Mumbai, Maharashtra – LurthMary Sadanand Murgeshan, a 53-year-old housewife accused of murdering her son, Pravin, has been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay. The order, issued on May 4, 2022, by Additional Judge Shri G.B. Gurao (C.R.17), suggests that the incident may have occurred under “sudden grave provocation” and that the accused lacked premeditated intent to kill.

Murgeshan was arrested in C.R. No. 658/2021, registered at R.C.F. Police Station, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to murder. She sought bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Tragic Incident and the Prosecution’s Case

The case came to light on December 6, 2021, when Probationary Police Sub-Inspector Ramesh Khapale of R.C.F. police station was informed by WPSI Chavre of the Nirbhaya squad about a deceased person at MHADA Colony, Vashi Naka, Chembur. Upon arrival, police found a man, later identified as 30-35-year-old Pravin, lying unconscious in a pool of blood with a head injury. A local doctor declared him dead.

Further inquiry revealed that the deceased, Pravin, was the son of the accused, LurthMary. Police recovered a hammer, a full-sleeved shirt, and underwear from the scene. An inquest panchanama was prepared, and the body was sent for post-mortem, which confirmed the cause of death as a head injury. Initially, an AD (Accidental Death) No. 150/2021 was registered, but subsequent inquiry led to the arrest of LurthMary on charges of murder. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial.

Defense and Court’s Observations

Mr. Mohammad Hussain, the advocate for LurthMary Murgeshan, argued that his client is a woman and a housewife with a permanent residence. He contended that the alleged offense was committed under sudden provocation, emphasizing that there was no intention or premeditation on her part to kill her son. He also pointed out that she is not a habitual offender and has another son, Nitin, who is a commissioned officer in the Indian Air Force, and another son, Arvind, residing in Thane. He assured the court that the accused would abide by any conditions imposed for bail.

Mr. Ramesh Siroya, the APP for the State, opposed the application, arguing that the accused was not a permanent resident of Mumbai (a claim the court later implicitly rejected) and that if released, she might pressurize witnesses. He maintained that she had “brutally killed her son.”

The court, after perusing witness statements, noted that the deceased, Pravin, was unmarried, unemployed, and addicted to liquor. The incident reportedly occurred around 11:00 PM on December 4, 2021. Prior to the incident, Pravin had demanded money for liquor from his parents, insisting that his father, a government pensioner, should provide it. His father, Sadanand, left the house around 4:00 PM, telling Pravin he would bring liquor, but instead spent the entire night on the footpath.

The court observed: “As Sadanand had not come, therefore, deceased raised quarrel with his mother i.e. accused. In the anger, he beat to his mother and therefore, accused assaulted him by hammer.”

The order further stated that after the incident, LurthMary was frightened and went to a relative’s house. The next morning, she, her husband, and her brother-in-law returned. LurthMary was weeping and did not dare to enter the room, sitting on the staircase instead. Sadanand and his brother then discovered Pravin’s dead body and informed the police.

Court’s Conclusion: Doubtful Intent and Exceptional Circumstances

Judge Gurao’s order critically analyzed the sequence of events, stating: “If the statement of witnesses are considered, it appears that initially, Pravin raised quarrel with his parents… Pravin raised quarrel with his mother as he did not get liquor and firstly he assaulted to her. Thus, it prima-facie appears that, there was no intention of accused to commit murder of her son. The incident occurred in sudden grave provocation. Therefore, it is doubtful that whether accused committed murder of Pravin or case falls in exception of section 300 of IPC.”

The court also took into account that LurthMary is a woman, not a habitual offender, and that she and her husband had previously requested their son Nitin to take them to Delhi due to Pravin’s harassment.

Bail Granted with Conditions

Considering the totality of the circumstances, the court found the accused entitled to bail.

LurthMary Sadanand Murgeshan has been released on a Personal Recognizance (PR) Bond of ₹30,000 with one or more sureties of the like amount. Additionally, she has been granted provisional cash bail of ₹30,000 for a period of four weeks, allowing her time to arrange for the surety.

The bail is subject to the following conditions:

• She shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
• She shall not commit any offense while on bail.
• She shall attend the court dates regularly unless exempted by the court.
• She shall furnish her correct address to the investigating officer.

The Bail Application No. 636/2022 has been disposed of accordingly, marking a significant development in this tragic family case.