Also, considering the circumstances, and being a doctor, many elements of the reports did not make any sense to me.
Let us first establish the motive behind the two doctors’ act. It can only be earning easy money. Other very slim possibilities are: (1) both doctors suffering from psychiatric disorders, driving them to cruelty; (2) their trying to chastise the girl; or (3) the rapist was their kith or kin.
(1) is unlikely, otherwise they would not be still practicing, that too with a staff!
(2) is unlikely because then the girl’s family would have interfered.
(3) is unlikely because otherwise the police would have ‘discovered’ and mentioned that fact.
So assuming earning money was their motive, someone must have PAID them. Who was that ‘somebody’? It had to be either girl’s relatives or the rapist. So, why were any of the two not incriminated after TWO days of ‘investigation’? Whoever paid the money becomes, if not as much, at least significantly guilty of the crime committed.
The IANS report mentions the rapist’s name simply as ‘Raju’, which is very strange (and not to mention sounds too generic), since if the two doctors’ complete names were reported, then, the person who (possibly) paid the doctors and also raped the girl in the first place, also definitely deserves to have his complete official name mentioned. One more surprising fact is that the PTI report, which came a complete day later does not mention this significant fact!!!
Now coming to the MODE of killing: The doctors knew that they were committing a risky crime. Then why would they allow the baby to survive for 3 days? It is very easy to kill a newborn. Moreover, IANS mentions that the doctor had asked her driver to dispose the baby off in a septic tank 40 km away. Why?
If they let the baby live for 3 days despite risking suspicion of their staff and patients, then they were definitely daredevil risk takers! In that case, why would they ask their driver to go 40 km away, ONLY to dump a dead baby? As it is she was running a nursing home, and newborns dying in there would not be really extraordinary! So they could have simply disposed the baby by same method they employ for other dead babies.
Or if they asked the driver to dispose the baby 40 km away to avoid inviting suspicion, then their keeping the baby alive for 3 days makes no sense! As I mentioned earlier, killing a newborn is no big deal!
So basically, the two facts that the doctors starved the baby and asked the driver to dump it at a faraway nursing home are not at all logically compatible with each other. Significantly, only IANS mentions these two mutually conflicting facts. PTI report (despite coming a day later) makes no mention of starving the baby, and it clearly states that it was dumped in the biogas plant of the SAME hospital where it was delivered.
One of the commentators on the ToI web site has pointed out, that as reported, if it was an “alert citizen” witnessing the driver dump the baby, that led to the discovery of the whole occurrence, then where was the question of the driver’s absconding?!! The PTI on the other hand clearly states that it was the girl who had lodged the complaint.
One important medical issue here is – how likely is a premature baby to survive 3 days without support and food?
Even term (mature – born at 40 weeks) babies without milk and water are unlikely to survive for 3 days. A premature baby has very little stored form of glucose (glycogen) in the liver. In addition, their lungs are not developed to inflate properly. So (28 weeks’ gestation) premature babies without aggressive medical support are highly unlikely to survive.
Plus the sensationalist police statement, “It (baby) was not even shown to the young mother…” has no legal relevance! Why mention it despite skipping other details?
Where were the girl/family for SEVEN months?
Lastly, the two newspapers have given different surnames of Dr. Usha, which means only one of the two surnames could be correct, especially so as the DNA article anyway has given both the maiden and the presumably husband’s surname.
Most appalling however, are the 45 passionately ranting readers, mostly who had missed all these glitches! What is the quality of reporting and readership?