Ravikiran Hanumant Shelke ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5640 Bom

                                                         Cri.W.P. No.1583/2022
                                        :: 1 ::


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1583 OF 2022


 Ravikiran Hanumant Shelke
 (convict No. C/288) Age 45, Occu. Nil,
 R/o at present Visapur Open Prison,
 District Ahmednagar                              ... PETITIONER

          VERSUS

 1)       The State of Maharashtra,
          through the Secretary,
          Home Department,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032

          (Copy to be served on P.P., High Court
          of Judicature of Bombay,
          Bench at Aurangabad)

 2)       The Superintendent,
          Visapur Open District Prison,
          Village Visapur, Dist. Ahmednagar       ... RESPONDENTS

                                   .......
 Ms Sharada P. Chate, Advocate for petitioner
 Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, A.P.P. for respondents
                                  .......

                           CORAM :      R.G. AVACHAT AND
                                        SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.

                           DATE     :   15th JUNE, 2023
 ORDER:

Heard. The challenge in this petition is to the order

dated 4/2/2022, placing the petitioner in Category 2(c) of the

guidelines for grant of remission dated 15/3/2010. Clause 2(c) of

the guidelines dated 15/3/2010, which correspond with Category

1(e) of the guidelines dated 11/5/11992, comparison between these

Cri.W.P. No.1583/2022 :: 2 ::

two guidelines, the later one is favourable to the petitioner and,

therefore, the same was applied.

2. Category 2(C) of the guidelines dated 15/3/2010 reads

thus :

   Cate-     Sub-          Caterogisation of Crime    Period of imprisonment to be
   gory      Cate-                                        undergone including
    No.      gory                                        remissions subject to a
                                                        minimum of 14 years of
                                                          Actual Imprisonment
                                                        including Set-off period
  2                  Offences relating to crime
                     against Women and Minors

            (c)      Where the crime is committed      26 years
                     with exceptional violence and/or
                     with brutality or death of victim
                     due to burns.




 3.               The petitioner committed murder of his wife.                      The

learned A.P.P. relies on the judgment of this Court in Criminal

Appeal No.215/1999, whereby the conviction of the appellant for

the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code

has been confirmed. The learned A.P.P. took us through para 14 of

the judgment in the appeal to submit the petitioner to have

committed a murder of his wife with exceptional violence and/ or

with brutality. The learned A.P.P. would further submit that, there is

an eye witness account, suggesting the petitioner to have kicked in

Cri.W.P. No.1583/2022 :: 3 ::

the back of the deceased, held her hair and dragged her to the

house. The same indicates how violent the petitioner was. Relying

on the extract from Modi's Medical Jurisprudence, he would submit

that, a simple kick would not be sufficient to cause rupture of a

spleen. According to him, the petitioner might have given forceful

kicks, as a result of which his wife died. According to learned

A.P.P., the respondent/ State has, therefore, rightly placed the

petitioner in Category 2(c) of the guidelines. He, therefore, urged

for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. We have perused the judgment in appeal. Admittedly,

it was a case based on circumstantial evidence. What the witness

Mangal has testified was in the nature of a prelude to the incident.

It is not known as to whether a single kick would have proved fatal

or the petitioner was required to give more than one kick to commit

murder of his wife. Admittedly, the deceased did not suffer any

external injury. Although the impact was fatal, it is just difficult to

observe that the petitioner has committed murder of his wife with

exceptional violence or brutality. Our observations are mainly

based on the basis that the case is based on circumstantial

evidence. In our view, therefore, the petitioner ought to have been

placed in Category 2(b) above.

5. For the aforesaid reasons, we direct the petitioner to be

Cri.W.P. No.1583/2022 :: 4 ::

placed in Category 2(b) instead of Category 2(c) and he be

extended the necessary benefits in terms of this order.

6. With these observations, the petition stands disposed

of. The State Government shall take appropriate decision in the

light of this order within a period of four weeks from today.

(SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (R.G. AVACHAT, J.)

fmp/-