1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.510 OF 2010. Yousuf Kasam Sarodiya, age 49 years, Convict No.6853 in Central Jail Harsool, at Aurangabad. ... PETITIONER. Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra though Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2 The Inspector General of Prisons, Maharashtra State, Pune. 3 The Superintendent, Aurangabad Central Prison, Aurangabad. ... RESPONDENTS. ... Smt. V.V. Raut,Advocate (appointed) for Petitioner. Shri V.D. Godbharle, A.P.P. for respondents. ... CORAM : S.B. DESHMUKH AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. 9th August, 2010. PER COURT: 1. We heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and 2 taken up for hearing by consent of the parties. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: “A) This Criminal Writ Petition may kindly be allowed; B) The Respondent No.1 may directed to release the petitioner as he has completed more than 14 years of actual imprisonment as per the Government guidelines; C) The order of Home Department dated 22nd Feb. 2010 placing the petitioner in the category of item No.1(d) of Government guideline dated 11th May, 1992 may kindly be quashed and petitioner may be fixed in the Appendix in Clause 1(b) of Government guideline dated 11th May, 1992.” 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has undergone more than 17 years actual imprisonment and he is entitled for premature release in view of the guidelines issued by the State 3 Government. In fact, the petitioner is principally aggrieved by the order passed by the respondents holding that the case of the present petitioner is governed by category of item No.1(d) of the Government Guidelines dated 11th May, 1992. The learned Counsel for the petitioner however, submitted that the case of the petitioner can be said to have been governed by item No.1(b) of the said guidelines. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner points out the Government Guidelines dated 11th May, 1992 at Exh.E (page 27 of the compilation). The categories of the guidelines have been mentioned in tabular form. Guideline No.1(b) reads, thus: “1(b) Where the crime as above is committed by the aggrieved person with premeditation.” The period of imprisonment to be undergone including remissions subject to a minimum of 14 years of actual imprisonment including set off period is provided as 24 years. In the case on hand, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, clause 1(b), which requires 24 years period to be undergone 4 by the convict, is actually applicable to the petitioner. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. points out clause 1(d) of the said guidelines which reads, thus: “1(d) Where the crime is committed against the aggrieved person with premeditation.” Here, the period which is required to be undergone is 26 years. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also took us through some newspaper clippings (Page Nos.29 – 30 of the compilation). We have seen these two news items even though copy of the order passed by the Court concerned is not on record. From these news items, we have considered the difference in facts. In response to the petition, affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of the respondents, which is affirmed by one Bharat s/o Mahadeo Bhosle, Addl. Superintendent, Aurangabad Central Prison, Aurangabad. In para 6 of the affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioner was willing to marry Rubina Wazawale, had moved proposal and according to 5 him, the marriage was settled. However, on 27.3.1991, the parents of Rubina had flatly refused to marry Rubina with him since he was unemployed. On next day i.e. on 28.3.1991 at about 4 p.m., Rubina along with utensils went to fetch water from the water tap. At that time, petitioner caught hold of hair of Rubina and gave knife blows on her body, due to which Rubina died. In para 7 of the affidavit, findings made in paras 25 and 26 of the judgment have been referred to. With this background, order passed by the respondent categorizing case of the petitioner under clause 1(d) of the said guidelines has been substantiated. Copy of the judgment is placed on record at Exh.R-1. With the assistance of the learned Counsel present before the Court, we have seen paras 25 and 26 of the judgment. The learned trial Judge has referred to the material brought on record in these two paras and recorded findings that the offence committed by the present petitioner is murder under Section 300 of I.P.C. Seven injuries were noticed by the learned trial Court on the dead body of Rubina. These were stab wounds. Injury Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 were stated to be on vital organ of the dead body. The evidence of the Medical Officer also 6 mentions that injury Nos.4 and 5 individually so also cumulatively were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The learned Judge recorded finding that petitioner is guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. The judgment has been delivered 2nd May, 1996. 7. In these two categories of crimes categorized in clause 1(b) and 1(d) of the guidelines, there are few key words. In category No.1(b), key words are “crime as above is committed by the aggrieved person with premeditation.” In clause 1(d), the key words are “crime is committed against the aggrieved person with premeditation.” `With premeditation’ are the common words in both these categories. `Aggrieved person’ is not defined in these guidelines. However, in the case on hand, indisputably status of the petitioner is of accused, who has been tried by the competent court, convicted. Appeal filed by the petitioner against conviction has been dismissed by this Court. Thus,considering these two categories, the petitioner cannot be said to be `aggrieved person’. It is not the case of the petitioner that crime was committed against him by deceased Rubina, the aggrieved person. 7 In this view of the matter, we are not able to find fault with the respondents in placing the petitioner in category 1(d) of the said guidelines. From the affidavit-in-reply, it has been pointed out by the learned A.P.P., more particularly, from para 9, that the petitioner had undergone around 21 years 11 days as on 30.2.2010 including remissions. This statement is disputed on behalf of the petitioner. We are not inclined to enter into this area of disputed question of fact in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The probable date of release of the petitioner has been laid down as 1st December, 2012 subject to compliance of the conditions mentioned in the order dated 22nd February, 2010. In this view of the matter, in our view, the petition sans merit and deserves to be dismissed. 8. Criminal Writ Petition stands dismissed. Rule discharged. We quantify Rs.2000/- towards fees and expenses to the learned Counsel (appointed) for the petitioner. [ S.S. SHINDE ] [ S.B. DESHMUKH ] JUDGE JUDGE Kadam/*