Vithal Eknath Adlinge vs Jail Superintendent And Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 6129 Bom

                                                                             4.WP2710_2016.doc
Vidya Amin
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                                                        
                                      WRIT PETITION NO. 2710 OF 2016

             Vithal Eknath Adlinge                              ... Petitioner




                                                                
                    Vs.
             Jail Superintendent & Ors.                         ... Respondents

             Mr. Victor Chettiyar i/b. Mr. Ajinka Badar, Advocate for the petitioner.




                                                               
             Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the respondent/State.

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

DATE: OCTOBER 18, 2016

ORAL JUDGEMENT: (Per Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.)

1. Heard both sides.

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

3. The petitioner is seeking premature release. By the judgment and

order dated 11th March, 2002, the petitioner was convicted under section

302 of Indian Penal Code for causing death of his wife Lata by assaulting

her on the head with grinding stone.

4. The order of Home Department dated 18th May, 2016 shows that the

petitioner has been placed in category 1(e) of the 1992 guidelines and 2(c)

of 2010 guidelines. The 1992 guidelines state that the prisoner falling

under that category will be released from prison after completing 28 years

with remission. Category 1(e) of the 1992 guidelines deals with cases of

4.WP2710_2016.doc

murder of a woman where the crime is committed with exceptional

violence or with perversity. Category 2(c) of 2010 guidelines states that a

prisoner falling under that category will be released after completing 26

years with remission. Category 2(c) of 2010 guidelines deals with

offences against women where the crime is committed with exceptional

violence and or with brutality or death of victim is due to burns. In view of

the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of

Haryana & Ors. vs. Jagdish, AIR 2010 SC 1690, a prisoner has to be

given a benefit of whichever guideline provides for lesser period. In this

view of the matter, it would have to be held that the petitioner falls under

category 2(c) of 2010 guidelines.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the incident

has occurred in a moment of anger and without premeditation, hence the

case would fall under 2(a) of 2010 guidelines, which provides for offences

relating to women and where the convict has no previous criminal history

and committed the murder in an individual capacity in a moment of anger

and without premeditation. We have carefully gone through the evidence

and we find that there is no reliable evidence to show that the incident

occurred in a moment of anger or that it was without premeditation.

6. Thereafter the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

4.WP2710_2016.doc

case would not fall under category 2(c) of 2010 guidelines because the

present case is not one of exceptional violence and or brutality or due to

burns. A convict would fall under category 2(c) if the crime committed by

him against the women is committed with exceptional violence or brutality

or due to burns. In the present case, the petitioner has committed the

murder of his wife by assaulting her with grinding stone. The medical

evidence shows that the wife of the petitioner was 5 months pregnant at

the time of incident. She has sustained several fractures to her skull. The

details of the internal injuries are as under:

i) Fracture skull in Rt. Temporal region 8 cms. X complete

semicirculars.

ii) Fracture skull in left Parietal region " + " 4 cms X 4 cms X

complete.

iii) Horizontal fracture in occiput 4 cms X complete .

iv) Haemorrhage in the frontal temporal and occipital lobes of the

cerebrum and cerebellum.

7. The medical evidence shows that the deceased was 20 weeks

pregnant. The number of injuries amply make it clear that the intention of

the accused was to cause death of the victim. The evidence on record

shows that the accused ruthlessly and mercilessly assaulted Lata by

means of a grinding stone (Article 1) till she died. In this view of the

4.WP2710_2016.doc

matter, the case of the petitioner would clearly fall under Category 2(c) of

2010 guidelines. The order dated 18th May, 2016 also shows that the case

of the petitioner falls under category 2(c) of the 2010 guidelines.

8. In view of the above facts, we are not inclined to interfere. Rule is

discharged.

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