Saturday, Dec 05, 2020 | Last Update : 08:53 PM IST

  Metros   Mumbai  07 Aug 2019  Tadvi case: HOD to be inquired

Tadvi case: HOD to be inquired

THE ASIAN AGE.
Published : Aug 7, 2019, 2:51 am IST
Updated : Aug 7, 2019, 2:51 am IST

The police told the HC that they have prepared a letter recommending an inquiry against the HOD.

Payal Tadvi
 Payal Tadvi

Mumbai: The Bombay high court Tuesday reprimanded the state government for gaps in the probe and delay in recording the statements of important witnesses in the Dr Payal Tadvi suicide case.

The public prosecutor informed the court that the investigating officer was of the view that Dr Ching Ling Yi, head of obstetrics and gynaecology at BYL Nair Hospital, was liable for the offence under section 7 of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, as she did nothing after receiving complaints of ragging and harassment from Dr Tadvi’s mother and husband. The court in the past had asked the police if Dr Yi was liable for the offence under the anti-ragging Act.

 

The police told the HC that they have prepared a letter recommending an inquiry against the HOD.

The statement was made before Justice Sadhna S. Jadhav, who was hearing the bail applications filed by the three accused doctors in the case — Dr Hema Ahuja, Dr Ankita Khandelwal and Dr Bhakti Mehare.

When special public prosecutor Raja Thakre informed her about the opinion of the investigating officer, Justice Jadhav clarified that she had only inquired whether Dr Li had been held responsible for the offence under the anti-ragging Act. “This court has not given any direction, but has sought the opinion of the investigating agency,” said the Judge. Following this, advocate Thakre said that the recommendation letter for the prosecution of Dr Yi was also prepared by the invstigating officer. However, the same had not yet been submitted to the municipal commissioner.

 

During hearing, the Judge came down heavily on the probe agency saying that the material in the charge sheet suggested several lacunae in the probe. The Judge said that the police had made several colleagues of Dr Tadvi, witnesses in the case, who were now in a vulnerable position because they continued to be at the same hospital however the cri-me branch still failed to record their statements under section 164 of the CrPC. A statement recorded under section 164 of the CrPC before a magistrate was admissible as evidence before a court of law.

Mr Jadhav then granted the crime branch three days to record the statements of the relevant witnesses including Dr Tad-vi’s friend Dr Snehal Shi-nde, who, according to Dr Tadvi’s suicide note, was facing similar harassment at the hands of accused.

 

Tags: payal tadvi