Mumbai court denies bail to man accused of raping Brazilian exchange student

Holding that there were sufficient grounds to believe that the accused had sexually assaulted a Brazilian girl from Mumbai who was in the city for a student exchange programme, the Mumbai Sessions refused to grant any relief to the accused.

According to the indictment, the accused, identified as Padmakar Nandekar, allegedly sexually assaulted a 19-year-old youth who was selected as part of the Youth Cultural Exchange Program in 2016.

The accused was acting as the woman’s guardian in India, while the accused’s daughter lives with a host family in Spain under a similar student cultural exchange programme.

The victim came to India on August 30, 2018 and started staying at the residence of the accused. But there were certain situations where the accused would have made her feel uncomfortable. In 2019, she moved to another family’s residence in Mumbai.

However, whenever the accused’s wife and son were not at home, the accused allegedly invited the victim to his place. Later, on April 15, 2019, Nandekar allegedly took the victim to a seven-star hotel in Mumbai and thereafter took her home on the pretext of being under the influence of wine, where he sexually assaulted her, said the prosecutor’s office.

The girl left his house in the morning, and the man sent her an apologetic message and offered her money. The girl refused and realized that there were 10,000 lei in her bag. She threw that money in the trash, the prosecution said.

She mentioned the incident to her friend and later to her psychologist in Brazil, who asked her to inform her parents, which she finally did on 13 May 2019. A case was then registered against the accused, he was arrested and later he was granted bail.

The reason given by the accused was that the girl’s behavior at the seven-star hotel showed that she was comfortable and there were no signs of resistance from the victim as she showed no signs of injury. It was also argued that there being no explanation for the delay of 35 days in registering the FIR and no medical report of the victim being produced, an adverse inference must be drawn.

It was argued that the victim’s behavior of rejoining the society of the accused the next day shows that it was not an act of force in any way. It was also alleged that the victim used the accused’s credit card and visited the accused’s house herself in the absence of her wife, which shows a consensual aspect of the relationship, the defense argued.

However, Justice Shanaya Patil noted that the accused had undermined his role as a host parent under the Youth Cultural Exchange Program in relation to the girl victim from India and had committed rape on the victim in the absence of his family members at his own residence. . .

“There is nothing at this stage to believe that the victim girl would have any motive to falsely implicate the accused,” Justice Patil observed as the defense has not pointed out any circumstance to dispose of the prima facie evidence gathered by the prosecution against the accused.

The judge reviewed several photographs submitted by the accused of the victim looking happy, but the judge said the photographs “cannot be said to reflect her consensual appearance for any kind of intimate relationship with the accused”.

The judge further observed that the age difference between the victim and the accused speaks for itself and the prima facie unnatural or abnormal aspects of the alleged consensual relationship.

“Photographs in a happy mood with the accused’s family members are certainly part of her stay with the host family during those days and thereafter mere photographs together would not indicate any consent on her part to have any sexual relationship with the accused. “said the judge.

“The victim, being a foreign citizen, was probably more open and advanced with her expressions, interactions, behavior and lifestyle, however, that cannot take the place of ‘consent’ for anything or anything on her part in particular, for any kind of sexuality. Relationship with the accused cannot be allowed by adverse inference against the victim at this stage. India and as such the accused was in a fiduciary relationship with the victim as a guardian in India. Such degree of intended relationship increases the seriousness of the offense within the offense to attract the provision of section 376(2)(f) of the IPC (rape by a person). guardian or someone in a position of authority or trust over the victim), as the accused was the guardian who was in a position of trust as well as authority over the victim”, said the judge.