Parents of RG Kar victim seek permission from city court for access to crime scene
The matter is likely to be heard by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of the Sealdah Civil and Criminal Court tomorrow.
On August 9, 2024, a post-graduate trainee doctor was found dead in a seminar hall of the chest medicine department on the fourth floor of the emergency building of the State-run RG Kar Medical College and Hospital.
'We do not think that the Central Bureau of Investigation is carrying out a proper investigation to nab all culprits. So it is essential that we, with our legal counsel, can access the seminar hall where it all unfolded. A revisit will help our lawyers answer questions during future court proceedings. Many questions are asked about the crime scene, which our current lawyer has not seen,' the victim's father told The Hindu on Monday (July 7, 2025).
He added that Justice Tirthankar Ghosh of the Calcutta High Court had directed them to approach the Sealdah court to seek permission for revisiting the place of occurrence.
Notably, last year, former principal of the medical college, Sandip Ghosh, was accused of tampering with the crime scene after an official letter signed by him and dated August 10 had surfaced online, directing 'urgent' renovations in every department of the hospital.
Concerns were also raised around the police probe when a video had surfaced online capturing a crowd at the crime scene after the body was found. The police had later clarified that 'a 40-foot area' around the victim's body had been cordoned off, but the victim's parents had contested their claims.
While civic volunteer Sanjay Roy was pronounced guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment for the doctor's rape and murder in January this year, the parents had petitioned the Calcutta High Court for further investigation into the case.
In an earlier conversation with The Hindu, the family had expressed their dissatisfaction with the CBI's ongoing probe into the case.
Renewed protest march on one-year mark
The victim's parents also said on Monday (July 7, 2025) that they would 'definitely be present' at the 'Nabanna Abhiyan' (march to State Secretariat) rally against the State government on August 9, 2025. Leader of Opposition Suvendu Adhikari, after meeting them last week, said he would 'participate in the protest without flags' and 'make all efforts to make the movement successful'.
August 9 would mark one year since the unfortunate incident. Additionally, activists have given a call to re-initiate 'Reclaim The Night' protests on August 14, one year since its inception on the same day last year.
'We will also attend the Reclaim The Night protest that is being organised on August 14, like last year. We will try to cover as many locations as possible,' the bereaved father said.
Last year, on August 14 and subsequently on other nights, women's rights organisations had organised massive 'Reclaim The Night' protests late at night across the State, urging people, especially women, to leave their homes and march for the right to navigate public spaces safely after dark.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Properties worth Rs3L damaged during Murshidabad violence, HC told
Kolkata: A valuer, engaged by the Calcutta High Court to assess the destruction to properties during the alleged communal violence in Murshidabad a few months back, estimated the damage at Rs 2 lakh for movable properties and Rs 1 lakh for immovable properties. A division bench of justices Soumen Sen and Raja Basu Chowdhury on Thursday directed the state to take steps based on the report and submit a report to the court. The division bench directed BSF to stay in the area until further orders. It also directed the SIT to trace the remaining accused in the case and conclude the investigation.
New Indian Express
7 hours ago
- New Indian Express
SC quashes FIR against Telugu actor Mohan Babu and his son in 2019 student protest case
In a major relief to Telugu actor-producer Mohan Babu and his son Vishnu Manchu, the Supreme Court on Thursday quashed a criminal case registered against them in a 2019 student protest in Tirupati over fee reimbursement. 'A reading of the FIR (First Information Report) and the charge-sheet neither discloses any act committed or illegal commission that caused common injury, danger, annoyance to the public or any section of the public or interference with their public rights, nor do they disclose any voluntary obstruction to a person that prevents them from proceeding in any direction that they have a right to proceed in," said the two-judge bench of the top court, headed by Justice BV Nagarathna and including Justice KV Viswanathan, in their verdict. The SC quashed the FIR against the father-son duo after finding that the offences invoked against the accused were not made out in the case. "The appellants (Babu and Vishnu) were exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression and to assemble peacefully," the court said. As per the prosecution case, ahead of the Lok Sabha and Assembly elections in Andhra Pradesh in 2019, Babu and his son along with others had held a rally along the Tirupati-Madanapalli road and raised slogans against the state government for not granting student fee reimbursements. They were booked on a complaint made by the person in charge of the Model Code of Conduct Team-IV, Chandragiri assembly constituency. In January this year, the Andhra Pradesh High Court refused to quash the proceedings in the case, forcing the father-son duo to knock the doors of the top court seeking relief in the case.
Indian Express
9 hours ago
- Indian Express
‘Adult intent, automatically attributed to infant, is itself an adult error': Gujarat HC quashes 2010 rape FIR against minor; quotes from SC judgment
Quoting from a 1977 Supreme Court judgment, which held that 'adult intent, automatically attributed to infant, is itself an adult error', the Gujarat High Court has quashed an FIR lodged in Rajkot in 2010 against a then minor for alleged rape. The order of Justice J C Doshi of the Gujarat HC on Wednesday considered the submission of the advocate of the petitioner that laid emphasis on Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which stated that 'nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.' The accused was aged under 11 years in 2010. Stating that the Inspector of the Rajkot police station 'must not have the knowledge of Section 83 of the IPC', the HC said that the petition 'deserves consideration', especially since it is not the case of the prosecution that 'forensic test was carried out at the relevant time, that whether the petitioner was, though 11 years old at the time of alleged incident, mature enough to understand the consequences of the alleged act.' The HC order, while citing relevant case laws of the Supreme Court, stated, 'According to this Court, the PI, Bhaktinagar Police Station, must not have knowledge of section 83 of the IPC or (that) filing of FIR is in defiance of section 83 of the IPC. Under the circumstances, present petition requires consideration.' The court also directed the investigating officer concerned as well as the trial court to remove and delete the name of the petitioner from the police records, investigation papers as well as the Registry to protect his identity. The advocate appearing for the minor had submitted to the court that at the time of the incident, the petitioner was ten-and-a-half years old and therefore, 'cannot be treated as accused' under Section 83 of the IPC on the ground of his 'lack of majority'. The petitioner's advocate also submitted that 'no forensic intervention was carried out to establish that he was major (by age) to understand the offence…' The counsel appearing for the complainant of the FIR had submitted that the allegations were 'of serious nature and whether the petitioner is mature or understanding (of) the seriousness of the offence can be tested during trial and the FIR cannot be quashed on the touchstone of reading section 83 of the IPC'. The 2010 FIR was lodged against the minor under IPC Sections 376 (rape), 354 (criminal force against woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), and 114 (abettor present when offence is committed) .
