Bombay High Court
Lalsingh @ Lalaram Shankar Barela ... vs The State Of Mah., Thr. Its ... on 5 January, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Anil S. Kilor
1 crwp583.19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.583/2019
Lalsingh alias Lalaram Shankar Barela
(Pawara), aged about Major, r/o Barokhadi,
Tq. Sirsi, Dist. Guna, M.P., Presently
detained at Open Prison, Morshi,
Dist. Amravati, Convict No.C-409 .....PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. The State of Maharashtra through
its Secretary, Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Superintendent of Prison,
Open Prison, Morshi, Dist. Amravati,
Maharashtra. ...RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A. A. Pannase, Advocate appointed for petitioner.
Mr. M. J. Khan, A.P.P. for respondents-State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE AND
ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATE:- JANUARY 05, 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: V. M. Deshpande, J.)
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of learned counsel for the parties.
Heard Mr. Pannase, learned counsel for petitioner
appointed through High Court Legal Services Sub Committee,
Nagpur to represent the petitioner and Mr. Khan, learned A.P.P.
for respondents-State.
2 crwp583.19.odt
2. By filing present petition, petitioner is challenging the
order passed by respondent no.1 dated 13.12.2018, by which the
case of the petitioner is categorized as per Sub-clause (d) of clause
(3) of 1992 Policy. The submission of learned counsel for
petitioner is that case of petitioner ought to have been considered
under Sub clause (b) of Clause (3) of 1992 Policy.
3. As per Sub Clause (d) of Clause (3) of 1992 Policy, the
period of imprisonment to be undergone, including remission,
subject to a minimum of 14 years of actual imprisonment
including set off period is 26 years. Whereas, under Sub clause
(b) of clause (3), the said period is 24 years.
As per submission of learned counsel for petitioner,
petitioner has undergone imprisonment of 23 years 2 months 5
days till 30.09.2019.
4. The question is; by which clause case of petitioner will
be governed.
5. The petitioner was tried in Sessions Case No. 84/2004
in the Court of learned 3rd Additional Ad hoc Additional Sessions
3 crwp583.19.odt
Judge, Dhule. In the said trial, the petitioner was tried for an
offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian
Penal Code. In short, case of the prosecution was that on
24.06.2004 in between 01.00 to 01.30 a.m. at village Khambale,
the petitioner gave axe blows on the neck of Mersingh Apsingh
Pawra, who died on the spot itself. At the same time, he also gave
forceful blows of axe on the right and left parital region of head of
Shivram Kalusingh Pawra causing grievous incised wound of 10 X
18 cms, and 8 X 10 cms. After a full fledged trial, the petitioner
was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and
307 of the IPC and he was directed to suffer Life Imprisonments
on both counts.
6. Clause (3) of the 1992 Policy reads thus:
3. Murder for other reasons.
a) .. ..
b) As at (a) above but with premeditation 24 years.
or by a gang.
c) ... ...
d Murder committed with premeditation 26 years.
) and with exceptional violence or
perversity.
It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioner
that the petitioner's case is governed by Sub Clause (b). Plain
4 crwp583.19.odt
reading of Sub Clause (b) shows that it has to be conjointly read
with clause (a). As per clause (a), murder is committed during
the course of a quarrel without premeditation in an individual
capacity. Conjoint reading of clause (b) shows an eventuality
where murder is committed in the course of quarrel with
premeditation or by a gang and such accused will have to suffer
24 years of imprisonment.
7. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show
that the petitioner has committed the gruesome murder during
the quarrel. On the contrary, it is clear that the deceased was in
his deep sleep when he was assaulted. As per clause (d), if the
murder is committed with premeditation and with exceptional
violence or perversity, in such a case, such an accused has to spent
26 years in jail. On the basis of the evidence, the learned Judge
before whom the trial was conducted, recorded a finding that the
petitioner has committed murder of deceased Mersingh Apsing
Pawara, who died on the spot when he was in his deep sleep. He
did not stop there and thereafter he committed offence punishable
under Section 307 of the IPC by assaulting by means of axe on the
injured Shivram Kalusingh Pawara.
5 crwp583.19.odt
8. Thus, in our view, the case of the petitioner is squarely
covered under Sub Clause (d) of clause (3) of 1992 Policy. No
exception can be taken for the same as done by the authority in
categorizing the petitioner. Consequently, the petition must fail.
The petition is therefore dismissed.
Mr. Pannase, learned counsel appointed through High
Court Legal Services Sub Committee, Nagpur, shall be entitled to
professional charges and we quantify it at Rs.2,500/- in addition
to expenses for typing, etc. at Rs.1,500/-.
Rule is discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
kahale
Digitally
signed by
Yogesh
Yogesh Kahale
Kahale Date:
2021.01.06
15:44:51
+0530
