Bombay High Court: In a bail application filed by a 20-year-old management student under Section 4391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, accused of murdering his father, a Single Judge Bench of Milind N. Jadhav, J., allowed the application holding that the accused was a young adult who could not handle the repeated barrage of abuses hurled by his father-deceased against him and his mother, and he also confessed to his crime thus, he was worthy of an opportunity to continue his education and reform. The Court added that the accused undoubtedly might have committed the direful act, but one would also have to consider the facts that resulted in the death of the father.
Background
The accused’s father was unwell and bedridden to the extent that he would rarely get up from his bed for bathing and required support even for passing urine. He was also a chronic alcoholic and addicted to tobacco, which led to his medical condition. The accused and his mother were his immediate family and primary caretakers. The father, given the shame suffered by him, would constantly hurl abuses at the accused and his mother.
On the day of the incident, the father was taking certain medications which were opposed to by the accused since they were not prescribed and would be harmful. The accused’s intervention was not liked by his father, and a verbal altercation occurred between the two. When the father did not back down and kept abusing the accused and his mother, the situation escalated to such an extent that the accused, in a fit of anger, inflicted 3-4 blows with a stone on the father. The injured father continued abusing, which further aggravated the accused, and he ended up attacking his father’s neck with a kitchen knife.
Thereafter, the accused went to the nearest Police Station, narrated the incident and confessed to killing his father. Accordingly, his confession was recorded, and a case was registered.
Analysis
The Court noted that the constant jab of abuses had a damaging effect on the young mind of the accused. A 20-year-old student, who could not handle, and the situation escalated to such an extent that the accused’s young mind crossed a threshold, and he ended up inflicting injury on his father using the stone and ultimately, the fatal blow with the kitchen knife.
The Court remarked that the accused and his father were both in such a state that controlling the situation was difficult for both of them. On the one side, there was the accused, who was a college student being taken care of by his mother, and on the other side was his father, who was undergoing medical treatment for his kidney ailment, bedridden, and required care from his wife or the accused.
The Court noted that despite his mother being a housemaid and his father being bedridden, the accused was studying in a reputed college. He also had no antecedents. Thus, the Court stated that on this account, he should be allowed to continue his education.
The Court stated that the accused was at the threshold of his adult life, halting his education at this stage and subjecting him to further custody would make it highly likely that he would be entangled in the vicious cycle and downward spiral of criminality, making him a hardened criminal posing a future perpetual threat to the society. If he went back to his studies and college, it could reform him. Hence, every semblance of a chance in this direction should be taken by the Court.
The Court referred to the case Siddharth Jain v. Shaheed Sukhdev College of Business Studies, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 13422, wherein the Delhi High Court held that the Court had very wide powers to deal with an offender who was under 21 years of age and Ishar Das v. State of Punjab (1973) 2 SCC 65, wherein the Supreme Court held that while dealing with a young offender, every attempt should be made to ascertain whether the sentencing disposition could be tailored to promote reformation and rehabilitation of the offender. The Supreme Court also referred to the doctrine of proportionality in this regard.
The Court stated that the present case was also of a young offender who was excluded from the normal educational stream for a period of time, which brought about unpleasant consequences and harm, which was the purpose of the punishment. The Court noted that the accused admitted to the act by approaching the police himself and had he been of a different criminal tendency, he would have run away.
Further, the Court stated that since the accused was a young adult offender, the widely recognized principle of the younger the age, the lesser the culpability would apply.
The Court said that in a case where an offender is undergoing studies, his exclusion from education for a period of time was an added layer of punishment over and above what a non-student accused may be subjected to. This was because a student undergoing incarceration suffers the loss of precious academic time, which could not be bartered for any wealth in the world.
“He also constantly witnesses his peers moving ahead in life compared to him, and when the frustration becomes insurmountable, such frustration can create an emotion of rebellion, which, coupled with the exposure to criminality in prison, can easily gain traction and push him to become a hardened criminal.”
Stating that the Court could only attempt to positively impact the life of the person before it, the Court held that the accused should be given a chance to demonstrate that he has reformed his conduct and is leading a law-abiding life with prospects of making a positive impact on society.
Holding the aforesaid, the Court allowed the application granting the accused an opportunity to complete his Management Degree. Thus, the accused was granted bail subject to a personal bond of Rs 25,000.
Taking an overall view as to how the incident might have transpired, the Court opined that prima facie, the situation leading to the ultimate assault was a result of grave provocation due to the precursor incidents of the father hurling a repeated barrage of abuses not only on the accused but also his mother, which could not be handled by his adolescent mind at that stage. The accused undoubtedly might have committed the direful act, but one would also have to consider the facts that resulted in the death of the father.
Lastly, the Court remarked that it hoped and expected that after his release on bail, the accused would continue his studies and ensure he became a good citizen.
[Tejas Shamsunder Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 189, decided on 03-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the applicant: Aruna S. Pai
For the respondent: Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, APP
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
1. Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
