The Calcutta High Court grilled the West Bengal government over the lax police security leading to the mob-led vandalisation of the site of protests by agitating doctors.
The counsel appearing for the State submitted that the police put up resistance, but were overwhelmed by a strong mob of 5000-7000 people, who broke through barriers and injured several policemen.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya orally observed the police have an intelligence wing. Similar things happened on Hanuman Jayanti. If 7,000 people were to gather, it would be hard to believe that the state police did not know, the bench said.
The High Court said the state police usually ordered Section 144 CrPC for any reason, but when so much commotion was going on, it should have cordoned off the entire area.
Calling it an absolute failure of state machinery, the High Court observed that the main question which arose was whether this vandalism could have been prevented is the question. Who did it would come later. Even the policemen were also injured. Something was required to inspire the confidence of people and this Court, it added.
The Division Bench noted in its order that although the place of occurrence of the crime was saved from the attack, it would be imperative to provide safety to the doctors and nurses working in the hospital to ensure that they were able to carry out their duties with a sense of security. The High Court noted that it had earlier reminded doctors of their obligation to treat patients. However, this incident would definitely impact their mindset.
The High Court directed the state police to put on record the entire sequence of events leading to the incident.
The Court further asked the state to reply to the allegations that the crime scene was being tampered with since renovation work was carried out near the crime scene.
On August 13, the Calcutta High Court transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the probe into the death case of a second-year PG medical student, who was found brutally raped and murdered at Kolkata’s RG Kar Hospital on the early hours of August 9.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya passed the order on multiple pleas, including one by the parents of the victim, seeking the transfer of investigation to an independent agency.
Expressing concerns over the progress of investigation under the state police, the Bench held that the parents of the victim have an apprehension that if the investigation was allowed to continue in this manner, it would derail.
The Bench further observed that a case of unnatural death was registered in the case. It said that such cases were registered when there was no complaint.
The High Court noted that when the deceased was a doctor in the same hospital, it was surprising why the principal did not lodge a complaint. There has been no significant progress in the investigation. The administration was not with the victim or her family. The principal did not even give a statement.
Without significant progress in the investigation, the Court would be well justified in accepting the prayers by the victim’s parents that evidence would be destroyed, observed the Division bench, while directing CBI to do ‘justice’ between parties and inspire public confidence.
As per local reports, the trainee doctor had gone to rest in the college’s seminar hall after completing her night shift on August 8. She was discovered in a brutal condition in the early hours of August 9.
Kolkata Police arrested a ‘civic volunteer’ in the case. the counsel for one of the petitioners alleged that the arrest was a cover-up. He claimed that the state police’s investigation had been faulty and they were trying to make a scapegoat out of the accused in an attempt to cover up the real facts.
Senior Advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, appearing for the parents of the deceased doctor, submitted that the parents initially received a phone call claiming that their daughter had fallen sick. Upon reaching the college, they were told that their daughter had committed suicide, but they were not allowed to see her body for up to three hours.
It was submitted that when the parents saw her body for identification, they were convinced that the incident could not have been a suicide due to the gruesome nature of the injuries.
The senior counsel prayed that the matter be immediately transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) since crucial evidence could be destroyed with the passage of time.
The Counsel appearing for other petitioners submitted that Dr Sandip Ghosh, principal of the medical college, had resigned from his post claiming moral responsibility. However, he was appointed as principal of the Calcutta National Medical College, another government college, within a few hours of tendering his resignation.
The High Court remarked that if the principal had stepped down owing moral responsibility, it was rather serious that he was rewarded within 12 hours with another appointment.
The Bench expressed apprehension that with the lost time, something may go wrong. It said that no man was above the law. Calling a principal as the guardian of all doctors working in a hospital, the Bench asked that if he would not show any empathy, then who would show?
The principal should be at home, not working anywhere. Was he so powerful that a government counsel was representing him? The high Court ordered that the Principal would not function. He should go on long leave. If he failed to do so, the Bench would pass an order.
The counsel representing the state submitted that they had been carrying out a thorough investigation and that there was no scope for any further probe. It was submitted that a case of unnatural death was registered since there was no complaint registered when the body was found. Though a complaint could have been filed by officials or the principal, none was received, he added.
The Division Bench expressed concern over the fact that the case was registered by the police as an unnatural death and remarked that neither the principal nor the authorities of the college did anything in their power to aid in the probe.
The High Court directed the principal to be placed on indefinite leave till further orders.
Noting that a report could be called for by the state police under normal circumstances, the Division Bench said in view of the peculiar nature of the facts in this case, it was acceding to the parents’ prayer that any further delay would lead to the destruction of evidence.
The High Court handed over the investigation to the CBI and listed the matter for further hearing after three weeks.