Bombay High Court
Dinesh S/O Suresh Dabade vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 17 February, 2025
Author: Revati Mohite Dere
Bench: Revati Mohite Dere
2025:BHC-AS:7772-DB
39-WP-(ST)-18082-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.18082 OF 2024
Dinesh S/o Suresh Dabade
Age: 42 years, Occ: Convict,
R/o Beside Korner Hotel, Naigaon, Satara.
At present undergoing sentence in, Central
Jail Yerwada, Pune .....Petitioner
Vs.
1. State of Maharashtra
Through Superintendent of Jail,
Yerwada, Pune.
2. Secretary,
Home Department (Prison),
Mumbai-400005 ...Respondents
Mr. Rupesh A. Jaiswal, a/w Ms. Anjali Raut, for the Petitioner
Ms. S. S. Kaushik, APP for Respondent-State
Ms. Suvarna Chorge Jailor, Gr. II, Nashik Jail is present.
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 3rd FEBRUARY 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 17th FEBRUARY 2025
JUDGMENT :
- (Per Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.)
1) The Petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside of the
order dated 23rd October 2024 passed by the Respondent No.2, the
39-WP-(ST)-18082-2024.doc
Secretary, Home Department of Prisons and a direction, that the
Petitioner be placed in the category 3(b) of the Guidelines for
Premature Release under the '14 years Rule' of Prisoners serving life
sentence dated 15th March 2010. He seeks further direction to the
Respondent No.2 to decide the premature release application
expeditiously and/or his release.
2) The Petitioner was convicted by the learned Sessions
Judge, Sewri, Mumbai for the offence punishable under Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No.137 of 2005 by judgment
dated 24th March 2006 and is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment.
The Petitioner challenged this judgment passed by the said Court
before this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1097 of 2006. This Court
dismissed the Appeal by judgment and order dated 18 th June 2015 and
held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt
against the Petitioner. This Court has also recorded that the cause of
death was "hemorrhage and shock due to multiple injuries" and that
"injury no.5 - the compound fracture on the head and injury no.6 -
linear abrasion on the neck region, are possible due to assault by hard
and blunt substance, like, the iron rod used in the commission of the
39-WP-(ST)-18082-2024.doc
offence". Thus, this Court has confirmed the said offence to be a
crime committed with exceptional violence.
3) The Petitioner is presently confined in Central Jail
Yerwada, Pune. The Petitioner claims to have undergone 19 years and
2 months of incarceration.
4) It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent No.2 by
the impugned order has placed the Petitioner in Category No.3(d) of
the year 1992 guidelines and in Category No. 4(e) of 2010 guidelines.
According to the Petitioner, his categorization is erroneous and that he
should be applied Category No.3(b) of 2010 guidelines which deal
with crimes committed being murder arising out of land dispute,
family feuds, family prestige and superstition. The period of
imprisonment to be undergone including remission, subject to
minimum of 14 years actual imprisonment including set off period
under this category, is 22 years. He submits that the Respondent No.2
has categorized him in category 4(e) of the 2010 guidelines, which
referred to murders for other reasons where the crime is committed
with exceptional violence. Thus, the Petitioner submits that his
39-WP-(ST)-18082-2024.doc
fundamental right of life and liberty is violated and thus, has filed the
present Petition.
5) Ms. S.S. Kaushik, the learned APP representing the State
from the judgments, brought to our attention the observations in the
impugned order. As is evident, the prosecution has established that the
Petitioner/Accused had caused the death of the deceased, by violently
stabbing him with a knife. There were in all 8 injuries on the person of
the deceased. One injury was umbilicus and had penetrated deeply.
Another injury was at right hypochondria and has also penetrative
deeply. There was also a deep lacerated wound at the middle of the
skull extending to occipital region. The medical evidence revealed that
the injuries were caused by a sharp edged weapon and they were
inflicted with intention to cause death. It was also held that the
offence was premeditated.
6) Juxtaposing the nature of the crime to be exceptionally
violent as found by the Sessions Court and as upheld by this Court
with the categorization of the crime, even going by the Government
guidelines of 15th March 2010, the category no.4(e) shall apply.
39-WP-(ST)-18082-2024.doc
Category no.3(b) as attempted to be projected by the Petitioner
namely, murders arising out of land dispute, family feuds, family
prestige and superstition does not apply.
7) Mr. Rupesh Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in the matter
of Vinod Sontakke v. State of Maharashtra1 to suggest that since the
offence for which the Petitioner is sentenced, arises out of a family
feud, category no.3(b) will apply to him and the category 'Murder for
other Reasons' cannot be invoked. We do not agree with the
proposition as placed by Mr. Jaiswal. The facts of the decision in
Vinod Sontakke (Supra) are distinct from the facts of the present case.
Even going by the argument of the Petitioner that the guidelines which
are beneficial for an accused are to be applied and even if guidelines of
1992 are applied, yet, the sub-category 'Exceptionally Violent' under
the category ''Murder for other Reasons' will apply. Thus, the period
of imprisonment to be undergone by the Petitioner including
remission, subject to minimum of 14 years actual imprisonment
including set off period under this category is 26 years and not 22
years.
1 2024: BHC-AUG:22685-DB
39-WP-(ST)-18082-2024.doc
8) In view of the aforesaid discussion, since the Petitioner has
not completed mandate of 26 years as required under category no.4(e)
of 15th March 2010 guidelines, we are not inclined to direct his
premature release. We find no infirmity in the impugned order dated
23rd October 2023 passed by the Respondent No.2.
9) The Petition is accordingly dismissed and is disposed off as
such.
10) Needless to state, that the Petitioner is at liberty to seek his
release as per the guidelines applicable to him as and when he
undergoes incarceration of the mandated number of years and the
Respondents are at liberty to then consider his application.
11) All parties to act on an authenticated copy of this
Judgment.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)
Digitally
signed by
SHAMBHAVI
SHAMBHAVI NILESH
NILESH SHIVGAN
SHIVGAN Date:
2025.02.17
15:58:49
+0530
