Bombay High Court
Pratap Dinkar Chavan (C-5142) vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 23 February, 2022
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
crwp1436.21
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1436 OF 2021
Pratap Dinkar Chavan (C-5142) ...Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents
.....
Mrs. Manjushri V. Narwade h/f Mr. V. P. Narwade, Advocate for the
petitioner
Mr. S. J. Salgare, A.P.P. for respondent State
.....
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
SANDIPKUMAR. C. MORE, JJ.
DATED : 23rd FEBRUARY, 2022
ORDER (PER V. K. JADHAV, J.) :-
1. By consent of the parties, heard finally at admission stage.
2. The petitioner is convicted vide judgment and order dated
28.8.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions
Case No. 38 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Section 302
r.w. 34 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment of life.
The learned Sessions Judge held that accused Nos. 1 to 6, including
the petitioner, in furtherance of their common intention, have
committed murders of two persons on account of previous enmity.
The appeal bearing criminal appeal No. 1102 of 2007 preferred
against the said judgment and order came to be dismissed by this
Court on 23.12.2015.
crwp1436.21
3. The petitioner claims that he has undergone 15 years and 4
months of actual imprisonment, and including the remission, he has
undergone approximately 23 years of imprisonment.
4. The petitioner's proposal for premature release came to be
submitted to respondent No.1 in terms of provisions of Section 432 of
Cr.P.C. By the impugned order dated 11.11.2020, the respondent
No.1 has put the petitioner in 'category 3(d) - 26 years of
imprisonment' in terms of guidelines of the year 1992 and 'category
4(e) - 26 years of imprisonment' in terms of guidelines of the year
2010. The petitioner is accordingly directed to undergo 26 years of
imprisonment. Hence, this writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the
ratio laid by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and
others VS. Jagdish, reported in AIR 2010 SC 1690, the petitioner
convict would be entitled for the benefit as per the guidelines which
are favourable to him. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is
required to be placed in 'category 3(b)-24 years of imprisonment' in
terms of guidelines of the year 1992 as the crime has been
committed with premeditation. Learned counsel submits that the
petitioner should not have been placed in category 3(d) of the
guidelines of the year 1992 and 4(e) of the guidelines of the year
2010 because it provides punishment for murder committed with
crwp1436.21
premeditation and with exceptional violence or perversity.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conduct of
the petitioner in jail is good and he is therefore shifted to open jail at
Paithan, district Aurangabad to undergo remaining part of sentence.
Learned counsel submits that thus the impugned order is liable to be
quashed and set aside. Learned counsel submits that the
respondent needs to be directed to place the petitioner in 'category
3(b)-24 years of imprisonment' in terms of guidelines of the year
1992 and 'category 4(d)-24 years of imprisonment' of guidelines of
2010.
7. Learned A.P.P. for the respondents submits that the petitioner
was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 r.w. 34
of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment by the learned
Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case No. 38 of 2007 by
judgment and order dated 28.8.2007. By the impugned order dated
11.11.2020 the respondent has placed the petitioner in category No.
3(d) of 1992 guidelines and 4(e) of the 2010 guidelines for premature
release.
Learned A.P.P. submits that the learned Sessions Judge has
made observation in para 50 of the judgment in detail. The relevant
portion of the same is reproduced herein below
crwp1436.21
"50. ....... Here, in this particular case, two persons
who were in the twenties were brutally murdered, leaving
behind parents, as far as the case of deceased Sanjay
Arun Potdar is concerned and wife as far as the case of
deceased Somnath Ramchandra Sankpal is concerned.
....."
8. Learned A.P.P. submits that in terms of provisions of Section
432 (2) of Cr.P.C., the learned Sessions Judge, Sangli has submitted
his opinion in tabular form and also mentioned that the incident is
very serious so as not to release the petitioner with remission.
Learned A.P.P. submits that the respondent has considered the
proposal of the petitioner for premature release and decided that the
petitioner should be released after 26 years subject to completion of
actual imprisonment of 14 years.
9. Learned A.P.P. submits that there are four guidelines available
for premature release of the convict, those are (i) 16.11.1978, (ii)
11.5.1992, (iii) 11.4.2008 and (iv) 15.3.2010. Learned A.P.P. submits
that in terms of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case
of State of Haryana and others vs. Jagdish (supra), the State has
to exercise its powers of remission in terms of the liberal policy
prevails on the date of consideration of the case of a 'lifer' for
premature release.
10. Learned A.P.P. submits that the petitioner, alongwith co-
crwp1436.21
accused, assaulted deceased Sanjay and deceased Somnath with
sickle and knife which resulted into their death. The petitioner and
other co-accused persons committed brutal murders with exceptional
violence. Learned A.P.P. submits that there is no substance in this
writ petition.
11. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Jagdish (supra) the
Supreme court in para 43 of the judgment has made following
observations:-
"43. ..... The High Court, therefore, in our opinion, was
absolutely justified in arriving at the conclusion that the
case of the respondent was to be considered on the
strength of the policy that was existing on the date of his
conviction. State authority is under an obligation to at least
exercise its discretion in relation to an honest expectation
perceived by the convict, at the time of his conviction that
his case for premature release would be considered after
serving the sentence, prescribed in the short sentencing
policy existing on that date. The State has to exercise its
power of remission also keeping in view any such benefit
to be construed liberally in favour of a convict which may
depend upon case to case and for that purpose, in our
opinion, it should relate to a policy which, in the instant
case, was in favour of the respondent. In case a liberal
policy prevails on the date of consideration of the case of a
'lifer' for pre-mature release, he should be given benefit
thereof."
crwp1436.21
12. In the case of Sharafat Ali vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another the Supreme Court in writ petition (Criminal) No. 439 of
2021 has laid down the same principles by referring the view
expressed in the case of State of Haryana vs. Jagdish (supra).
13. The petitioner claims that he is required to be placed in
'category 3(b)-24 years of imprisonment' in terms of guidelines of
1992, the same is reproduced herein below:-
Categories 3 (a) and (b) of 1992 Guidelines
"3) MURDER FOR OTHER REASONS:-
a) Where a murder is committed in
the course of a quarrel without
premeditation in an individual
capacity and where the person
has no previous criminal history. : 22 years
b) As at (a) above but with premeditation
or by a gang : 24 years"
Or in terms of category 4(d) of the guidelines of 2010 which is
reproduced herein below:-
"4. MURDERS FOR OTHER REASONS
(a) to (c) .....
(d) Murder committed by more than
one person/group of persons. : 24 years"
crwp1436.21
14. We have carefully gone through the judgment and order of
conviction passed by the Sessions Judge, Sangli. There were two
murders committed by six accused persons including the petitioner
with premeditation in furtherance of their common intention. They
have freely used the weapon sickle (scythe) and knife in assaulting
deceased Sanjay and deceased Somnath. Deceased Sanjay had
sustained 29 injuries and deceased Somnath had sustained 12
injuries on various parts of their bodies. Internal corresponding
injuries are mentioned in column Nos 19 and 20 of their respective
post mortem reports. The learned Sessions Judge has made
observation in para 50 of the judgment in detail. The relevant portion
of the same is mentioned herein below:-
"50. .... Here, in this particular case, two persons
who were in the twenties were brutally murdered. ...."
The learned Sessions Judge, Sangli, in terms of provisions of
Section 432(2) of Cr.P.C. has also given his opinion in the tabular
form and also mentioned that the incident is very serious so as not to
release the petitioner with remission.
15. In view of the same and in terms of the guidelines dated
11.5.1992 respondent No.1 has rightly placed the petitioner in
crwp1436.21
category 3(d) for 26 years of imprisonment and guidelines dated
15.3.2010 in category 4(e) for 26 years of imprisonment. We find no
substance in this writ petition.
16. So far as the categories as claimed by the petitioner are
concerned, those simply contemplate murder committed by more
than one person, though with premeditation, however, the factor 'with
exceptional violence and/or brutality' is not contemplated in those
categories. We find no substance in this writ petition. Hence, the
following order:-
ORDER
Criminal writ petition is hereby dismissed.
(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) (V. K. JADHAV, J.)
rlj/
