"Exceptional Violence": Bombay High Court Upholds Stricter Remission Category For Convict Who Murdered Woman For Refusing To Marry Him
Narsi Benwal
25 July 2026 9:30 AM IST
The Bombay High Court recently upheld the decision of the Maharashtra Government to place a life convict under the 26-years imprisonment category, after noting that he had killed a woman, who had refused to marry her, in a brutal manner.
A division bench of Justice Sarang Kotwal and Justice Ashish Chavan noted that the convict had killed the woman in an exceptionally brutal manner.
"We have perused the Judgment passed by the Trial Court. The injuries mentioned in paragraph 17 are 21 in number. They are all incised wounds all over the body. According to the prosecution case, the petitioner committed the murder of the deceased because she refused to marry him. From the circumstances, it is quite clear that the case falls within the category 2(c) of the Government Resolution dated March 15, 2010. The crime is committed with exceptional violence with brutality. Therefore, the impugned order has rightly placed the case under category 2(c)," the judges observed in the order passed on July 20.
The bench therefore, dismissed the plea filed by one Ajay Dungarshi, who had challenged a September 4, 2025 decision taken by the Maharashtra Government, which refused to grant him the relief of premature release by placing him under the category 2(b) of a Government Resolution issued on March 15, 2010, which notified various categories of offences and punishment for those awarded life sentence and not life sentence till the remainder of their life.
According to Dungarshi, he should have been placed under category 2(b) of the said GR which provides for the period of imprisonment to be undergone including remission and set of, for a period of 22 years.
However, the Government contended that the petitioner's case is covered under category 2(c) of Annexure I of the said GR, which mentions that where the crime is committed with exceptional violence and or with brutality or death of victim due to burns, then the period of imprisonment is mentioned as 26 years.
The judges agreed with the Government and therefore, dismissed Dungarshi's plea.
Appearance:
Advocates Vrunda Surve and Pushpa Thapa appeared for the Petitioner.
Additional Public Prosecutor Supriya Kak represented the State.
Case Title: Ajay Kisan Dungarshi @ Pintu vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 3475 of 2026)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 341
