Dr. Hema Suresh Ahuja and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
In the High Court of Bombay
Crl. A. 911/ 2019
Before Justice Sadhana S. Jadhav
Decided on August 9, 2019

Relevancy of the case: Significance of WhatsApp group messages in proving abatement of suicide and tampering of digital evidence

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 67)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 34, 201, 306)
• The Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1999 (Section 4)
• The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(u), 3(1)(za-E), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(vi), 3(2)(vii))
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 174)

Relevant Facts of the case

• The victim was a resident doctor in the hospital where she had secured a seat through the reservation quota. On this pretext, the appellants would humiliate, insult, and threaten her.
• The appellants had also formed a WhatsApp group to deprave and humiliate the victim time and again.
• The mother of the victim (complainant) had informed the hospital warden and a lecturer about the threats that her daughter (victim) was receiving and requested them to ask the appellants not to harass her. However, there was no change in the way the appellants treated the victim.
• Whenever the complainant would call the victim, she would say that her condition was getting worse as they had threatened to destroy her career.
• It is also alleged that the petitioners had tampered with the phone of the victim and other evidence after her suicide.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The appellants’ counsel submitted that as the investigation was over and the charge sheet was filed, the appellants deserved to be released on bail. Further, the learned counsel stated that, the chats of the WhatsApp group and the complaints made to the victim’s parents showed that the victim was unable to handle the work pressure and the accused-appellants were extending responsibilities without any intention of harassment. The learned counsel also argued that all the evidence pointed at the victim’s psyche and her ability to handle pressure in the medical industry and hence the appellants be granted bail.

Opinion of the Bench

• The Court, relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and taking into account all the evidence, granted bail to the appellants.

Final Decision

• Appeal allowed.
• Bail granted, subject to certain conditions.