A Kolkata sessions court’s January 20 decision sentencing Sanjay Roy to life in prison for the August 2024 rape and murder of a junior doctor at RG Kar Medical College was met with great dismay and disappointment. The court’s verdict went against popular public sentiment that sought the death penalty for Roy.
“If this is not the rarest of the rare, then which one is?” the victim’s parents asked.
“We had asked for the capital punishment…If someone is a monster, how can society show humanity?” West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee said at a public meeting in Malda.
Though the sessions court verdict closed the horrific chapter in the RG Kar Medical rape case, the victim’s parents vowed to continue their fight for justice, and the West Bengal government got permission from the Calcutta High Court to appeal for a death penalty.
The brutal rape and murder of a junior doctor at the RG Kar Medical College in Kolkata triggered nationwide outrage and raised questions on women’s safety at workplaces. The incident also prompted the state government to introduce and pass the Aparajita Bill, an anti-rape legislation that seeks the death penalty for five offences of rape: rape; rape by police officer or public servant; rape causing death or sending victim to persistent vegetative state; gang rape and being a repeat offender.
Why did the court not give the capital punishment?
Additional Sessions Judge Anirban Das’s decision to sentence Sanjay Roy to life in prison primarily relied on his conclusion that the junior doctor’s case, though tragic, was not the “rarest of the rare” case – a pre-requisite as laid down in the Supreme Court’s Bachan Singh judgment.
“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,” ASJ Das observed.
In his order, the judge observed that courts must grapple with a complex web of legal, moral and societal considerations when considering the imposition of capital punishment. “The principle of proportionality is paramount – the punishment must fit the crime,” the court said.
“The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized 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,” it added.
The court reasoned that though the crime committed by Roy was “barbaric” and “brutal”, the judiciary's “primary responsibility is to uphold the rule of law and ensure justice based on evidence, not public sentiment”.
“The court's duty in such cases extends beyond mere punishment; it must consider the broader implications of its decision on society,” it said.
The court explained that 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 wisdom, compassion and a deeper understanding of justice, ASJ Das noted in this 172-page order.
“The measure of a civilized society lies not in its ability to exact revenge, but in its capacity to reform, rehabilitate and ultimately to heal,” the order read.
