Dismissed

Namdeo Sitaram Bhoir v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Dec 2015WP/1563/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Writ Petition filed by a petitioner convicted under Section 302 IPC challenging an order refusing commutation of death sentence. The High Court held the case fell under Category 2(c) of the Rules due to death by burns, upholding the State Government's decision and dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Rule discharged; no interference with State Government's decision regarding commutation of sentence.

Namdeo Sitaram Bhoir Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

cri wp 1563-14.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1563 OF 2014

¶5

Namdeo Sitaram Bhoir .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra

¶8

.. Respondent

¶9

Appearances

¶10

Mrs. Sonia Miskin	Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
Mrs. A.S. Pai	APP for the State

¶11

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, Acting C.J. & DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.

¶12

DATE : DECEMBER 16, 2015.

¶13

ORAL ORDER [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, A.C.J.] :

¶14

Heard both sides.

¶15

Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶16

The petitioner has been convicted under Section 302 of

¶17

IPC vide Judgment and Order dated 8.3.2002 passed by the

¶18

learned Sessions Court, Kalyan in Sessions Case No. 221 of

¶19

¶20

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 3

¶21

cri wp 1563-14.doc

¶22

The facts of the case are that deceased Pushpa was the wife of the petitioner. The marriage took place about three years prior to the incident. On 26.7.1998, the petitioner poured kerosene on his wife and set her on fire. Pushpa sustained 98% burns and she expired in Kalva Hospital on 31.7.1998 due to the burn injuries. After the petitioner completed 12 years of actual imprisonment, his case was

¶23

referred to the Home Department for commuting his sentence and the Home Department stated that the case of the petitioner falls in Category 2(c). The case of the petitioner is that his case falls in Category 2(b). Category 2 deals with the offences relating to crime against women and minors. Categories 2(a), (b) and (c) reads as under:-

¶24

2		OFFENCES RELATING TO CRIME AGAINST WOMEN AND MINORS
	(a)	Where the convict has no previous criminal history and committed the murder in an individual capacity in a moment of anger and without premeditation.
	(b)	Where the crime as mentioned above committed with premeditation.
	(c)	Where the crime is committed with exceptional violence and or with brutality or death of victim due to burns.

¶25

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 3

¶26

cri wp 1563-14.doc

¶27

In the present case, it is seen that the death of the wife

¶28

of the petitioner took place as the petitioner had set her on fire, hence, the case clearly falls in Category 2(c) and not Category 2(b). Thus, no case is made out for interference in

¶29

the decision taken by the State Government. Hence, rule is discharged.

¶30

Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who

¶31

is in Yerwada Central Prison, Pune.

¶32

Fees be paid to the appointed Advocate as per rules.

¶33

[ DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J ] [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ]

¶34

jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 3

Namdeo Sitaram Bhoir v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Namdeo Sitaram Bhoir v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Devidas @ Aaba Laxman Savale-Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashok Bhagwan Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Atul Suryakant Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amit Deepak Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Amit Deepak Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Balkrishna Laxman Mhatre Vs the State of Maharashtra