1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No. 683/2009 Shri Murlidhar Piraji Mante vs. State of Maharashtra, through The Secretary, Desk Officer, Home Department, Maharashtra Mantralaya, Bombay ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. CORAM : A.P.Lavande & R.C.Chavan, JJ DATE : 18.03.2010 Heard Mr. N.S. Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.S. Fulzele, learned A.P.P. for the respondent. 2. This petition is directed by the petitioner- the convict against the order passed by the State Government categorizing the petitioner in category 1(d) of the Guidelines issued for premature release of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment or to death penalty commuted to life imprisonment after 18th December, 1978. 3. The petitioner has been convicted by the Court of Sessions at Buldana for the offence of murder of his wife and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life by the Judgment dated 5th February, 1996. This 2` judgment of conviction has been maintained by this Court. 4. The facts relevant for deciding the present petition are as under: The petitioner was married to victim Radhabai. The petitioner allegedly had extra marital relation which led ill-treatment to Radhabai. On 3rd May 1995, Radhabai along with her father-in-law had come to Saokhed Tejan to attend the marriage. The petitioner also came to the place where the marriage was to be solemnized. Victim Radhabai was to accompany the bride as karavali but the petitioner objected and, therefore, Radhabai did not proceed with the bride. The petitioner took Radhabai under the cover of darkness expressing his desire to have sex with her. The victim accompanied the petitioner. The petitioner while enjoying sex with Radhabai killed her by fastening a noose around her neck and then lifted her and kept the dead body in the cattle shed of Uttam Vighne. The petitioner then went to the house of Rambhau Jaibhaye where he slept peacefully. The learned Sessions Judge has found that the petitioner had killed his wife by strangulating her. Since there was nothing to show that the incident occurred without any premeditation and since there was no previous disputes it is obvious that the crime was committed against the victim with 3` premeditation. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner ought to have been categorized under category 1(a) or 1(b). Categories 1(a) and 1(b) are about crimes committed by the persons who were themselves aggrieved. Here there was no cause for the petitioner to be aggrieved by the conduct of Radhabai. There is nothing to show that the petitioner was aggrieved in a moment of anger and without premeditation committed murder of his wife. On the other hand, it is clear from the facts which were established before the Sessions Court that the petitioner took his wife Radhabai expressing his desire to have sex with her and after enjoying sex killed her by strangulating her. Thereafter, he kept the dead body of Radhabai in the cattle shed and went to the house of one Rambhau and slept there peacefully. It can not, therefore, be said that the said categorization of the petitioner under category 1(d) was erroneous. The petition has no merit and, therefore, it is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE patle 4`