New Delhi: The Calcutta High Court Thursday directed that a Special Investigating Team (SIT) of three members—headed by Joint Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Eastern Zone—be constituted within 48 hours to investigate the lapses pointed out by the bureau’s probe in the RG Kar case.
“The focus of the investigation should be directed towards all the surrounding circumstances of the fateful night (9 August, 2024), from the stage when the victim had dinner with her doctor friends till the time of cremation,” the court said, directing the SIT to submit its comprehensive progress report by 25 June.
A bench of Justices Shampa Sarkar and Tirthankar Ghosh also noted that “although we do not comment on the credibility of the investigating officer, we are of the view that considering the nature of the offence, the social ramification, insecurity of women at work place”, the probe will specifically target long-standing allegations from the parents regarding destruction of evidence, institutional cover-up, and claims that multiple perpetrators were involved as opposed to the lone convict Sanjay Roy.
The case originates from the intervening night of 8 and 9 August, 2024, when a 31-year-old post-graduate trainee resident doctor on duty was raped, tortured and murdered inside the seminar room of the state-run R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital. On the same night, the college principal was transferred and Sanjay Roy, a civic volunteer with the Kolkata Police, was arrested on 10 August, 2024. In January 2025, a Sealdah sessions court sentenced Sanjay Roy to life imprisonment.
Multiple cross pleas are now clubbed together in the high court. The victim’s parent’s plea that seeks a deeper probe, Sanjay Roy’s plea against his conviction, and the CBI’s plea seeking enhancement of Roy’s punishment from life imprisonment to the death penalty.
After the sweeping defeat of the Trinamool Congress in the West Bengal elections, the new Bharatiya Janata Party government announced that this case would be expedited and that justice would be served.
Importantly, the deceased victim’s mother, Ratna Debnath, entered politics and won the Panihati Assembly constituency seat under the BJP banner—drawing much more public attention to the case.
The victim’s mother is represented by a team of senior advocate Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee and advocate Jayshree Patra.
Two different sets of judges have recused themselves from hearing the case: a division bench of Justices Debangshu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi in March 2025, and another division bench of Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Rai Chattopadhyay in May 2025.
Also Read: RG Kar case falls in ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine. Sanjay Roy deserves death penalty
The CBI report
The CBI had submitted a sealed cover report of it detailed probe and findings to the high court on 28 March. In the order of 21 May, the court reproduced the CBI status report, alleging irregularities in the police probe before the bureau took over, that was submitted to the Supreme Court.
“Certain lapses have been found on the part of police and hospital authorities during investigation… there was an unexplained delay of about four hours in declaration of death from 9.30 am (the time when body was first spotted) till 12.44 pm (the time when body was declared dead) on 09.08.2024. The death-cum-medical certificate was handed over to police at 1.47 pm,” the report says.
On the “pretext of legal formalities”, the parents of the victim were not allowed to see the body of their daughter for almost three hours after they reached the hospital despite their repeated requests, it says. The case was registered at 11.30 pm on 9 August, 2024, although the police used the same case number in their legal formalities, including inquest and post-mortem proceedings prior to formal registration of case, the report reveals.
“There was a delay of about 14 hours in registering First Information Report (FIR) in the case of rape and murder of on duty Trainee Doctor. Abhijit Mondal, the then SHO (Station House Officer) of Tala PS had received oral information at 10.03 am regarding the incident of sexual assault and murder of trainee doctor and had also reached the SoC (scene of crime) at around 11.15 am. Bare perusal of the body in semi-naked condition and in injured condition could have led to registration of FIR straightaway.”
The SHO, however, started proceedings as per provision of unnatural death instead of registering an FIR, the report says. “FIR was not registered even after getting a written complaint (although a sketchy one) from Medical Superintendent of R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital at 2.45 pm and also a written complaint at about 7.20 pm from the father of the victim after the post-mortem was conducted. It was registered only at 11.45 pm, thereby delaying the initiation of formal investigation of this grave incident.”
The report also said that even though the family members of the victim were asking for “independent investigation and requested for preservation of dead body for getting second autopsy conducted” at the time of lodging the complaint at the police station, the police officers “did not entertain their request and conveyed that the dead body had already reached their home, by then.
Further, the cremation was done out of turn by overtaking three bodies waiting for cremation at the crematorium, and father of the victim alleged that the cremation was done in a hurried manner.”
On the part of hospital authorities, including the principal, there was an “unexplainable delay of about four hours in declaring the victim dead”—it took the hospital authorities almost five hours to send a written complaint to the police station, “that too a sketchy one and no details of the prima facie offence committed were mentioned in the complaint”.
The report also mentioned that an in-depth investigation has been carried out on destruction or tampering of evidence as alleged by the father of the victim. “There are certain lapses on the part of police and hospital authorities while handling this grave incident, however, so far, no admissible evidence could be gathered to indicate any destruction of evidence or its attempt,” it says.
(Edited by Nardeep Singh Dahiya)