Allowed

Ashok Bhagwan Suryawanshi v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Dec 2015WP/2316/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court examined the petitioner's classification for premature release under Bombay Prison Rules. It held that the assault with a grinding stone constituted exceptional violence, categorizing the offense under 2(b) rather than 2(c), thereby fixing the period to be undergone at 22 years. The petitioner was directed for release upon completion of 22 years.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was to be released forthwith upon completing 22 years of imprisonment including remission.

Ashok Bhagwan Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2015) — LawSathi Research

¶1

WP 2316 OF 2014.doc

¶2

vks

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2316 OF 2014.

¶4

Ashok Bhagwan Suryawanshi … Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra …. Respondent.

¶5

Mr. Prashant G. Pandey, for the Petitioner. Mr. A. S. Shitole, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶6

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI ACTING CJ & DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J. DATE : 15th DECEMBER, 2015.

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

Heard both sides.

¶9

Rule.

¶10

Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶11

The petitioner has been convicted under Section 302 of the

¶12

Indian Penal Code for causing death of his younger sister Sindhu @

¶13

Bandi, by assaulting her on the head with a grinding stone. On account

¶14

of assault Sindhu sustained C.L.W. of 3 x 2 x 2cms on occipital region.

¶15

The internal injury due to this external injury was fracture of occipital bone.

¶16

The petitioner had completed 14 years of actual

¶17

¶18

WP 2316 OF 2014.doc

¶19

imprisonment, hence, his case was referred to the Home Department, for premature release. After, considering his case, the petitioner was placed in category “2(c)”. Category 2 deals with offences relating to crime against women and minors. Category 2(a) states as under:-

¶20

“2(a) Where the convict has no previous criminal history and committed the murder in an individual capacity in a moment of anger without premeditation” .

¶21

If a prisoner is categorized in category 2(a), the period of imprisonment to be undergone including remission subject to minimum of 14 years of actual imprisonment including set off period is 20 years.

¶22

Category 2(b) states that when crime as mentioned in category 2(a) is committed with premeditation, then the period would be 22 years.

¶23

Category 2(c) states that when the crime as mentioned in 2(a) is committed with exceptional violence or with brutality or death of the victim is due to burns, the period of imprisonment to be undergone including remission subject to minimum of 14 years of

¶24

actual imprisonment including set off is 26 years.

¶25

¶26

WP 2316 OF 2014.doc

¶27

The petitioner has been placed in category 2(c).

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that looking to the facts of this case, the role played by the petitioner and the injuries sustained by Sindhu @ Bandi, the case of the petitioner would fall in category 2(b).

¶29

The role of the petitioner is that he assaulted his sister Sindhu@ Bandi with grinding stone on the head. He gave Sindhu one blow on the head and injury sustained by Sindhu is already reflected in para (4) above. Looking to all these facts we are of the considered opinion that the case of the petitioner would fall in category 2(b). Hence the period of imprisonment to be undergone

¶30

by the petitioner including remission subject to minimum 14 years of actual imprisonment including set of is 22 years.

¶31

If the petitioner has completed the period of imprisonment of 22 years including remission and he has completed minimum 14 years of actual imprisonment including set off period, the petitioner be released forthwith.

¶32

Rule is made absolute in above terms.

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

WP 2316 OF 2014.doc

¶36

C E R T I F I C A T E

¶37

Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed order.

¶38

Ashok Bhagwan Suryawanshi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Bhagwan Suryawanshi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kisan Pandurang Gawali Vs the Addl. Director Genral and Inspector Genral

Shahnawaj Abdul Kadar Qureshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mohd. Yasin Chhutan Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashok Bhagwan Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Udal Harishchandra Nanak Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Narayan Shirke and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra