The curious case of the missing motive in the Payal Tadvi case

The State vs.Presumption of Innocence?

'Let the jury consider their verdict,' the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

'No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first—verdict afterwards.'

'Stuff and nonsense!' said Alice loudly. 'The idea of having the sentence first!'

'Hold your tongue!' said the Queen, turning purple.

'I won't!' said Alice.

‘Off with her head!' the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.

Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland

The mighty state apparatus moved swiftly in the Payal Tadvi case. Various bodies swung into action. Organisations social and political took up Payal Tadvi’s cause. Placards were paraded, slogans were raised. Hash-tags were created, candles were lit. 

For an edited version of this article in Marathi click here.

No one bothered for the accused. They wrote a letter to their association Maharashtra Association of Resident Doctors [MARD], a missive defiant in tone. “If heavy workload is given [the] name of ragging, then we will have been ragging someone while performing our basic duties . . .”

The letter is all we have heard from the accused so far. What we have heard from the deceased is nothing. There is no suicide note. No chat transcript about why she committed suicide. No other statement that can be considered a dying declaration. The prosecution, ham-handed like ever, sought police custody remand of the accused to recover the suicide note which was not found in the room where Payal hanged herself. Three doctors studying third year post-graduation were sent to police custody. So the police could recover the nonexistent suicide note. Or know the reasons for its nonexistence

However, the investigation was transferred to the Crime Branch on 30^th May. As a matter of routine, the Crime Branch should have sought custody to carry out its own inquiry. On 31^st May, the court denied further custody on the grounds that there was no recovery from the accused.  

The matter gets curious here. The Crime Branch waited till 4^th of June to move the Bombay High Court. Its ought custody of the accused for their separate interrogation. In any case, the High Court refused further custody. The bail application of the accused will be heard on 10^th June. But that is part of procedure and routine.  

What is not is the haste with which the crime leveling serious charges was registered. The doctors’ letter to MARD pleads, "Just because we don't know the reason why suicide was committed it is seriously injustice to put blame on us without proper cause and levelling a charge of atrocity (sic)." The doctors are clueless why suicide was committed. So are the rest of the people interested in this gruesome case, including the police.

Things have taken a turn for the worse after the letter was written. The accused were apprehending a far lesser but more terrifying charge of ‘atrocity.’ Now the accused are alleged of instigating Payal and conspiring to drive her to suicide. In the meanwhile, the fact finding committee appointed by the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences (MUHS) is to submit its report. The Indian Medical Association has also formed a committee to look into the matter. Its report may lead to dismissal of the accused, ruling out admission in any course for five years. The anti-ragging committee set up by the Hospital has submitted its report. The State SC-ST Commission appointed committee for investigation has raised the question whether this is a case of homicide.

It is another matter that all enquiries are proceeding in the absence of the main players. Payal can’t speak. The accused are behind bars. Their parents can’t speak on their behalf. What about the principle of natural justice where all sides must be heard in any proceeding? Why are these bodies in a tearing hurry to arrive at conclusions?     

All of the investigation conveniently ignores three issues. Separate but interconnected, these may take the guilt away from the accused.

First, there is no talk of the role of Payal’s husband in the entire affair. Payal’s brother gave a statement that she was studying to support her maternal family, as both their parents were soon to retire. Why would a married woman do that? As a counterpoint, this tidbit. Payal had asked her parents to keep the amount of surrender fees Rs. 20 Lacs ready. Why would a family having that much disposable money require the income of a married daughter?.

On to the second issue. Assuming Payal was desperate to the point of suicide does not rule out the possibility that there were other reasons for it. A troubled marriage, a promising career but the inability; perceived or real, to complete it, lack of discipline leading to overburden of work to be done. Many factors must have weighed on her mind when Payal decided to hang herself. Why single out one to nail the accused?

The third and most important issue is lack of motive for the accused. In cases of circumstantial evidence, motive plays the most important role. A strong motive can be taken as proof of guilt. Absence of motive rules out the guilt of the accused. Law assumes that the accused are innocent unless proved guilty at trial.

In this case the investigation of police and the enquiries being conducted by various bodies assume a number of factors to be certain. Police assume that there was a suicide note. They assume on the basis of allegations of her relatives that Payal was harassed by casteist remarks. That she had no other cause to commit suicide than these harassment by the accused This is not only unsubstantiated but contradicted by the report that Payal had asked her mother not to raise her caste as nobody was aware of it.

If the events that compelled Payal to hang herself were so troublesome, why is there no witness or statement? What do the last messages from Payal’s phone say? Whom did she call the last? What was the conversation about? Nothing of this is yet answered though the issue is covered on a daily basis in newspapers. Clearly something is amiss.

The important question is, how does Payal’s death benefit the accused?  

The vital question is, does somebody benefit from fingers being pointed at the three?

And the key to understanding the death of Payal Tadvi is, are Hema Ahuja, Ankita Khandelwal and Bhakti Mehare the villains of the piece - or the scapegoats?

© Shrirang Choudhary

Please share with due credits.

This post is part of a series on this issue.

Understanding the death of Payal Tadvi and corresponding issues.

Payal Tadvi: A metaphor for things gone wrong.