Tadvi suicide: 3 accused sent to judicial custody till June 10

One of the accused doctors being taken to the court from Nagpada police station on Friday.  

Court rejects prosecution’s plea for seven-day police remand

The City Civil and Sessions Court on Friday sent three senior doctors of BYL Nair Hospital, who were arrested in connection with the suicide of a 26-year-old second-year resident doctor Dr. Payal Tadvi, to judicial custody till June 10.

Hema Ahuja, Bhakti Mehare and Ankita Khandelwal, all third-year resident doctors, were booked on May 23 for abetting the suicide, a day after Tadvi killed herself in her hostel room on the hospital premises. The trio were arrested later.

Special public prosecutor Raja Thakare argued that prima facie it is apparent that casteist remarks were made by the accused. “Tadvi had told her mother about harassment, and there is poof that she had made several complaints earlier too.”

Mr. Thakare said the Crime Branch did not get time to interrogate the accused, and sought police custody for at least seven days. He, however, ruled out murder and said there is no evidence to prove it.

The remand copy by the police said the accused reached the victim’s room early and may have taken her suicide note. “Her custody is needed to find out who all instigated her and who all are involved in the conspiracy to drive her to suicide. It is also needed to inquire if there was a written memo by the accused to harass Tadvi. All accused are highly educated and won’t cooperate with the investigation,” the copy said.

Defence lawyer Aabad Ponda said police custody is an exception and not a rule. “Before the arrest, the accused didn’t meet anyone to influence hospital staff or other doctors. The mother did not say a word about harassment in the FIR and that interrogation can take place in judicial custody as well.”

Mr. Ponda contended that the casteist slurs were uttered over a year and that it does not amount to harassment or abetment of suicide.

Additional Sessions Judge R.M. Sadrani, after going through the police diary and other relevant documents, recorded, “At the time of the first remand, the prosecution had said that there may be a murder, but nothing was revealed from the case diary and the post-mortem report. Investigation was carried out in the last two days, but no substantial evidence was found. There is no recovery of suicide note for which the police custody was sought. The custody was sought mainly on the grounds that it is necessary for the confrontation of the accused with the other witnesses.”

The court said, “In my considered opinion, only for the purpose of confrontation between the accused and witnesses, police custody can not be granted and the grounds raised by the prosecution are not sufficient as adequate police custody has already been given to the prosecution. Therefore application of the prosecution for the police custody is rejected and the accused be remanded in judicial custody till June 10.”