Bombay High Court
AAKASH MADHUKAR KURNEKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The court held that, considering the simple nature of the injuries, the appellant's youth, and the pending appeal, the sentence should be suspended and bail granted.
Summary
The appellant, Aakash Madhukar Kurnekar, was convicted by a Sessions Judge for offences under Sections 307 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, receiving seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine. He filed an interim application seeking suspension of the sentence and enlargement on bail pending the appeal, arguing that the injuries were simple, caused by a blunt object, and that there was no intention to cause death. The State opposed, citing corroborated testimony, medical reports, CCTV footage, and the recovery of the alleged weapon. The High Court examined the medical evidence, the nature of the injuries, the appellant's age, and the pending appeal, and concluded that the circumstances warranted discretion in favour of the appellant. Consequently, the court allowed the interim application, suspending the sentence until the appeal is decided and granting bail upon furnishing a bond and surety, with conditions attached.
Issues considered
- Whether the conviction under Section 307 IPC, which requires an intention to cause death, is justified given the nature of the injuries.
- Whether the sentence imposed should be suspended pending the final disposal of the appeal.
- Whether the appellant is entitled to bail during the pendency of the appeal.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 307, 323, 324, 427, 452, 504, 506, 509
Subjects
- bail
- suspension of sentence
- Section 307 IPC
- intent to cause death
- interim application
- criminal appeal
- age of accused
Judgment
7 APEAL-709-26.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 709 OF 2026
Aakash Madhukar Kurnekar ..Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & anr. …Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2853 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 709 OF 2026
Mr. Amol A Shinde a/w Ms. Alfiya R Shaikh, for the
Appellant/Applicant.
Mr. D J Haldankar, APP for Respondent - State.
CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 20th August 2026
SAINATH
SANJAY
P.C.:
BODKHE
Digitally signed
by SAINATH
SANJAY BODKHE
Date: 2026.08.25
APPEAL/709/2026
12:54:27 +0530
1. Heard.
2. Admit.
3. Issue notice to the respondents.
4. Mr. Haldankar, the learned APP, waives notice for the
Respondent No.1.
5. In addition to notice through Court, the appellant is at
liberty to serve the Respondent No.2 by private service and file
an Affidavit of Service.
SAINATH, PA 1/6
7 APEAL-709-26.DOC
6. Call R & P.
IA/2853/2026
7. This is an application for suspension of sentence and to
enlarge the applicant on bail during the pendency of the appeal.
The applicant was prosecuted for the offenfces punishable
under Sections 307, 323, 324, 427, 452, 504, 506 and 509 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”).
8. The gravamen of indictment against the applicant was
that, as a sequel to a quarrel that had taken place on 27 th July,
2020 at about 04:00 p.m., the applicant had forcibly entered the
house of the informant and assaulted Sanket (PW-2) by means
of an axe, damaged the Air Cooler and the other articles, in the
house of the informant.
9. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned
Sessions Judge was persuaded to return the finding of guilt
against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections
307 and 452 of IPC and acquit the applicant of the offences
punishable under Sections 427, 504, 506 and 509 of IPC. For
the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 452 of IPC, the
applicant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment
for 7 years and pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, on each count, with
default stipulation.
SAINATH, PA 2/6
7 APEAL-709-26.DOC
10. Mr. Amol Shinde, the learned Counsel for the applicant,
submitted that, the learned Sessions Judge committed a grave
error in convicting the applicant for the offence punishable
under Section 307 of IPC. Both the alleged victims had suffered
simple injuries only. There was no intention to cause death. The
medical evidence indicates that, the injuries were allegedly
caused to the victims by hard and blunt object and not a sharp
weapon like axe. The applicant was 22 years of age at the time
of the alleged occurrence. Therefore, the sentence be suspended
and the applicant be enlarged on bail.
11. In opposition to this, Mr. Haldankar, the learned APP,
submitted that the testimony of the injured and the informant
(PW-1 to PW-3) finds corroboration in the medical evidence as
well as the electronic evidence in the form of CCTV footage.
Moreover, the weapon was recovered pursuant to the discovery
made by the applicant. Since there is overwhelming evidence
against the applicant which fully justifies the impugned
judgment and order, this Court may not exercise the discretion
to release the applicant on bail.
12. I have perused the evidence and material on record. The
genesis of the offences appears to in the previous quarrel
between the members of the rival fractions. The medical
SAINATH, PA 3/6
7 APEAL-709-26.DOC
certificates of both the victims indicate that, Sandesh Kamble
(PW-1), had sustained one CLW and two abrasions and Sanket
Kamble (PW-2) had sustained two CLWs only. The Medical
Officer had designated the injuries as simple. The injuries were
stated to have been caused due to the hard and blunt object.
The medical evidence also renders the aspect of the use of the
axe as a weapon of offence debatable as the Medical Officer has
categorically testified that, the injuries were caused by the hard
and blunt object. In the backdrop of the aforesaid nature of the
medical evidence, the question as to whether there was intent to
commit murder would warrant consideration at the final
hearing of the appeal.
13. It is true that, for an offence punishable under Section
307 of IPC, the proof of injuries is not indispensable. Yet, in the
circumstances of the case, whether the applicant had necessary
intention to commit the murder of the injured is a matter which
merits serious consideration at the appeal.
14. In the aforesaid view of the matter and having regard to
the genesis and nature of the occurrence, and age of the
applicant, this Court is inclined to exercise the discretion. The
Court also cannot loose sight of the fact that, having regard to
the large pendency of the cases before this Court, this Appeal
SAINATH, PA 4/6
7 APEAL-709-26.DOC
cannot be taken up for hearing and final decision in the near
future. Thus, the application for suspension of sentence
deserves to be allowed.
15. Hence, the following order :-
::ORDER::
(i) The Interim Application stands allowed.
(ii) The substantive sentence imposed by the
learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.
84/2021, arising out of CR No. 192/2020 registered
with Sarkarwada Police Station on the Applicant
stands suspended till the final disposal of the appeal.
(iii) The Applicant – Aakash Madhukar Kurnekar, be
enlarged on bail on furnishing a PR Bond in the sum
of Rs.25,000/- and a surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge.
(iv) The Applicant shall mark his presence at
Sarkarwada Police Station, on the first Monday of
September and March every year, till the disposal of
the appeal.
(v) Upon being released the Applicant shall furnish
his address and cell phone number to the Police
SAINATH, PA 5/6
7 APEAL-709-26.DOC
Station Officer, Sarkarwada Police Station and shall
keep him informed about the change therein.
(vi) The applicant shall not enter the limits of
Sarkarwada Police Station for a period of 3 years or
till the final disposal of the appeal, whichever is
earlier.
(vii) The Applicant shall attend the proceedings in
this appeal, as and when directed.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
SAINATH, PA 6/6
Checking your session…