Parimala @ Parega Lahu Savane vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 5851 Bom

                                                                                 11. cri wp 2685-17.doc


RMA      
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2685 OF 2017


            Parimala @ Parega Lahu Savane                                .. Petitioner

                                 Versus
            The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                              .. Respondents

                                                  ...................
            Appearances
            Mr. Daulat G. Khamkar Advocate for the Petitioner
            Mrs. G.P. Mulekar     APP for the State
                                                  ...................



                              CORAM       : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
                                              DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : AUGUST 10, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :

1. Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and learned

APP for the State.

2. The petitioner was convicted under Section 302 of IPC

for causing the death of her sister-in-law by setting her on

fire.

            jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                                   1 of 5





                                                                    11. cri wp 2685-17.doc




3.           Mr.    Khamkar,          learned   counsel   for     the     petitioner

submitted that the case of the petitioner for premature

release has been wrongly categorized by the Government as

falling under Category 2(c) of 2010 Guidelines. It is stated

that the case falls under Category 1(b) of 2010 Guidelines

and it be declared accordingly.

4. Mr. Khamkar submitted that Category 1 deals with

offences by women. Category 1(b) deals with cases where

the convict has committed the murder with premeditation.

Mr. Khamkar submitted that as the petitioner is a women,

her case would fall under Category 1(b). However, it is

pertinent to note that Category 2 deals with the offences

relating to crime against women. Category 2(c) deals with

cases where the crime is committed with exceptional

violence and or brutality or death of victim is caused due to

burns. It is an admitted fact that in the present case, the

death of the victim has been caused due to burns. The burns

sustained by the victim are stated to be 98%.

jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                                 2 of 5





                                                                 11. cri wp 2685-17.doc

5. Mr. Khamkar submitted that in view of the decision of

the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors

Vs. Jagdish1 , the category which is more liberal or

beneficial to the convict should apply. We have gone

through the said decision. The said decision deals with the

policies of the Government for categorization of cases for

premature release. In the said decision, it is held that

whichever policy that is existing on the date of conviction or

the policy that exists on the date of consideration of the

case of the convict for pre-mature release by the appropriate

authority is more beneficial or more liberal should be

applied. Thus, this decision deals with different policies /

different Guidelines set out by the Government. The

Government as of now has set out different Guidelines in the

year 1992, 2008 and 2010. The petitioner is convicted in the

year 2012, hence, the Guidelines of 2010 would be

applicable to the petitioner. The Supreme Court in the

decision cited above does not state that whichever category

in a particular Guideline is more beneficial to the convict

1 (2010) 4 SCC 216

jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 5

11. cri wp 2685-17.doc

should be applied but it speaks of the different policies of the

Government only and not in relation to one particular policy.

No doubt, the law has always been in favour of the accused

but some consideration has also to be given to the victim.

The case of the victim cannot be totally neglected. That

would be the travesty of justice. In category 2(c) death of a

woman due to burns has been added looking to the

occurrence of huge number of dowry deaths, due to burns.

In order to deter such dowry deaths, this category has been

amended to include death of a woman caused due to burns

and higher period of imprisonment is provided. The objects

and reasons for adding this category have to be borne in

mind.

6. In the present case, the petitioner has set her sister-in-

law on fire. The victim has sustained 98% burns, hence, it is

clear that the cause of death of the victim was due to burns,

hence, Category 2(c) would be the appropriate category. In

this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with

jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 5

11. cri wp 2685-17.doc

the decision of the Authorities of placing the petitioner in

Category 2(c) of the Guidelines for premature release.

Hence, Rule is discharged.

[ DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]

jfoanz vkacsjdj 5 of 5