E-Paper
HC denies bail to man accused of driving 14-year-old cousin to suicide amid sexual assault allegations
The Bombay High Court denied bail to a man accused of attempting to rape his 14-year-old cousin, whose suicide note implicated him, highlighting severe emotional distress.
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court (HC) on Thursday rejected the bail plea of a man accused of repeatedly attempting to rape his 14-year-old cousin, which drove her to suicide on March 10, 2023. The prosecution presented the suicide note, in which the minor had explicitly implicated the accused, asserting that his actions caused her unbearable emotional distress.
In his observations, justice Manish Pitale underscored the serious nature of the allegations, noting that the victim’s mental anguish was palpable in the suicide note and highlighted the profound impact such harassment could have on a young, impressionable girl. The man, who has been incarcerated since March 12, 2023, following his arrest, faces charges under sections 305 (abetment of suicide) and 354 (outraging modesty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as sections 8 (punishment for sexual offences committed in positions of trust or authority, 12 (punishment for sexual harassment of a child), and 18 (punishment with imprisonment) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The charges were filed after the police uncovered a suicide note during their investigation, prompting the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) at Vinoba Bhave Nagar Police Station in Brihanmumbai.
The applicant’s counsel, advocates Nitin Satpute, Deepak J, and Shobha Buddhivant, argued that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to substantiate the charges under section 305 (abetment of suicide by a child) IPC. They emphasised that none of the victim’s relatives supported the allegations, and an affidavit from the victim’s mother, who is also the accused’s aunt, expressed no objection to the granting of bail. The defence further argued that while the victim’s suicide note and the statements of her friends may be considered, they do not fulfil the legal criteria for abetment of suicide. Additionally, the defence questioned the reliability of the handwriting expert’s report, which confirmed that the note was in the victim’s handwriting, contending that such a matter could only be resolved during the trial.
However, the prosecution, represented by additional public Prosecutor (APP) Megha S Bajoria, strongly opposed the bail plea. She argued that the accused’s actions, as detailed in the victim’s suicide note, left her with no other option but to end her life. The prosecution highlighted that the note, along with the statements of the victim’s friends recorded under Section 164 (recording of confessions and statements) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), established a prima facie case against the accused. The APP further noted that the handwriting expert’s report confirmed the authenticity of the suicide note, adding substantial weight to the case.
The court presided over by justice Manish Pitale, dismissed the bail application after hearing submissions and perusing the material on record and noted that the victim’s suicide note explicitly implicated the applicant, leaving no room for doubt that the accused’s actions allegedly pushed the girl to take the extreme step. The victim, in her suicide note, alleged that the applicant’s behaviour created an unbearable situation for her, leading to her tragic decision. While the veracity of this report will be scrutinised during trial, justice Pitale emphasised that the report constitutes prima facie evidence against the accused at this stage.
Justice Pitale observed that the contents of the suicide note bring out the mental turmoil in which the victim found herself. She has made specific allegations against the applicant, accusing him of creating a situation where she felt she had no alternative but to end her life. He added, “It cannot be forgotten that the victim was only 14 years old, and she was at a sensitive impressionable age when the actions attributable to the applicant could have had a lasting impact on her mental health.”
Significantly, the court highlighted allegations of sexual misconduct, including attempted rape, against the applicant. Justice Pitale further noted that the victim’s friends, in their statements recorded under section 164 of the CrPC, corroborated the victim’s account. Addressing the charge of abetment under section 107 (abetment of a thing) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), justice Pitale acknowledged the defence’s argument that the applicant’s intention to drive the victim to suicide must be clearly established. However, the court was of the view that the material on record, including the victim’s detailed suicide note and the corroborative statements of her friends, strongly suggested that the accused’s actions had left the victim with no other choice.
For these reasons, the court dismissed the bail application. However, justice Pitale directed that the trial be expedited, noting that the charge sheet lists only 22 witnesses. He granted the applicant the liberty to renew his plea for bail if the trial is not concluded within a year.
