Bombay High Court: In the present case, petitioner, who was convicted in a case by the Court of 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, was seeking release based on the categorization permitted under Annexure-I Category 2(b) of the Government Resolution dated 15-03-2010, issued under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’). The State Government vide its order dated 14-09-2018, refused to extend the benefit of categorization to petitioner as petitioner was Police personnel and had murdered his pregnant wife.
The Division Bench of Nitin W. Sambre* and Vrushali V. Joshi, JJ., opined that only because petitioner was an employee of Police department, and murdered his pregnant wife would not disentitle him to get the benefit of remission which was provided under resolution dated 15-03-2010. The Court held that the State’s refusal to admit petitioner for remission could not be sustained and thus, quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 14-09-2018. The Court categorized petitioner under category 2(b) of Annexure-I appended to the resolution and held that petitioner committed crime with premeditation, therefore, petitioner was liable to undergo 22 years’ imprisonment including remission.
Background
Petitioner got married to the deceased-wife in 1994 and committed an offence of strangulating his wife on 24-02-2001. Petitioner was charged with the offences punishable under Sections 3022, 498-A3, and 304-B4 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) as his wife’s death occurred within seven years of marriage. The Sessions Court convicted petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to be hanged till death. Petitioner was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and was sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs 3,000 and was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC.
Petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court whereas the State Government made a reference for confirmation of death sentence which was decided on 11-08-2003. The appeal against conviction preferred by petitioner was partly allowed thereby converting his punishment to life imprisonment. Petitioner also sought his categorization pursuant to the Resolution issued by the State Government under Section 432 of CrPC, that is, petitioner should be categorized which should make him entitled for the benefit of remission in his punishment, but the said prayer was rejected by order dated 14-09-2018.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that petitioner’s conviction was modified by this Court by its judgment and order dated 11-08-2003 and this Court accepted that petitioner in the capacity of husband strangulated his wife for not fulfilling his demand of dowry.
The Court noted that the State decided not to grant prayer for premature release as (a) petitioner was an employee of Police department; (b) petitioner being a Police personnel, commission of crime of violence with brutality was not expected of him and if released, the same would have an adverse impact on the society; and (c) petitioner murdered his pregnant wife. The Court further noted that to regulate the issue of the powers conferred by the legislation to suspend or remit the sentence, the State issued a resolution dated 15-03-2010, particularly, Category-8 of Annexure-I, which gave liberty to the State Government to decide individual case on merit. The Court stated that Annexure-I depicted that the maximum imprisonment which was prescribed under category (2) in the said resolution was 26 Years, therefore, the intention of the State Government appeared to be to grant remission in sentence to all the categories of convicts and not to deny them the benefit empowered under Section 432 of CrPC.
The Court opined that only because petitioner was an employee of Police department, and he murdered his pregnant wife would not disentitle him to get the benefit of remission which was provided under resolution dated 15-03-2010. The Court stated that no separate category was carved out as an exception to the normal Rules of remission provided under Section 432 of CrPC for a Police personnel committing heinous crime of murdering his pregnant wife.
The Court held that the State’s refusal to admit petitioner for remission could not be sustained and thus, quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 14-09-2018.
The Court opined that it could not be said that petitioner caused his wife’s murder with exceptional violence or with brutality. The Court stated that it was required to be sensitive to the nature of injuries suffered by the deceased and in the present case, the deceased suffered two injuries; one ligature mark on neck and another nail abrasion on the right side of neck. The Court, after considering the said injuries, opined that petitioner’s case could not fall under exceptional circumstances to make him liable to undergo 26 years of imprisonment for murdering his wife with exceptional violence or brutality. Therefore, the Court rejected Additional Public Prosecutor’s contention that petitioner could be categorized under category 2(c) of Annexure-I appended to the resolution dated 15-03-2010.
The Court categorized petitioner under category 2(b) of Annexure-I appended to the resolution and held that petitioner committed crime with premeditation, therefore, petitioner was liable to undergo 22 years’ imprisonment including remission. The Court directed the Jail authorities to appropriately implement the said observations to form an opinion as to whether petitioner had undergone 22 years of imprisonment including remission.
[Pradipsingh Murlidharsingh Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3693, decided on 26-11-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Nitin W. Sambre
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Y. P. Bhelande, Advocate for petitioner (Appointed).
For the Respondents: N. R. Tripathi, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondents/State.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
1. Corresponding Section 473 of the Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
2. Corresponding Section 103(1) of the Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS, 2023’)
