Clean chit to 6 docs who reached crime scene first
Times of India | 22 January 2025
Kolkata: For the six doctors, who had discovered the body of the RG Kar rape-murder victim, grappled with constant questioning from multiple investigating agencies and were subjected to polygraph tests, the judgment by Sealdah Sessions Court judge Anirban Das has come as a redemption. It has been clearly mentioned that the court found neither any contradictions nor any links of these doctors directly with the crime.
"In my view, there was no contradiction between the version of PW-4 (doctor Arko Sen), 5 (doctor Pooja Rai) and 6 (doctor Sumit Roy Tapadar) and by way of cross-examination, no doubt could be created by the defence. It was also not established that there was any unholy alliance between them. From the discussion, I am of the view that the body was first seen by PW-4 (Sen) followed by PW-5 (Rai), Dr Priya Giri, Dr Venila, and PW-6 (Tapadar) first arrived at the conclusion that the victim was subjected to sexual assault and murder," the judgment stated on who saw the victim first and how the information was eventually relayed.
Tapadar's role, who was in the eye of a storm after multiple allegations against him, found Judge Das discussing his possible role extensively. "Against the argument of the counsel for the complainant who submitted that the PW-6 (Tapadar) destroyed the scope of getting proper evidence by passing directions to cover the body with a bed sheet and was also part of a conspiracy to destroy the evidence. I do not find any ground to agree with this argument. It was to preserve the dignity of the body," the judgment stated.
The judgment also spoke about why Tapadar was informed over the phone, with both defence and complainant saying it was "planted." "I think that the said PWs did not make any mistake and the said act of them should not be viewed with suspicion. It must be kept in mind that the death was a bolt from the blue to the doctors of the hospital and as such their mental state at that relevant time should also be kept in mind," the judge held.
Questions were also raised in court about the testimony of Sen, with the counsel of the victim asking why he went to the seminar room alone. "In my view, this argument is an imaginary one having no strong base at all. By way of cross-examination, no such question was put to the said witness. From the evidence (cross-examination), it appears that no question was put from where any hostility of this witness and victim can be established and as such I do not find any ground why the complainant raised the slogan that this witness had a nexus with such unnatural death of the victim and as such his evidence can in no way be relied upon," the order states.