Bhaiyya Singh Ramchandra Bais vs State Of Maharashtra Through The ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 543 Bom

JUDGMENT

V.M. Kanade, J.

1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and is seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order of respondent No. 1 in categorising petitioner's case in Guideline No. 1(d) issued under the Government letter dated 11th May, 1992.

2. The petitioner was convicted by the Sessions Court for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed murder of his mistress by setting her on fire.

3. The petitioner was placed under category 1(e) and has been directed to be released after 28 years. Petitioner is challenging this order passed by the respondent No. 1. It is the contention of the petitioner that as per the Guidelines issued under Government letter dated 11.5.1992, case of the petitioner falls in Guideline No. 1(a), which reads as under :-

1. Murders relating to sexual matters arising out of relations with women, dowry deaths & other form of bride killing etc.

(a) Where the convict is the aggrieved person and has no previous criminal history and committed the murder in an individual capacity in a moment of anger and without premeditation... 22 years.

4. It is submitted by learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the murder in question took place without any pre-meditation and was committed in a fit of anger and that the petitioner committed said crime without any intention. He has submitted that petitioner has a clean record and has no previous criminal history. It is submitted that therefore, his case will be covered by Guideline No. 1 (a) as per which he has to undergo 22 years of imprisonment and not 28 years sentences as held by the respondent No. 1 in its order dated 10.1.2002.

5. We have heard learned Advocate for petitioner and learned A. P. P. for respondents. We have also perused judgment and order of the District Judge in Sessions Trial No. 42 of 1988 dated 31.12.1988.

6. The Government of Maharashtra has prepared Guidelines for premature release, under the 14-Year Rule, of prisoners serving life sentence. This Circular has been issued by the Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai on 11th May, 1992. Under the said guidelines, the Government has made as many as eight categories of various types of murders and has prescribed the period of imprisonment to be undergone including remissions subject to a minimum of 14 years of actual imprisonment including set-off period. The period of imprisonment to be undergone has been prescribed according to the seriousness of the crime and the gravity of the offence. Petitioner has been categorised under category l(e) and, therefore, he has been directed to undergo imprisonment for 28 years. Category (1) reads as under :-

1. Murders relating to sexual matters or arising out of relations with women, dowry dates & other form of bride killing etc.

(a) Where the convict is the aggrieved person and has no previous criminal history and committed the murder in an individual capacity in a moment of anger and without premeditation..22 years.

(b) Where the crime as above is committed by the aggrieved person with premeditation...24 years.

(c) Where the crime is committed against the aggrieved person without premeditation...24 years.

(d) Where the crime is committed against the aggrieved person with premeditation...26 years.

(e) Where the crime is committed with exceptional violence or with perversity ... 28 years.

The facts in the present case are that the petitioner had kept deceased Leelabai as his mistress for a few years before the incident and it was the case of the prosecution that on the night of 13th November, 1987 he poured kerosene over her and set her on fire. The deceased gave two dying declarations in which she mentioned that petitioner had quarrelled with her and had assaulted her and thereafter has poured kerosene on her body and set her on fire as a result of which she suffered hundred percent burns. From the medical evidence it is clear that the deceased also had received injury on her occipital region and that she had received hundred percent burns and was in her advanced stage of pregnancy. It has also been established that in the dying declaration Leelabai has stated that petitioner used to drink and used to assault her. The doctor has certified that petitioner had consumed alcohol though he was not under the influence of liquor.

7. All these facts establish that the petitioner had committed crime with exceptional violence and also with perversity. We do not, therefore, find any reason to alter or quash the order dated 10.1.2002 passed by the respondent No. 1.

8. In the result, writ petition is dismissed and rule is discharged accordingly.