1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.630 OF 2010 Prabhakar s/o.Panda Reddy (Kasale) Age-60 years, Occu-NIL, R/o.At present in Paithan Open Prison, Dist.Aurangabad (Convict No.4082) PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary Department of Home, M.S.Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Superintendent, Open Prison, Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad RESPONDENTS Mr.S.M.Ganachari, learned counsel for the petitioner. (Appointed) Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 21/09/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2 2. A communication sent by the petitioner through jail came to be registered as Criminal Writ Petition and this Court had accordingly appointed Adv.Shri.S.M.Ganachari to represent the petitioner in this petition before us. 3. The limited grievance of the petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India is that the petitioner ought to have been placed in category 1(c) instead of category 1(d). Category 1(c) of the guidelines provides imprisonment upto 24 years where the crime is committed against the aggrieved person without premeditation, while category 1(d) provides imprisonment for 26 years where the crime is committed with premeditation. 4. In order to resolve the tangle as to whether the case of the petitioner would fall in category 1(c) or 1(d), we had requested the learned A.P.P. to provide us with the copy of the judgment of the Trial Court in Sessions Trial No.85/1997 which was decided by the Trial Court on 14/01/1998. 5. The learned A.P.P. has accordingly provided us with the copy of judgment of the Trial Court. Perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court reveals that deceased was a concubine of the present petitioner. The petitioner had taken some money from her house and when the deceased had questioned him as to why he is taking the amount, the petitioner had assaulted her with fist and slaps, and thereafter had poured kerosene on her and set her at ablaze. The 3 facts as can be culled out from the judgment of the Lower Court, do not reveal that the crime was committed by the petitioner with premeditation. The indications are obviously clear that the crime had been committed in the sudden heat of passion and had not been committed after due pre-planning. In that light of the matter, therefore, according to us, the petitioner would be entitled to be placed in category 1(c) i.e. the crime being committed without premeditation instead of category 1(d) in which the petitioner is presently placed. 6. In that light of the matter, therefore, we allow this writ petition and quash the placing of the petitioner in category 1(d) and direct that the case of the petitioner be placed in category 1(c) i.e. the crime being committed without premeditation, having a period of imprisonment of 24 years. 7. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. We quantify the fees payable to the learned counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs.1,500/-. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/SEPT. 2010/cri.w.p.630-10