probability that the said IO had paired the Bluetooth with the
mobile of the accused at PS as the said Bluetooth earphone was under
the custody of Tala PS at that time and the said IO retrieved the data
from the said mobile of the accused at that time to implicate him. It
144
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
was the argument that the investigating agency first decided the
person who would be tagged in this case and then they have planted
the evidence against him.
In my view, this argument would get weight if one suggestive
question would be placed to the said PW-49 by asking her that when
she went to the PS with the mobile of the accused, she had tampered
the data to implicate this accused to save the face of police
administration. Unfortunately, no such question was placed to the said
witness and this court did not get the explanation of the said PW-49.
For that reason, the defence lost the scope to avail the fruits of this
cross-examination.
The PW-29 was cross examined in full. During his cross
examination no question was put about any destruction of data of the
mobile of the accused or that the Bluetooth earphone was paired with
the mobile of the accused only on 09.08.2024 or afterwards and that it
was not paired earlier. In my view, this question was not put from the
end of the accused as the Mat Ext LVI P-29 shows the continuous
pairing of the mobile of the accused and the said Bluetooth earphone.
The question was raised by the defence how the said earphone
went under the mattress-whether the accused kept it there after
commission of the crime so that he could be easily detected?
To get reply of this question, we have to look into the
photographs [Ext-P-47(14)]. The photographs number 7,17,20 & 34
show the thickness of the mattress and the condition of surface of the
dais.
It shows that the said mattress was not so thick and was not
heavy. Moreover the surface of the dais was very smooth and there
was scope of less friction between the two. Which means that at the
time of commission of the offence due to resistance from the end of
the victim and use of force on her by the accused, there was scope of
change of exact position of the mattress, and it might be that at that
time the Bluetooth earphone of the accused went under the said
mattress. Of course, this is an imaginary situation but I think that the
same is not irrelevant.
No such situation was argued by the defence even on perusal of
the said photographs.
So, getting the earphone under the mattress does not help the
accused to get any advantage..
The PW-47 (Dy. Director Physics, CFSL) was examined and the
said witness had examined the spectacle, panty and kurti of the
deceased. It was his opinion [Ext-P-202(47)] that the lens of the
spectacle was detached due to application of force. He also opined
that the breaking of threads of the panty was due to dragging it down
forcefully. His opinion ran in the fashion that tearing of both sides of
145
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
the kurti (waist side), was due to its sudden pulling up. The defence
took the plea that due to long use, threads might comes out from the
panty but they did not place any suggestion as to how the kurti was
torn.
The photographs [Ext P-47(14)] shows the marks of violence
over the body of the victim and tearing of kurti is also visible. I do not
find anything inconsistent in the said report of PW-47.
Moreover the jeans pant of the victim and her panty were found
beside her body in such a position which shows that the same was
dragged forcefully.
Relying upon the same, I am of the view that the fact of use of
force upon the victim was properly proved.
The Ld. Counsel for the accused and the Ld. Counsel for the
complainant placed argument in the same voice why no semen was
found in the body of the victim or the mattress or blanket when there
was an incident of rape.
To reply the same, I want to go back to the opinion of PW-21
and PW 37. They have categorically mentioned when there is no scope
of getting any semen. Moreover, my humble question to the Ld.
Counsels is that why they have considered that it was penile
insertion/penetration. It might be insertion of any other article other
than penis and in that case, there will be no possibility of getting any
stain of semen.
The Ld. Counsel for the complainant as well as the Ld. Counsel
for the accused placed the argument that the prosecution failed to
clear the details of the white thick viscid liquid inside endocervical
canal, which was found on examination of internal genitalia. The
evidence of the doctor was that the same was collected by swab.
On examination, no semen was traced out therefrom.
The PW-21 specifically opined that the weight of internal
genitalia, more precisely uterus and ovary, was noted as 151 gm
and the specific portion of the video footage was also shown during
the evidence.
The nature of the said liquid was not ascertained but it was
ascertained that the same was not semen.
146
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
Room. It was also mentioned in the said report that save and
except the wooden stage, no biological stains could be detected
on the floor surface of the said Seminar Room.
On the basis of the said observation of the CFSL team,
the argument was that absence of any struggle over the mattress
means that the offence was not committed there.
In reply to this argument, I want to bring it to the kind
notice of the Ld. Counsel of the complainant that the team of
CFSL had visited the said place on 14.08.2024 ie 6 days after
the date of commission of the offence. It appears from the evi-
dence on record that during this time several footprints were
there in the said Seminar Room for the purpose of investiga-
tion. The bed sheets, blankets and other materials available,
were collected by the Forensic Team of Kolkata Police and the
same were seized accordingly on 09.08.2024. Sample cotton
was collected from the mattress on the same date. The said bed
sheets, blankets were sent to CFSL for forensic analysis.
The first time view of the said Seminar Room after the
incident, came to our notice when the photographs [Ext-P-
47(14)] were exhibited in this case.
It is fact that copies of the said photographs were not
supplied to the Ld. Counsel for the accused or the Ld. Counsel
for the complainant as the face and body parts of the victim
were exposed there but they got the scope to examine the same
at the time of evidence.
If we examine the said photographs carefully, the said
bed-sheet, on which the victim was sleeping, is itself an evi-
dence to show the marks of struggle.
The said photographs as well as the video footage of the
Inquest procedure shows the signs of brutal attack upon the vic-
tim.
It is my humble opinion that if the written note of argu-
ment by the complainant would be prepared by taking into con-
sideration of all the evidences, this point would not come.
Let us consider the scene of crime from another angle.
The victim was asleep, and she was attacked from her
front, and the said attack was beyond her imagination and natu-
rally degree of resistance was poor. The nature of force used by
the accused already established from various documents. Pres-
ence of this accused over the body of the victim was also estab-
lished.
So, my question is that why shall not we consider the
body of the victim as the scene of crime?
147
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
148
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
149
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
tal at 04.24 pm on 09.08.2024 and at that time, he had noticed that the FSL
team was collecting samples from the spot and that he had seized the said arti-
cles by preparing the seizure list and the same were sealed and labelled and
kept at the Malkhana of Tala PS.
He also stated that when he came back to PS, he had noticed that one
written complaint was filed by the father of the victim and on the basis of the
same Tala PS case No. 52 dated 09.08.2024 was started at 11.45 pm and said
FIR was noted in the GD book vide GD No. 577 dated 09.08.2024.
It was his evidence that the death of the victim was declared at 12.45
pm and Tala PS had received the same at around 02.00 pm. To my utter sur-
prise I have noticed that the said witness deposed in the fashion that one UD
case umber was kept blank in the concerned register of Tala PS vide No. 861
dated 09.08.2024 and that the PW-24 had collected the said number from ASI
Debi Prasad Das and accordingly, the said UD case number was noted in the
seizure list.
I am also surprised to note that the said process of seizure and starting
of UD case was noted in the GD book vide GD No. 576 dated 09.08.2024 and
the said entry was done by PW-24 after 11.30 pm on 09.08.2024.
From his evidence it also came out that another GD vide GD No. 542
dated 09.08.2024 was registered at Tala PS GDE book which contained noting
of receiving of information regarding unnatural death of a doctor at RG Kar
Hospital.
It was his admission that GD no. 452 dated 09.08.2024 was in his own
handwriting and he had noted the same after coming back from the scene of
crime by mentioning the time as 10.10 am, when he was not physically
present at Tala PS.
This evidence of one SI of police is an eye opener that police stations
are treating the cases in a very indifferent manner. It also shocking that the
concerned SI did not hesitate to say such illegal acts standing in the witness
box.
I did not expect such type of evidence from an officer in the rank of SI
of Police. It shows how they have entertained the issue even when, the case
became a sensitive one.
The evidence of PW-24 specifically shows that he had done an illegal
act by making entry in the GD book under GD No. 542 dated 09.08.2024 by
mentioning the time as 10.10 am though he was not present at the PS at that
time.
It was his evidence that he was instructed to do so but he did not men-
tion the names of anyone by whom he was instructed to do such an illegal act.
From his evidence it also came out that in the register of UD case, one
case number was kept blank and that the same along with the related form was
filled up by the PW-24 after 11.30 pm.
150
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
I do not find any reason why such illegal acts were done by the con-
cerned officer one after another and why he did not raise any voice against the
same. It is very hard to believe that an officer in the rank of SI was unaware
about the implication of such illegal acts and before the court he proudly es-
tablished his illegal acts again.
Being the court of law, I condemn such acts of SI Subrata Chatterjee.
The question may arise whether for such serious latches on the part of
investigating wing, the case of prosecution will suffer or not.
The helpless father of the victim ran from pillar to post to get relief and
to lodge the complaint.
It appears from the evidence of the father of the victim that they
reached R.G Kar Hospital at 12.15 pm on 09.08.2024. The evidence of the
PW-24 shows that the death certificate was received at Tala PS at 02.00 pm
and the death was declared at 12.45 pm.
It is not clear to me why at that time, the parents of the victim were not
allowed/advised to lodge a complaint and why the police authority kept the
parents of the victim to wait till 6.00 pm to lodge the complaint.
It is not understandable to me why the police personnel of Tala PS kept
everything behind a curtain and why such type of illegal acts was done by the
concerned officer of Tala PS.
It also appears from the evidence that the accused was pampered by
the ASI Anup Dutta and 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.
I also want to criticize the act of PW-49 Inspector Rupali Mukherjee.
She was the Addl. OC of the W.G Cell and obviously was a senior officer and
it can be presumed that she had sufficient knowledge to tackle the cases. Her
action of taking the mobile from the accused on 09.08.2024 and keeping it at
Tala PS unattended is very curious one. It is fact that from the evidence it was
not established that she had done it with any ulterior motive or that she had
tampered the data of the mobile of the accused. In a very peculiar manner by
placing a very weak explanation she stated that the mobile was returned to the
accused and then at the time of his arrest, the same was seized from him. It
was her evidence that during this entire period the accused was under deten-
tion with the Kolkata Police. I did not find any reason behind this act of the
said officer.
It is her good luck that the defence did not challenge her by placing
some twisted questions but she failed to lead the investigation properly.
As the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata is the highest administrative
authority of Kolkata Police, I think that this type of illegal/indifferent acts of
the police personnel should be tackled by him in a very strict way so that no
one can be escaped and I also think that proper training be given to the offi-
151
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
cers regarding investigation specially in the cases where it rests upon circum-
stantial/electronic and scientific evidence.
The PW-50 did not make any further specific investigation. She had
just placed the evidences under magnifying glass, took steps for scientific
analysis of the evidences and placed the evidences so far collected in this case
either by the Kolkata Police or the CBI, to prepare a complete chain of events.
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 point whether the merit of the case will suffer for the defective
investigation, is one of the vital issue of this case.
In this regard, I want to rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court as passed in Criminal Appeal No. 490 of 2017 and 491 of 2017 (Munna
Lal, Sheo Lal ~vs~ State of UP), which was followed in another decision of
the Hon’ble Apex Court as reported in (2024) 4 SCC 208 (Ram Singh ~vs~
State of UP).
The endeavor of every court is to reach to the root of the matter by
analyzing and weighing of the evidences on record and to ascertain whether
the person against whom the allegations were levelled, was duly found to be
guilty as well as to ensure that the guilty does not escape the rigors of law.
I have already stated why I want to go to the conclusion that none, but
this accused was behind the incident.
I want to quote the specific observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court: -
“Although, mere defects in the investigative process by itself can not
constitute ground for acquittal, it is the legal obligation of the Court to exam-
ine carefully in each case the prosecution evidence de hors the lapses commit-
ted by the Investigating Officer to find out whether the evidences brought on
record is at all reliable and whether such lapses affect the object of finding out
the truth”.
On the basis of my discussion after scanning of the evidences, I am of
the view that the negligence of the IO or the police administration or the hos-
pital authority as well as the perfunctory investigation can, in no way stand on
the way of the prosecution case.
So, only for the lapses on the part of the first investigating wing (Tala
PS) the evidences adduced by the prosecution cannot be thrown into the waste
paper box.
The point is thus answered accordingly.
Let us now turn our eyes to the role of the hospital authority.
It is admitted fact that the said victim was on duty when she had faced
the brutal act of the accused and ultimately, she was forced to go to her heav-
enly abode.
152
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
From the evidence of PW-6 (Dr. Sumit Roy Tapadar), it appears that he
was the first person amongst the senior doctors who have arrived into a self
opinion that the victim was subjected to sexual assault and murdered. He also
deposed that he had instructed the on-duty Sister to intimate the Police Out
Post of the said hospital so that the place would be cordoned by police. It was
his evidence that he had brought the matter to the notice of his official supe-
rior (HOD of Chest Department) and he was instructed by the HOD to bring it
to the notice of the then MSVP (Dr. Sanjay Basisth) and the Principal (Dr.
Sandip Ghosh). According to his evidence, he had called the then MSVP and
the Principal named above but they did not pick up the call and he had sent
one SMS from his mobile to the then Principal with request to call him imme-
diately and the phone call or sending of SMS took place at around 10.00/10.30
am on 09.08.2024.
From his evidence, it is also clear that the then Principal Dr. Sandip
Ghosh had called him and he had narrated the entire incident to him as he was
the highest authority of hospital administration. His deposition was that Dr.
Sandip Ghosh instructed him to send the dead body of the victim to morgue
immediately to prevent any sort of problem in the hospital premises but the
PW-6 denied to comply with the instruction of Principal as prior to the
investigation by police, the body should not be removed and when it was
informed by the PW-6 to Dr. Sandip Ghosh, the then Principal, he had
instructed him to inform the Assistant Superintendent (Non-Medical).
According to the said witness, the on duty Assistant Superintendent
(Non-Medical) namely Sucharita had called the family members of the victim
from her official mobile and intimated that the condition of the victim was
serious and the family members were asked to come to RG Kar Hospital
immediately. He deposed that the said phone call was made in presence of
himself and others.
We find corroboration of the said phone call from the evidence of the
father of the victim.
The PW-6 also deposed that the anxious father of the victim again
called the said Assistant Superintendent (Non-Medical) namely Sucharita and
suddenly, she had replied the father that the victim committed suicide.
The PW-6 stated that he had opposed the same and had asked
Sucharita as to why she had used the term suicide.
From the evidence of PW-36 (SI Sourav Kumar Jha) it appears that on
09.08.2024 at 10.00 am while he was one duty at Tala PS, he had received a
telephone call from RG Kar Police Out Post and he was informed that one
doctor of the said hospital had committed suicide and on getting the said
news he went to RG Kar Hospital. From his cross-examination it appears that
when on receipt of the said phone call he went to the R.G Kar Hospital, he did
not make any GD entry but kept a blank entry in the GD book. As per the evi-
dence of PW-24, the said blank entry was filled by him after 11.00 pm in his
own handwriting by mentioning the time as 10.10 am.
153
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
Therefore, it is also very much clear that the said SI Sourav Kumar Jha
also done an illegal act and he also like the PW-24 very proudly pronounced it
in open court when his evidence was recorded.
It is very surprising that PW-36 also could not understand the gravity
of the information received from the R.G Kar Out Post and he also acted in a
very casual and illegal manner.
The said conduct of an officer in the rank of SI is very much
shocking and painful and I think that the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata
should take appropriate action as he will deem fit and proper to prevent the
disciplined force from doing any illegal acts which may/shall adversely affect
the merit of any case as well as the demand of justice of the sufferer.
Conjoint reading of evidences of PW-26 and PW-36 it is clear that a
story of commission of suicide of the victim was in the air. The father of the
victim (PW-2) also corroborated the fact that he was informed by the RG Kar
Hospital authority that his daughter had committed suicide.
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.
From the case record it appears that the said “illegal dream” of the au-
thority was not fulfilled as the Junior doctors raised protest and submitted one
memorandum to the Principal and at that time, police force started their action
but it caused sufficient delay and probably it was the reason for which the par-
ents of the victim were not allowed to see their daughter.
Being the court of law, I condemn such attitude of the R.G Kar hospi-
tal authority.
It is very much clear that the then Principal and the MSVP of R.G Kar
Hospital were very much aware on getting the intimation from the PW-6 that
the victim was raped and murdered inside the hospital premises while she was
on duty. It is not clear to me as to why the then Principal or the MSVP did not
send any official intimation to the police authority about such unnatural death.
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.
From the evidence as well as the documents proved in this case, it
appears that no such intimation was sent to the police authority.
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.
From the investigation so far conducted by the Kolkata Police and the
CBI, no such evidence of latches on the part of RG Kar Hospital authority
came out.
154
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
It appears that the CBI authority already availed the permission from
the Ld. ACJM, Sealdah for further investigation as per the provision of section
193 BNSS.
In this case charge sheet was submitted only for the offence of rape
and murder of the victim and the actual offender was placed before this court
for trial. It does not mean that the entire investigation process came to an end.
The confusion which came out from the evidences on record were mentioned
in the previous paragraph but I am of the view that for such, dereliction of
duties on the part of any authority, the accused has no right to get any relief, if
sufficient materials to prove his involvement can be established by the
prosecution.
I have already explained as to why I am of the view that none but this
accused was involved in the incident of rape and murder of the victim and I
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.
From the evidence of the PW-6 it also appears that the then Principal
Dr. Sandip Ghosh had called an urgent meeting over the incident of death of
the victim and the PW-6 was asked to attend the meeting. It was the evidence
that the PW-6 went to the place assigned for the meeting but noticed that the
said room was closed and the said meeting took place at the chamber of HOD,
Chest department.
It was the evidence of the PW-6 that there were seven faculty members
of different departments of RG Kar Hospital, who were the members of the
said committee and the committee had recorded their statements.
During investigation the police authority or the CBI did not collect any
such report of the investigation committee and as such, no such report could
be considered by this court.
This point was raised by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant during
his argument.
It is fact no such document was placed during trial and as such, there is
one grey area and no answer is before us.
The question is whether non production of the said report became fatal
for the prosecution case in any manner.
I am of the view that the prosecution correctly discharged the burden
and placed sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of this accused.
Accordingly, I am of the view that non production of the said investigation
report or the latches on the part of Police Administration, and the authority of
R.G Kar Hospital, did not affect the case of prosecution in any manner.
15. Proof of circumstantial evidence
It is fact that this case depends upon the circumstantial evidence and
the standard of proof required to convict a person on circumstantial evidence
155
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
must be fully established and the chain of evidence furnished by those circum-
stances must be complete and there should not be any reasonable ground of
confusion. The circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be
drawn, have not only to be fully established but also that all the circumstances
so established, should be of a conclusive nature and consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should not be capable of being ex-
plained by any other hypothesis.
In this connection I want to rely the decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court as reported in (1984)4 SCC 116 (Birdhi Chand Sarda VS State of Maha-
rashtra) and (1994) 2 SCC 220 (Dhananjoy Chatterjee Vs State of West Ben-
gal).
In the instant case the presence of the accused at the said PO was
proved by the CCTV footage, tower location of the mobile of the accused, ev-
idence of the security guard and the Scientific evidence like DNA analysis.
The said accused failed to place anything to show that the chain was not com-
plete.
I have also explained that the recovery of bluetooth ear-phone and its
continuous pairing with the mobile of the accused also proved that the said ac-
cused was present at the PO on the date and time of the incident.
It is fact that no particular time of death of the victim was stated by the
experts and in reality it is not possible to say such and only a range of time
can be stated about the probable time of death.
In this case, to ascertain the said probable time of death, the expert
(PW-21 and PW-37) gave a vivid description and the defence failed to place
anything to combat the said opinion.
Therefore, it is well established from all the angle that none but this
accused was involved in the incident of rape and murder of the victim.
The prosecution story is that when the incident took place, the victim
was alone in the said Seminar Room and on the other hand, from the side of
defence it was not established that any other person was there in the seminar
room at that time.
Therefore, there were only two witnesses of this incident (1) victim
and (2) the accused. The said victim is not before us and as such, it is the
accused who is duty bound to explain the circumstances and there is no scope
of shifting of the onus of proof.
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 de-
nial 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.
156
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
All the acts of the accused in all human probability only correspond to
his guilt.
All these circumstances were placed to the accused when he was ex-
amined u/s 351 BNSS. The object of legislature behind incorporation of this
provision in the statute, is to give an opportunity to the accused to explain the
circumstances appearing against him as well as to put forward his defence.
Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (AIR
2012 SC 1357 Ram Naresh ~vs~ State of Chhastisgarh). The accused got
enough opportunity to explain the circumstances but he had placed the cir-
cumstances in such a manner, which did not come to his aid.
157
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
the hands of the prosecution regarding his entry in the said place. If we place
the arguments on a scale, it will tilt in favour of the prosecution. In that case,
only option is that the accused took entry there and on sudden impulse he had
attacked the victim 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.
On this point, I want to rely upon the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court as reported in (1998) 9 SCC 238 (Nathuni Yadav v. State of Bihar).
The Hon’ble Court observed that motive for doing a criminal act is generally
a difficult area for prosecution. One cannot normally see into the mind of another.
Motive is the emotion which impels a man to do a particular act. Such impelling
cause need not necessarily be proportionally grave to do grave crimes. Many a
murders have been committed without any known or prominent motive. It is quite
possible that the aforesaid impelling factor would remain undiscoverable.
The Hon’ble Court also observed that though, it is a sound proposition that
every criminal act is done with a motive, it is unsound to suggest that no such
criminal act can be presumed unless motive is proved. After all, motive is a psy-
chological phenomenon. Mere fact that prosecution failed to translate that mental
disposition of the accused into evidence, does not mean that no such mental con-
dition existed in the mind of the assailant.
Reliance can also be placed on another decision of the Hon’ble Apex court re-
ported in AIR 1955 SC 807 (Atley v. State of U.P). in the said case, the observa-
tion of the Hon’ble Court was that “That is true; and where there is clear proof of
motive for the crime, that lends additional support to the finding of the court that
the accused was guilty but the absence of clear proof of motive does not necessar-
ily lead to the contrary conclusion.”
It is fact that in some cases, it may not be difficult to establish motive through
direct evidence, while in some other cases inferences from circumstances may
help in discerning the mental propensity of the person concerned. There may also
be cases in which it is not possible to find out the mental transaction of the ac-
cused which would have impelled him to act. 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.
The present case should be seen in the touchstone of the said observation of
the Hon’ble Court and I hold that the prosecution case will not face the failure
for want of direct evidence about the motive of the convict.
18. Another side of the case:-
From the evidence of the PW-5 it came out that prior to this incident,
on one night while she was taking rest at the said Seminar Room, one outsider
entered there in intoxicated condition and she raised voice. She also deposed
that the matter was brought to the notice of the HOD Chest Department but no
action was taken.
158
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
This fact came out from the said doctor while she deposed before this
court.
From the evidence of the PW-3 (cross-examination Para 24,25,26) it
appears that on the date of incident after taking dinner, while he was on his
way to wash his hands, he had noticed that some outsider was sleeping in the
Procedure Room, close to the Nursing Station and the person was driven
away.
This evidence also proves that there was free access of outsiders to any
place of the Hospital.
This proves that the entry of this accused unnoticed, was not the only
occasion. It also took earlier and this shows that there were lapses of security
for the doctors specially who conducts duty at night.
Obviously, it is an administrative issue, but I am referring it as it helps
to bring the chain.
The brutality of the incident gave a shake to the people at large. Vari-
ous reports were there in the hands of the public. In my view everything
should be considered in the proper touchstone. In this regard I want to remind
the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court, reported in AIR 2010 SC
2352[Siddharth Vashisth ~vs~ NCT of Delhi] and the observation of the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court as passed in Naveen Jindal ~vs~ M/S Zee Media
Corporation Ltd. & Others reported in AIR 2015(NOC) 1281(Del).
19. Discussion on the points raised by the complainant in the written note of
argument: -
The question was raised that by demolishing the room close to the
Seminar Room, the vital evidences were destroyed.
This point was discussed at length, and it was observed by this court
that the CFSL team had examined the debris but did not find any biological
materials there and such the apprehension of the complainant bears no value.
Another query of the complainant was what prompted the Principal to
form an Enquiry Committee to get the cause of death.
In my view, as the death of the victim was caused while she was on
duty, the steps taken was not wrong but the investigating agency must ascer-
tain the fate of the said committee or the report of the said committee.
It was also the question of the complainant that what prevented the
Principal to lodge any complaint.
The reply of the same was given in relevant paragraph.
It was the question before this court from the unfortunate father of the
victim that there was tampering of evidence.
From the evidences on record it appears that the clinching evidences
were produced by the prosecution and from the evidences some materials
came out regarlidg the dereliction of duties by the authorities but I did not find
any material till now which can attract the provision of S.238 BNS as derelic-
tion of duty and tampering of evidence do not carry same and identical mean-
159
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
ing and accordingly, I did not find any reason to apply the power U/S 358
BNSS against any other person(s).
A baseless question was placed by the complainant that as the Princi-
pal did not come out of his chamber to meet the parents of the victim, the
same proves that he was guilty.
This question comes into contradiction with the evidence of the PW-2
(Para 38 of the examination-in-chief). The said witness deposed that some
persons tried to take him to the chamber of the Principal but they denied to go
there and their demand was that the Principal must meet them. I do not think
that the same can put any stigma on the Principal that he was guilty.
Question was also raised about the resignation of the Principal.
This is not related to this case and purely an administrative issue and
as such should not be considered as an argument.
A point was raised about S.119 BSA. No ground was assigned for it.
Regarding non-examination of the Nursing staff was explained at
proper places in the judgement.
The point of non-examination of the food delivery person or non
collection of the food containers were also answered.
It was argued that the table was not seized.
I did not find any relevance of the same and as such I do not think it
necessary to reply this part.
I do not find any ground why the Ld. Counsel for the complainant
mentioned that the seizure should have been done by the Ld. JM. The legal
provision was not placed, and I think that it was a baseless question.
Questions were raised about the GD entries and I have criticized the
same and discussed in details.
Question was placed about seizure of mobile phone of the then
Principal of the Hospital.
In my view, further investigation has not yet been completed. So till
now time has not come to reach to any conclusion on this point.
In my humble view, the Ld. Advocate for the complainant could not
place the queries in proper manner following the evidence on record and the
exhibits. Some hypothetical and imaginary questions were placed which made
their entire effort a very light one.
I am in doubt whether the said document can be treated as written
notes of argument or not.
It is not clear to me how the prayer in the form of further investigation
was placed before the trial court and what is the legal stand of such prayer at
this stage.
Observation :-
Accordingly, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution could
establish that this accused was involved in the incident of offence of rape
160
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
(S.64BNS) and murder of the victim [S.103(1)BNS] at R.G Kar Medical College
& Hospital on 09.08.2024.
Charge was also framed for the offence u/s 66 BNS.
In order to constitute the said offence, the prosecution must have to prove that
in course of commission of an offence of rape, the accused had inflicted such injury,
which caused the death of the said woman.
In the instant case it was established that at the time of commission of the
offence of rape, the accused committed throttling associated with smothering, which
was the proximate cause of death of the victim.
Accordingly, without any hesitation, I hold that the charge u/s 66 BNS
was also established against this accused.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the charges U/S 64/66/103(1) BNS were established against the accused
person namely, Sanjay Roy.
He is found guilty and as he is facing trial from custody, he will be produced
from custody on 20.01.2025 at 12.30 pm to hear him on the point of sentence and
pronouncement of sentence.
Seized alamats, will be disposed of as per the provisions of BNSS.
D/C by me
161
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
He submits that he is innocent and that he was falsely implicated by some po-
lice personnel with some ulterior motive.
The convict also submits that his family consists of his aged old mother and it
was also submitted that no one of his relation met him while he was in custody in
connection with this case.
Heard the Ld. Counsel for the said convict. It was asserted that the prosecu-
tion's chain of evidence was fraught with weaknesses and significant gaps. It was also
contended that these doubts should inure to the benefit of the convict, urging the court
to consider these factors during sentencing deliberations.
The Ld. Counsel had placed before me some decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court
as reported in (1974) SCC 443 (Ediga Anamma Vs State of Andrapradesh), (1979) 3
SCC 646 (Rajendra Prasad Vs State of UP), (2019) 12 SCC 438 (Chaman Lal Verma
Vs. State of Chattisghar)
Relying upon those decisions, the Ld. Defence counsel prayed for considera-
tion when there is alternative option of imprisonment for life.
It was also the submission that reformative and rehabilitation policy may also
be considered at the time of pronouncement of sentence.
From the end of the Ld. Counsel of the convict, a research paper published
from National Law University, Delhi, is placed before me.
I have considered the said portion placed before me wherein the judgment of
the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bachan Singh case was considered.
Conversely, the learned PP CBI, submitted that the prosecution had presented
irrefutable evidence before the court. He argued that this evidence formed a robust
foundation for the prosecution's case, leaving no room for doubt. In the light of the
gravity of the case, the Ld. Public Prosecutor, CBI advocated for the imposition of
capital punishment.
The Ld. Counsel for the Complainant also prayed for capital punishment.
In this case, charges were framed under sections 64/66/103(1) of the BNS.
The conviction is founded on a robust framework of circumstantial evidence, which,
162
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
Further solidifying the case against the convict, advanced forensic techniques
yielded crucial DNA evidence. The blood sample analysis report demonstrated a
definitive match between the DNA profiles of the victim and the convict. This genetic
evidence was recovered from multiple sources at the place of occurrence, including
nipple swabs and hair strands. Such precise biological matches provide
incontrovertible scientific proof placing the convict at the place of occurrence.
The forensic evidence provides a crucial scientific link between the convict
and the place of occurrence. The DNA profile matching between the victim and the
convict, found in nipple swabs and hair strands recovered from the place of
occurrence, offers compelling scientific evidence. Visual evidence from surveillance
cameras at RG Kar Hospital corroborates the convict's presence at the place of
occurrence, aligning with the timeframe of the offence. The statement of the convict
under Section 351 BNSS, while not conclusive in itself, adds another layer to the
cumulative evidence against him.
163
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
being "bound to sacrifice herself for the satisfaction of the lust of the convict"
emphasises the extreme depravity of the act.
Let us now consider the statutory sentences provided for the offence u/s
64/66 /103(1) BNS.
1. S. 64 BNS RI for a period which shall not be less than 10 years but
which may extend to imprisonment of life & fine
2. S.66 BNS RI for a term which shall not be less than 20 years but
which may extend to imprisonment for the remainder of
that person’s natural life or with death
In evaluating the severity of this case, several factors come into play. The brutality of
the crime is a primary consideration. The combination of strangulation, smothering
and brutal sexual assault demonstrates a level of cruelty that goes beyond the pale of
ordinary criminal behaviour. This series of violent acts suggest a prolonged and
agonising ordeal for the victim, indicating a complete disregard for human life and
dignity. The method of execution of the crime, involving multiple forms of assault,
speaks to a deliberate and sustained intent to cause harm, elevating the gravity of the
offence.
The helplessness of the victim is another crucial factor that adds to the
heinousness of the act. Victims who are particularly vulnerable, whether due to age,
physical condition or circumstances, are afforded special consideration in criminal
jurisprudence. Their inability to defend themselves or escape their attacker magnifies
the culpability of the perpetrator and the shock value of the crime. In this case, the
victim's vulnerability during the attack highlights the predatory nature of the crime
and the perpetrator's exploitation of an unequal power dynamic.
164
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
The societal impact of such a crime cannot be overstated. Heinous acts of this
nature instill fear in the community and erode the fabric of social trust. They create a
sense of insecurity, particularly among vulnerable groups and can have long-lasting
effects on the collective psyche of society. The ripple effects of such crimes extend
far beyond the immediate victims and their families, touching the lives of countless
individuals who may alter their behaviour or live in fear as a result. This broader
impact on society is a significant consideration when evaluating the severity of the
crime and contemplating appropriate punishment.
The apparent absence of any extenuating factors for the convict's actions
further compounds the severity of the case. Mitigating circumstances, such as mental
illness, extreme provocation or a history of abuse, often play a role in tempering
sentences.
However, in this case, the lack of such mitigating factors leaves little room for
leniency. The absence of any apparent justification or explanation for such a brutal act
adds to its reprehensibility and may influence the court's consideration of appropriate
punishment.
In the case at hand, the Ld. P.P., has advocated for the death penalty for
offences under sections 66 and 103(1) of the BNS, along with life imprisonment for
165
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
the offence under section 64 BNS and the imposition of fines. This recommendation
reiterates the prosecution's view of the extreme gravity of the offences committed.
The court's duty in such cases extends beyond mere punishment; it must
consider the broader implications of its decision on society. In this case, the victim
stands behind an "invisible curtain" seeking justice. This poignant imagery
emphasises the court's responsibility to not only punish the perpetrator but also to
provide a sense of justice and closure to the victim's family and society at large.
The impact of the crime on the victim's family and the larger community is
heart-wrenching. The loss of a life with "bright prospects" represents not just a
personal tragedy but a loss to the nation of potential talent and contribution. The court
must weigh this loss heavily in its deliberations, considering how the sentence can
reflect the value society places on human life and potential.
In view of the manner in which the offence was committed by the convict, as
proved by the prosecution, according to me, one can only say that the action of the
convict is barbaric and brutal. The gruesome acts of the convict were diabolic in
their conception and cruel in execution.
The point to be decided whether the act of the convict falls within the ambit of
rarest of rare case or not.
In evaluating whether this case meets the threshold for capital punishment, the
court must carefully analyse precedents set by higher courts, particularly the Supreme
Court, regarding the application of the death penalty in cases of similar gravity. This
analysis involves examining how previous cases of comparable brutality and circum-
stance were adjudicated and the reasoning behind those judgments.
In Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 684, the observation of
the Hon’ble Apex Court was that the following guidelines should be kept in mind:-
“(i) The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of
extreme culpability.
(ii) Before opting for the death penalty the circumstances of the ‘offender’ also
require to be taken into consideration along with the circumstances of the ‘crime’.
166
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
(iii) Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. In other words
death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an
altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the
crime, and provided, and only provided, the option to impose sentence of
imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature
and circumstances of the crime and all the relevant circumstances.
This observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court was also followed in another de-
cision of the Hon’ble Apex Court as reported in (2002) 6 SCC 81 Krishna Mochi v.
State of Bihar.
It is fact that in a civilized society a tooth for a tooth, and a nail for a nail or
death for death is not the rule, but it is equally true that when a man becomes a beast
and menace to the society, he can be deprived of his life according to the procedure
established by law.
I want to rely upon another decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court as reported in
(1983) 3 SCC 470 (Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab).
In the said case, the Hon’ble Court made the following observation which is
very much relevant:-
“The reasons why the community as a whole does not endorse the humanistic
approach reflected in “death sentence-in-no-case” doctrine are not far to seek. In the
first place, the very humanistic edifice is constructed on the foundation of “reverence
for life” principle. When a member of the community violates this very principle by
killing another member, the society may not feel itself bound by the shackles of this
doctrine. Secondly, it has to be realized that every member of the community is able
to live with safety without his or her own life being endangered because of the protec-
tive arm of the community and on account of the rule of law enforced by it. The very
existence of the rule of law and the fear of being brought to book operates as a deter-
rent for those who have no scruples in killing others if it suits their ends. Every mem-
ber of the community owes a debt to the community for this protection. When ingrati-
tude is shown instead of gratitude by “killing” a member of the community which
protects the murderer himself from being killed, or when the community feels that for
the sake of self-preservation the killer has to be killed, the community may well with-
draw the protection by sanctioning the death penalty. But the community will not do
so in every case. It may do so “in rarest of rare cases” when its collective conscience
167
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
is so shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial power centre to inflict
death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability or other-
wise of retaining death penalty. The community may entertain such a sentiment when
the crime is viewed from the platform of the motive for, or the manner of commission
of the crime, or the anti-social or abhorrent nature of the crime ******”.
In Manoj & Ors. versus State of Madhya Pradesh the Hon’ble Apex Court as re-
ported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 677, has observed:
“209. There are numerous other circumstances justifying the passing of the lighter
sentence; as there are countervailing circumstances of aggravation. “We cannot obvi-
ously feed into a judicial computer all such situations since they are astrological im-
ponderables in an imperfect and undulating society.” Nonetheless, it cannot be over-
emphasised that the scope and concept of mitigating factors in the area of death
penalty must receive a liberal and expansive construction by the courts in accord with
the sentencing policy writ large in Section 354(3). Judges should never be blood-
thirsty. Hanging of murderers has never been too good for them. Facts and Figures,
albeit incomplete, furnished by the Union of India, show that in the past, courts have
inflicted the extreme 91 Bachan Singh (para 202 and 206). 66 penalty with extreme
infrequency — a fact which attests to the caution and compassion which they have al-
ways brought to bear on the exercise of their sentencing discretion in so grave a mat-
ter. It is, therefore, imperative to voice the concern that courts, aided by the broad il-
lustrative guide-lines indicated by us, will discharge the onerous function with ever-
more scrupulous care and humane concern, directed along the highroad of legislative
policy outlined in Section 354(3) viz. that for persons convicted of murder, life im-
prisonment is the rule and death sentence an exception. A real and abiding concern
for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking a life through law's instru-
mentality. That ought not to be done save in the rarest of rare cases when the alterna-
tive option is unquestionably foreclosed.”
At the same time, I want to rely upon some other decisions of the Hon’ble Apex
Court as reported in (2008) 13 SCC 767 (Swamy Shraddananda (2) ~vs~ State of
Karnataka) which was followed in 2024 SCC Online SC 3769 (Sambhubhai
Raisangbhai Padhiyar ~vs~ State of Gujarat). In Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar
~vs~ State of Gujarat, the hon’ble Apex Court has observed:
“32. The Trial Court has imposed the sentence of death and the High Court has con-
firmed the same. It is time for us to draw up a balance sheet of the aggravating and
mitigating circumstances to decide whether the case falls in the category of rarest of
168
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
rare case. We also need to examine whether the sentence of life imprisonment is
foreclosed and the possibility of reformation is completely ruled out.
36. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, we hold that the present is not a
case where it can be said that the possibility of reformation is completely ruled out.
The option of life imprisonment is also not foreclosed. The case does not fall in the
category of rarest of rare case. We are of the opinion that ends of justice would be
met if we adopt the path carved out in Swami Shraddananda Vs. State of Kar-
nataka (2008) 13 SCC 767
40. The trial Court had sentenced the appellant to death under Section 302 IPC, to
simple imprisonment of 10 (ten) years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence under Sec-
tion 364 and to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence under Section
6 of the POCSO Act. No separate sentences were awarded for offences punishable
under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 377 of IPC. The trial Court had di-
rected that the accused should suffer all the above ordered punishments together. The
High Court had confirmed the death sentence and dismissed the appeal of the appel-
lant.
41. In view of what we have held hereinabove, while maintaining the conviction un-
der Sections 302, 364, 377 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, we set
aside the sentence of death for the offence under Section 302 and substitute the same
with that of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 25 (twentyfive) years without re-
mission. We also order that the sentence imposed for offences under Section 364 IPC
(10 years S.I. and Rs. 10,000/- fine) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act (life imprison-
ment and Rs.10,000/- fine) shall run concurrently with the sentence of rigorous im-
prisonment for a period of 25 years without remission, which we have presently or-
dered.”
The judiciary's primary responsibility is to uphold the rule of law and ensure
justice based on evidence, not public sentiment. It is of prime importance that the
court maintain its objectivity and impartiality by focusing solely on the facts and evi-
dence presented during the trial, rather than being swayed by public opinion or emo-
tional reactions to the case. Furthermore, the court must consider the rights and cir-
cumstances of the accused, as well as the broader implications of its decisions. In this
particular case, it is crucial to note that there is no evidence of prior criminal behav-
iour or misconduct 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 wis-
dom, compassion and a deeper understanding of justice. The measure of a civilized
169
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
society lies not in its ability to exact revenge, but in its capacity to reform, rehabilitate
and ultimately to heal.
Referring to the landmark Bachan Singh case, which established guidelines for im-
posing the death penalty, it is evident that this case does not meet the stringent criteria
for being classified as "rarest of the rare." The Supreme Court has consistently em-
phasized that the death penalty should be used only in exceptional circumstances
where the collective conscience of the community is so shocked that it expects the
holders of judicial power to inflict the death penalty.
In conclusion, this case calls for a carefully considered and appropriate sentence that
balances the gravity of the crime with the principles of justice, rehabilitation and the
preservation of human dignity. 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.
Considering all the circumstances, the impact of the incident on the society, the
sentiment of the public at large, I think it prudent to pass the following sen -
tence:-
170
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
O R D E R E D
(i) R.I for life and fine of Rs.50,000.00 (u/s 395 BNSS) for offence u/s 64
BNS, in default to suffer SI for five months
(ii) R.I for life and fine of Rs.50,000.00 (u/s395 BNSS) for offence u/s 103(1)
BNS in default SI for five months.
(ii) R.I for remainder of the convict’s natural life for offence u/s 66 BNS.
Let a copy of this judgement be handed over to the convict free of cost.
The Secretary DLSA South 24-Parganas is also directed to take proper steps
so that the convict can file appeal from the J/C by taking legal aid, if needed.
As per the provision of S. 2(y) of BNSS the term victim means a person who has suf-
fered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission of the accused person
and includes the guardians or legal heirs of the said victim.
Here in this case, the daughter of the complainant is the sufferer and she had lost her
life and she left behind her parents and as such they come within the purview of the
definition of “victim” as per the provision of S.2(y) BNSS.
In the instant case, since the time of death of the daughter of the complainant, they
are passing their days with trauma and they are visiting the court to get justice on
each and every day.
Their pain and sufferings cannot be compensated with any liquid cash but at the same
time I think that as the death of the victim was caused while she was on duty, the
State has also the liability to pay compensation which will be in addition to the com-
pensation ordered u/s 395 BNSS.
171
Sessions Case No. 77 of 2024
Sessions Trial No.01(11)2024
172