High Court · 2025
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Legal Reasoning
34_Cri.WP_1103_2025Supreme Court vide Criminal Appeal No.654 of 2024. By Judgment andorder dated 21.01.2009 the appeal was partly allowed and present petitionerwas held to be guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of theIndian Penal Code and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Therefore,there was no question of death sentence commuted to life imprisonment inthis case. Further, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court inRaosaheb Ramchandra Thombare vs. The State of Maharashtra and anotherin Criminal Writ Petition No.673 of 2017 dated 04.07.2017 and KamlakarTanaji Shinde vs. The State of Maharashtra and another in Criminal WritPetition No.437 of 2025 dated 16.06.2025, wherein it was observed that thesaid category of commuting death sentence to life can be exercised only whenthe Government exercises its powers under Section 433 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure. Here, the State has not exercised any such powers and,therefore, respondent has applied wrong category. The judicial appraisalherein taken cannot be said to have been given by applying mind when thereis already law cleared on this point in Raosaheb Thombare’s (supra) case. Heprays that petitioner be placed in Category – 2(b) of the guidelines dated11.05.1992 as well as 15.03.2010. 4Learned APP supports the order and submits that no interferenceis required. In alternative, he submits that Category – 2(b) will not be 44_Cri.WP_1103_2025applicable taking into consideration role played by petitioner and thedecision that has been rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court. He submits thatat the most, the case would fall under Category – 4(e) of the guidelines dated15.03.2010 i.e. for murder for other reasons when the crime is committedwith brutality. 5Taking into consideration the fact that trial Court had passeddeath sentence and then this Court acquitted petitioner, but then Hon’bleSupreme Court reversed the acquittal by holding present petitioner guilty ofcommitting offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code andsentencing him to imprisonment for life cannot be said to be an act ofcommitting death sentence into life sentence. The position of law in thiscircumstance has been already clarified in Raosaheb Thombare (supra) andthen it was elaborated in this Court in Kamlakar Shinde (supra). Thedifference between powers under Section 432 and 433 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure have not been considered properly by respondent No.2while passing the impugned order dated 09.07.2025 and, therefore, the saidorder deserves to be quashed and set aside to the extent of placement ofpetitioner in Category – 7(a) and 6 (d) of the two respective guidelines. 6Now, the further question would be, under which category the 54_Cri.WP_1103_2025petitioner would fall ? The facts of the case are that one Jaitubai was sisterof present petitioner and niece of original accused No.3. Jaitubai wasmarried to one Madhukar, who was murdered. PW 6 Alpesh was the son ofJaitubai and Madhukar and PW 5 Hema was their daughter. It is stated thatMadhukar had brought one Ramabai, a married woman and had kept in hishouse. The first husband of Ramabai came along with 15 – 20 persons toMadhukar on 15.07.2001 and as per the custom prevailing in theircommunity known as “Zagda System” Madhukar paid amount of Rs.5,051/-i.e. the compensation to the first husband, then Madhukar was allowed tomarry Ramabai. Because of Ramabai the married life of Jaitubai wasdisturbed and, therefore, present petitioner and co-accused were not happy.Further facts of the case are that around 6.30 p.m. on 16.07.2001 Madhukargave alarm to save him, thereupon the neighbouring relatives gathered.Accused Prakash went inside the house and brought two axes, kept one withhim and gave another to present petitioner. Accused No.3 caught hold of legsof Madhukar by means of rope. Accused No.1 cut the left hand and rightfoot. Present petitioner inflicted axe blows on right eyebrow and also nearthe left ear of Madhukar. The blow was with such a force that the blade ofthe axe stuck into the head of Madhukar and handle of the axe was broken,then the present petitioner had brought knife from the house and inflictedblows on the back of Madhukar. In presence of relatives Madhukar was
Arguments
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD4 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1103 OF 2025Ramu @ Remu Sakha Vasave (C-4851),Age 62 yrs., Occ. Convict,R/o at present Open Jail, Paithan,Tq. Paithan, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. … Petitioner… Versus … 1The State of MaharashtraThrough Superintendent,Open Jail, Paithan, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. 2Secretary,Home Department (Prison),Mumbai. … Respondents...Mr. R.A. Jaiswal, Advocate for petitionerMr. V.K. Kotecha, APP for respondent Nos.1 and 2...CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.DATE:10th SEPTEMBER, 2025ORDER :( PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)1Present petitioner challenges the order passed by respondent 24_Cri.WP_1103_2025No.2 dated 09.07.2025, whereby he was placed in Category – 7(a) ofguidelines dated 11.05.1992 and Category – 6(d) as per guidelines dated15.03.2010, which prescribes period of 30 years for release. The petitioneralso prays that he should be put in Category 2(b) as per the guidelines dated11.05.1992 and Category 2(b) of guidelines dated 15.03.2010. 2Heard learned Advocate Mr. R.A. Jaiswal for petitioner andlearned APP Mr. V.K. Kotecha for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 3Learned Advocate appearing for petitioner submits that if weconsider Category – 7 related to death sentence commuted to lifeimprisonment and Category – 6(d) is also prescribing the period of releasefor prisoner whose death sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment.However, in this case, the facts are that petitioner was awarded deathsentence by learned Sessions Court, Nandurbar on 30.04.2002 for the offencepunishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The said Judgmentwas challenged before this Court in Criminal Appeal No.371/2002, whichshould have been also along with confirmation case, but this Court allowedthe appeal and petitioner and two co-accused all of them were acquitted byJudgment and order dated 11.10.2002. Thereafter, the State had preferredthe appeal challenging the acquittal of present petitioner before Hon’ble
Decision
64_Cri.WP_1103_2025brutally assaulted. His arms were severed by means of axe i.e. how themurder appears to have been committed and it was so held by Hon’bleSupreme Court also and, therefore, learned APP is rightly pointing out thatthe case would fall in Category – 4(e) i.e. murders for other reasons wherethe crime is committed with brutality and the period is 26 years. The matterwill not come under the category for murders arising out of land dispute,family feuds, family prestige and superstition, because the brutality is notgetting covered in Category – 3. We, therefore, partly allow the writ petition.Hence, following order. ORDERi)The Writ Petition stands partly allowed.ii)Order passed by respondent No.2 dated 09.07.2025 placing thepetitioner under Category – 7(a) of guidelines dated 11.05.1992 andCategory – 6(d) as per guidelines dated 15.03.2010 is quashed and set aside.iii)We direct respondent No.2 to place the petitioner in Category –4(e) of the guidelines of 15.03.2010. iv)Such order be passed within a period of 15 days from today andfurther consequences will follow.( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. )( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )agd