Ramesh Mohan Verma vs The State Of Maharashtra
2023 Latest Caselaw 5595 Bom

2023:BHC-AS:15942-DB



                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 5554 OF 2021.

               Ramesh Mohan Verma                                         ...Petitioner.
                     Versus
               The State of Maharashtra.                                  ..Respondent.

                                                     ------------

Ms. Saima Ansari - Legal Aid Appointed Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. K.V. Saste APP for the Respondent-State.

------------

                                           Coram :     Nitin W. Sambre &
                                                       Sharmila U. Deshmukh, Jj.
                                           Date      : June 14, 2023.

               P. C. :

1. The petitioner along with three other co-accused was

convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 read with 34

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 vide the judgment dated 31 st July 2008

delivered in Sessions Case No.149 of 2006 and was sentenced to

undergo life imprisonment. The said judgment is confirmed in

Criminal Appeal No. 889 of 2008.

2. Since the conviction is for life, the respondent authorities have

categorised the petitioner to suffer RI for 24 years.

3. The case of petitioner is that he is entitled for benefit

pursuant to the Government Resolution (for short, "GR") dated 15 th

March 2010, as per clause 3(b). According to Ms. Saima Ansari,

patil_sr 1 of 3

learned counsel for the petitioner, the motive attributed to the

petitioner is the commission of crime, i.e., forceful eviction from the

immovable property and, as such, clause 3(b) of the aforesaid GR shall

apply to the case of petitioner.

4. Learned APP while opposing the aforesaid prayer submits that

the categorisation of petitioner is rightly done under clause 4(d) of

the aforesaid GR as the offence is committed by 4 accused persons.

5. We have appreciated the said submissions.

6. The prosecution has examined PW-2 Kishanchandra, father of

deceased Santosh whose forceful eviction was an issue in the

aforesaid trial. Deceased Santosh lost his life while resisting the act

of accused persons of forceful eviction.

7. Considering the aforesaid motive, the case of petitioner, in our

opinion, is covered by clause 3(b) of the GR dated 15 th March 2010

and, as such, he should have been categorised under clause 3(b) of

the said GR, making him suffer imprisonment for a period of 22 years

and not 24 years. As such, the order impugned is modified thereby

categorising the petitioner under clause 3(b) of the aforesaid GR and

it is further ordered that the petitioner shall suffer RI for 22 years

instead of 24 years.

patil_sr 2 of 3

8. The petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.

[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]                        [Nitin W. Sambre, J.]




patil_sr                            3 of 3