1. FACTS

On 9 August 2024, a postgraduate trainee doctor was found dead in a seminar room at R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata. Medical examination confirmed sexual assault followed by homicide.

Police arrested Sanjay Roy, a former civic police volunteer, soon after the incident. The arrest was based on circumstantial links, DNA reports, and his known presence on the hospital premises. While the state initially claimed the investigation was complete, concerns about fairness quickly arose. The victim’s family alleged that Roy could not have committed the crime alone and that evidence was mishandled to shield other actors.

Amid rising protests then the Calcutta High Court transferred the case to CBI. In January 2025, a sessions court convicted Roy and sentenced him to life imprisonment for murder and rape under sections 302 and 376 of the Penal Code of 1860. Later, the CBI arrested Dr. Sandip Ghosh, principal of the hospital and police office who was on duty Abhijit Mondol on charges of evidence suppression. Both were released on bail because the investigating agency missed the ninety day deadline for filing a formal report.

Public anger mounted, leading to widespread demonstrations by doctors and students. During the anniversary protests in August 2025, the victim’s parents were reportedly assaulted by local police during a lathi charge. It deepened distrust in state institutions and raised questions about accountability in public hospitals hold.

1. ISSUES RAISED

1. Did the investigation conducted by local authorities satisfy the constitutional requirement of impartiality and fairness under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution?

• Does convicting a single individual, without addressing allegations of wider complicity, amount to complete justice?

• Was there a breach of the duty of care owed by the hospital and the state to doctors working under their supervision?

• Do acts of evidence tampering by senior administrators and police officers amount to obstruction of justice?

• What systemic gaps in criminal procedure and institutional governance does this case reveal?

1. CONTENTIONS

1. Prosecution

The state argued that DNA profiling, medical testimony, and circumstantial evidence conclusively linked Sanjay Roy to the crime. CCTV footage and witness statements established his presence near the location of the assault.

• Defense

Roy’s counsel claimed that he was framed. They argued that the crime scene had not been sealed immediately, allowing tampering, and that the absence of direct eyewitness evidence made the prosecution’s case doubtful.

• Victim’s Family

The family contended that the crime was not committed by Roy alone. They alleged a conspiracy involving hospital staff and possible political protection. Tampering of evidence pointed to deeper involvement of authorities who should’ve been taken responsibility in first place.

4. State Authorities

The West Bengal government insisted that all procedures were followed and highlighted the transfer of investigation to the CBI as proof of transparency. However, reports of police aggression against the grieving parents during anniversary protests significantly weakened this claim.

1. RATIONALE

The trial court convicted Sanjay Roy as,

1. Medical evidence that confirmed both sexual assault and homicidal injuries.

• Forensic analysis, including DNA samples, that matched Roy with the victim.

The court found that these two strands of evidence created a chain strong enough to eliminate reasonable doubt. The judiciary limited its reasoning to the material directly before it and refrained from probing wider allegations of institutional complicity.

This restrained approach shows judicial reliance on the principle that conviction must rest on admissible evidence proven beyond doubt. Yet, it left many more questions of accountability and liability about hospital security, tampering of records and alleged collusion unresolved.

V. DEFECTS OF LAW

1. Improper handling of the crime scene

The site of the offence was not sealed immediately. This departure from investigative best practices created suspicion. In earlier rulings, the Supreme Court of India has emphasized that failure to preserve the crime scene can fatally weaken prosecution.

• Delay in filing chargesheet

In the cases against Dr. Ghosh and officer Mondol, the CBI failed to submit the report within ninety days. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, an accused gains the right to statutory bail if such delay occurs. This reflects a failure of prosecution, not necessarily exoneration of the accused.

• Neglect of workplace safety

Doctors and postgraduate trainees, as public employees, are entitled to safety and dignity under Article 21. By failing to provide adequate security and grievance mechanisms, the hospital and state neglected this responsibility.

• Political influence

Allegations that evidence was manipulated to protect powerful figures demonstrate how politics can undermine criminal process. The Supreme Court in earlier cases emphasized that arbitrariness violates the rule of law.

• Failure to protect victims’ families

The reported assault on the parents of the deceased during peaceful protest is inconsistent with constitutional guarantees of dignity and the victim rights framework laid down by the apex court.

• INFERENCE

The R.G. Kar incident shows how a heinous crime can expose deeper flaws in governance. Although the conviction of Sanjay Roy illustrates that evidence based prosecution can work, justice in this matter remains incomplete.

First, the conviction of one individual does not address allegations of a wider conspiracy or institutional negligence. Second, procedural lapses such as delayed sealing of the crime scene and missed deadlines for charge sheets seriously weaken confidence in investigative agencies. Third, hospitals must be recognized as sensitive workplaces requiring strict safety mechanisms for staff. In recent years, India has witnessed several horrifying cases of sexual violence. Each new case forces society to question whether the existing laws are effective in protecting women or whether they remain only as words on paper. While the legal framework has expanded over time, the challenge lies in its enforcement. Laws, no matter how progressive, lose their purpose if the state fails to implement them with seriousness and urgency.

One prominent example of this gap is seen in the handling of sexual harassment at workplaces. The Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act (POSH), 2013, was once celebrated as a landmark statute. It was framed after long struggles, court interventions, and the tireless efforts of women’s rights advocates who fought to ensure that dignity and safety at the workplace would be recognized as legal rights. When the law was introduced, it carried a wave of hope symbolizing that survivors would finally have a framework to speak out and demand accountability.

However, the lived reality for many women tells a different story. Instead of serving as a shield, the law is often reduced to a formality within institutions. Internal complaints committees are either inactive or deliberately silenced. Many workplaces, particularly in the informal sector, do not even have such committees in place, despite it being a statutory requirement. The outcome is that women who gather the courage to speak up often face retaliation, victim blaming, or professional isolation. What was meant to protect them sometimes becomes a tool of intimidation.

The tragedy is sharper when these failures occur in spaces that should be inherently safe. Hospitals and universities places where women dedicate themselves to saving lives or shaping futures have also become sites of exploitation and harassment. A doctor or student who enters these institutions with the aim of healing or learning should never have to fear physical harm or psychological trauma. Yet, repeated incidents prove that the system fails to prevent even the most egregious violations in these so called safe spaces. This contradiction between the promise of legal protection and the harshness of ground realities creates a situation where survivors are left with little more than despair. They endure not only the original act of violence but also the indifference of institutions that were meant to stand by them. This double victimization, both physical and mental, corrodes trust in the justice system. The need of the hour Is not only to draft laws but to ensure they are enforced in spirit. That requires regular monitoring of compliance, independent oversight bodies, and strict penalties for institutions that neglect their obligations. More importantly, it requires a cultural shift where society begins to believe survivors instead of silencing them.

In the end, justice cannot be measured merely by the existence of legislation. True justice lies in creating a world where no woman has to fear retaliation for demanding her rights, and where laws like POSH are living protections rather than forgotten promises.

The case demonstrates three urgent needs:

Strengthening forensic protocols and ensuring judicial monitoring in sensitive cases.Making hospital administrations legally accountable for breaches of safety.

Creating independent investigative structures insulated from political pressure.

Ultimately, the R.G. Kar case is more than a criminal trial. It is a test of the state’s ability to guarantee safety and justice in public institutions. Without comprehensive reform, the conviction of one man will not suffice to restore public faith.

Citations (Bluebook, 20^th ed.)

Indian Penal Code, No. 45 of 1860, §§ 302, 376, 201, 409 (India).

Code of Criminal Procedure, No. 2 of 1974, § 167(2) (India).

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 (India).

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 (India).

State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254 (India).

In re: Victim Compensation Scheme, (2019) 14 SCC 403 (India).

Written by,

SAYEESWARI

School of law, VISTAS.