RG Kar case falls in ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine. Sanjay Roy deserves death penalty

File photo of junior doctors' protest at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital | Manisha Mondal | ThePrint

Justice Leila Seth, the first women Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, said, “She is first raped, then she has to tell the story to the policeman. Then she has to tell the story to the judge, then she is cross-examined on it. She is raped over and over again”. She was talking about a woman who had been violated. The junior doctor of RG Kar Medical College and Hospital is no longer there to tell her story. 

Her young voice was snuffed out in the most barbaric and brutal manner, in the course of her duty, and in a place where she should have been guaranteed safety. It is a travesty of justice that her murderer has been sentenced to life imprisonment by a sessions Court in Sealdah, where the judge found that the case does not come in the purview of the “rarest of rare” cases. Is the cost of a young doctor’s life a mere Rs 50,000—the compensation the accused has been directed to pay.

Legal system in India

The adversarial system, followed in India, the UK, and the US, involves two opposing parties presenting evidence to a neutral judge or jury, with the prosecution carrying the burden of proof. In contrast, the inquisitorial system, used in France and Germany, sees judges actively investigating cases, gathering evidence, and questioning witnesses. In adversarial systems, the accused has the right to silence, while in inquisitorial systems, they may be compelled to testify. The former stems from English law, while the latter traces back to Roman and medieval Catholic inquisitions.

Sentencing in India is based on judicial discretion, legislative guidelines, and legal precedents. Key principles include:

1. Proportionality – Punishment should match the severity of the offense, following the doctrine of “just deserts”.
2. Deterrence – Aims to discourage crime through specific (offender-focused) and general (society-wide) deterrence.
3. Rehabilitation and reform – Focuses on reintegrating offenders, especially juveniles and first-time offenders.
4. Preventive theory – Prevents future crimes by incapacitating habitual and dangerous offenders.
5. Retribution – Based on “an eye for an eye”, with the death penalty reserved for the rarest cases (Bachan Singh, 1980).
6. Restorative justice – Seeks to compensate victims and repair harm caused.
7. Uniformity and consistency – Courts follow precedents to ensure fair and unbiased sentencing.
8. Individualisation – Factors like age, background, and remorse influence sentencing, with leniency for first-time offenders.

Laws governing sentencing include the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (2023), which replaces the IPC (1860), and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, formerly the CrPC (1973), along with judicial precedents, and special laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 (PMLA), Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (NDPS), and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Courts balance these legal frameworks based on specifics of each case. Under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, capital punishment can be imposed for offences such as murder (Section 103(1)), felony murder during dacoity or banditry (Section 310(3)), lynching (Section 103(2)) and treason against the government of India (Section 147). 

Rarest of rare cases 

The capital punishment in India is based on the ‘rarest of rare case’ doctrine. Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, refers to the execution of a convicted offender following a court’s sentencing for a criminal offense. It is the most severe form of punishment that can be imposed on an accused individual. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Section 103 deals with the punishment for murder and the death penalty in India. The BNS is India’s main penal legislation and was previously known as the Indian Penal Code. 

While many believe that capital punishment is an appropriate punishment for rape, others argue that it goes against the very tenets of humanity. Former Chief Justice of India PN Bhagwati, who famously dissented the rarest of rare doctrine, believed that it should be abolished completely as it was a cruel and unjust punishment. Former President APJ Kalam opined, “One of the more difficult tasks for me as president was to decide on the issue of confirming capital punishment awarded by courts…”.  

The term ‘rarest of rare cases’ was coined by the Supreme Court in 1980, a couple of decades before I started practicing Law,  in the landmark judgment in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980). Bachan Singh murdered two people and was awarded the death penalty by the Sessions Court and upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and laid down certain guidelines to strike a balance between justice and the fundamental rights of the convict under Article 21 of the Constitution. Since then, life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty the exception, awarded only in the most grave cases. There is no statutory definition of ‘rarest of rare’; it depends upon facts and circumstances of a particular case, brutality of the crime, conduct of the offender, previous history of his/her involvement in crime. 

This was established in the landmark case of Machhi Singh and Others vs State of Punjab, 1983, where the convict committed the heinous slaughter of 17 individual members of a family, including women and children for revenge. The death penalty was upheld as the case fell within the ambit of ‘rarest of the rare” , with the Court emphasizing its necessity in instances where the sheer depravity of the crime and the incorrigibility of the criminal make life imprisonment inadequate. 

The rarest of rare doctrine has been used to confirm the death penalty in prominent cases like State of Kerala v. Muhammed Ameer-Ul Islam, Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), Nirbhaya case, Shabnam vs Union of India (2015), and Abdul Kasab vs Union of India. 

As noticed, death sentence can be imposed only when life imprisonment appears an inadequate punishment, considering the circumstances of the crime. In State of Kerala v. Muhammed Ameer-Ul Islam, the accused, frustrated and vengeful after the victim’s continuous resistance to his attempts to commit rape, inflicted several stab injuries on her, causing her death. He then brutally and barbarously mutilated her genital organs using MO23 knife, to the extent of pulling out parts of her internal organs. It was a cold blooded murder without provocation, where the victim’s only “crime” was resisiting the accused’s attempt to rape her.

Facts of the RG Kar Case 

The RG Kar Medical College case involves the tragic rape and murder of a 31-year-old postgraduate trainee doctor in Kolkata, West Bengal, on 9 August 2024. Her body was discovered in a seminar room on the hospital campus, where she went to rest while on night shift. A 33-year-old civic volunteer, Sanjay Roy, associated with the Kolkata Police, was arrested under suspicion of committing the crime. On 13 August 2024, the Calcutta High Court, expressing dissatisfaction with the initial police investigation, transferred the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

After a national outcry, The Supreme Court of India took suo motu cognizance of the case on 18 August 2024, and held multiple hearings, criticising the state authorities for mishandling the investigation and the subsequent unrest. The Court constituted a national task force to ensure workplace safety for doctors and ordered central security forces to provide protection at the hospital. 

In September 2024, the CBI arrested Sandip Ghosh, the former principal of RG Kar Medical College, and Abhijit Mondal, the Station House Officer of Tala Police Station, on charges of evidence tampering and delaying the filing of the First Information Report (FIR). On 18 January 2025, Sanjay Roy was convicted of rape and murder under sections 64, 66, and 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and fined Rs 50,000 on 20 January 2025. 

The court also ordered the state to award a compensation of Rs 17 lakh to the victim’s family, noting that the crime occurred at her workplace. While sentencing the convict, the Sealdah Sessions Court relied upon Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980), Machhi Singh and Others vs State of Punjab, 1983, Krishna Mochi v State of Bihar, Manoj & Ors vs State of Madhya Pradesh, and Swami Shradhananda Vs State of Karnataka (2008). The court concluded that, “the judiciary’s primary responsibility is to uphold the rule of law and ensure justice is based on evidence, not public sentiment. In this particular case, it is crucial to note that there is no evidence of prior criminal behaviour or misconduct by the convict”. 

Why it deserves rarest of rare consideration?

The doctrine of “rarest of rare cases” is applicable in this particular case, and the concept of aggravating circumstances, as opined by the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab, exists as follows:

• The nature of the crime was particularly heinous, involving extreme cruelty and brutality. The expert team conducting the post-mortem stated that “death was due to manual strangulation associated with smothering and forceful penetration of genitalia”. 
• The perpetrator was a civic volunteer with the Kolkata Police disaster management force, assigned near the medical college. His position of responsibility and trust within the hospital environment exacerbated the severity of the crime. As a member of the police force,  he was responsible for protecting the doctors. 

Section 64 (2) (e) of BNS states being on the management or staff of a hospital and committing rape on a woman in that hospital shall result in rigorous imprisonment for not less than 10 years, which may extend to imprisonment for life, along with a fine.

The crime was heinously barbaric. The victim’s mouth and throat were forcibly pressed to prevent screaming, her throat was strangled to suffocate her, and the thyroid cartilage was fractured due to strangling. There was bleeding from her eyes, mouth, and genitals, with the injuries in her genital area attributed to “perverted sexuality” and “genital torture”. 

Section 66 of BNS (2023) states that whoever commits an offence punishable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 64 and, in the course of such commission, inflicts an injury that causes the death of the woman or leaves her in a persistent vegetative state, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term not be less than 20 years, which may extend to imprisonment for life—meaning the remainder of that person’s natural life—or even death penalty.  

Nirbhaya’s case, while dealing with sentencing, can not be used as a precedent as the age of the accused, etc., is different. More importantly, the law on punishment and the policy of sentencing changed later. The public outcry forced the government to act in such cases of brutality, which were seen as aggravated circumstances. 

The 1978 conviction of Billa and Ranga was also a ‘rarest of rare’ case, bearing parallels to the RG Kar Case. The perpetrator, Sanjay Roy, had a history of sexual perversion. According to the witness report submitted as supporting documents of the judgment, Sourav Bhattacharya and Sanjoy Roy visited the red light area of Sova Bazaar and later the Chetla locality. 

Dr Adarsh Kumar, who led the Multi-Institutional Medical Board (MIMB) that investigated the autopsy and circumstances surrounding the case, testified that “there is possibility of human smothering by a single person”. One can only imagine the sheer brutality of Sanjoy Roy’s act, as it is not easy to smother an adult to death. This level of cruelty clearly qualifies for the rarest of rare doctrine. (Page 71 of judgement). 

Moreover, it is apparent from a perusal of the documents that it was a pre-meditated murder-rape. The perpetrator observed the victim sleeping on the floor of the seminar room and being familiar with the procedure of the hospital, attacked her with the express purpose of sexually assaulting the victim and then brutally strangulated her to avoid any ruckus.

Capital punishment 

Punishment is the society’s antidote to its wounds and it ensures that such wounds do not fester. It’s a way to express distaste and abhorrence for such crimes. The crimes committed by the accused in the Kolkata case are similar to above-cited cases. If a woman can be murdered for resisting rape, with her genitals mutilated in her place of work, and this doesn’t meet the test under the doctrine of “ rarest of the rare”, then what does?

Post Nirbhaya case, the existing laws were altered and policy was made stringent. The facts of the case squarely fall under the prevailing norms and thus capital punishment is what the accused deserves. Death penalty or capital punishment is the ‘just desert’ best served cold for such insidious crimes. While the government policy is Beti Bachao Beti Padhao, it must not fail the educated daughters of our country—padhne likhne wali beti ko bhi bachao. 

Meenakashi Lekhi is a BJP leader, lawyer and social activist. Her X handle is @M_Lekhi. Views are personal.

(Edited by Ratan Priya)