On 18 January 2025, the Sessions Court in Kolkata sentenced Sanjay Roy, accused of raping and murdering a postgraduate trainee at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital, to life imprisonment. The incident, which took place on the intervening night of 8 and 9 August, shook the nation with outrage. Roy, a civic volunteer, was convicted under Sections 64, 66, and 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita (BNS). The heinous crime was committed while the victim was on duty, leading to widespread protests demanding justice and stringent action against those responsible. The role of the West Bengal government and Kolkata Police also came under scrutiny. OpIndia accessed detailed judment pronounced by Justice Anirban Das in the case.

The brutal rape and murder of the postgraduate trainee doctor

According to the details available in the judgment, on 8 August 2024, the victim, a postgraduate trainee in the Chest Medicine Department of RG Kar Medical College and Hospital, began her 36-hour duty, which included both outpatient services and a night shift. At around 11:15 PM, she spoke to her mother. This was the last time she had a conversation with her family. Following that call, all calls from the family went unanswered the next morning.

At 10:53 AM on 9 August, the victim’s father received a call from the Assistant Superintendent of the hospital, who requested him to come to the hospital immediately. She informed the victim’s father that her health was deteriorating but did not provide specifics. Despite repeated requests for details, the caller claimed she was not a doctor and therefore unable to provide further information. Shortly after, the victim’s father received another call informing him that the victim had possibly attempted suicide. The family was left in shock and uncertainty.

In less than 90 minutes, the family reached the hospital at around 12:15 PM. They were escorted to the third floor of the Chest Medicine Department near the seminar room. When they tried to enter the crime scene, police personnel present barred their entry, claiming that the situation inside the seminar room was under investigation. The scene was overwhelming for the family, and the victim’s father observed a flurry of activity, with medical staff and security personnel restricting access to critical areas.

The lifeless body of the victim was laid on a mattress inside the seminar room. Her upper body was partially covered by a green hospital bedsheet, while her jeans and undergarments were placed nearby. There were bloodstains and visible injury marks on her face, lips, and shoulders. Her hair lay scattered across the mattress. Personal items belonging to the victim, including her laptop and mobile phone, were also found near her.

As the day progressed, tensions escalated in the hospital. Junior doctors demanded a judicial inquiry and insisted that the victim’s post-mortem be videographed to ensure transparency. Protests also erupted within the hospital premises, amplifying pressure on the administration. A formal complaint was filed by the victim’s father at Tala Police Station later that evening. The father accused the hospital authorities and staff of negligence.

By that time, the role of the police and local administration had come under scrutiny, as the victim’s body was transported to the crematorium in what the family described as an unusual rush, bypassing other queued cremations. The hastiness further fuelled suspicions of foul play among the family members and concerned colleagues of the victim. The events of that fateful day left the family and the public in anguish, with many demanding accountability and justice for the young doctor. By night, the case had caught the nation’s attention via media.

As per the father, that night, DC North came to his residence and handed over him a packet of cash. However, the father did not accept it. Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee also visited his house after cremation and offered him compensation which he refused to accept.

How the victim’s body was discovered

The victim’s body was discovered on the morning of 9th August 2024 by Dr Arko Sen, a first-year Postgraduate Trainee (PGT) in the Chest Medicine Department at R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital. During his rounds, Dr. Sen noticed the door to the seminar room on the third floor slightly ajar. Concerned by the unusual state of the room, he entered to check and found the victim lying motionless on a mattress.

The victim was partially clothed, with visible injuries on her face, chest, and shoulders. Her hair was scattered, and blood stains were noticeable, immediately suggesting foul play. Shocked by the scene, Dr. Sen quickly informed his colleagues and senior hospital staff. The judgment read, “He alone entered the said Seminar Room and had seen the victim in naked position (lower portion) and the upper portion kurti was also moved upwards and breasts were visible and that he had also noticed some injury marks over her nose.”

The discovery led to a rapid escalation of the situation. The hospital administration was notified, and the police were called to secure the area. The gruesome nature of the scene sparked immediate outrage among hospital staff and junior doctors, who demanded a transparent inquiry and judicial oversight into the handling of the case. Dr Sen was one of the witnesses in the case. The details of how the body was discovered were corroborated by his colleagues Dr Pooja, Dr Priya (victim’s roommate) and others.

They rushed to inform Dr Sumit Roy Tapadar, who accompanied them to the Seminar Room and confirmed that the victim had passed away. Dr Tapadar promptly notified other senior doctors and the principal about the incident. Principal Dr Sandip Ghosh instructed him to send the body to the morgue immediately to avoid any potential issues within the hospital. However, when Dr Tapadar informed the principal that the body could not be sent to the morgue without an investigation by the police, as the authorities had already been notified, the situation became more tense.

Key testimonies from main witnesses

The father of the victim was one of the main witnesses in the case. He provided an emotional account of the events leading up to the discovery of his daughter’s death. He informed the court about receiving a series of distressed calls from the hospital on 9 August 2024. Initially, he was informed about his daughter’s ill health, followed by hints of a suicide attempt.

When the victim’s parents and other family members reached the hospital, they were not allowed to enter the seminar room where his daughter’s body was found. He recounted seeing visible injuries on her face, chest, and shoulders. He said in his statement that blood was oozing from her lips and eyes. He also alleged that the cremation was hurried, raising suspicions of an attempt to suppress evidence.

The second witness in the case was Dr Gulam Azam, a junior colleague of the victim. He confirmed that the victim was on duty in the Chest Medicine Department at the time of the incident. He described her as a diligent professional. Dr Azam mentioned that there was a chaotic environment after her death at the hospital, with medical staff and junior doctors demanding transparency in the inquiry and post-mortem process.

Another witness in the case was Sanjib Mukherjee, a neighbour of the victim’s family. He corroborated the father’s narrative about the rushed cremation. Mukherjee testified that police prevented the parents of the victim from accessing her body and that the cremation bypassed other queued funerals. He also mentioned being present at Tala Police Station to assist the victim’s father in lodging the initial complaint. In fact, Mukherjee was the one who wrote the complaint as narrated by the victim’s father.

Medical witnesses in the case included Dr Sumit Roy Tapadar and others from the hospital. They provided technical insights into the cause of death, highlighting the extent of the injuries and corroborating allegations of foul play. Forensic experts further supported the prosecution’s case by confirming the presence of physical and DNA evidence linking the accused to the crime.

The testimonies of around 50 witnesses in the case collectively painted a grim picture of the incident and established a strong foundation for the prosecution’s case against the accused.

Witness confirmed he went to red-light area with the accused

Sourav Bhattacharyya, was an ex-civic volunteer who provided critical insights into the movements and behaviour of the accused, Sanjay Roy, on the night of the incident. Bhattacharyya testified that he and Sanjay Roy were at R.G. Kar Medical College on the night of 8 August 2024 to address the treatment of his brother, who was admitted to the hospital. He stated that they arrived together on a police department bike around 10:30 PM.

Bhattacharyya further recounted that after leaving the hospital at midnight, the two travelled to the red-light area of Sovabazar, where they consumed alcohol. From there, they proceeded to another red-light area in Chetla, where Bhattacharyya entered a room with a prostitute while Sanjay Roy stayed outside consuming beer. Bhattacharyya testified that when he returned after 20–25 minutes, he found Sanjay Roy still drinking and not engaging with anyone.

Later, both returned to RG Kar Medical College on the same bike, where Roy dropped Bhattacharyya at the Trauma Care Centre. Bhattacharyya also identified himself and Sanjay Roy in CCTV footage presented during the trial, corroborating his account of the movements on that night​

Medical examination and post-mortem findings

The post-mortem examination of the victim was conducted under strict videographic documentation, as demanded by the junior doctors. The post-mortem revealed the extent of the brutal assault on the victim. There were multiple injuries documented on her face, chest, and shoulders. Furthermore, there were signs of strangulation. Forensic evidence included hair samples, bodily fluids, and DNA traces that linked the accused, Sanjay Roy, to the crime.

Dr Sumit Roy Tapadar, the Associate Professor of Respiratory Medicine at RG Kar Medical College, testified in court that the victim sustained severe trauma, with injury patterns consistent with a physical assault. Dr Pali Samadder, the Emergency Medical Officer who initially examined the body, noted visible bruises and abrasions, particularly on the upper torso, suggesting resistance during the attack.

Dr Biswanath Saren, an Assistant Professor in Forensic Medicine at SSKM Hospital, provided a detailed medico-legal analysis. He confirmed that the injuries inflicted were not accidental and were consistent with forceful actions leading to asphyxia. DNA analysis corroborated the involvement of the accused, as biological samples recovered matched his profile.

Additionally, forensic experts, including Dr Soma Roy and Dr Rina Das, confirmed the presence of the accused’s DNA on the victim’s clothing and personal items recovered from the scene. The post-mortem conclusively determined that the cause of death was due to a combination of traumatic injuries and suffocation. The testimonies of the medical experts cemented the prosecution’s claims of sexual assault and murder.

Discovery and forensic link to the Bluetooth device

The recovery of a Bluetooth device found under the mattress in the seminar room played a significant role in establishing the accused’s presence at the crime scene. As per the testimony of forensic experts and investigating officers, the Bluetooth earphone was discovered after the victim’s body was removed from the scene. It was identified during a thorough examination of the seminar room by the forensic team, and its location was corroborated by video footage.

The device, a LUMA Bluetooth earphone, was found to be paired with the mobile phone of the accused, Sanjay Roy. Analysis conducted by the experts revealed that the Bluetooth device was in continuous pairing with Roy’s phone. Metadata retrieved during the examination showed no prior connections with any other device, reinforcing the link between the accused and the recovered earphone. The findings were digitally preserved and presented as evidence during the trial.

The accused denied ownership of the earphone, claiming that his personal Bluetooth device was of a different make. During cross-examination, the defence suggested that the device might have been paired at the police station to implicate Roy. However, no evidence of tampering or misconduct by the investigators was established. The court found the continuous pairing between the earphone and Roy’s phone to be compelling evidence of his presence in the seminar room during the time of the crime.

DNA evidence linking the accused

The forensic analysis conducted by the CFSL revealed crucial DNA evidence directly linking the accused, Sanjay Roy, to the crime. The examination of hair strands recovered from the mattress in the seminar room where the victim’s body was found showed a definitive match. The analysis indicated that the short hair strands matched the DNA profile of the accused, while the long hair strands matched the victim’s DNA.

Further, the DNA profile of the accused was conclusively identified in the nipple swab collected during the post-mortem. This evidence confirmed the physical contact of the accused with the victim. The defence attempted to discredit the findings by suggesting contamination or intentional planting of evidence. However, the court found no credible basis for these claims, as the procedures followed were well-documented and adhered to established protocols

Allegations of police negligence

The role of the police in handling the case came under scrutiny as significant allegations of negligence were raised during the trial. The victim’s father and neighbour told the court about the dismissive attitude of the police personnel at RG Kar Medical College on the day of the incident. They said that despite repeated pleas, the family was denied entry to the seminar room where the victim’s body was discovered, leaving them in the dark about her condition.

The victim’s father also alleged in court that the cremation of his daughter’s body was rushed under police supervision, bypassing procedural norms. He said it raised suspicions of an attempt to suppress evidence. The police reportedly disregarded the family’s request for a second post-mortem, adding to their anguish and sense of injustice.

The victim’s neighbour corroborated these allegations. He described the police as unsympathetic and uncooperative throughout the ordeal. He highlighted how the family was excluded from critical discussions and decisions concerning the victim’s body.

Furthermore, during cross-examination, he revealed that the Officer-in-Charge of Ghola Police Station called him on 11th August 2024, questioning whether the family had accused the police of attempting to bribe them. This call, according to him, implied an effort to manage public perception rather than prioritise the investigation.

The court highlighted significant lapses on the part of both the police and the hospital authority in handling the case. Evidence from SI Subrata Chatterjee revealed that despite receiving information about the unnatural death of the victim around 2 PM on 9th August 2024, the UD case registration was delayed until 11:30 PM. Procedural formalities, including the preparation of the seizure list, were completed late at night, raising concerns about the timeliness and integrity of the investigation.

The role of Rupali Mukherjee, the first investigating officer (IO), came under severe criticism. The court noted that Mukherjee, as the Additional Officer-in-Charge of the Women Grievance Cell, failed to ensure proper evidence collection at the crime scene. Her inability to oversee critical procedures, such as securing the seminar room and promptly collecting forensic evidence, contributed to the delays and procedural gaps in the early stages of the investigation. The court observed that such negligence undermined the trust in law enforcement’s ability to handle sensitive cases.

The hospital authority also faced scrutiny for its handling of the incident. Despite being informed of the rape and murder by junior staff, senior officials, including the then Principal and MSVP, failed to notify the police promptly. The court condemned attempts by hospital authorities to initially frame the incident as a suicide, which delayed the investigation and added to the distress of the victim’s family.

Transfer of the case to the CBI

Initially, the case was investigated by officers at Tala Police Station. Tala Police registered an Unnatural Death (UD) case, later converting it to a criminal case under Sections 64, 66, and 103(1) of the BNS based on the father’s complaint.

As the investigation unfolded, questions arose about the handling of evidence and the hurried cremation of the victim’s body, fuelling suspicions of a cover-up. Amid mounting protests from the victim’s family, medical staff, and the public, the Calcutta High Court intervened. The court recognised the gravity of the incident and stated that there was a need for an impartial investigation, directing the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT).

The case was later transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) following public outrage and allegations of procedural lapses by the local police. Dissatisfaction with the SIT’s progress led the court to order the transfer of the case to the CBI on 13 August 2024.

A fresh case was then registered by the CBI. Its team conducted a thorough probe, collecting forensic evidence, recording witness statements, and analysing CCTV footage from the hospital premises. The agency also collaborated with experts from AIIMS, Kalyani, and the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) to build a robust case.

Findings of the CBI investigation

During its investigation, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) uncovered a series of critical details that established the guilt of the accused, Sanjay Roy, and the heinous nature of the crime. The CBI took over the case on 13 August 2024 and conducted a meticulous investigation. The main focus was on forensic evidence, witness statements, and the crime scene at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital.

The CBI discovered the presence of the accused’s DNA on the victim’s clothing and personal items found in the seminar room where her body was discovered. The presence of the accused’s DNA played a pivotal role in the conviction. The forensic analysis was conducted by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL). It was confirmed during the analysis that the biological samples, including bodily fluids and hair strands, matched the DNA profile of Sanjay Roy, leaving no doubt about his involvement in the crime.

CCTV footage also played a crucial role in the investigation. The CBI retrieved and analysed hours of footage, which showed the accused in the vicinity of the crime scene during the relevant timeframe. This evidence corroborated witness testimonies that placed him at the hospital when the crime occurred.

The investigating agency also uncovered evidence suggesting an attempt to manipulate the investigation in its early stages. Statements from hospital staff revealed that the cremation of the victim was carried out in a hurry. Forensic reports showed that several pieces of evidence were mishandled or inadequately preserved before the CBI’s intervention.

The CBI further highlighted that the injuries on the victim, as detailed in the post-mortem report, pointed to a deliberate and violent act. These included signs of strangulation and blunt force trauma, which were consistent with sexual assault and murder.

Through its comprehensive investigation, the CBI not only strengthened the prosecution’s case but also highlighted procedural lapses by local authorities.

Arguments presented by the prosecution

The prosecution, led by the Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI, Partha Sarathi Dutta, and Senior Public Prosecutor Anurag Modi, presented a compelling case against the accused, Sanjay Roy. The prosecution argued that the evidence unequivocally linked the accused to the brutal crime. They highlighted the severity of the assault and the subsequent murder of the victim.

The centre of their argument was the forensic evidence, including DNA samples that were recovered from the victim’s body, clothing and the crime scene. They all matched with the accused. The prosecution contended that these findings provided irrefutable proof of the accused’s involvement.

The prosecution also emphasised the victim’s injuries, as documented in the post-mortem report, revealed signs of forceful assault that included strangulation and multiple bruises. This, they argued, established the intent and brutality of the crime and said there was no room for doubt about the accused’s culpability.

In addition to forensic evidence, the prosecution relied heavily on witness testimonies. Key witnesses, including the victim’s father and junior doctors from the hospital, testified about the suspicious circumstances surrounding the crime. The prosecution argued that the accused, a civic volunteer stationed at the hospital, had abused his position of trust and familiarity to commit the heinous act.

The prosecution further criticised the police’s handling of the initial stages of the case, arguing that their alleged negligence and procedural lapses necessitated the involvement of the CBI. They contended that the hurried cremation of the victim’s body was a deliberate attempt to suppress evidence, an act that only highlighted the need for stringent judicial intervention.

Arguments presented by the defence

The defence, representing Sanjay Roy, sought to challenge the prosecution’s case. The defence questioned the reliability of evidence and highlighted procedural gaps in the investigation. They argued that the prosecution’s narrative was based on circumstantial evidence, with no direct eyewitness testimony linking the accused to the crime. The defence asserted that the DNA evidence presented by the prosecution could have been contaminated due to alleged mishandling by the police during the initial stages of the investigation.

The defence further argued that the rushed cremation of the victim’s body and the hurried post-mortem created reasonable doubt about the authenticity of the forensic findings. They claimed that the post-mortem, conducted under public and institutional pressure, might have been influenced by external factors, compromising its impartiality.

Additionally, the defence contended that the CCTV footage, a critical component of the prosecution’s case, did not conclusively prove the accused’s involvement. They suggested that the presence of the accused near the crime scene was coincidental, as he was stationed at the hospital in his capacity as a civic volunteer.

The defence also attempted to highlight inconsistencies in witness statements, particularly those of the victim’s family and colleagues. The defence claimed that the emotional distress of the witnesses could have impacted their recollections. They further claimed that the case was politically and publicly charged, which may have led to undue pressure on the investigation agencies to secure a conviction.

Role of the state government and criticism

The role of the West Bengal state government in the aftermath of the tragic incident came under scrutiny, particularly regarding the actions of its law enforcement agencies. A major point of contention was the rushed cremation of the victim’s body. The family alleged that this act, supervised by the police, was carried out in undue haste, bypassing other queued cremations. They alleged this was an attempt to suppress evidence, as their request for a second post-mortem was denied. This led to widespread public outcry, with many accusing the state authorities of failing to ensure transparency in the investigation.

The police’s initial handling of the case also drew criticism. Witnesses testified about the insensitive treatment of the victim’s family, who were denied entry to the seminar room where the victim’s body was found. Allegations of police negligence and procedural lapses eventually necessitated the intervention of the Calcutta High Court, which transferred the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The judgment indirectly highlighted these failures, noting that the transfer to the CBI was essential to ensure an impartial and transparent investigation. The role of the state government, though significant, was marred by allegations of inefficiency and mishandling, further fuelling public demands for justice and accountability.

Conviction and court’s observations

On 18 January 2025, the Additional Sessions Judge, Anirban Das, delivered the much-awaited verdict, convicting Sanjay Roy under Sections 64, 66, and 103(1) of the BNS for the brutal rape and murder of the young doctor at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital.

While delivering the judgment, the court emphasised the heinousness of the crime, describing it as an act that shook the conscience of society. Judge Anirban Das stated, “The evidence presented by the prosecution leaves no doubt about the accused’s culpability. The crime committed was not only a grave offence against an individual but also a violation of the sanctity of a professional space meant for healing and care.”

The court took into account the meticulous forensic evidence, including DNA matches, CCTV footage, and witness testimonies, which conclusively established the guilt of the accused. The post-mortem findings and expert analyses further corroborated the prosecution’s case, leaving no room for reasonable doubt.

Sanjay Roy was convicted under multiple sections of the BNS for the heinous crimes of rape and murder. The court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life under Section 64 BNS, along with a fine of ₹50,000. In default of paying the fine, he is to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for five months. Additionally, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 103(1) BNS, with another fine of ₹50,000 and a default sentence of simple imprisonment for five months.

For the offence under Section 66 BNS, the court handed down a sentence of RI for the remainder of the convict’s natural life. All sentences are to run concurrently, ensuring that Roy will spend the rest of his life in prison. The period of detention already served during the investigation phase will be set off as per the provisions of Section 468 BNSS.

On compensation, the judge said, “Their pain and sufferings cannot be compensated with any liquid cash but at the same time I think that as the death of the victim was caused while she was on duty, the State has also the liability to pay compensation which will be in addition to the compensation ordered u/s 395 BNSS.”

The court added, “Following the guideline of NALSA, I recommend compensation to the tune of Rs 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) on account of loss of life and Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs) for commission of rape upon the victim.”

Judge Das also criticised the initial handling of the case by local authorities, noting that procedural lapses and insensitivity towards the victim’s family necessitated the transfer to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The court highlighted the importance of ensuring justice in cases of such brutality, emphasising the need for systemic accountability to prevent similar incidents in the future.