Allowed

Dilip Maroti Thorat v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secty. and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Mar 2013WP/8/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Division Bench interpreted State Government Guidelines for premature release of life sentence prisoners. Quashing an order imposing 24 years imprisonment, the Court held that with five co-accused acquitted, the murder could not be attributed to common intention under Section 34 IPC, warranting release after 22 years.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order dated 1.10.2012 and directed the respondent to pass a fresh order granting release after 22 years.

Dilip Maroti Thorat Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 Cri. W.P.No. 8.2013

¶2

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

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 8 OF 2013.

¶4

Dilip Maroti Thorat,

¶5

Convict No. C/73, Open Prison, Morshi, Distt: Amravati.

¶6

...PETITIONER.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1.The State of Maharashtra,

¶9

Through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya

¶10

Mumbai.

¶11

2.The Superintendent, Open Prison, Morshi, Distt: Amravati.

¶12

.. RESPONDENTS .

¶13

Ms. Sulbha Saikhede, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner. Mrs. K.S.Joshi, A.P.P. for the respondents. .

¶14

CORAM: A.P.LAVANDE & A.B.CHAUDHARI,JJ DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 6.3.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGEMENT : 8.3.2013

¶15

JUDGMENT (PER A.P.LAVANDE, J)

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP

¶17

appearing for the respondents.

¶18

2 Cri. W.P.No. 8.2013

¶19

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

¶20

The petitioner challenges the order dated 1.10.2012 passed by the respondent no.1, by which the petitioner has been ordered to undergo total period of 24 years imprisonment including remissions. The petitioner was accused no.1 in Sessions Trial no. 108/1998 before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur. By the Judgment and order 25.5.2000, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused nos. 3 to 6 and convicted the accused no.1 Dilip Maroti Thorat (petitioner herein) and accused no.2 Mohan Tulshiram Thorat. Two appeals were preferred by the accused being Criminal Appeal Nos. 220/2000 and 221/2000 respectively. The Division Bench of this Court by Judgment and order dated 8.4.2005, allowed the appeal filed by accused no.2 Mohan and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein and maintained his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

The State Government had framed Guidelines for premature release under the “14 Year Rule” of Prisoners Serving Life Sentence. There is no serious dispute that Guidelines dated 11th May, 1992 are applicable in the present case inasmuch as the petitioner was convicted in the year 2000 and the appeal was dismissed in the year 2005 and as such the new Guidelines dated 15th March, 2010 are not attracted. In

¶22

3 Cri. W.P.No. 8.2013

¶23

any case, there is no substantial difference between the two Guidelines viz. Guidelines dated 11th May, 1992 and 15th March, 2010. It is the case of the petitioner that he ought to have been categorized under guideline no. 3(a) and not 3(b). Guideline nos. 3(a) and 3(b) read thus:

¶24

“ 3 (a): Where a murder is committed in the course of

¶25

a quarrel without premeditation in an individual capacity and where the person has no previous criminal history ----- 22 years.”

¶26

“3(b) : As at (a) above but with premeditation or by a gang ---- 24 years.”

¶27

According to Ms. Saikhede, the learned counsel for the petitioner, since accused no.2 Mohan Thorat was acquitted, the necessary sequitur is that the petitioner alone had committed murder and as such guideline no. 3(a) is applicable. However, according to Mrs. Joshi, learned APP, guideline no. 3(b) is attracted since the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 220/2000 discloses that the Division Bench relied upon the dying declaration, in which the deceased had stated that he was assaulted with knife by Dilip Thorat and two unidentified persons.

¶28

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and

¶29

¶30

4 Cri. W.P.No. 8.2013

¶31

perused record.

¶32

Perusal of the impugned order dated 1.10.2012 discloses that same has been passed on the basis of the Judgment and order dated 25.5.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, in which the petitioner and another accused were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The impugned order does not make reference to the Judgment and order passed by the appellate court which ought to have been considered by the respondent no.1 inasmuch as after the appeal filed by the accused no.2 was allowed, the conviction of the petitioner could not have been said with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In any case, all other five accused having been acquitted, it is difficult for us to hold that in the commission of murder two or more persons were involved. Therefore, in our view, guideline no. 3(a) and not 3(b) referred to above, is clearly attracted. Consequentially, the petitioner is liable to be released after undergoing total period of 22 years imprisonment including remissions. Hence, the following order.

¶33

Order.

¶34

i) The impugned order dated 1.10.2012 passed by the

¶35

respondent no.1 is quashed and set aside and the respondent no.1 is

¶36

5 Cri. W.P.No. 8.2013

¶37

directed to pass fresh order within eight weeks in the light of the

¶38

observations made above.