Farmer Murdered While Trying To Draw Water From Neighbour’s Tank Due To Water Shortage, Bombay High Court Upholds Life Sentence

A single deathly blow doesn’t warrant commuting a murder conviction to culpable homicide, the Bombay High court observed while upholding the life sentence of a man who struck his neighbour with a sickle in 2012.

A division bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and Abhay Waghwase refused to commute 25-year-old Murlidhar Bombale’s conviction for 302 (murder) to 304(II) (culpable homicide) of the IPC. The court however acquitted Bombale’s brother and father of the murder charge and merely held them guilty under sections 324 (causing hurt by dangerous weapons) and 325 (grievous hurt) of the IPC.

“…taking into consideration nature of weapon, site of the body targeted, we are of the considered opinion that said blow though single, has turned out to be fatal,” the judge observed.

Facts

The complainant, his sons and the accused are all agriculturists and also relatives of each other. Their lands were adjoining to each other. Due to shortage of water, complainant fetched/drew water from Pazar Talav (Percolation Tank) but the accused would prevent the same resulting in bitter relations.

One evening the deceased – Dattu - and his wife went to fetch water. After they didn’t return the complainant and second son went looking for them. They were also beaten with a stick and sickle. Dattu succumbed to his injuries the same day.

Following a trial against the three accused, in 2015, the additional sessions judge in Nashik sentenced them to life imprisonment under sections 302, 324 and 323. The accused filed an appeal against this in this High Court.

The accused argued that witness testimonies were inconsistent, there was no evidence to show whether the accused were armed at the time of the offence. And since it was a single blow to the deceased, it wasn’t a homicidal death.

The prosecutor argued that were injured eye witness accounts and medical evidence suggested Dattu’s death was homicidal.

At the outset the court noted that the accused’s family members only assaulted the deceased’s brother and wife. However, recovery of the sickle on Bombale’s behest along with statements of other witnesses showed Dattu died due to the single blow to his abdomen.

“To sum up, here it is manifest from the evidence on record that accused No. 1 Murlidhar is the sole author of single injury on deceased Dattu.”

The court rejected the defence’s argument that since there is single blow on deceased Dattu, Section 302 of the IPC is not attracted.

“We are not impressed with such submissions. It is settled law that mere fact that there was single blow, is not a circumstance which would warrant conviction under Section 302 of the IPC, being altered to one punishable under 304(Part II) of the IPC,” the court said.

Case Title: Murlidhar Waman Bombale & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment