1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 1711 of 2010 Rajendra Gajanan Bhagadkar and 4 others ..VERSUS.. State of Maharashtra, through, P.S.O., P.S., Arjuni Morgaon, Dist. Gondia. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. S.V.Sirpurkar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. M.J.Khan, A.P.P. for Respondent/State. CORAM : Prasanna B. Varale, J. DATED : 01 st Decem ber , 2010 . Heard. By the present application, the applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime NO. 75/2010 registered with Police Station, Arjuni Morgaon, Dist. Gondia for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w Sec.34 of I.P.C. as they are apprehending arrest. As far as applicant no.1 Rajendra Gajan Bhagadkar, who is the husband of victim Ranjana, is concerned, learned Advocate for the applicant submits that he is not pressing the application against applicant no.1. As far as other applicants are concerned, the applicant no.2 Gajanan is the father-in-law, applicant no.3 Sou Pramila is the mother-in-law, applicant no.4 Harishchandra is brother of applicant no.2 and applicant no.5 Sou. Raventa is the wife of applicant no.4. Learned Advocate for the applicants submits that bare perusal of the report dated 10/10/2010 lodged by the father of the deceased would show that the applicant were scolding the victim on the ground that she was not able to cook the food properly. There is no allegation 2 against the applicants of any demand of money. The report further shows that the victim Ranjana resided in her matrimonial house for a period of 3-4 months and thereafter she went to reside at her parents house. On 06/10/2010, the applicants had been to village Khamkhurra and a meeting was held in the house of complainant Gopinath Dunedar i.e. the father of the victim. Even in the meeting the applicants scold the victim on the ground that she was not able to prepare food and cannot do the household works properly and she should consume poison and die. On the second day i.e. on 07/10/2010, again the applicants visited the house of Gopinath and scolded the victim and told that if her behaviour is not changed, she is not required in their house and she should take poison and die. On the next day i.e. on 8/10/2010 at about 10.00 o’clock, it was informed to the father of victim, who was in the field, that Ranjana is in serious condition and when he came the house, he found that Ranjana is vomiting. Though, attempt was made to take the victim Ranjana to the near Primary Health Centre, but in the way she died. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that taking the case as it is it would show that there is no immediate nexus with the scolding and the suicide committed by the victin Ranjana. He further submits that the allegation of scolding to the victim levelled against the applicants is on the ground that the victim was not able to prepare the food. Learned Advocate further submits that merely uttering such words, which were uttered in heat of anger that too on the ground that victim was not able to prepare the food properly, would not constitute an offence of instigating the victim Ranjana to commit suicide. According to the learned Advocate, utterance in the fit of passion or anger, cannot be said to be uttered with that intention and basic ingredient i.e. mens rea is absent. He further submits that the Apex Court while dealing with the similar situation, in the case of 3 Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar ..vs.. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2002) 5 Supreme Court Cases 371, has observed at para 12 that even if accepting the prosecution story that the applicants did tell the deceased “to go and die”, that itself does not constitute the ingredient of “instigation”. The word “instigate” denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotion. Learned Advocate for the applicants further submits that the allegations levelled against the applicants are vague and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court, the applicants deserves for protection at the hands of this Court. Mr. Khan, learned APP for the State has filed the reply and opposed the application. He also produced the case diary of the case before the Court for perusal. He submits that there are statements of witnesses recorded by the investigating agency to show that the applicants were instigating the victim Ranjana to commit suicide. the applicants not only scold the victim, but in a very specific way that they asked the victim to commit suicide by consuming poison. I have gone through the statements recorded by the investigating agency, which are of brother, sister and mother of victim. They are stating the same story as stated by the father of victim in the report. In these statements also it is stated that the applicants had been to village Khamkhurra, scolded the victim on the ground that she is not able to prepare food and as she is unable to do the household works properly, she is not required in their house. From the record, it is seen that initially a meeting between these applicants with the victim and her father, was held on 06/10/2010 and second 4 meeting was held on 7/10/2010. The scolding was only on the ground that the victim was not able to prepare the food properly. The utterance of the words ‘take poison and die’ are uttered in the fit of anger. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court cited above and in view of the fact that the meetings and scolding to the victim was happened on 6/10/2010 and 7/10/2010 and suicide was committed by her on next day i.e. 8/10/2010, it cannot be said that there is immediate nexus and there was sufficient time gap for a person to think over and reflect. In view of above, in my opinion, prima facie case is made out by the applicant Nos.2 to 5 for grant of protection. In the result, the application is partly allowed. The application is dismissed against applicant no.1 as not pressed. The ad-interim protection granted to him is withdrawn. Ad-interim protection granted by this Court by order dated 26/10/2010 is hereby confirmed in respect of applicant nos.2 to 5 on the same terms and conditions with an added condition that applicant nos.2 to 5 to attend Police Station, Arjuni Morgaon on every 2nd and 4th Sunday of every month between 9.00 to 12.00 noon for a period of three months or till filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier. Criminal Application is disposed of. JUDGE Diwale