1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 789 OF 2009 Kalyan s/o Kisan Bhondave PETITIONER V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ... Miss. Rashmi P. Gour, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K. B. Choudhary, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State ... CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ DATE : 14TH OCTOBER,2009 PER COURT : 1. Heard. Learned counsel Miss. Rashmi P. Gour for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was tried for an offence punishable under Sections 302, 500 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment by the Judgment and order passed in Sessions Case No. 85 of 2 1992 by Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati on 15th December, 1993. 2. In this petition, the petitioner seeks directions to fix his category for the purposes of reliefs for remission of sentence of punishment as prescribed under Sections 432, 433 of Code of Criminal Procedure. By communication dated 21st January, 2008, Section Officer, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra communicated the resolution of State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure thereby remitting that portion of the sentence of imprisonment of life which is in excess of 26 (twenty six) years of total imprisonment including all remissions, subject to the completion of actual imprisonment of 14 years, subject to certain conditions. 3. The contention of petitioner is that he is governed by the guidelines which are applicable to the accused who were convicted after 18th December, 1978. The petitioner’s contention is that he ought 3 to have been put in category No. 3 (b), which reads as follows : 3) Murders for other reasons. a) Where a murder is committed in the course of quarrel without premeditation in an individual capacity and where the person has no previous criminal history. 22 years b) As at (a) above but with premeditation or by a gang 24 years c) ..... The State Government has put the petitioner in the category of 1 (d), which reads as under : 1(d) Where the crime is committed against the aggrieved person with premeditation 26 years Thus, 26 years’ sentence is provided in the category of 1 (d), whereas in category of 3 (b), sentence of 24 years is provided. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that category No. 1 (d) does not apply to the petitioner as crime was not committed in relation to a woman. 5. The heading of the guideline No.1 of the 4 guidelines, which are to be applied after 18th December, 1978, reads thus ; “Murders relating to sexual matters or arising out of relations with women dowry deaths and other form of bride killing etc.”, whereas clause (3) is the category relating to murders for other reasons. 6. We have perused the Judgment and also the reply filed by the State. We find from the Judgment that the petitioner had established affectionate relations with daughter of the deceased and which could be referred to as a love affair between the petitioner and the daughter of deceased. The petitioner had also written several letters prior to December, 1991. It was the case of prosecution that due to message conveyed through letter to daughter of the deceased and the conduct of the petitioner, there was animosity created between petitioner and the deceased. The learned Judge even observed that accused wrote those letters to the girl that she should not marry, else similar letters would also be 5 sent to her husband. 7. The learned A.P.P. Mr. Sonwane submitted that clear meaning of the guidelines which are applicable after 18th December, 1978, more particularly guideline No. 1 would be that offence in relation to a woman, would not necessarily be a case where an offence is committed against a woman or by a woman. The purport of the guidelines is that if the offence is committed in relation to a woman, or, in other words, if woman is a cause for an offence committed, then the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of clause 3 (d) of the said guidelines. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that according to resolution dated 11th April, 2008, guideline No. 1 is titled as “Offences relating to crimes by women”. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that taking into consideration the category, as defined in Government Resolution dated 11th April, 2008, the guidelines enforceable after 18th December, 1978 shall be 6 considered and interpreted by this Court so that the petitioner would be benefited. 9. Considering the facts of the case and the reasoning of the learned trial Court, we find that petitioner had committed a serious offence. According to learned Judge, the parents of the girl did not agree to the relationship of the petitioner and their daughter, and therefore, the petitioner committed murder of the father of the girl. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in some identical cases, the State Government had fixed the category, which is more benefitial to the convicts than the petitioner. The facts of the two criminal cases cannot be similar. It depends upon the facts of each case, as to in which category the convict could be placed for the purposes of remission. 11. The plain meaning, therefore, of the guidelines applicable after 18th December, 1978 has to be read and considered. In the light of the 7 observations made by us above, we do not find any error committed by the State for fixing category of petitioner for the purposes of remission. Therefore, the petition is devoid of any merits. 12. The writ petition stands dismissed. [SHRIHARI P.DAWARE, J] [NARESH H. PATIL, J] srm/criwp789.09