NEW DELHI: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) will file an application before the Calcutta high court within two days, seeking the death penalty for convict Sanjay Roy, ANI reported on Wednesday, citing CBI sources.
This comes a day after the Mamata Banerjee-led West Bengal government also moved the high court seeking capital punishment for Roy, who was sentenced to life imprisonment by a sessions court in Kolkata for the rape and murder of a medic in the RG Kar case. Advocate General Kishore Dutta approached the division bench in the matter, and the court has permitted the filing.
“I have been seeking capital punishment for the accused in the RG Kar death incident. If someone is so demonic and barbaric, then how can society remain humane? We have passed the Aparajita Bill, but the Centre is sitting on it,” Banerjee said at a public meeting in Malda.
The sessions court refrained from imposing the death penalty, stating that the case did not meet the “rarest of rare” criteria. The verdict triggered strong reactions, with Banerjee posting on X: “I am really shocked to see the judgment of the court today finds it is not a rarest of rare case! I am convinced that it is indeed a rarest of rare case which demands capital punishment… We will plead for capital punishment of the convict at the high court now.”
The victim’s mother also expressed her dismay over the verdict, saying, “We are shocked. How is this not the rarest of rare cases? An on-duty doctor was raped and murdered. We are dismayed. There was a larger conspiracy behind this crime.”
During court proceedings, the CBI lawyer argued that the crime was ‘rarest of the rare’ and warranted the death penalty to restore public trust in the justice system. However, the defense contended that the prosecution had failed to prove the convict’s irredeemable nature.
Ultimately, the sessions court sentenced Roy to life imprisonment and ordered Rs 17 lakh compensation for the family of the deceased doctor. Despite public pressure, the court ruled against capital punishment, citing insufficient grounds under the “rarest of rare” doctrine.