The Supreme Court closely examined the events surrounding the tragic case at Kolkata’s RG Kar Hospital on the first day after the body of a 31-year-old doctor, who had been raped and murdered, was found. The judges identified several discrepancies in the investigation that seemed more perplexing than any crime novel.
The court’s attention was particularly focused on three key issues: the significant delay between the discovery of the body and the filing of the First Information Report (FIR), the declaration of the death as unnatural even after the postmortem was conducted, and the fact that the crime scene was sealed more than 12 hours after the body was found. The judges implied that these issues reflected a deeply flawed investigation.
The proceedings began with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), who questioned the timeline of events provided by the West Bengal government. He expressed surprise that the FIR was lodged only at 11:45 pm, after the cremation of the body.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, who led the three-judge bench, raised concerns about the police filing a General Diary at 10:10 am, but only sealing the crime scene at 10:10 pm. “What was happening during all that time?” he inquired.
The state clarified that the postmortem was completed by 7:10 pm and that the complaint of unnatural death was filed by 11:30 pm. However, Justice JB Pardiwala questioned the need for an autopsy if the death was not considered unusual. He pointed out that the complaint of unnatural death was lodged at 11:30 pm, and the FIR was filed just 15 minutes later, urging the state to provide accurate information to the court.
When the state remained silent, Justice Pardiwala insisted on having a responsible police officer present at the next hearing, questioning the role of the Assistant Superintendent of Police in the investigation.
Justice Manoj Mishra also expressed concern, noting that the postmortem was completed on the evening of August 9, yet the police still filed an FIR regarding unnatural death. When the state clarified that the unnatural death was first recorded in the General Diary at 1:45 pm, Justice Pardiwala sharply criticized the police’s actions.
“I have never encountered such an investigation in my 30 years of legal experience,” he stated. “If you filed a case of unnatural death before the autopsy, on what basis did you do so? If you filed it after the autopsy, why did you proceed in that manner? You already knew the cause of death after the autopsy,” he added.
Following the recess, the court once again addressed the delay in filing the FIR.
“The body was found at 9:30 am, and the FIR was filed at 11:30 pm—14 hours later! What justified this delay?” Justice Chandrachud questioned, unable to find any reasonable explanation.
The state had previously explained that cases of unnatural death are typically filed in the absence of a formal complaint. The court emphasized that it is the responsibility of the institution’s head to lodge such a complaint in such situations.
“Why did the Principal not file the FIR? Was he prevented from doing so? Why was he transferred to another hospital? The court seeks answers to these questions,” Justice Chandrachud reiterated.
Also Read: Supreme Court Directs Protesting Doctors To Resume Duties Amid Kolkata Rape-Murder Case
