SHYAM ALIAS MAHENDRA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application for bail is preferred on behalf of the appellant No. 2 who is herself the mother of the deceased. It so happened that out of the three sons, the deceased who was one of them had returned to the house and then some sorrowful events seems to have taken place in which there was some damages to the household articles, some heat was created because of alterations between the appellants, juvenile offender and other members on one side and the deceased on the other in which the deceased was said to have gone outside the house when he was assaulted and he succumbed to fatal head injury.

(2.) SO far as the role of the present applicant No. 2 Mangala which has been described is that she made some utterance pursuant to which the rest of the culprits assaulted the deceased and injured him and that utterance was that deceased should be beaten and his waist should be broken.

(3.) SHRI Daga appearing for the appellants contended that it was after all the utterance of the mother. He draws distinction between mother making utterance of this type on several occasions, but may not mean whereas strangers utterance is more meaningful in comparison. According to him the evidence requires reconsideration and the debatable aspect of the matter by this to be the real meaning of utterance instead of the son should be killed and thus she shared the intention of the rest of the brothers or the culprits who were responsible for the actual assault and the deceased succumbing to the head injury.