The parents of the junior doctor raped and murdered at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital claimed in Calcutta High Court on Friday through their lawyer that a report submitted by the Central Forensic Laboratory, Delhi, was contradicting another report by an expert.
Submitting a supplementary affidavit, the petitioners’ counsel, Sudipta Moitra, demanded that the court ask the CBI to conduct a fresh probe in the matter based on the contradiction.
The CBI submitted its third status report on the probe into the case on Friday. The CBI also submitted a report by the CFSL Delhi.
The judge asked the CBI counsel to consider the anxiety of the petitioners and satisfy them by handing over investigation-related documents. It also asked the petitioners’ counsel to submit a report if he wished to.
“Generally, the court does not ask the investigators to hand over such documents, specifically when the investigation is still on. But you may hand over the documents considering the anxiety of the petitioners,” Justice Tirthankar Ghosh said.
Justice Ghosh asked the CBI counsel to hand over a copy of the report to Moitra and fixed the matter for hearing again on June 30.
There was also an argument between the petitioners’ lawyer and the CBI counsel over a report that the CBI said it handed to the petitioners, and their counsel said the agency did not.
The judge asked the CBI counsel to hand over the document to the petitioner for “their satisfaction”.
Dictating the day’s order, Justice Ghosh, however, said he did not want the points of contention to be reported in newspapers, though the hearing took place in open court and was livestreamed.
This newspaper is not reporting the contentious part of the reports referred to in the court proceedings.
Justice Ghosh said: “CBI submitted its third status report. A report of the deputy director, biology, CFSL Delhi, is placed, which to some extent, is contrary to the overall inference drawn by doctor-expert Professor Partha Mazumdar.”
He added: “A report to be handed to Mr Moitra for the limited extent of dealing with the second observation made in the CFSL report and the overall inference, which has been referred to in the report mentioned in the supplementary affidavit.”
“Mr Moitra, if required, would file a counter to the report filed by an expert of CFSL, restricting it to the second issue under the heading overall inference.”