Bombay High Court
Anilkumar @ Lapetu Ramshakal Sharma vs State Of Maharashtra on 1 February, 2024
Author: A.S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2024:BHC-AS:8519-DB
V.A. Tikam 5- WP 198 of 2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 198 OF 2024.
Anilkumar @ Lapetu Ramshakal Sharma
Occupation : Tailoring, Age : 38 years,
R/o. Vishwas Saloon, Tin Dongri,
Yeshwant Nagar, Opp. Hanuman Mandir,
Goregaon (W), Mumbai - 400 062. .... Petitioner
vs.
1) The State of Maharashtra
through it's Chief Secretary, Mantralaya,
(at the instance of Goregaon Police
Station in C.R.187/2005)
2) Additional Director of Police and
Inspector General of Prison Correction and
Rehabilitation, Maharashtra State, Pune - 01
3) Superintendent Jail, Yerwada Central
Prison, Pune - 06. .... Respondents
Mr. Prosper D'souza for the Petitioner.
Mr.J.P. Yagnik, APP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: A. S. GADKARI AND
SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.
DATE : 1st FEBRUARY, 2024
Oral Judgment (Per : A.S. Gadkari, J.) :-
1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by the consent of
learned Advocates, taken up for final hearing.
2) Heard Mr. D'souza, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr.
Yagnik, learned APP for the State. Perused record produced before us.
V.A. Tikam 5- WP 198 of 2024.doc
3) By the present Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of
India, the Petitioner has impugned Order dated 17 th May, 2023 passed by the
Additional Secretary, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra under
Section 432 of Criminal Procedure Code, thereby placing the Petitioner in
category 4(d) of Guidelines dated 15th March, 2010 and in category 3(b) of
Guidelines dated 11-5-1992 issued by the said Department. By the said
Order, the Petitioner has been directed to undergo 24 years of imprisonment
including remission.
4) Record reveals that, the Petitioner is convicted by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, in Sessions Case No.511 of
2005 by its Judgment and Order dated 26th June, 2007 under Sections 302
and 307 of the IPC. He is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life under
Section 302 of the IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years
under Section 307 of the IPC.
4.1) The allegation against Petitioner is that, deceased Sanjay was
having love affair with the sister of the Petitioner namely Miss Sunita and
due to the said fact, there were quarrels between the Petitioner and Sanjay
on earlier two occasions. Petitioner was harbouring a belief that, Sanjay was
spoiling the life of his sister. On the date of incident i.e. on 28 th March, 2005
at about 09:30 p.m., Bablu (PW-1), Sanjay (deceased) and Jiledar (PW-2)
V.A. Tikam 5- WP 198 of 2024.doc
had been to the dispensary of Mr. Sarfaraj, an Ayurvedic Doctor for
treatment of the injury sustained by Jiledar. As Mr. Sarfaraj was not available
at the said place, all of them were waiting outside of his dispensary. At that
time, the Petitioner and Accused No.2 told Bablu (PW-1) that, his brother
Sanjay was spoiling the life of the sister of Petitioner and therefore they
would cut him. Petitioner and Accused No.2 were carrying swords with
them. Petitioner immediately assaulted Sanjay and co-accused Shabir
assaulted Jiledar (PW-2). Bablu (PW-1) tried to intervene, however the
Petitioner gave threats to him and other persons, who were present at the
scene of offence not to come forward to save them. Due to the injuries
suffered by Sanjay, he fell on the ground and thereafter the Petitioner and
co-accused ran away from the scene of offence.
4.2) As the prosecution was successful in proving the charges framed
against the Petitioner, the trial Court by its Judgment and Order dated 26 th
June, 2007, was pleased to convict and sentenced the Petitioner as noted
above.
4.3) The Criminal Appeal No. 720 of 2007 preferred by the
Petitioner has been turned down by this Court by its Judgment and Order
dated 19th August, 2015. The Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(s).
34099/2018 against the Judgment and Order passed by this Court dated
V.A. Tikam 5- WP 198 of 2024.doc
19th August, 2015 has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by
its Order dated 08/10/2018.
5) In the backdrop of these admitted facts, as per the procedure,
the Jail Administration sought opinion of the Learned Judge of the trial
Court, before placing him in a suitable category for undergoing sentence as
contemplated under Section 432 of Cr.P.C. The learned Judge of the trial
Court opined that, the act committed by the Petitioner falls within the
purview of Category 4(d) of 2010 Guidelines issued by the Government of
Maharashtra. The Respondent No.1 before passing the impugned Order
dated 17th May, 2023, has also taken into consideration, not only the facts of
the present case, but also the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Jagdish [AIR 2010 Supreme
Court, 1690] and has given suitable benefit to the Petitioner while
categorizing and placing him in Category 4(d) of the 2010 Guidelines.
6) Mr. D'souza, learned Advocate for the Petitioner contended that,
in view of the above facts of this case instead of the Petitioner being placed
in Category 4(d), he ought to have been placed in Category 3(b). He further
submitted that, if this Court is not inclined to place the Petitioner in
Category 3(b), he may be given benefit of Category 4(b) of 2010 Guidelines,
so that the Petitioner will have to undergo lesser period in incarceration.
V.A. Tikam 5- WP 198 of 2024.doc
7) Category 3(b) of Government Resolution No. RLP No.
1006/CR621/PRS-3 dated 15th March, 2010 reads as under :-
Category Categorisation of Crime Period of Imprisonment to be
no. undergone remissions
subjected to a minimum of 14
years of actual Imprisonment
including Set-off period
3. Murder arising out of land
dispute, family fueds, family
prestige and superstition
with premeditation, either
individually or by gang
8) According to us Category 4(b) of 2010 Guidelines is not at all
applicable to the Petitioner and therefore accepting and considering the said
submission does not arise at all.
9) A plain reading of Category 3 of 2010 Guidelines indicates that,
it postulates murder arising out of land disputes, family feuds, family
prestige and superstition. Category 4 of said Guidelines speaks for murder
for other reasons and sub-category (d) deals with murder committed by
more than one person / group of persons.
10) In the present case, there is no finding recorded by all the three
Courts that, the Petitioner committed murder of Sanjay out of family
prestige or family fued. As noted earlier, the Petitioner was harbouring a
belief that, deceased Sanjay was having an affair with his sister and he was
V.A. Tikam 5- WP 198 of 2024.doc
trying to spoil her life. Therefore he along with co-accused committed
murder of Sanjay and assaulted Jiledar (PW-2) on the date and time of
incident.
11) As noted earlier, in the present case, the Petitioner along with
co-accused has committed murder of Sanjay and therefore, the Respondent
has rightly and correctly placed him in Category 4(d) of the 2010
Guidelines.
11.1) After perusing record and taking into consideration the facts of
present case, we find no legal infirmity in the impugned Order.
12) Petition is dehors of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK,J.) (A. S. GADKARI, J.)
