Bombay High Court
Rukhmabai Pundlik Khotele (In ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 4 July, 2017
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 195 OF 20
17
Rukhmabai Pundlik Khotele,
(In Jail), Aged about Major,
Convict No. C/5654,
Central Prison, Nagpur.
PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) State of Maharashtra, through
its Secretary, Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2) Inspector General (Prisons),
Pune (Maharashtra)
3) The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Nagpur.
RESPONDENTS
Ms. Sonali B. Khobrgade, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. M.K. Pathan, Advocate for State/Respondent No 1 to 3.
CORAM :
PRASANNA B. VARALE AND
MURLIDHAR G. GIRATKAR, JJ .
DATE : 04/07/2017
.
ORAL JUDGMENET ([PER: M.G. Giratkar, J)
1. The petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment for the offence punishable
under section 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Petitioner is
seeking direction of this court to the respondents to release the petitioner forthwith
as per guidelines of Home Department No. 1092 / 13 / 252, Prison-3
dated 11.5.1992 and Home Department Maharashtra State No. 1006/Pra-Kra
621/Prison-3 dated 15.3.2010 .
2. The petitioner has already undergone 18 years sentence. Said
guidelines indicates categorization of crime. The case of the petitioner is in the
category of 1-(b).
As per rules after completion of 12 years, committee was constituted
and categorization of petitioner was to be sent to the Inspector General of Prison,
Pune for recommendation. In the present case, the petitioner's categorization also
sent to the Inspector General of Prison, Pune. She was wrongly categorized under
Rule 1-(d) for suffering sentence of 26 years. The copy of impugned order is at
Annexure-A.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner is a woman. She has completed 18
years actual imprisonment. If the remission is included, she has already completed
24 years and, therefore, she is entitled to be released as per category of 1(b).
Therefore, prayed to set aside categorization under rule- 2-(d) and it is also prayed
to direct the respondents to reduce the imprisonment from 26 years to 24 years as
per the Rule 1(b). It is prayed to release the petitioners forthwith as per the
guidelines.
4. Petition is strongly opposed by the respondents. It is submitted that
proposal was sent for appraisal to the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Bhandara
vide letter dated 29.11.2013. The petitioner has committed murder of her husband
and buried the dead body in a heap of dung. Therefore, vide letter dated
29.11.2013, the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhandara recommended
categorization of petitioner in Rule 1(d) for her suffering sentence of 26 years. At
last, it is submitted that as per recommendations of Principal District Judge,
Bhandara, respondent has categorized the petitioner in category 1-(d).
5. Heard learned advocate Ms. S.B. Khobragade. She has pointed out us
guidelines for pre-mature release under "14 years" of imprisonment for serving life
sentence. She has pointed out the Government Resolution no. RLP
1092/13/252/PRS-3, dated 11.5.1992 and category-4 (e) of Government
Resolution no. RLP-1006/C.R.621/PRS-3 dated 15.3.2010. As per the categorization
category 1-B for offences relating to crime by woman, the period of imprisonment
including set of period is 20 years. The learned Government Pleader pointed out us
proposal submitted to the Principal District Judge. The copy is filed which is marked
as Annexure-X. The learned Government Pleader has submitted proposal of
respondent, she was categorized under category 1-(b) in letter but Principal District
Judge recommended her categorization under category 1-d and, therefore, her case
was submitted under category 1-d.
6. From the perusal of record there is no dispute that the petitioner is a
woman, she has committed murder of her husband. Her case covered under
category of 1-(b) as per the Government Resolution dated 15.3.2010. As per 1-(b)
category, she has to suffer imprisonment for the period of 20 years including
remission and set off etc. Hence the petitioner is entitled for categorization of 1-b
i.e. for the period of 20 years. It is submitted by the Advocate of petitioner that she
has completed 20 years and, therefore, respondents be directed to release, the
petitioner forthwith. In view of the above discussion, the petitioner is entitled to be
included in category of 1-(b) as per Government Resolution no. RLP 1092 /13 /
252 /PRS-3 dated 11.5.1992 and category-4 (e) of Government Resolution no. RLP-
1006 / C.R .621 /PRS-3 dated 15.3.2010.
Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause-1 and we direct the respondents
to consider her case as per category of 1-(b) and to release her after completion of
20 years including the period of remission and set off.
JUDGE JUDGE
Nandurkar
