sat 1 wp 945-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 945 OF 2011 Shafi Waziruddin Qureshi ...Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mrs.Farhana Shah for the Petitioner. Ms.Y.S. Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & U.D. SALVI, JJ. JULY 6, 2011 P.C. :- 1 We have heard Mrs.Shah, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, who is a convict undergoing life sentence. The petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the order dated 28th May, 2009 passed by the Home Department, Government of Maharashtra. As per the said order, the petitioner would be released on completion of 24 years of imprisonment including the remissions, under Section 432 of Cr.P.C, subject to good conduct in the prison. It appears that sat 2 wp 945-2011 dissatisfied by the said order, the petitioner’s mother Zahirabi filed a representation with the State Government on 25th February, 2010. By the communication dated 10th August, 2010, she was informed that the order dated 28th May, 2009 regarding remissions did not warrant any reconsideration and the Governor was pleased to reject the petitioner’s representation. 2 In Sessions Case No.44/91, in all nine accused were tried and five of them came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 149 of IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. This order of conviction and sentence was challenged in two different appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos.428 and 390 of 1994. The present petitioner was accused no.2 in Sessions Case No. 44/1991 and appellant no.2 in Criminal Appeal No. 428/1994. By a common judgment dated 13th February, 1998, both the appeals came to be partly allowed. However, the conviction of the petitioner was upheld sat 3 wp 945-2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 326 read with Section 149 of IPC and he came to be sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. He also came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 of IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for one year on each count. 3 Mr. Shinde, the learned APP for the State submitted before us that the guidelines for remissions issued by the Government of Maharashtra on 11th May, 1992 would be applicable to the petitioner’s case and as per the same, the petitioner was placed in category 3(b) i.e. where a murder is committed in the course of quarrel with premeditation, in an individual capacity or by a gang. As per the said guidelines of 1992 for being released on completion of life sentence, the convict is required to complete a total imprisonment of 24 years, if he falls in category 3(b). 4 There can be no dispute that the guidelines sat 4 wp 945-2011 of 11th May, 1992, which are the reiteration of the guidelines of 1978, would be applicable to the petitioner’s case and the revised guidelines issued along with the GR dated 11th April, 2008 will not be applicable to his case. We have to, therefore, examine whether the State Government committed any error in placing the petitioner’s case in category 3(b) of the guidelines of May 1992. 5 Mrs.Shah, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed before us a copy of the common judgment in Criminal Appeal Nos.428 and 390 of 1994. The Division Bench has accepted the testimony of PW 1 who was the eye witness and his version of the incident was held to be consistent. As per PW 1, accused nos.2 and 3 were armed and they gave fatal blows on the head of the deceased with sickles. The medical evidence went to show that there was fracture of skull indicating that the blows given were forceful and there was an injury caused to the brain. This Court held that accused nos.2 and 3 were sat 5 wp 945-2011 directly responsible for the homicidal death of the victim and the trial court had rightly convicted them under Section 302 of IPC. The conviction under Section 326 of IPC is on account of injuries caused to PW 1 Vijay, the sole eye witness. The judgment clearly goes to show that the assault by accused nos. 1 and 2 was premeditated and accused nos.1, 4 and 5 were convicted because of the contributory liability. The role of accused nos.1, 4 and 5 was distinguished by the Division Bench and they came to be acquitted from the charge of Section 302. Having regard to the reasonings set out by the Division Bench in its judgment dated 13th February, 1998 while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner along with accused no.1, the decision of the State Government classifying his case as the one falling in category 3(b) of the Resolution of 11th May, 1992 does not suffer from any errors. In addition, the Governor of Maharashtra has also considered the representation submitted by the petitioner’s mother and the same has been rejected as per the communication dated 10th sat 6 wp 945-2011 August, 2010. 6 In the premises, we do not find any case to entertain this petition and the impugned order of remission passed on 28th May, 2009, thereby holding that the petitioner is required to undergo a total of 24 years of sentence before his release and subject to his good conduct till the date of his release, is required to be confirmed. Hence, this petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. (U.D. SALVI, J) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J)