The afternoon of June 7, 2013 it drizzled at a nondescript village about 15 km from the North 24 Parganas district headquarters of Barasat. A 20-year-old college student got off a bus at Kamduni More and started walking towards her home in the rain.

More than six hours later, residents of the village – its only claim to fame till that evening was being the location of an Amitabh Bachchan film from the early ’70s – found her mutilated body.

The body was in a semi-naked condition, much like the postgraduate trainee doctor at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital. Instead of a seminar room in a supposedly protected environment, the college student was found dead behind a boundary wall, with dry grass and marshes around her, her private parts bleeding and torn.

An uncle of hers, a roadside vendor who sold chhatu, was the last person to see her alive apart from the men who gang-raped and murdered her.

Investigation into the rape and murder of the doctor at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital has revived interest in the Kamduni gang-rape and murder case.

A lawyer, (who was one of the defence counsels in the Kamduni case, levelled allegations against the top cop in Calcutta police, Vineet Goyal, the commissioner, who was during the Kamduni case the IG (CID).

In front of the Calcutta high court division bench led by Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, the lawyer, Firoz Eduljee, accused Goyal of “blotching up the investigation”.

The Telegraph Online asked Commissioner Goyal about the allegations.

“You must read the judgment. 3 were given capital punishment and 3 were sentenced to life,” he replied via text message.

He was referring to half of the story that stretches over 10 years and is yet to reach a legal conclusion.

On October 6, 2023, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Ajoy Kumar Gupta of the Calcutta high court acquitted one of the death-row convicts while commuting the death sentences of two others. The court also reduced the life terms of three convicts to seven years.

The case is now in the Supreme Court.

One of the accused, Saiful Ali, had given a confession that the high court observed was “inconsistent with the prosecution of gang rape”.

The court wrote: “The tenor of the confession is not wholly in consonance with the prosecution case. While Saiful claimed that he had committed the crime himself, the prosecution case is one of gang rape.”

When reminded about the Calcutta high court verdict that acquitted one of the death-row convicts, Amin Ali, Goyal in his text message suggested we should speak with the CID.

“I am of the opinion the trial court erred in awarding death penalty with reference to the gravity of the offence alone,” one of the justices wrote in the judgment.

“State has failed to prove conspiracy and prior concert in the crime beyond reasonable doubt. It has also not led evidence to rebut the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation.”

Jayanta Narayan Chattopadhyay, the advocate for the family of the Kamduni victim, called the police investigation an example of how to destroy a case.

“The police, be it state or Calcutta, are more interested in brushing a case under the carpet than investigating it,” Chattopadhyay alleged.

The high court had this to say about the prosecution’s case, the investigation for which was carried out first by the district police and later the CID:

“In a case based on circumstantial evidence, prosecution may rely on false explanation by an accused as an additional link only after marshalling other incriminating circumstances a reasonable inference of guilt is made out. Prosecution must stand on its own leg and not on the weakness of the defence. Unlike Ansar there is no convincing evidence with regard to the presence and participation of Amin Ali in the crime. The prosecution’s witness did not name Amin Ali for the first time as one of the persons present when he had seen Ansar locking the gate of 8 bigha plot and Saiful standing beside him. After four months he embellished his version and named Amin Ali. Belated inclusion of Amin Ali as one of the persons present at the spot while Ansar was locking the gate ought to be taken with a pinch of salt.”

The prosecution had referred to “scratch abrasions” on Amin Ali as evidence of his involvement in the crime. Though the trial court was convinced, the high court judges thought otherwise.

“It is true scratch abrasions on the arm and shoulders of Amin Ali were noted by the doctor. Amin Ali claimed he was working in a marble shop and had suffered injuries in course of his work. Trial judge has not believed the said defence witness. Relying on this prosecution would submit false explanation of Amin Ali would bolster its case.”

The court also observed that unlike the other death-row convict Ansar Ali, whose sentence was commuted to life imprisonment along with Saiful Molla, Amin’s injuries were described in different terms, nor was he seen with the rest of the accused on that day.

“Unlike Ansar the injuries on Amin Ali have not been described as “nail scratches” but as “scratch abrasions.” This also improbabilises the prosecution case that Amin Ali suffered such injuries from nail scratches of the victim when she struggled during the rape. Prosecution case that Emamul, Bhutto, Bhola and Amin Ali shared common intent with Saiful and Ansar to rape and murder the victim stands on a shaky foundation and cannot be said to have been proved,” the judgment said.

Advocate Chattopadhyay claimed the probe had been botched up.

“The victim’s body was removed from where it was found. Photographs of the victim were not exhibited. The evidence of barbarity was not presented,” Chattopadhyay claimed.

The judgment said that during cross-examination the doctor conducting the post mortem clarified the report does not mention any internal injury on the abdominal part of the victim: “No injury on the external pelvic part was noted and depth of the tear in the posterior fourchette, hymen and vaginal tissues is not noted.”

Chattopadhyay said that after the case was moved from Barasat to a sessions court in Calcutta, many of the witnesses expressed their reluctance to travel the distance and depose before the court at the trial stage.

“There are similarities between the Kamduni and the RG Kar case. There Saiful, a lackey of Ansar, gave a confession. Here Sanjoy Roy has come forward,” Chattopadhyay said. “The police want to hide the real culprit.”

The Telegraph Online called and sent text messages to the phone of Dr R. Rajasekaran, the current ADG CID, for the police’s response. If he replies, this article will be updated.