The family of the 31-year-old doctor had filed petitions, in the trial court as well as Calcutta High Court, seeking further investigation into their daughter’s rape and murder even while the lone accused, Sanjay Roy, was being tried.

The trial court judge, Anirban Das, in his 172-page judgment, responded to some of the points and doubts raised by the complainants. The Telegraph takes a look at the points flagged by the family and the judge’s response:

• The family raised questions on the demolition of a room near the Seminar Hall on the third floor of the Emergency Building at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital, where the doctor’s body was found, and alleged destruction of vital evidence.

The judgment: “This point was discussed at length and it was observed by this court that the CFSL (Central Forensic Science Laboratory) team had examined the debris but did not find any biological materials there and... the apprehension of the complainant bears no value.

The formation of a committee by the then RG Kar principal (Sandip Ghosh) to probe the death.

The judgment: “In my view, as the death of the victim was caused while she was
on duty, the steps taken were not wrong but the investigating agency must ascertain
the fate of the said committee or the report of the said committee.”

• Evidence tampering

The judgment: “From the evidences on record it appears that the clinching evidences were produced by the prosecution and from the evidences, some materials came out regarding the dereliction of duties by the authorities but I did not find any material till now which can attract the provision of Section 238 BNS (destruction or tampering of evidence) as dereliction of duty and tampering of evidence do not carry same and identical meaning.”

• The fact that the then principal did not leave his office to meet the parents of the victim proves his guilt.

The judgment: “A baseless question was placed by the complainant that as the principal did not come out of his chamber to meet the parents of the victim, the same proves that he was guilty.

“This question comes into contradiction with the evidence of the PW-2 (prosecution witness-2, victim’s father). The said witness deposed that some persons tried to take him to the chamber of the principal but they denied to go there and their demand was that the principal must meet them. I do not think that the same can put any stigma on the principal that he was guilty.”

• The food delivery person who delivered dinner to the victim, and also some other doctors, on the night she was raped and murdered was not questioned.

The judgment: “It was argued by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and the accused that though the said doctors had dinner together and though orders were placed from a food delivery application, no such food delivery person was examined or the said containers were not seized.

“In their view, this was a major lacuna of the investigation process.... In my view, this argument has no strong base. This is because it is not the case of the prosecution that the death of the victim was due to consumption of any toxic substance. The case is that the death was due to manual strangulation and sexual assault.”

• Seizure of the mobile phone of the then RG Kar principal

The judgment: “In my view, further investigation has not yet been completed. So till now time has not come to reach any conclusion on this point.”

• About police’s general diary entries

The judgment says: “This evidence of one SI (sub-inspector Subrata Chatterjee) of police is an eye-opener that police stations are treating the cases in a very indifferent manner. It is also shocking that the concerned SI did not hesitate to say such illegal acts standing in the witness box… shows that he had done an illegal act by making entry in the GD book under GD No. 542 dated 09.08.2024 by mentioning the time as 10.10am though he was not present at the PS at that time.”

“It appears from the evidence of the father... that they reached RG Kar hospital at 12.15pm on 09.08.2024. The death certificate was received at Tala PS at 02pm and the death was declared at 12.45pm.

“It is not clear to me why at that time, the parents... were not allowed/advised to lodge a complaint and why the police kept the parents... (waiting) till 6pm to lodge the
complaint.

“I also want to criticise the act of... inspector Rupali Mukherjee (additional officer-in-charge, women’s grievance cell). Her action of taking the mobile from the accused on 09.08.2024 and keeping it at Tala PS unattended is very curious. It is fact that from the evidence it was not established that she had done it with any ulterior motive or that she had tampered the data of the mobile of the accused…. Placing a very weak explanation she stated that the mobile was returned to the accused and then at the time of his arrest, the same was seized from him.

“It is her good luck that the defence did not challenge her by placing some twisted questions but she failed to lead the investigation properly.”

The order adds: “As the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata, is the highest administrative authority of Kolkata Police, I think that this type of illegal/indifferent acts of the police personnel should be tackled by him in a very strict way... and I also think that proper training be given to the officers regarding investigation....”

• The judge on whether the lacunae in the probe had impacted the case: “...I am of the view that the negligence of the IO (investigating officer) or the police administration or the hospital authority as well as the perfunctory investigation can, in no way standin the way of the prosecution case.”