Was a First Information Report or FIR filed in the Kolkata doctor’s rape-murder case – long before the one filed 14 hours after the body was discovered? An intervenor who filed a petition in the Supreme Court appears to think so. In an exclusive interview with NDTV, intervenor Vijay Singla pointed out that no forensic examination or postmortem can be done before an FIR is lodged.
“My advocate says one FIR was lodged before the postmortem was done. Maybe the FIR was missing or maybe it is there. The second FIR, they say, was lodged at midnight — some 14 hours after the incident,” he said.
Assuming that the postmortem examination was held after the 14-hour-late FIR was filed is also questionable — since the body of the young doctor was cremated around 8 pm, after just 10 hours.
The woman’s parents alleged that they wanted to preserve the body had to cremate it under police pressure. The parents have also claimed that they were even offered money by a police officer to end the matter quietly.
There have been questions about why the postmortem examination was conducted at RG Kar hospital, which created a conflict of interest of sorts.
Missing Elements In Postmortem Report
In his petition, Mr Singla has pointed out multiple lacunae in the FIR – starting with the first line where the videographer’s name is mentioned. He is the one who pointed out that the crucial challan, without which no postmortem can be done, is not part of the documents submitted, the Central Bureau of Investigation or CBI has told the court.
The postmortem report does not mention what time it was issued — a fact pointed out by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta in the Supreme Court today. The field under the name of the constable who brought in the postmortem request is also blank.
Kapil Sibal, who was representing the state government, had contested it hotly, saying, “It is all there… why are these submissions being made?”
Then the advocate representing Mr Singla had chimed in with multiple other lacunae in the report.
“Who conducted the videography… no details… was it a writable or rewritable CD… no details… all doctors present were from the north Bengal lobby!” he said. The first line of the report mentions the name of the videographer – Shekhar Roy, but there are no details about his department or designation.
When Mr Sibal pointed out that the Judicial magistrate was there, the advocate dismissed it with “that is immaterial”.
“From 2.30 pm to 10.30 pm, there are only 10 GD entries! Or was it manufactured,” he said.
What The Court Said
That missing challan and the absence of the constable’s name were the focus of the hearing in the Supreme Court today.
The Bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud questioned where the challan was. The document is expected to list the articles of clothing and personal use was submitted for forensic examination.
Without that challan, a postmortem cannot be carried out, he said.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who was representing the state, could not immediately locate it. “What I am told is that CJM filled it up himself and sent it,” he said. He has been given time till the next hearing on next Wednesday.
Pointing to the postmortem report, Justice JB Pardiwala, who was part of the three-judge bench, said: “See the third column on the top, the constable (who brought the body) is supposed to carry this (form). It has been struck off. So there is no reference of this challan when the dead body is sent for examination. You need to explain, if this document is missing, then something is amiss.”
CBI’s Contention
The Central Bureau of Investigation or CBI has said “who collected the samples” for forensics has emerged as a relevant question.
The agency has also pointed out that the first five hours after the discovery of a homicide is most crucial. In this case, they have reached after five days, they have repeatedly pointed out, flagging the possibility of tampering with the crime scene.
