Kolkata: The Sealdah court, which on Monday (January 20) sentenced prime accused Sanjay Roy to life imprisonment until death in the rape and murder of on-duty woman doctor at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital, said that this case meet the stringent criteria for being classified as “rarest of the rare.”
The Sealdah trial court last week found prime accused Roy guilty of committing the rape and murder of the on-duty woman doctor at hospital’s seminar room on August 9 last year and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Which took over the investigation of the case from the Kolkata Police on the orders of the Calcutta High Court, sought death penalty for Roy, submitting it fell under the “rarest of the rare” case.
Case does not meet stringent criteria for being classified as ‘rarest of the rare’ case: Trial court
Additional District and Sessions Judge in Sealdah, Anirban Das, in his 172-page judgment, said that in the manner in which the offence was committed by the convict, as proved by the prosecution, one can only say that the action of the convict is barbaric and brutal and the gruesome acts of the convict were diabolic in their conception and cruel in execution, however, the case, as per the guidelines set by the Supreme Court in the Bachan Singh case, does not meet the stringent criteria for being classified as “rarest of the rare.”
“Referring to the landmark Bachan Singh case, which established guidelines for imposing the death penalty, it is evident that this case does not meet the stringent criteria for being classified as “rarest of the rare.” The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that the death penalty should be used only in exceptional circumstances where the collective conscience of the community is so shocked that it expects the holders of judicial power to inflict the death penalty,” the judge said.
Would be inappropriate to accede to prosecution’s request for death penalty for Roy: Trial court
The judge further said that it would be inappropriate to accede to the prosecution’s request for the death penalty for Roy. While acknowledging the immense grief and suffering of the victim’s parents, for which no sentence can provide complete solace, the court’s duty is to pass a sentence that is proportionate, just and in accordance with established legal principles, the judge said.
“In conclusion, this case calls for a carefully considered and appropriate sentence that balances the gravity of the crime with the principles of justice, rehabilitation and the preservation of human dignity. The court must resist the temptation to bow to public pressure or emotional appeals and instead focus on delivering a verdict that upholds the integrity of the legal system and serves the broader interests of justice,” the trial court judge said.
What did the apex court say in Bechan Singh case?
The apex court said in the Bechan Singh case that following guidelines should be kept in mind while awarding death sentence –
1. The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability
2. Before opting for the death penalty the circumstances of the ‘offender’ also require to be taken into consideration along with the circumstances of the ‘crime’
3. Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. In other words death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime, and provided, and only provided, the option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all the relevant circumstances.
4. A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised.
Primary responsibility of judiciary is to ensure justice based on evidence, not public sentiment: Trial court
The judge further said that the primary responsibility of the judiciary is to uphold the rule of law and ensure justice based on evidence, not public sentiment.
“It is of prime importance that the court maintain its objectivity and impartiality by focusing solely on the facts and evidence presented during the trial, rather than being swayed by public opinion or emotional reactions to the case. Furthermore, the court must consider the rights and circumstances of the accused, as well as the broader implications of its decisions. In this particular case, it is crucial to note that there is no evidence of prior criminal behaviour or misconduct by the convict,” the judge said.
We must rise above primitive instinct of ‘an eye for an eye’: Trial court
The judge further added that in the realm of modern justice, we must rise above the primitive instinct of “an eye for an eye” or “a tooth for a tooth” or “nail for a nail” or “a life for a life”.
“Our duty is not to match brutality with brutality, but to elevate humanity through wisdom, compassion and a deeper understanding of justice. The measure of a civilized society lies not in its ability to exact revenge, but in its capacity to reform, rehabilitate and ultimately to heal,” the judge said.
