drp {1} Cri.W.P.No.1097/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1097 OF 2010 Haram Ukha Patil PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Miss. Preeti Ingale, Advocate for the petitioner (appointed) Mr. N.H.Borade, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 13th January 2011 PER COURT: 1. A communication sent by the petitioner, through jail, has been registered as Criminal Writ Petition. We had accordingly appointed Miss Preeti Ingale, learned counsel to represent the petitioner in this petition before us. The petitioner takes exception to the order passed by the respondent State, placing the petitioner in category 1D instead of category 1C. Category 1D of the guidelines contemplates that a prisoner would undergo 26 years of imprisonment, if the crime is committed with premeditation while category 1C contemplates imprisonment for 24 years if the crime is committed without premeditation. drp {2} Cri.W.P.No.1097/2010 2. The sole question, therefore, is whether the finding recorded by the trial court as well as by the appellate court, in any manner, indicates that the crime had been committed without premeditation. A reference may usefully be made to the judgment of the trial court at para 12. After discussing the facts of the case, the trial court has recorded a finding that the petitioner herein had deliberately taken Laxmibai to the hut where the appellant is alleged to have killed her. The offence is alleged to have been committed at 1.00 a.m. in the morning. The appellant has not taken any defense that the offence had been committed in grave and sudden provocation during a quarrel. Laxmibai is alleged to have sustained 17 injuries and the petitioner herein had taken a defence that thieves had committed murder of Laxmibai. The trial court, obviously, has repealed the defence of the petitioner and has found him guilty of the offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. In that light of the matter, therefore, according to us, since the trial court has recorded a finding that the offence has been committed by the petitioner with premeditation, placing of the petitioner in category 1D can certainly be justified. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of “Smt.Prayagbai wd/o Sakharam Kamble V/s State of Maharashtra and another” 2000 (Supp.) Bom.C.R. 151. The ratio of the said judgment, according to us, is not applicable to the drp {3} Cri.W.P.No.1097/2010 facts of the present case. In the reported judgment, the Division Bench had recorded a finding that the offence was the outcome of a quarrel between the deceased and the accused therein. In that light, therefore, the Division Bench held that the petitioner therein ought to have been placed in category 1C. 4. After giving anxious consideration to the submissions advanced before us by the learned counsel for the parties, we see no merit in the present petition and the petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. We quantify the fees payable to learned counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs.1500/- [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B10/cwp1097-10