This writ petition challenged the placement of the petitioner under category 4(e) of Criminal Case Guidelines issued by the Maharashtra Government, arguing the murder was not brutal. The Court held the placement was correct based on the High Court's findings.
The Criminal Writ Petition stands rejected.
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.
1230.16WP
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
_____________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders |
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1230 OF 2016
RAFIQ S/O BABU SHAIKH VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for petitioner : Mr. R.A. Jaiswal
Advocate for the Respondents : Mr. D.R. Kale
...
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE & K.K.SONAWANE, JJ. Dated: December 08, 2016
Heard the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner. He submits that the
order by which the petitioner is placed
under category 1(d) of Guidelines dated
11th May, 1992 and category 4(e) of the
Guidelines dated 15th March, 2010 issued
by the Home Department, Government of
Maharashtra, Mumbai is not in consonance
with the findings given by the trial
Court and the High Court. He further
submits that, the murder was not brutal
murder. He further submits that, while
placing the petitioner in category 4(e)
1230.16WP
2
of the guidelines dated 15th March, 2010
issued by the State Government, the
concerned authority has not assigned any
reasons. In fact, the authority bound to
give reasons while placing the convict in
a particular category. At the most, the
petitioner's case could be covered under
category 4(d) since the murder is
committed by more than one person or the
group of persons. Therefore, relying upon
the pleadings in the Petition, grounds
taken therein and annexures thereto, the
learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the Petition may
be allowed.
2.On the other hand, the learned A.P.P.
relying upon the affidavit in reply filed
on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3,
annexures thereto, and more particularly,
the Guidelines dated 11th May, 1992 and
15th March, 2010 issued by the State
Government, submits that the findings
recorded by the trial Court and endorsed
by the High Court with a specific
observation in para 19 onwards would
certainly led to only conclusion that the
petitioner's case falls in category 4(e)
of the guidelines laid down in Government
Resolution dated 15thMarch, 2010.
1230.16WP
3
Therefore, he submits that the Petition
may be rejected.
3.We have given anxious consideration
to the submissions advanced by the
learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned A.P.P.
appearing for the respondents. With their
able assistance, we have perused the
pleadings in the Petition, annexures
thereto, reply filed by the State and
also annexures thereto and the judgment
and order passed by the High Court.
4.It is not necessary for us to give
elaborate reasons. Suffice it to say that
on careful perusal of the reasons
recorded by the High Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 652 of 2004 (Shri Rafik Babu
Shaikh V/s The State of Maharashtra), and
in particular, the discussion about the
medical evidence and also the reasons
from para no.19 onwards, there is no room
for doubt that the murder was brutal in
nature and also it was with violence.
Therefore, the State Authorities have
rightly placed the petitioner under
category 4(e) of the Guidelines dated 15th
March, 2010. It is not in dispute that
the guidelines dated 11th May, 1992 and
1230.16WP
15th March, 2010 both are applicable to
the facts of the present case.
5.For the reasons aforesaid, we are not
inclined to entertain the Petition.
Hence, the Petition stands rejected.
(K.K.SONAWANE, J) (S.S. SHINDE, J)
sga/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's placement under category 4(e) of the State Government Guidelines dated 15th March, 2010 is in consonance with the findings of the trial and High Court.
Whether the concerned authority was bound to assign reasons while placing the convict in a particular category of the Guidelines.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
RAFIQ S/O BABU SHAIKH
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
S.S.SHINDE
K.K.SONAWANE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court