Abdul Sayeem a. Bashir, Convict No. C 208 v. the State of Mah. Thr. Secretary, Home Department and Anr.

Bombay HC13 Dec 2010WP/663/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) considered a challenge to the State Government's categorization of a convicted prisoner. The petitioner argued that injuries sustained during the crime justified a lower sentencing category. The Court rejected the plea, finding no interference required.

What did the court decide?

The petition is rejected; the categorization of 24 years imprisonment is upheld.

Abdul Sayeem a. Bashir, Convict No. C 208 Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

1/4

¶2

1312wp663.10.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 663 OF 2010

¶5

(Abdul Sayeem A. Bashir Vs. The State of Maharashtra & another)

¶6

Office notes, Office Memoranda of

¶7

Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶8

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶9

Petition by post

¶10

Mrs. Sangita Gaikee, APP for the respondents.

¶11

CORAM : A. H. JOSHI & A. R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 13 DECEMBER, 2010.

¶12

1.Heard Mrs. Gaikee, learned Additional

¶13

Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

¶14

2.As per the order dated 27/4/2010 passed

¶15

by the State Government, the case of the
petitioner is treated under category 3(b), for
which the petitioner has to undergo life
imprisonment for the period of 24 years. The
petitioner claims that he should have been
categorized in category 3(a) and should have
been directed to undergo the sentence for 22
years.

¶16

3.The contention of the petitioner to

¶17

claim entitlement for categorization in category

¶18

3(a) is that he had suffered injury, which was

¶19

2/4

¶20

1312wp663.10.odt

¶21

the cause of his retaliating assault and there
was no voluntary attack or premeditation.

¶22

4.Copy of the judgment leading to

¶23

conviction and sentence is on record. We have
read it. We have called upon the learned APP as

¶24

well to demonstrate the manner in which the

¶25

right categorization has to be done. The

¶26

learned APP has brought to our notice the
relevant portion from para 19 of the trial
Court�s judgment. Relevant portion is quoted
below for ready reference :-

¶27

�...The nature and the gravity of the
injuries inflicted and dealt by Shahim
and Rahman is apparent from the
evidence of Medical Officer Dr.
Deshmukh. The nature of the injuries
recorded in the post mortem notes
clearly go to show that they were
penetrating, deep up to the cavity
level and as per the Medical Officer,
injuries to the internal organs could
also be seen. It is further obvious

¶28

from the evidence of the Medical
Officer that the injuries he found were
sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause the death as vital
internal organs like the left lung and
the liver were punctured which
corresponded with the injury found in
the infra-auxiliary region. The extent
of damaged thus is eloquent and appears

¶29

3/4

¶30

1312wp663.10.odt

¶31

to be so grave that the death occured
within a few hours after the sufferance
of these injuries. All these facts
taken together go a long way to show
that the accused Abdul Shahim and Abdul
Rahman and the requisite intention and
had shared the same to cause the death
and commit murder to Abdul Kalam.�

¶32

5.The petitioner wants that this Court
should consider injury suffered by him to be an
extenuating circumstance which aspect was also
considered by the learned Sessions Judge in
paragraph 12.

¶33

6.We are satisfied that it is not the
case where merely on account of injury suffered
by the accused he should be said to have acted
in self defence and the injury caused by the
accused could at most be excess of self defence.
The evidence on record as appreciated by learned
Sessions Court proves due intention and
premeditation on the part of the petitioner. We
therefore hold that injuries on the person of
petitioner do not bring him out of the blame.

¶34

7.In the result, the categorization done
by the State does not call for any interference.
The petition is rejected.

¶35

4/4

¶36

1312wp663.10.odt

¶37

8.Copy of this order be sent to the
Superintendent, Open Jail, Morshi, who shall
cause the interpretation of contents thereof to
the petitioner.

¶38

9.Steno-copy be supplied to APP for

¶39

communication.

¶40

JUDGE JUDGE

¶41

wwl

Abdul Sayeem a. Bashir, Convict No. C 208 v. the State of Mah. Thr. Secretary, Home Department and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Sayeem a. Bashir, Convict No. C 208 v. the State of Mah. Thr. Secretary, Home Department and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devanand Kisanji Gulabe (for Smt. Manjulabai W/O Kisanji Gulabe, Convict No. C 5457) Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division and Anr.

State of Maha. Thru. P.S.O. Vs Bana Nanaiyya Panem

Deepak Sanjab Shinde Vs State of Mah. Thr. P.S.O. Talegaon Dashasar

Mahendra Purushottam Londhe, Convict No. C 8074 Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Divisiona and Anr.

Nirbhayasingh Shamsingh Markam, Convict No. C 7225 Vs the State of Mah. Thr. the Secretary, Home Deptt. and 3 Oths

Soma Ramaji Ghute, Convict No. C 94 Vs the State of Mah. Thr. the Secretary, Home Deptt. and Anr.