Bombay High Court
Raju S/O Pandurang Bandabuche (In ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Its Secretary, ... on 13 December, 2021
Bench: M.S. Sonak, Pushpa V. Ganediwala
1 37-wp-307-20j.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 307 OF 2020
Raju S/o. Pandurang Bandabuche,
Aged about 47 years, Occ. Nil,
C-2886, At present Central Prison, Amravati
Dist. Amravati. . . . PETITIONER
...V E R S U S.
1. State of Maharashtra through
its Secretary, Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Superintendent of Jail,
Central Prison,
Amravati, Dist. Amravati. . . . RESPONDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Raju Kadu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri T. A. Mirza, A.P. P. for respondents/State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- M. S. SONAK AND
PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.
DATED:- 13.12.2021
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: M. S. SONAK, J.):-
1. Heard Shri Raju Kadu, learned counsel for the petitioner,
and Shri T. A. Mirza learned A.P.P. for respondents/State.
2. Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith at the request
and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2 37-wp-307-20j.odt
3. The petitioner challenges the order dated 01.06.2019 by
which the Authorities have declined to release the petitioner
prematurely.
4. The record bears out that the petitioner was convicted under
Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code for raping a minor. The petitioner
has completed 18 years of actual imprisonment and Shri Kadu submits
that if remissions are taken into account, then this period will be about
23 years.
5. The petitioner's application for per-mature release was
referred to the learned Sessions Judge, who has opined on 19.07.2014
that the case of the petitioner can be considered in terms of Guidelines
dated 15.03.2010. The learned Sessions Judge has referred to Category
8(b) of the Guidelines which provides that the prisoner guilty of rape of
minor can be considered for per-mature release upon completion of 20
years of imprisonment including remissions subject to a minimum of 14
years of actual imprisonment including the set off period.
6. By the impugned order, the petitioner's request for pre-
mature release was simply rejected by observing that crime committed
by the petitioner is quite serious and therefore, no leniency is warranted.
This, according to us, is not a correct approach. This approach is also
3 37-wp-307-20j.odt
contrary to what the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in the case of
State of Harayana Vs. Jagdish [AIR 2010 SC 1690] in para no. 37:-
"37. Liberty is one of the most precious and cherished
possessions of a human being and he would resist forcefully any
attempt to diminish it. Similarly, rehabilitation and social
reconstruction of life convict, as objective of punishment become
of paramount importance in a welfare state. "Society without
crime is a Utopian theory". The State has to achieve the goal of
protecting the society from convict and also to rehabilitate the
offender. There is a very real risk of revenge attack upon the
convict from others. Punishment enables the convict to expiate his
crime and assist his rehabilitation. The Remission policy manifests
a process of reshaping a person who, under certain circumstances,
has indulged in criminal activity and is required to be
rehabilitated. Objectives of the punishment are wholly or
predominantly reformative and preventive. The basic principle of
punishment that "guilty must pay for his crime" should not be
extended to the extent that punishment becomes brutal. The
matter is required to be examined keeping in view modern
reformative concept of punishment. The concept of "Savage
Justice" is not to be applied at all. The sentence softening schemes
have to be viewed from a more human and social science oriented
approach. Punishment should not be regarded as the end but as
only the means to an end. The object of punishment must not be
to wreak vengeance but to reform and rehabilitate the criminal.
More so, relevancy of the circumstances of the offence and the
state of mind of the convict, when the offence was committed, are
the factors, to be taken note of."
7. Shri Kadu points out that in a similar circumstance, this
Court has also ordered the pre-mature release of the prisoner in terms of
the Guidelines that are applicable in this case.
4 37-wp-307-20j.odt
8. In this case, though we agree with the Authorities that the
crime committed by the petitioner was serious still, having regard to the
Guidelines for the exercise of powers of pre-mature release, we think
that the petitioner is entitled to be categorized under 8(b) of the
Guidelines dated 15.03.2010 and to be considered for pre-mature
release after 20 years. This period of 20 years includes remission. There
is no doubt that the petitioner has undergone 14 years of actual
imprisonment. The record bears out that the petitioner had undergone
18 years of actual imprisonment. The Sessions Judge, who convicted the
Petitioner, has also not objected to the pre-mature release in terms of the
guidelines.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, we quash and set aside the
impugned order dated 01.06.2019 and we direct the concerned
Respondent/Authorities to consider the petitioner's case as covered
under category 8(b) of the Guidelines dated 15.03.2010 and issue
necessary orders for his premature release within four weeks from today.
The Respondents/Authorities will verify the details of the actual
imprisonment and remission before making orders.
10. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be
no order as to costs.
5 37-wp-307-20j.odt
11. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
(PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.) (M. S. SONAK, J.)
RR Jaiswal
