Ravindra @ Balu S/O. Narayan ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7473 Bom

WP  539/17                                         1                          Judgment

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                   NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 539/2017
Ravindra @ Balu s/o Narayan Hatghare,
C-39, Detained in Morshi Open Prison,
District Amravati.                                                        PETITIONER
                                   .....VERSUS.....
1.    The State of Maharashtra,
      Through its Secretary, Home 
      Department (Prisons), Mantralaya,
      Mumbai-32.
2.    The Superintendent,
      Morshi Open Prison, Prison Amravati.                                 RESPONDE
                                                                                    NTS

                      Mrs.S.P. Dhotre, Counsel for the petitioner.
         Shri P.S. Tembhare, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

                                     CORAM :SMT.VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                  M.G. GIRATKAR, JJ.                

DATE : 22 ND SEPTEMBER, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)

RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The criminal writ

petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the

learned counsel for the parties.

2. By this criminal writ petition, the petitioner has challenged

the order of the respondents, dated 25.10.2016 placing the petitioner

in Category 4(e) of the guidelines in the Government Resolution,

dated 15.03.2010 for the premature release of the prisoners serving life

sentence.

WP 539/17 2 Judgment

3. The petitioner was convicted along with his father for the

offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code by the trial Court

and was made to suffer life imprisonment. The criminal appeal filed by

the father of the petitioner was allowed and the father of the petitioner is

said to have been acquitted. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.

The petitioner applied for his premature release in view of the guidelines

laid down in the Government Resolution dated 15.03.2010 and sought for

his release after twenty two years of imprisonment including the

remission period. The claim of the petitioner was, however, rejected by

the State Government as according to the State Government, the

petitioner had committed the murder with brutality and when a murder is

committed with brutality, the prisoner would be required to undergo the

sentence for twenty six years before his premature release.

4. Mrs.Dhotre, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted

that the petitioner is wrongly placed in Category 4(e) of the Government

Resolution as it cannot be said from the circumstances of the case that the

petitioner had committed the murder with exceptional violence or

brutality. It is submitted that the petitioner had stabbed on the chest of

the deceased and had then inflicted only one stab on the thigh of the

deceased. It is stated that the case of the petitioner would fall in

Category 4(b), where murder is committed with premeditation.

WP 539/17 3 Judgment

5. Shri Tembhare, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

appearing for the respondents, has supported the order of the State

Government. It is submitted that after the deceased was stabbed on his

chest and he was running, the petitioner ran after him and gave a stab

blow on his thigh. It is submitted that in the aforesaid set of facts, the

State Government has rightly placed the petitioner in Category 4(e) that

refers to the category where the murder is committed with exceptional

violence or brutality. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor sought for

the dismissal of the writ petition.

6. As rightly submitted on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner

ought to have been placed in Category 4(b), where the murder is

committed with premeditation. It is no doubt true that the prosecution

case that the petitioner had inflicted two stab wounds on the body of the

deceased is proved and since the petitioner came with a knife and ran

after the deceased to stab him on his chest and thigh, the murder appears

to have been committed with premeditation. However, making of the

two stab wounds while committing murder with no further acts of

violence, would not fall in the category, where the murder is committed

with exceptional violence or brutality. Though the murder appears to

have been committed with premeditation, on a reading of the judgment

of the trial Court it does not appear that the murder is committed by the

petitioner with exceptional violence or brutality. The respondents ought

WP 539/17 4 Judgment

to have placed the petitioner in Category 4(b) of the guidelines laid down

in the Government Resolution dated 15.03.2010 in stead of placing him

in Category 4(e). In the circumstances of the case, by giving the benefit

of the Government Resolution dated 15.03.2010 for the premature

release of the petitioner, the respondents would be required to release the

petitioner after the petitioner undergoes twenty two years of

imprisonment including the remission period.

7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.

The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The respondents are

directed to set the petitioner at liberty after the petitioner undergoes

twenty two years of imprisonment including the remission period.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

              JUDGE                                             JUDGE

APTE