A writ petition filed through jail sought premature release based on life imprisonment guidelines. The court held the petitioner's conviction under Section 392 IPC classified the case under Guideline 5(a), not 3(a), and dismissed the petition as having no merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1wp-141-10
L
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION No.141/2010
Office Notes, OfficeCourt�s or � |
� Judge�s orders |
|---|---|
Memoranda of Coram, |
|
appearances, Court�s |
|
orders or directions and |
|
Registrar�s orders. |
Mr Arfan Sait, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs M.M. Deshmukh, A.P.P., for the State.
CORAM:- D.B. BHOSALE AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE :- 15TH APRIL, 2010.
P.C.:-
1.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P.,for the State.
2.By this petition, through jail, the petitioner is
seeking premature release. He submits that his case is
covered by guidelines 3 (a) of the Guidelines for Premature
Release of Prisoners Sentenced to Life Imprisonment or to
Death Penalty commuted to Life Imprisonment After 18th
December, 1978. According to the jail authorities his case
is covered by guideline 5 (a). Guidelines 3 (a) and 5 (a)
read thus:-
2wp-141-10
L
Categorisation of CrimesPeriod of Imprisonment to
beundergoneincluding
Remissions subject to a
minimum of 14 years of
actualimprisonment
including set off period.
1) ..
2) ..
3) MURDERS FOR OTHER REASONS:
a) Where a murder is committed
in the course of quarrel without
premeditation in an individual
capacity and where the person
has no previous criminal history..22 years.
4) ..
5) MURDERS BY PROFESSIONAL CRIMINALS:
a) Murders committed by dacoits
and robbers in the act of
committing dacoities and
robberies. ..26 years.
3.We have perused the judgment by which the
petitioner has been convicted. From perusal of the judgment,
it is clear that the petitioner was found guilty for the
offence punishable under Section 392 of the I.P.C. The
petitioner has also been convicted under Sections 302, 364,
369 and 201 of the I.P.C. From bare perusal of the judgment,
we are satisfied that the case of the petitioner is covered
under Guideline 5 (a) and not under the Guideline 3 (a) as
claimed by the petitioner. This Court is informed that the
3wp-141-10
L
judgment of the Trial Court has been upheld in the appeal and
it has reached the finality. In the circumstances, we find
no merit in the petition. Petition is dismissed.
(A.R.JOSHI,J) (D.B. BHOSALE,J)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to premature release under Guidelines for Premature Release of Prisoners.
Whether the petitioner's crime falls under Guideline 3(a) or Guideline 5(a) for computation of minimum imprisonment.
Petitioner
State
D.B. BHOCALE
A.R. JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court