The Bombay High Court has refused bail to a man accused, along with other family members, of killing his one-month-old granddaughter allegedly because she was the second girl child in the family.
Justice M M Nerlikar, while rejecting the application on September 9, took note of the circumstances surrounding the infant’s death, including the family’s conduct after the incident, the hurried cremation and the postmortem finding that the child had died from asphyxia due to drowning.
The case was reported to the police by an ASHA worker who became suspicious about the child’s death. According to the prosecution case, the worker had told the family that the matter should be reported to the police. The family members, however, allegedly did not act on her advice, following which she herself informed the police.
The FIR alleged that the child’s grandfather and other members of the family had acted together in killing the infant because she was the family’s second daughter.
Court Flags Circumstances Surrounding Child’s Death
While considering the bail plea, the High Court examined witness statements indicating that the grandfather was present in the house when the incident occurred. It noted that the circumstances in which the one-month-old child died were within the special knowledge of the applicant and other family members who were present there.
The court also referred to the account that the accused family members raised an alarm claiming someone had killed the infant. They allegedly suggested that a door had been left open and that an animal or dog might have carried the child away during the night.
The subsequent conduct of the family also weighed with the court. It noted that despite being advised by the ASHA worker that the incident required police intervention, the family did not inform the authorities. The court considered this conduct highly objectionable and said it pointed towards the accused, including the grandfather.
Another circumstance considered by the court was the manner in which the child was cremated. The High Court noted that the cremation had been carried out hurriedly. The postmortem examination recorded the cause of death as asphyxia due to drowning.
Grandfather Sought Parity With Child’s Mother
Advocate U E Quazi, appearing for the applicant, contended that there was no evidence connecting the grandfather with the infant’s murder. He argued that merely because the incident occurred inside the house was insufficient to implicate his client.
The defence submitted that the grandfather came to know about the incident only after other family members raised an alarm. It also relied on the fact that the child’s mother had already been granted bail and argued that the applicant was entitled to similar relief.
Assistant Public Prosecutor U R Phasate opposed the application, describing the alleged offence as heinous. The prosecution maintained that the infant had been killed because she was a girl and argued that the grandfather was the first person to notice her. Since the incident occurred inside his house, the prosecution contended that the circumstances of the child’s death were within his special knowledge.
High Court Raises Concern Over Preference For Male Children
The High Court expressed concern over the allegation that the infant had been killed merely because she was the family’s second daughter. It observed that even decades after Independence, preference for male children continued to exist and described the allegations in the case as an instance of a girl child being killed because the family did not want a second daughter.
Taking into account the witness statements, the applicant’s presence in the house, the family’s conduct after the death, the hurried cremation and the postmortem findings, the Bombay High Court declined to grant bail to the grandfather.
