Bombay High Court
Raosaheb Ramchandra Thombare vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 4 July, 2017
Bench: R.M. Borde
{1}
criwp673.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 673 OF 2017
Raosaheb Ramchandra Thombare
aged 56 years, occ. nil
r/o Godhegaon, Tq. Newasa
Dist. Ahmednagar Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
through the Principal Secretary
Home & Prisons Government of
Maharashtra, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032.
2. The Superintendent,
Paithan Open Prison,
Aurangabad Respondents
Mr. N.N. Gawankar, advocate holding for Mr. N.R. Thorat, advocate
for petitioner.
Mr. V.M. Kagane, A.P.P. for respondents.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
A. M. DHAVALE, JJ.
DATE : 4th JULY, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER R. M. BORDE, J. )
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the
petitioner.
3. Petitioner is praying for quashment of order dated 19.08.2016
passed by the State Government holding that petitioner is liable to
{2}
criwp673.17.odt
be release on completion of imprisonment for a period of 30 years
inclusive of period of remission, in view of guidelines issued
11.05.1992 and 15.03.2010.
4. Petitioner was arrested in connection with offence
punishable under sections 302, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal
Code on 12.04.2000 and, on completion of trial in Sessions Case
No. 44/2000, he has been convicted for the same. Petitioner is
accused of committing murder of his three sons. Accused was
sentenced to death penalty however, on consideration of appeal
presented by petitioner being Criminal Appeal No. 303/2002, the
sentence has been altered to imprisonment for life by judgment
and order dated 20.10.2002. Considering the case of petitioner, in
view of guidelines dated 11.05.1992 and 15.03.2010, he has been
categorised under category 7(a) and 6(b) for pre-mature release and
a such, it was directed that petitioner shall undergo 30 years of
imprisonment with remission.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner has invited our attention to
guidelines 6(c), 7(a) as well as 6(d) contained in the Government
Resolutions dated 11.05.1992 and 15.03.2010 whereunder it has
been recorded that the convict whose death sentence is commuted
to life imprisonment, shall be released on completion of
imprisonment of 30 years inclusive of the period of remission,
subject to minimum 14 years of actual imprisonment. It is
submitted that the sentence of petitioner has not been commuted
by the State and as such, a serious mistake has been committed in
categorisation of petitioner and directing his release on completion
of 30 years of imprisonment. Section 433 of the Code of Criminal
{3}
criwp673.17.odt
Procedure relates to power to commute the sentence, which is
invested with the appropriate Government. In the instant matter,
there is no order within contemplation of section 433 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure and as such, conclusion arrived at by the
State Government under order dated 19.08.2016 is erroneous.
6. Affidavit-in-reply has been presented on behalf of the State
Government wherein it has been recorded that the decision has
been taken in conformity with the recommendations made by the
learned District Judge 1 & Additional Sessions Judge,
Shrirampur. It is further recorded in the reply that petitioner has
completed 25 years 8 months and 23 days if imprisonment with
remission as on 30.06.2017 and he would be released after
completion of 30 years of imprisonment with remission.
7. As has been recorded above, the decision taken by the State
Government is erroneous since petitioner has not been extended
benefits within contemplation of section 433 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and no order of commutation has been issued.
The sentence imposed against petitioner has been altered in appeal
presented by him and he has been sentenced to imprisonment for
life. The opinion expressed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge appears to be on erroneous interpretation of the concerned
Government Resolution.
8. In view of above, the order issued by the State Government
impugned in the instant petition is quashed and set aside.
Respondent-State is directed to re-consider the case of petitioner
for his pre-mature release in consonance with the relevant
{4}
criwp673.17.odt
resolution as well as applicable directives. The State Government
shall take appropriate decision as expeditiously as possible, within
a period of six weeks from today. Rule made absolute to the extent
as specified above.
( A.M. DHAVALE ) ( R.M.BORDE )
JUDGE JUDGE
dyb
