RG Kar ruling: Life term right call, say anti-death advocates

KOLKATA: Kolkata court judge Anirban Das’s emphasis on “reform” rather than “retribution” in sentencing RG Kar Medical College and Hospital rape-and-murder convict Sanjay Roy to life imprisonment, instead of awarding him death penalty, received support from experts and advocacy groups.

“The measure of a civilised society lies not in its ability to exact revenge but in its capacity to reform, rehabilitate, and ultimately to heal,” the judge stated.

“We are in agreement with the trial court judgment. Benefit of doubt needs to be given to the accused. In this case, there’s a lot of doubt. We do not want to say that he (Sanjay Roy) is innocent. But capital punishment is of no good,” Ranjit Sur, general secretary of the Association for Protection of Democratic Rights (APDR), said.

The belief that the death penalty acts as a greater deterrent than life imprisonment is unfounded, Sur added.

Senior advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, who was the first counsel to fight the case of the victim’s parents at Calcutta HC, also agreed with the trial court judge’s decision to award life sentence. “He took the right step by not pronouncing death penalty. There should be no death penalty. The judge gave this verdict after examining all the evidence,” Bhattacharya said.

Judge Das, referring to the landmark Bachan Singh case which established the guideline for imposing death penalty, stated, “It is evident that this case does not meet the stringent criteria for being classified as ‘rarest of the rare’. Supreme Court has consistently emphasised that 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.”

Advocate Phiroze Edulji, who represented the convicts in the 2013 Kamduni gang rape and murder case, said: “I am against death penalty. Which murder is not heinous? It’s all about public perception. Rarest of rare cases where the death penalty is given depends on the judge concerned.”

Monday’s judgment also stated: “When considering the imposition of capital punishment, courts must grapple with a complex web of legal, moral, and societal considerations. The principle of proportionality is paramount — the punishment must fit the crime. In cases of extreme brutality and cruelty, where the offence shocks the conscience of society, the argument for the ultimate punishment gains strength. However, this must be balanced against the principles of reformative justice and the sanctity of human life.”