Bombay High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment of Tailor Convicted for Brutal Murder of Mother-in-Law

December 27, 2025

The Bombay High Court has upheld the conviction and life sentence of Murgesh Pechi Muttu, a tailor, who murdered his mother-in-law Manju Swamy in 2012 using a scissor blade. The division bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Manjusha Deshpande dismissed the appeal challenging the conviction, holding that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Case Background and Incident Narrative

The incident occurred on December 19, 2012, at a transit camp residence in Borivali, Mumbai.

The deceased, Manju Swamy, intervened when the accused began assaulting his wife Asha — her daughter — shortly before Asha was to leave for her nursing shift at Arihant Hospital.

During the altercation:

The accused removed a sharp blade from a pair of scissors
Repeatedly assaulted Swamy on the head and back
Continued the attack even after she fell unconscious

The victim died before reaching the hospital.

The Court observed that:

“The ferocity of the assault and the fact that the victim died even before reaching the hospital shows the brutality inflicted by the appellant.”

Marital Discord and Prior Domestic Violence History

Evidence revealed that:

The victim’s daughter Asha married the accused in 2006
The couple resided in Daman
The accused was allegedly alcohol-dependent
Domestic disputes and financial instability were recurring issues

Three months prior to the incident, Asha and her two daughters moved to her mother’s house due to repeated assaults. Asha had also filed a domestic violence complaint against the accused.

The accused attempted to rely on this background to claim false implication, but the Court rejected this defence.

Grounds Raised in Appeal and Court’s Findings

The accused contended that:

He was falsely implicated due to prior domestic violence litigation
Procedural lapses existed in investigation and trial
Benefit of doubt ought to be extended

However, the Court held that:

Ocular evidence of eyewitnesses was trustworthy
Medical evidence corroborated assault injuries
Motive, conduct, and weapon recovery were consistent
Circumstances formed a complete chain of guilt

The bench held that:

“The appellant made a serious effort to puncture holes in the prosecution case, but the overall evidence firmly establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt.”

Relevant Statutory Provisions Applied

The conviction was sustained primarily under:

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 302 — Punishment for Murder
Applied due to intentional and repeated fatal assault.
Section 300 — Murder Definition
Covered intentional bodily injury sufficient to cause death.
Section 34 — Common Intention (where applicable)
Noted only contextually if any assistance was argued.

The manner of assault — repeated blows with a sharp object — indicated:

Knowledge of fatal consequences
Absence of provocation or sudden quarrel exception

Therefore, exceptions under Section 300 Exception 4 (sudden fight) were held inapplicable.

Procedural Law Considerations

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

The Court examined:

Appreciation of evidence by trial court
Witness testimony credibility
Medical and forensic corroboration
Compliance in recording statements

The appellate court reiterated that appellate re-appreciation does not override findings unless:

Perverse or contrary to record
Based on conjectures or surmises

Here, findings were reasoned and supported.

Constitutional Context: Article 21 and Fair Trial Principles

The Court’s reasoning aligned with Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty, which includes:

Right to fair investigation
Right to reasoned conviction
Protection of victims’ rights in criminal justice

The judgment reinforces the principle that:

Protection of life extends to safeguarding persons from domestic and family violence
Excessive brutality warrants strict penal consequences

Judicial Precedents Relied Upon / Consistent With

The approach of the Court is consistent with rulings such as:

Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab (1958)
Intention inferred where bodily injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
State of Rajasthan v. Kanhaiya Lal (2019)
Brutal and repeated assault negates plea of sudden provocation.
Himanshu @ Chintoo v. State of NCT Delhi (2011)
Weapon use and ferocity indicate intention under Section 302 IPC.

The present case fell squarely within the definition of intentional murder, not culpable homicide.

Court’s Final Decision

The Bombay High Court:

Upheld the trial court conviction
Confirmed life imprisonment
Rejected procedural defence and false implication arguments

The Court concluded that:

The attack was deliberate and brutal
The evidence was cogent and credible
No mitigating factors warranted sentence alteration

Conclusion: A Case Reinforcing Judicial Intolerance Toward Domestic Violence-Driven Fatal Crimes

The judgment underscores:

Judicial sensitivity toward violence within family settings
Need for strong deterrence in domestic abuse-related homicide cases
Importance of credible eyewitness testimony and medico-legal corroboration

By affirming the life sentence, the Court emphasized that:

Violence escalating from domestic abuse into fatal assault will attract the severest penal consequences, reinforcing public interest and victim protection within criminal jurisprudence.