World
India
The Additional District and Sessions Court at Sealdah awarded life imprisonment and not the death penalty for Sanjay Roy in connection with the alleged rape and murder of Dr. Abhaya, an on-duty doctor at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital.
The tragedy occurred in August 2024 when Roy, a civic volunteer responsible for maintaining the security of the hospital, assaulted and murdered Dr. Abhaya, a dedicated medical professional. The brutality of the crime led to public outcry, and the Mamata Banerjee-led government handed over the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
While the prosecution, the CBI, and the victim’s family demanded the death penalty, the court determined that the case did not meet the “rarest of the rare” criteria required for capital punishment. Justice Anirban Das emphasized that sentencing should be evidence-based and noted the possibility of Roy’s reform, a key factor in the judgment.
The crime, although brutal, is not ‘rarest of the rare.’ It calls for a life term,” Justice Das held.
Arguments presented in the High Court
The CBI argued that the crime’s gravity and the betrayal of trust warranted the harshest punishment to uphold societal faith in justice. “Roy, tasked with protecting the hospital, committed a heinous crime against someone he was meant to safeguard,” the prosecution contended.
However, the defence argued for a death penalty, insisting that there was no proof that Roy was untamable. There were also discrepancies in the investigations, and it was also said that the punishment should be meted out through a balanced approach. Sanjay Roy’s Claims of Innocence
Throughout the trial, Roy claimed innocence, saying that he was framed and tortured during detention. “I have done nothing wrong, yet I am being punished,” Roy said to the court. He also alleged procedural lapses on the part of CBI in conducting the investigation, which were dismissed by the court based on the evidence presented.
The verdict has drawn mixed reactions. While some have argued that life imprisonment is a fair and reformative punishment, others believe the crime warranted a death sentence to serve as a deterrent. Legal experts view the judgment as a reaffirmation of the principle that the death penalty must be reserved for the rarest of rare cases.
