A division bench of Calcutta High Court on Wednesday asked the Bengal government’s counsel whether the family of the RG Kar rape-and-murder victim knew about the state’s appeal seeking capital punishment for Sanjay Roy and if the court has the jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The state government on Tuesday filed a petition before the division bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md Shabbar Rashidi seeking “capital punishment” for Roy, who was awarded life imprisonment on Monday by the Sealdah court for the rape and murder of a junior doctor at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital.

On Wednesday, Justice Basak asked the state’s counsel to satisfy him that the court had the jurisdiction to hear the case. The counsel said the state would do so, following which the hearing was scheduled for Monday.

Justice Basak’s queries to advocate general Kishore Datta followed objections from the CBI counsel, who questioned the state’s legal standing to file the appeal.

CBI counsel Rajdeep Majumdar objected when the hearing on the state’s appeal started, before others had spoken. He said the state’s appeal was not “legally maintainable”.

Majumdar said the victim’s family or the CBI, not the state government, could have moved the high court against the Sealdah court’s verdict.

“The state has no legal standing to file this petition. Such a petition can come
from the victim’s family or the CBI. The state government was not involved in the trial
or the prosecution. It is the CBI who did this. What will the state know about the case?” Majumdar later told Metro.

“The petition by the state government is not legally maintainable.”

In the courtroom, Majumdar appealed that the division bench reject the state’s appeal.

Justice Basak then asked the advocate general whether the appeal was filed on behalf of the family of the slain doctor. “Is the petition on behalf of the victim’s family?” Justice Basak asked.

Datta defended the state’s move saying: “Sections 377 and 378 of the CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) have given the state the power to move an appeal against the trial court’s judgment.”

A criminal law expert at the high court told this newspaper that Sections 377 and 378 gave the state government the right to appeal against a sentence of a lower court that it deems inadequate.

Section 377 deals with appeals against a sentence and Section 388 deals with appeals against acquittal.

“The state government can direct the public prosecutor to appeal to the high court or Court of Session,” the lawyer said.

The state’s petition was filed by Debashish Roy, the public prosecutor at the high court.

In the courtroom, Majumdar cited Patna High Court’s ruling rejecting the
Bihar’s government appeal against a trial court order against former Bihar chief minister Lalu Prasad. The trial court order was based on a CBI inquiry into charges of financial misdeeds against Prasad.

“Patna High Court said only the former chief minister or his family members could move the appeal,” Majumdar said.

Advocate general Datta called the two issues different.

SC hearing deferred

The Supreme Court on Wednesday deferred to January 29 the hearing of its suo motu case on the progress of the RG Kar probe.

A bench led by the Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, will hear the matter at 2pm that day.