RG Kar trainee doctor rape case verdict: Key highlights from the judgement

On January 18, 2025, the Sessions Court in Kolkata delivered a significant judgment in the gruesome case of the rape and murder of a postgraduate trainee doctor from RG Kar Medical College and Hospital. The court sentenced Sanjay Roy, a civic volunteer, to life imprisonment. Roy was convicted under Sections 64, 66, and 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita (BNS). The incident, which occurred on the night of August 8-9, 2024, sparked national outrage, with protests demanding accountability and justice. The judgment, pronounced by Justice Anirban Das, shed light on the horrifying details of the crime and the systemic failures that followed.

The Tragic Incident

On August 8, 2024, the victim, a postgraduate trainee in the Chest Medicine Department, began a gruelling 36-hour shift, covering outpatient services and a night shift. Around 11:15 PM, she called her mother—the last conversation with her family. Concern grew when her phone went unanswered the following morning.

At 10:53 AM on August 9, the victim’s father received a call from the Assistant Superintendent of RG Kar Medical College, urging him to visit the hospital due to his daughter’s deteriorating health. Despite his repeated requests for specifics, the caller provided vague responses, stating she was not a doctor. Shortly after, the father received another call suggesting the victim had attempted suicide, leaving the family distraught and confused.

The family arrived at the hospital by 12:15 PM, only to be barred from entering the crime scene on the third floor of the Chest Medicine Department. Police personnel restricted access, citing an ongoing investigation. What they encountered was both shocking and distressing—a flurry of activity, with medical staff and security personnel ensuring the area remained sealed.

Discovery of the Victim’s Body

The victim’s lifeless body was discovered earlier that morning by Dr. Arko Sen, a first-year postgraduate trainee. While making rounds, Dr. Sen noticed the seminar room door ajar. Upon entering, he found the victim lying motionless on a mattress, partially unclothed, with visible injuries on her face, chest, and shoulders. Bloodstains and dishevelled hair further indicated foul play.

Dr. Sen immediately informed colleagues, including Dr. Sumit Roy Tapadar, who confirmed the victim’s death and escalated the matter to senior hospital authorities. Principal Dr. Sandip Ghosh directed that the body be sent to the morgue, but Dr. Tapadar insisted it could not be moved until police investigations commenced. This disagreement added to the already tense atmosphere.

The Scene of the Crime

The seminar room where the body was found presented a chilling sight. A green hospital bedsheet partially covered the victim’s upper body, while her jeans and undergarments lay nearby. Bloodstains were visible on the mattress, alongside injury marks on her face, lips, and shoulders. Her personal belongings, including her laptop and phone, were scattered around the room.

The hospital erupted in chaos as junior doctors demanded a judicial inquiry. They insisted the post-mortem be videographed to ensure transparency, leading to protests within the premises. A formal complaint was later filed by the victim’s father at the Tala Police Station, accusing the hospital authorities of negligence.

Suspicious Actions by Authorities

Amidst the uproar, the victim’s body was transported to the crematorium with unusual haste, bypassing other scheduled cremations. This move heightened suspicions of a cover-up among the victim’s family and colleagues. Later that evening, DC North visited the family, offering them a packet of cash, which they refused. West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee also visited the family after the cremation, offering compensation, which was similarly declined.

Judicial Observations and Testimonies

The judgment included detailed testimonies from witnesses, including Dr. Sen and the victim’s roommate, Dr. Priya. These accounts corroborated the sequence of events and highlighted the negligence of hospital authorities. The court noted systemic lapses and criticised the administration for its handling of the case.

The case garnered widespread media attention, with protests and public outrage amplifying demands for justice. The judgment served as a grim reminder of the need for institutional accountability and the protection of vulnerable workers in critical sectors like healthcare.

The Sessions Court’s decision to sentence Sanjay Roy to life imprisonment marked a step toward justice, but the case remains a symbol of the fight against systemic failures and crimes against women in India.

Victim’s Father: A Heartbreaking Account

The victim’s father emerged as one of the pivotal witnesses in the case. He recounted the harrowing sequence of events that began with a series of distressing calls from RG Kar Medical College on the morning of August 9, 2024. Initially informed about his daughter’s ill health, the calls gradually hinted at a potential suicide attempt, leaving the family in a state of shock and confusion.

Upon reaching the hospital, the family was barred from entering the seminar room where the victim’s body was discovered. In his testimony, the father recalled seeing visible injuries on his daughter’s face, chest, and shoulders, with blood oozing from her lips and eyes. The father also highlighted the hurried cremation process, alleging that it was an attempt to suppress evidence. His emotional testimony painted a poignant picture of a grieving parent battling for justice.

Dr. Gulam Azam

Dr. Gulam Azam, a junior colleague of the victim, testified about the chaotic atmosphere at the hospital following the discovery of the victim’s body. He described the victim as a diligent professional who was committed to her duties. Dr. Azam confirmed her presence in the Chest Medicine Department during her shift and emphasised the collective demand from junior doctors for a transparent inquiry and videographed post-mortem examination.

Sanjib Mukherjee

Sanjib Mukherjee, a neighbour of the victim’s family, corroborated the father’s account regarding the rushed cremation. He testified that police personnel restricted the family’s access to the victim’s body and prioritised the cremation over other pending funerals, raising suspicions of foul play. Mukherjee also played a key role in lodging the initial police complaint, drafting it based on the father’s narration.

Sourav Bhattacharyya

Sourav Bhattacharyya, an ex-civic volunteer and associate of the accused, provided critical insights into Sanjay Roy’s activities on the night of the crime. He testified that both he and Roy were present at RG Kar Medical College on the night of August 8, 2024, regarding the treatment of his brother. After leaving the hospital, they visited red-light areas in Sovabazar and Chetla, where they consumed alcohol. Bhattacharyya noted that Roy appeared intoxicated but did not engage with anyone at these locations.

Upon returning to the hospital, Roy dropped Bhattacharyya at the Trauma Care Centre. Bhattacharyya’s testimony was corroborated by CCTV footage presented in court, which captured their movements on that night.

Medical Examination and Forensic Analysis

The post-mortem examination of the victim was conducted under stringent videographic documentation, as demanded by hospital staff. The report revealed multiple injuries on the victim’s face, chest, and shoulders, along with signs of strangulation. Hair samples, bodily fluids, and DNA traces confirmed the accused’s involvement in the crime.

Dr. Sumit Roy Tapadar, Associate Professor of Respiratory Medicine, testified that the injuries were consistent with a violent physical assault. Emergency Medical Officer Dr. Pali Samadder highlighted visible bruises on the victim’s upper torso, indicative of resistance during the attack.

Dr. Biswanath Saren, a forensic expert, provided a medico-legal analysis confirming that the injuries were non-accidental and resulted from deliberate, forceful actions leading to asphyxia. The DNA analysis linked the biological samples recovered from the scene to the accused, cementing the prosecution’s claims of sexual assault and murder.

Key Forensic Evidence

A LUMA Bluetooth earphone discovered under the mattress in the seminar room became a critical piece of evidence. Forensic experts testified that the device was paired exclusively with the accused’s phone, as confirmed by metadata analysis. The defense argued that the pairing might have occurred at the police station to implicate Roy, but no evidence supported this claim. The court deemed the continuous pairing as conclusive proof of Roy’s presence at the crime scene during the incident.

A forensic analysis conducted by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) provided pivotal DNA evidence linking Sanjay Roy, the accused, to the crime. Hair strands recovered from the mattress in the seminar room where the victim’s body was found conclusively matched the DNA profile of the accused. Short hair strands on the mattress were attributed to Roy, while long hair strands were identified as belonging to the victim.

Additionally, a post-mortem examination revealed the accused’s DNA on a nipple swab, further establishing his physical contact with the victim. Despite defence claims of evidence contamination or fabrication, the court found these assertions baseless. Procedures were well-documented and adhered to established forensic protocols, leaving no doubt about the integrity of the findings.

Allegations of Police Negligence

The investigation was marred by allegations of police negligence, particularly in handling the victim’s family. Witnesses, including the victim’s father and a neighbour, testified that police personnel at RG Kar Medical College denied the family access to the seminar room where the victim’s body was discovered. This lack of transparency deepened the family’s distress.

The victim’s father also alleged that the cremation of his daughter’s body was conducted hastily under police supervision, bypassing procedural norms and denying the family’s request for a second post-mortem. These actions, he argued, raised suspicions of an attempt to suppress evidence.

The victim’s neighbour corroborated these allegations, describing the police as unsympathetic and evasive. He disclosed in court that the Officer-in-Charge of Ghola Police Station called him days after the incident to inquire whether the family had accused the police of bribery, suggesting an attempt to manage public perception rather than focus on the investigation.

The court criticised the delay in registering the Unnatural Death (UD) case, which was only filed late at night despite police receiving information about the death by 2 PM on August 9, 2024. Procedural delays in evidence collection and documentation further highlighted lapses in investigative protocols.

The first investigating officer, Rupali Mukherjee, faced severe criticism for failing to secure the crime scene and oversee proper evidence collection. The court noted that her inaction contributed to procedural delays and undermined public trust in law enforcement.

The hospital administration also faced scrutiny. Despite junior staff reporting the rape and murder, senior officials delayed notifying the police. The court condemned the hospital’s initial framing of the incident as a suicide, which hampered the investigation and added to the family’s trauma.

Transfer of the Case to the CBI

Initially, the case was handled by Tala Police, who registered an Unnatural Death case before upgrading it to a criminal case under Sections 64, 66, and 103(1) of the Bengal National Security Act (BNS) based on the victim’s father’s complaint.

However, procedural lapses and public outcry over the hurried cremation of the victim’s body prompted the Calcutta High Court to intervene. Recognising the need for an impartial investigation, the court first appointed a Special Investigation Team (SIT). Dissatisfaction with the SIT’s progress led to the case being transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on August 13, 2024.

The CBI registered a fresh case and conducted a meticulous investigation, gathering forensic evidence, recording witness statements, and analysing hospital CCTV footage. Their collaboration with AIIMS, Kalyani, and CFSL strengthened the prosecution’s case.

CBI Findings

The CBI investigation uncovered a series of incriminating details. Forensic analysis confirmed the accused’s DNA on the victim’s clothing, personal items, and biological samples found at the crime scene. CCTV footage placed Roy near the seminar room during the crime, corroborating witness testimonies.

The agency also revealed significant lapses in the initial investigation, including the hurried cremation of the victim’s body and mishandling of evidence. Injuries detailed in the post-mortem report, including signs of strangulation and blunt force trauma, pointed to a deliberate and violent assault, confirming the case as one of rape and murder.

Court’s Observations and Conviction

On January 18, 2025, Additional Sessions Judge Anirban Das convicted Sanjay Roy under Sections 64, 66, and 103(1) of the BNS. The court described the crime as one that “shook the conscience of society,” emphasising the brutality of the act committed in a space meant for healing.

Roy was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 64, along with a ₹50,000 fine. Failure to pay would result in an additional five months of simple imprisonment. Under Section 103(1), he received another life sentence and a similar fine. For Section 66, Roy was sentenced to life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life. The sentences will run concurrently.

The court recommended Rs 10 lakh as compensation for the loss of life and Rs 7 lakh for the commission of rape. Judge Das criticised the procedural lapses by the police and hospital authorities, emphasising the need for systemic accountability to prevent similar incidents in the future.

Criticism of State Authorities

The role of the West Bengal government and its agencies was heavily criticised. Allegations of a cover-up, procedural negligence, and insensitivity toward the victim’s family fueled public outrage. The rushed cremation of the victim’s body and denial of a second post-mortem were viewed as attempts to suppress evidence.

The court’s intervention and transfer of the case to the CBI underscored the failure of local authorities to ensure a transparent and impartial investigation.