Bombay HC Upholds 26-Year Imprisonment Period for Murder Convict Who Inflicted 21 Incised Wounds

The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Maharashtra Government's classification of a murder conviction as exceptional violence, retaining a 26-year imprisonment period under the 2010 Government Resolution.

A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising Justice Sarang V. Kotwal and Justice Ashish S. Chavan, on 20 July 2026 dismissed a writ petition filed by Ajay Kisan Dungarshi, also known as Pintu, who sought to challenge the State Government's order denying him early release. The petitioner had argued that the Government applied the wrong category under a 2010 Government Resolution, which would have entitled him to a shorter period of imprisonment. The bench, after examining the trial court's judgment, found that the facts clearly placed his case within the category reserved for crimes committed with exceptional violence and brutality, warranting a 26-year imprisonment period inclusive of remission and set-off.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Ajay Dungarshi challenged an order dated 4 September 2025 passed by the Government of Maharashtra, which denied him the benefit of early release. By way of further relief, he also prayed for his early release from custody.

The Government Resolution dated 15 March 2010 sets out different categories in Annexure I, each prescribing the minimum period of imprisonment — including remission and set-off — that a convict must undergo before becoming eligible for early release. The petitioner's counsel, Ms. Vrunda Survei, appearing with Ms. Pushpa Thapa, contended that his case ought to have been considered under category 2(b) of Annexure I, which prescribes a 22-year imprisonment period. She argued that the Government had wrongly applied a more stringent category to his case.

The State, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Supriya Kak, submitted that the impugned order was correct and that the Government had applied the proper category.

The Category Dispute: 2(b) Versus 2(c)

The impugned Government order had placed the petitioner's case under category 2(c) of Annexure I of the Government Resolution dated 15 March 2010. Category 2(c) applies where a crime is committed with exceptional violence and or with brutality, or where the death of the victim occurred due to burns. Under this category, the prescribed period of imprisonment is 26 years.

The petitioner's argument was straightforward: he should have been placed under category 2(b), which carries a lesser 22-year period, and that the Government's characterisation of his offence as falling within the exceptional violence and brutality bracket was incorrect.

The bench examined the trial court's judgment carefully. The impugned Government order itself had referenced paragraph 20 of the trial court's judgment, which recorded 10 to 13 injuries on the body of the deceased. However, the bench observed that paragraph 17 of the same trial court judgment recorded 21 injuries in number, all of which were incised wounds distributed across the body. The prosecution's case was that Dungarshi committed the murder of the deceased because she refused to marry him.

How the Bench Reasoned

The bench found the nature and number of injuries decisive. Twenty-one incised wounds all over the body, inflicted in the context of a refusal to marry, left little room for doubt about the character of the offence. The bench recorded that “from the circumstances, it is quite clear that the case falls within the category 2(c).”

The court held that the crime was committed with exceptional violence and brutality, satisfying the conditions prescribed under category 2(c) of the Government Resolution. Having reached that conclusion, the bench found no fault with the Government's order of 4 September 2025. The argument that category 2(b) was the correct classification was rejected.

The bench did not find any error in the Government's decision to apply a 26-year imprisonment period, and accordingly declined to interfere.

Outcome

Writ Petition No. 3475 of 2026 was dismissed. The order of the Government of Maharashtra dated 4 September 2025, placing the petitioner's case under category 2(c) of Annexure I of the Government Resolution dated 15 March 2010 and prescribing a 26-year period of imprisonment, was upheld. The petitioner's prayer for early release was also rejected.