Bombay High Court
Umesh S/O Jagnu Sarjare vs State Of Mah. Thr. Chief Secretary ... on 21 June, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Amit B. Borkar
1 crwp174.21.odt
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.174/2021
Umesh s/o Jagnu Sarjare,
Aged 33 years, C-483, detained in
Open Prison, Morshi, District Amravati. .....PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. The State of Maharashtra through
Chief Secretary of Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Superintendent of Open Prison,
Morshi, Dist. Amravati. ...RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms Radha Mishra Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S. M. Ghodeswar, A.P.P. for respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:-V. M. DESHPANDE AND AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ
DATED :- 21.06.2021
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : V. M. Deshpande, J.)
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging
the order passed by respondent no.1 dated 15.01.2021 whereby
case of the petitioner was categorized, in view of the guidelines
dated 11.05.1992 as category no.3(c) and as per guideline dated
2 crwp174.21.odt
15.03.2010, category no. 4 (e) and ruled that the petitioner is
required to undergo 26 years of imprisonment.
3. Heard Ms Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and
Mr. Ghodeswar, learned A.P.P. for respondent-State. Also perused
the reply filed by the respondents.
4. According to the submission made by learned counsel
for petitioner, petitioner ought to have been categorized under
category 3 (a) as per the guidelines of 1992 and 4 (a) of
guidelines dated 15.03.2010 and submitted that petitioner has to
be released after completion of 20 years. She submits that as on
today, petitioner has already completed 23 years of imprisonment
inclusive of all the remissions.
5. In paragraph 11 of the judgment in Sessions Case
No.342/2006, dated 29.03.2008, which is affirmed by this Court
in criminal appeal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, in
paragraph 11 observed thus:
"11. As to Point no.1:- Homicide means
killing of man by another man. In this case, the
prosecution has filed spot panchanama. Inquest
3 crwp174.21.odt
panchanama, injury certificate, advance death
certificate as well as postmortem examination report
and it is concluded from it that there were total 17
external injuries and corresponding internal injuries
on the dead body. Moreover, the death of the
deceased was ocurred due to traumatic and
haemorrhagic shock as a result of cut throat injury
associated with blunt injury head and the postmortem
examination report which is at Exh.52 clearly shows
external as well as internal injuries on the dead body
which were also caused by sharp edged weapon.
Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that the
prosecution has proved that the death of the deceased
was homicidal."
Reading of the judgment delivered by learned
Additional Sessions Judge further reveals that in paragraph 33 of
the said judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has
specifically observed as under:
"....So no doubt it is crystal clear from the oral as well
as documentary evidence that the prosecution has
proved that the accused had intentionally caused
grievous and severe hurt on the neck of Bablu and
then who succumbed to it..."
6. This judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge
is affirmed in appeal in entirety.
4 crwp174.21.odt
Thus, it is clear that finding recorded by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge that there was premeditation on the
part of the petitioner and he resorted to exceptional violence while
committing murder, is affirmed.
7. In that view of the matter, as per the guidelines of
1992, the case of the petitioner will fall in clause (c) of category 3
of the guidelines of 1992 and clause (e) of category 4 of
guidelines of 2010.
8. In view of above, we see that the respondents have not
committed any error in placing the petitioner as placed in the
impugned order. No case is made out. The writ petition is,
therefore, dismissed.
Rule is discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
kahale
