Ramesh Marutrao Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra
2023 Latest Caselaw 13342 Bom

Bombay High Court

Ramesh Marutrao Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 December, 2023

Author: A. S. Gadkari

Bench: A. S. Gadkari

2023:BHC-AS:39286-DB

                         Manoj                                                      38-WP(ST)-8535-2023.doc


                                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                                  WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 8535 OF 2023

                         Ramesh Marutrao Patil
                         Aged about 54 years
                         R/o Plot No.74, Ruikar Colony,
                         Near Ganpati Temple, Taluka- Karveer,
                         District- Golhapur, State- Maharashtra
                         PIN- 416 005
                         Presently incarcerated as Convict no. C-95
                         at Kilhapur District Open Prison, Kalamba,
                         District- Kohapur. State- Maharashtra                         .. Petitioner
                                  Vs.
                         The State of Maharashtra
                         Through its Home Ministry, Mantralaya,
                         Madame Cama Road, Mumbai- 400001                              .. Respondent

                         Dr. Yug Mohit Choudhary a/w Anush Sheny for the Petitioner.
                         Ms. Mahalakshmi Ganpati APP for State.

                                                             CORAM    : A. S. GADKARI AND
                                                                        SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.
                                                     RESERVED ON      : 18th DECEMBER, 2023
                                                     PRONOUNCED ON     : 22ND DECEMBER, 2023


                         JUDGMENT:

[PER- SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.]

1) Present Petition is filed under Article 14, 21 & 226 of the

Constitution of India, seeking quashing and setting aside of the Order dated

31st July, 2019 whereby the Petitioner has been put under Category 4 (d) of Digitally signed by WAKLE WAKLE MANOJ MANOJ JANARDHAN JANARDHAN Date:

2023.12.22 18:30:25 +0530

Manoj 38-WP(ST)-8535-2023.doc

the 2010 guidelines. Further it is seeking to direct the Respondent to

categorize and release the Petitioner as per Category 3 (b) under Annexure-I

of the 2010 guidelines for life sentence under Section 302 of the Indian

Penal Code.

2) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3) Heard learned counsel Dr. Yug Mohit Choudhary a/w. Anush

Shetty, Advocate for the Petitioner and Ms. Mahalakshmi Ganpati APP for

the State.

4) By the Order dated 31st July, 2019, the Petitioner has been put

in sub-category 4 (d) of 2010 guidelines, which is applicable to cases of

"Murder for other reasons-Murder committed by more than one

person/group of persons". Accordingly, the Petitioner shall undergo 24 years

of imprisonment including all the remissions subject to his conduct is good.

The reasons for putting the Petitioner in the above said categories is that the

offence proved against the Petitioner was committed jointly by use of sharp

edged weapon. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, as per the

prosecution case, the Petitioner along with his co-accused murdered the

deceased for sheltering the killers of his co-accused Dilip Ramchandra

Doiphode's brother. This kind of murder is covered by the sub-category 3 (b)

under Annexure-I of the 2010 guidelines, which is applicable to cases of

"Murders arising out of land disputes, family feuds, family prestige and

Manoj 38-WP(ST)-8535-2023.doc

superstition" which are committed with "premeditation, either individually

or by a gang". It provides for 22 years of imprisonment which the petitioner

has served.

5) In view of the above facts, learned counsel for the Petitioner

vehemently submitted that, it is apparent that there was family feud

between the deceased and the Petitioner, therefore, the Petitioner deserves

to be put in the sub-category 3 (b) as aforesaid and his release, forthwith.

6) In the light of the Affidavit-in-Reply, learned APP submitted that

after considering facts of the case and opinion of various authorities, the

Respondent-State has rightly put the Petitioner in the category 4 (d), as

aforesaid. Hence, there is no substance in the Petition.

7) There is no dispute about the distinction between sub-category

3 (b) & 4 (d), as stated above. The Petitioner and the co-accused with him

murdered the deceased for he sheltered the killers of the brother of the co-

accused with the Petitioner. The learned counsel could not point out any

family relation between the deceased and the Petitioner. In case, the

deceased had not sheltered the murderers of the brother of the co-accused

with the Petitioner, there was no reason for the Petitioner to involve in the

said incident. As such, the Petitioner could have avoided joining his co-

accused in the said incident. Thus, it is clear that the murder of the deceased

was not on account of land disputes, family feuds, family prestige and

Manoj 38-WP(ST)-8535-2023.doc

superstition but premeditated. Hence, this single circumstance takes the case

of the Petitioner away from the category 3 (b), because the murder in

question was committed by more than one person. Consequently, the

Respondent has rightly put the Petitioner in sub-category 4 (d) of the 2010

guidelines.

8) In view thereof, we do not find any substance in the Petition.

Thus, the Petition fails and it is liable to be dismissed. We order accordingly.

9) Writ Petition (ST) No. 8535 of 2023 is dismissed.

(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)                          (A. S. GADKARI, J.)