by: Nusrat Jan
The Sealdah Court in West Bengal has slapped serious charges on accused Sanjay Roy, framing indictments under Sections 103(1), 64, and 66 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita. The court has set the stage for an expedited, day-to-day trial, commencing November 11.
Roy is facing grave allegations under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, Section 66—which prescribes severe penalties for causing death or inflicting a persistent vegetative state—and Section 103, which mandates harsh punishment for murder.
When key individuals implicated in a crime are excluded from the prosecution’s case, particularly when the focus is unjustifiably narrowed to a single accused, such as Sanjay Roy, it undermines not only the fairness of the trial but also the very integrity of the judicial process. This becomes all the more alarming when biopsy reports or other forensic evidence point to the involvement of multiple perpetrators, yet this crucial evidence is either overlooked, downplayed, or ignored by the prosecution.
Strategic Oversight or Prosecutorial Negligence:
If biopsy reports or other forensic evidence unequivocally demonstrate that the victim’s injuries were inflicted by multiple perpetrators, the credibility of the prosecution’s case is severely compromised if these findings are disregarded or deliberately omitted. Such a willful oversight or suppression of critical evidence undermines the very foundation of the trial, raising profound questions about the integrity of the investigation and the honesty of the legal proceedings. The failure to address these damning revelations not only distorts the truth but casts a long shadow of doubt over the entire legal process, signaling a gross miscarriage of justice.
Deficient Legal Representation: The deliberate exclusion of critical suspects from the case may not merely reflect a lapse in prosecutorial diligence but may, in fact, be emblematic of a systemic failure within the legal framework itself. The prosecution’s myopic approach—focused narrowly on a single defendant—could severely hinder the defense’s ability to challenge the entire breadth of the charges, thus rendering the trial fundamentally flawed. Should biopsy reports or other forensic evidence implicate additional parties, yet these crucial findings are disregarded or deliberately obfuscated, the defense could argue that the case has been irrevocably undermined by prosecutorial negligence or calculated oversight. In such a scenario, the accused would be unjustly deprived of a fair trial, as their legal team would be hamstrung in their efforts to confront the full scope of the crime. The distortion of the case’s factual context would render any verdict inherently defective, potentially leading to a miscarriage of justice.
The deliberate or reckless exclusion of key individuals from the prosecution’s case is a blatant distortion of justice. When forensic evidence points to the involvement of others, yet the case is narrowed to focus solely on a select few, the entire trial is fatally compromised. This omission undermines the very foundation of accountability, allowing perpetrators to escape responsibility and leaving the crime unresolved in its full scope. Such a narrow, skewed approach to prosecution perverts’ justice and allows the guilty to evade their due punishment.
Dismantling the “Zero-Sum” Fallacy:
Conventional legal frameworks often operate under the fallacious presumption of a “zero-sum” paradigm—where the culpability of one individual necessitates the absolution of others. This reductive view collapses under scrutiny, particularly in instances where forensic evidence implicates multiple perpetrators. In reality, criminal responsibility is not a finite commodity to be distributed among a limited number of accused. The prosecutorial approach must, therefore, transcend this artificial limitation and expand its focus to encompass all those complicit in the crime. Justice should not be constrained by the convenience of simplifying complex criminal networks into a singular narrative, but rather, it must embrace a multi-dimensional conception of culpability, where the onus of responsibility is apportioned among all those involved, ensuring that no participant escapes accountability due to prosecutorial expediency or selective omission.
The reality is that criminal responsibility is not a zero-sum calculus. Culpability is not a finite commodity to be apportioned; rather, it is dispersed across all individuals complicit in the offense. Every participant, whether as a principal actor, an accessory, or even a facilitator, contributes to the perpetration of the crime and, as such, must be held to account. This principle remains incontrovertible even if only a limited number of individuals engage in the immediate commission of the act, while others may have provided ancillary support, orchestrated the enterprise, or otherwise enabled the criminal conduct in more covert or indirect ways. No individual—regardless of their specific role—should be exempted from facing the full measure of their culpability, irrespective of the degree of their direct involvement.
Ultimately, this paradigm would guarantee that the justice system becomes more holistic, inclusive, and unalterably aligned with the unvarnished truth, regardless of whether that truth is inconvenient or multifaceted. It would herald a shift toward a jurisprudence that prioritizes accountability over expediency, aspiring to deliver justice that meticulously interrogates and addresses the entire spectrum of culpability in any given case, rather than reducing the scope of inquiry for the sake of procedural convenience or streamlined adjudication. This would preclude the simplification of complex criminal realities, ensuring that all degrees of responsibility are unequivocally acknowledged and confronted.
Author holds a PG in Political Science from Aligarh Muslim University. She can be mailed at nusratparray559@gmail.com
Discussion about this post