The Bombay High Court on Thursday noted that a single fatal blow does not justify commuting a murder conviction to culpable homicide while maintaining the life sentence of a man who attacked his neighbour with a sickle in 2012.
A division bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and Abhay Waghwase rejected to commute 25-year-old Murlidhar Bombale’s conviction for 302 (murder) to 304(II) (culpable homicide) of the IPC. Nevertheless, the court acquitted Bombale’s brother and father of murder and instead found them guilty under sections 324 (causing injury by hazardous weapons) and 325 (grievous hurt) of the IPC.
“Considering the type of the weapon and the location of the body targeted, we are of the considered conclusion that such strike, however solitary, has turned out to be lethal,” the judge observed.
The complainant, his sons, and the accused are all farmers and also relatives. Their lands were next to each other. Due to shortage of water, the complainant fetched/drew water from the Pazar Talav (Percolation Tank), but the accused refused, resulting in a bitter relations.
Dattu, the dead, and his wife went to get water one evening. When they did not return, the complainant and his second son went in search of them. They were also thrashed with a sickle and a stick. Dattu succumbed to his injuries the same day.
After a trial, the additional sessions judge in Nashik sentenced the three accused to life imprisonment under sections 302, 324, and 323. The accused filed an appeal against this in this High Court.
The accused contended that witness testimony was contradictory and that there was no evidence to establish whether the accused were armed at the time of the crime. And because the dead was killed with a single stroke, it was not a homicidal death.
The prosecutor argued that Dattu’s death was homicidal based on eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence.
The court recognised right away that the accused’s family members had solely assaulted the deceased’s brother and wife. Nevertheless, the recovery of the sickle at Bombale’s request, as well as the statements of other witnesses, revealed that Dattu died as a result of a single hit to his abdomen.
“To summarise, the evidence on record clearly shows that accused No. 1 Murlidhar is the lone culprit of a single injury on deceased Dattu.”
The court dismissed the defense’s claim that because there was just one blow to dead Dattu, Section 302 of the IPC did not apply.
“Such submissions do not impress us. It is settled law that the mere fact of a single blow is not a factor that would necessitate conviction under Section 302 of the IPC, being changed to one punishable under Section 304(Part II) of the IPC,” the court observed.
