The additional district and sessions court of Sealdah Monday stressed on the primary responsibility of the judiciary to “ensure justice based on evidence, not public sentiment” as it delivered the verdict in the RG Kar rape-murder case that triggered nationwide outrage and prolonged protests in West Bengal. It also relied on the fact that the convict has no criminal history.
Here are the key takeaways from Additional District and Sessions Judge Anirban Das’s judgment:
* Objectivity and impartiality: “The judiciary’s primary responsibility 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.”
* No criminal history: “The court must consider the rights and circumstances of the accused, as well as the broader implications of its decisions… it is crucial to note that there is no evidence of prior criminal behaviour or misconduct by the convict. 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.”
* No one else involved: The order also ruled out the involvement of any other culprits in the heinous crime. “…the CCTV footages, the version of the accused during his examination, the contradictory defence pleas without any evidence, and the DNA examination reports point towards this accused only behind the incident… and the involvement of any other person behind the said incident can easily be ruled out.”
* Guidelines on death penalty: Citing the landmark Bachan Singh case in which the Supreme Court established guidelines for imposing the death penalty, the court stated, “…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 emphasised 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.”
* Judicial integrity: While the court acknowledged the suffering of the victim’s parents, it also stated that it is duty bound to pass a sentence that is “proportionate, just and in accordance with established legal principles”. “…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.”
* Institutional safeguards: “The loss of a life with ‘bright prospects’ represents not just a personal tragedy but a loss to the nation of potential talent and contribution. The failure of institutional safeguards as stated regarding the hospital authority and the state’s inability to provide adequate security, adds another layer of complexity to the case. While this does not directly impact the culpability of the convict, it raises broader questions about societal responsibility and the need for systemic changes to prevent such tragedies in the future.”