The police investigation into Rama Kankonkar’s brutal assault and his condition at the Goa Medical College Hospital at Bambolim have been the points of discourse in recent days. For the past 14 days, Kankonkar has remained in the hospital with unofficial statements being made about his blurred vision, blood clot in the brain, orientation issues, and physical discomfort, even as police are literally camping at the GMC doorstep every single day for his statement.
The million-dollar question is whether Kankonkar is “medically unfit” to give a statement, or not. The police may have collated possible evidence in the case, including CCTV footage, and taken statements from the prime accused and those directly involved in the incident. However, they would still need to zero in on the motive, and a statement from Kankonkar would be critical in this aspect.
This apparent discrepancy exposes a disturbing vacuum in the investigative process, prompting us to critically examine the legal and ethical dimensions. The law prescribes recording the statement of the victims or witnesses as soon as practicable, while also emphasising the importance of obtaining statements promptly to facilitate a fair and effective probe. When a victim is unable to give a statement due to health reasons, the police are empowered to seek a “dying declaration” or record a statement through legal provisions that accommodate incapacity, such as recording the statement in the presence of a magistrate.
In the present scenario, Kankonkar has been hospitalised for over two weeks. The police reportedly visited him daily but were unable to get the victim’s consent for a statement on health grounds. Hospital authorities and doctors, on the other hand, have indicated that his health does not hinder his participation in the investigation while reasoning that if Rama was unfit for interrogation, visitors would not be permitted, and his physical condition would have been officially declared “unfit for police questioning.” On the flip side, his wife, Rati Kankonkar, has publicly asserted that her husband cannot walk or talk properly, citing a blood clot in the brain that renders him unfit to give a statement. Her assertion was that he is too weak to participate in the inquiry.
The conflicting narratives raise a critical question: why has the premier hospital not officially declared Rama “unfit for police interrogation”? The law provides for such a declaration when a patient’s health genuinely precludes participation. If the hospital’s medical assessment indicates that Kankonkar cannot communicate and participate in the probe, then the police have an obligation not to press further, and the matter rests till he is medically fit.
A lack of clarity clouds the case further, because much of the probe revolves around the motive. While Superintendent of Police Rahul Gupta had earlier announced that there is a private enmity, the police would seek to study that equation from Kankonkar’s side. Was there a previous enmity between the prime accused, or the seven involved in the assault? Or, whether there is a third dimension.
The silence of hospital authorities in clarifying Kankonkar’s health status is baffling, especially given the sensitive nature of the case, and against the backdrop where dozens of people, political leaders, activists, and supporters visit him freely and later publicly narrate their conversations. Hospitals are bound by ethical standards and legal obligations to be transparent about patient health, particularly when public interest and police investigation are involved, and must provide general updates to the police. Their silence may be perceived as an attempt to avoid transparency or procedural inertia due to external pressure.
The developments throw a question mark on the integrity of the probe, and do not help Kankonkar either. It is not for social activists, political leaders, supporters, police, or even media to conclude that Rama is fit to testify. It is the job of the medical officer, and the buck stops there. It may be noted, Kankonkar exercises the right to issue a supplementary statement, should he choose to, subsequently. He holds the right to even discard his entire preliminary statement to the police.
The urgent need of the hour is ensuring accountability, transparency, and strict adherence to legal procedures in the police probe. We reiterate our condemnation of the brutal attack on Rama, emphasising that our concern is not about judging his fitness to testify. While respecting the sentiments of his family and those close to him, we urge all authorities to uphold the rule of law and provide unambiguous clarity. Any unwarranted delay should not give the mistaken impression that our institutions are compromised.
