The Bombay High Court has granted bail to a convict sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC, holding that a single stab wound delivered during a scuffle, without intent to kill or further violence, prima facie supports a conviction for a lesser offence. The judgment underscores the importance of distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder based on objective evidence of intent.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Suresh Dilip Jadhav, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga, for the murder of Rajendra under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000. Six co-accused were convicted under Sections 147, 323 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment. The co-accused have been granted bail pending their appeals.
Key Facts
- The incident occurred on 22.07.2019 at approximately 9:30 a.m. in the village of Shirol Wanjarvada, Taluka Nilanga, District Latur.
- A scuffle broke out between the deceased’s side and the accused persons.
- During the scuffle, the co-accused assaulted the eye witnesses and the deceased with kicks and fist blows.
- The applicant, accused no. 1, took out a knife concealed under his garment near his stomach.
- He issued a threat to the informant and witnesses, then delivered a single stab wound to the back of the deceased, Rajendra.
- The wound was located 5 cm below the left lower end of the scapula, 6 cm lateral to the mid-vertebral column on the left side, measuring 4 cm x 2 cm x cavity deep, with clean-cut incised margins and spindle shape.
- The deceased was rushed to Government Hospital, Nilanga, where he was declared dead on arrival.
- The post-mortem report was admitted by the defence and confirmed the nature and location of the wound.
- Four eyewitnesses testified to the incident, corroborating the sequence of events.
- The applicant was arrested on 23.07.2019 and has remained in custody since.
Procedural History
- 22.07.2019: Incident leading to death of Rajendra.
- 23.07.2019: Applicant arrested.
- Trial Court Proceedings: Conducted before Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga.
- Date of Conviction: Not specified in judgment, but sentencing occurred prior to appeal.
- Appeal Filed: Criminal Appeal No. 869 of 2025 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench.
- Date of Bail Application: 07.05.2026 (date of judgment).
- Current Status: Applicant has undergone approximately 6 years of incarceration as of the date of judgment.
The Parties' Positions
The applicant contended that his conviction under Section 302 IPC was unsustainable in law given the nature of the injury and absence of premeditation or intent to kill. He argued that the single blow, delivered during a sudden scuffle, indicated only an intention to cause bodily harm, not death.
The State opposed bail, emphasizing the gravity of the offence and the fact that the applicant had been convicted by the trial court after a full trial.
The informant, represented by Mr. N.B. Khandare, supported the conviction and opposed bail, citing the brutality of the act.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought bail pending the hearing and final disposal of his appeal, arguing that his continued incarceration was unjustified given the prima facie error in conviction and the prolonged delay in appellate hearing.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a conviction under Section 302 IPC can be sustained where the accused delivered only a single stab wound during a sudden scuffle, without evidence of intent to kill, and where the nature and location of the wound, coupled with the absence of further blows, suggest an intention to cause grievous harm rather than death.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant’s advocate argued that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredient of intention to cause death under Section 300 IPC. Reliance was placed on the fact that only one blow was delivered, despite the applicant having the opportunity to strike again. The wound, while fatal, was not on a vital organ such as the heart or neck, and the absence of multiple injuries indicated lack of premeditation or malice. The applicant relied on State of Maharashtra v. Suresh and K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra to argue that a single blow in the heat of the moment, without intent to kill, may attract Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the use of a deadly weapon (knife) in a vital area of the body, resulting in death, prima facie establishes the presumption of intention to kill under Section 300 IPC. The State argued that the presence of multiple eyewitnesses and the post-mortem report confirmed the lethal nature of the act, and that the applicant’s conduct demonstrated recklessness amounting to murder. The State further submitted that the gravity of the offence and the fact that the applicant had been convicted by the trial court warranted denial of bail.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed review of the evidence, particularly the post-mortem report and eyewitness testimony. It noted that while the wound was fatal, it was a single stab wound delivered during a scuffle, and the applicant did not follow up with additional blows despite having the opportunity. The Court emphasized that intent to kill must be inferred from the totality of circumstances, not merely from the outcome.
"Admittedly, a single blow is given by the applicant on the back of the deceased. Though, the applicant had an opportunity to deal further blows on vital parts of the body, the applicant has not done so. Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant had an intention to kill the deceased."
The Court held that the location of the wound - on the back, below the scapula - was not a vital area typically targeted with intent to kill. The absence of multiple injuries, the context of a sudden scuffle, and the lack of premeditation all pointed toward an intention to cause grievous hurt, not death. The Court further observed that the conviction under Section 302 IPC was prima facie unsustainable and likely to be set aside on appeal.
The Court also considered the applicant’s prolonged incarceration of approximately six years, noting that the appeal was unlikely to be heard in the near future. It held that continued detention under a conviction that appeared legally flawed would amount to a denial of justice.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Court allowed the bail application and directed his release on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or more sureties in the same amount. He shall report to the jurisdictional police station once a month on every first Sunday between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon. He is prohibited from entering the village of Shirol Wanjarvada, Taluka Nilanga, District Latur until further orders. The appeal shall be listed for hearing at the earliest.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Single Blow Does Not Automatically Equal Murder
- Practitioners must challenge Section 302 IPC convictions where only one wound is inflicted, especially if delivered during a sudden altercation.
- The location of the wound, weapon used, and opportunity to inflict further harm are critical factors in distinguishing between Sections 302 and 304 Part II IPC.
- Courts must avoid automatic application of the "deadly weapon in vital area" presumption without examining context.
Long Incarceration Justifies Bail Pending Appeal
- A delay of six years in appellate hearing constitutes sufficient grounds for bail, even in serious offences, if the conviction is prima facie unsustainable.
- Courts must balance the right to liberty against the gravity of the offence when considering bail in long-pending appeals.
- Applicants should file bail applications citing prolonged incarceration as an independent ground, not merely as a supplementary argument.
Evidence Must Be Interpreted Holistically
- Eyewitness testimony must be weighed against physical evidence (e.g., post-mortem) and the accused’s conduct post-injury.
- The absence of follow-up violence after a fatal blow is a strong indicator of lack of intent to kill.
- Defence counsel should systematically reconstruct the sequence of events to demonstrate absence of mens rea for murder.
