Vilas @ Babu Bhaguram Shirke vs The State Of Maharashtra
2016 Latest Caselaw 4361 Bom

Sherla V.



                                                                            wp.2392.2016_1.doc


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                                                       
                             CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2392 OF 2016

            Vilas @ Babu Bhaguram Shirke                                ... Petitioner




                                                               
                  Vs.

            The State of Maharashtra.                          ... Respondent




                                                              
            Mr.Hitesh P. shah for the Petitioner
            Mr.H.J. Dedia, APP, for Respondent - State




                                                    
                                                 CORAM: SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
                                           ig           MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

DATE: AUGUST 2, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.):

1. Heard both sides.

2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. The petitioner is a life convict undergoing conviction and sentence

under section 302 r/w section 149 of the Indian Penal Code for causing

the death of Yasin. The petitioner has been categorised under 3(d) of the

1992 Guidelines. 3(d) states that a person will be released from

imprisonment subject to undergoing 26 years imprisonment including

remission. Category 3 deals with murders for other reasons and Category

3(d) is murder committed with pre-meditation and with exceptional

violence or perversity.

wp.2392.2016_1.doc

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has

been wrongly categorised under Category 3(d) and the petitioner in fact

should be placed under Category 3(b) i.e., where a murder is committed in

the course of a quarrel by an individual or a gang where the person has no

previous criminal history. If a person is categorised in the said category,

he would have to undergo 24 years of imprisonment including remission.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has

completed 22 years of imprisonment including remission and if the

petitioner is categorised in Category 3(b), the petitioner would released in

a few months.

5. In view of the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the

petitioner, we have perused the facts and circumstances of this case

including the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. The facts

show that on 15.12.1995, at about 23.30 hours, the petitioner came out of

the house of one Subhash keeping his hands around the shoulder of Yasin

(deceased). The petitioner and Yasin were talking and were going

towards Sulabh Shouchalay side. Co-accused Vitthal, Shiva, Krishna,

Mohd. Ali, Nitin, Milind and Sandeep were standing near the Sulabh

Shauchalay. When the petitioner and Yasin reached Sulabh Shauchalay,

the petitioner removed his hand from the shoulder of Yasin and started

abusing him. At that time, the co-accused Milind caught right hand of

wp.2392.2016_1.doc

Yasin. Co-accused Nitin caught head and hair of Yasin from behind.

Then, the petitioner removed one sharp edged weapon from under his

shirt and started giving blows on the stomach of Yasin. Co-accused Shiva

took out sharp edged weapon which he had hidden on his person and

gave blows with the said weapon to Yasin. Co-accused Vitthal, Mohd. Ali

and Krishna also gave blows to Yasin with the weapons in their hands.

Yasin was shouting for help. Thereafter, the petitioner and other accused

ran away from the spot. From the facts, it appears that the petitioner had

pre-planned that he would come to Sulabh Shauchalay with the deceased

and there, he and the other accused would assault Yasin and finish him.

The conduct of the petitioner clearly shows that there was pre-meditation.

The petitioner has been categorised under Category 3(d) which deals with

cases of murder committed with pre-meditation and with exceptional

violence or perversity. It is seen that the deceased had sustained 19

injuries. Out of them, seven injuries were on the left side of the chest,

three were on the abdomen. The injuries were such that intestinal coils

were protruding out of the stomach of the deceased. In addition, there

were seven incised wounds on the body of the deceased. Looking to the

fact that there were 19 injuries on the body of the deceased and looking to

the part of the body on which the injuries were found, i.e., seven injuries

on the chest, three injuries on the abdomen, due to which the intestines

protruded out of the stomach, it can be said that it is a case of exceptional

wp.2392.2016_1.doc

violence. Therefore, the petitioner has been rightly categorised under

category 3(d). Thus, no case is made out for interference.

6. Rule is discharged.

         (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)                       (V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)