The Calcutta High Court Today (Aug 13) ordered a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the rape and murder of a resident doctor at RG Kar Medical College hospital in Kolkata. A Bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya asked the CBI to carry out the probe on priority basis.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!![[BREAKING] "Serious Lapses by Hospital Admin & Even After 5 Days No significant Progress in Investigation": Cal HC Orders CBI Probe](https://lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/image-2.avif)
KOLKATA: Today (13th Aug): The Calcutta High Court has ordered a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the rape and murder case of a junior doctor at RG Kar Medical College Hospital, Kolkata.
READ ALSO:Kolkata Doctor’s Rape-Murder: Cal HC Directs Bengal Govt to Produce Case Diary At 1 pm
This directive was issued by a Bench comprising Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, who emphasized the urgency of the situation and instructed the CBI to prioritize the investigation.
In its order, the High Court pointed out significant lapses in the investigation, noting that even after five days, there had been little progress. The court expressed concern that the victim’s parents feared the investigation would derail if it continued in its current manner. The Court suggested that if the CBI faces a shortage of manpower, officers from neighboring states should be called upon to assist.
The Bench remarked-
“The case on hand is a peculiar case. The facts and circumstances warrant appropriate orders without further loss of time. We are convinced to say so because even after the lapse of five days, there appears to be no significant progress in the investigation which ought to have happened by now and by further loss of time, we would be well justified in accepting the plea of the writ petitioners, particularly the parents of the victim, that there is every possibility that the evidence would be destroyed and the witnesses would be influenced etc. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to transfer the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation.”
The Court has ordered the State Government to transfer all case diaries and related records to the CBI by 10 AM the following day. Additionally, a CBI officer has been asked to be present in court for the handover. The CBI is expected to submit a report on the investigation when the matter is revisited by the Court in three weeks.
The tragic incident, involving the rape and murder of a 31-year-old junior doctor, has ignited nationwide outrage. The aftermath saw the resignation of the college principal, Dr. Sandip Ghosh, amid allegations that he attempted to blame the victim and attribute her death to psychosis.
The Court noted the widespread protests by doctors across the State and urged them to return to their duties, stating,
“We are truly appreciative of the feelings vented out by doctors and students and, in particular, those in RG Kar Medical College. However, there is a pious obligation on the part of doctors to treat their patients, more particularly the patients who come to the government hospital, who are not from the affluent strata of society. Therefore, we would appeal to the learned members of the medical profession to discuss with senior officials of State government and consider calling off their agitation so that the public who come to the hospital are not put to prejudice.”
The High Court’s decision to order a CBI probe followed public interest litigation (PIL) petitions and a writ petition from the victim’s parents, who sought an investigation by an independent agency under judicial supervision.
During the hearing, petitioners argued that the college administration attempted to “cover up” the crime by initially informing the parents that their daughter had died by suicide in two separate phone calls.
![[BREAKING] "Serious Lapses by Hospital Admin & Even After 5 Days No significant Progress in Investigation": Cal HC Orders CBI Probe](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/ADVAEB.jpg?resize=549%2C309&ssl=1)
The Court criticized the State for initially registering the case as one of “unnatural death” rather than murder. When the State explained that such cases are often registered as unnatural deaths if no complaint is filed, the Court questioned why the college principal did not file a complaint.
The Court noted-
“When the deceased victim was a doctor working at the hospital, it was rather surprising as to why the principal or the hospital administration did not lodge a formal complaint. This in our view, was a serious lapse giving room for suspicion.”
The Court expressed further concern over the State’s decision to quickly reassign Dr. Ghosh to another college shortly after his resignation.
The Bench remarked,
“It is difficult to comprehend as to why when a person submits his resignation, the concerned authorities of the State did not exercise the two options available—namely, either to accept the resignation or refuse to accept the resignation.”
The Court criticized the State for initially registering the case as one of “unnatural death” rather than murder. When the State explained that such cases are often registered as unnatural deaths if no complaint is filed, the Court questioned why the college principal did not file a complaint.
The Court noted,
“When the deceased victim was a doctor working at the hospital, it was rather surprising as to why the principal or the hospital administration did not lodge a formal complaint. This in our view, was a serious lapse giving room for suspicion.”
The Court expressed further concern over the State’s decision to quickly reassign Dr. Ghosh to another college shortly after his resignation.
The Bench remarked,
“It is difficult to comprehend as to why when a person submits his resignation, the concerned authorities of the State did not exercise the two options available—namely, either to accept the resignation or refuse to accept the resignation. The appropriate authority of the State government should bear in mind the circumstances which led to the resignation.”
The Court questioned the “tearing urgency” that led to Dr. Ghosh’s immediate new appointment and made it clear that he cannot continue in his new role.
In response to the Court’s scrutiny during the hearing, Dr. Ghosh’s counsel informed the Bench that he would immediately go on leave. The Court’s order stated,
“If such an application is submitted … the same shall be accepted and he shall be granted extraordinary leave and not be permitted to hold (his new post) until further directions.”
