1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.697 OF 2006 Prakash Vitthal Kharat ..Appellant Age : 39 yrs, Occu : service R/o.Sandeshnagar Zopadpatti, Gultekdi, Marketyard, Pune V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.P.V.Dhopatkar, advocate, for appellant Mrs.S.D.Shinde, A.P.P, for the State CORAM : F.I.REBELLO & K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE : 30TH APRIL, 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER F.I.REBELLO, J.) . The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He was arrested on 9th January, 1991. The appellant has undergone substantive imprisonment upto 28th April, 2008, of 15 years 3 months and 23 days. Considering the set off and remissions period he has completed 21 years 4 months and 20 days. 2. By this appeal the grievance of the appellant is that the 2 respondent has erred in law and or acted arbitrarily in placing him under category 1(d) of the guidelines prepared by the State Government under No.RLP-1092/13/252/PRS-3 dated 11th May, 1992 under the following subjects “Guidelines for premature release under the “14 Year Rule” of Prisoners serving life sentence after 18th December, 1978” 3. The State Government has categorised the various offences for the purpose of computing the period subsequent to which the persons can be released. In the instant case, we are concerned with the following categorisation of crimes. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Sr.No. Categorisation of crimes period of imprisonment to be undergone including remissions subject to a minimum of 14 years of actual imprisonment including set-off period --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- 1 Murders relating to sexual matters or arising out of relations with women, 3 dowary deaths & other form of bride killing etc. 1(a) Where the convict is the 22 years aggrieved person and has no previous criminal history and committed the murder in an individual capacity in a moment of anger and without premeditation 1(b) Where the crime as above 24 years is committed by the aggrieved person with premeditation 1(c) Where the crime is 24 years committed against the aggrieved person without premeditation 1(d) Where the crime is 26 years committed against the aggrieved person with premeditation 4. On behalf of the appellant the learned counsel appointed under the Legal Aid scheme pointed out that considering the Judgment of the learned trial Court there is nothing on record to show that the crime was committed with premeditation. It is also submitted that there is no evidence led before the Court or of any previous conviction insofar as the appellant is concerned. That being the case, 4 it is submitted that the case of the appellant should fall under the category 1(a). 5. We have considered the Judgment of the learned trial Court. It is true that the appellant killed his wife by pouring kerosene on her clothes. This, however, was after 13 years of the marriage. The facts and the conclusion arrived by the learned Judge in paragraph 19 clearly shows that the crime was committed in a moment of anger and without any premeditation. In that light of the matter, we are of the opinion that the appellant was wrongly placed in the category 1(d) and ought to have been placed in the category 1(a) of the Notification dated 11th May, 1992. The appellant has already undergone 21 years 4 months 20 days imprisonment. The appellant to be set free on completing a period of 22 years. 6. This case once again highlights the need to provide legal aid to the prisoners who are in jail as also to undertrials. The fact that the person is convicted for crime cannot result in depriving him of his right to life, including to be considered according to procedure 5 established by law. In the instant case, because the applicant suo motu applied, legal aid has been given and the Court could consider the case. It is possible that many more like the appellant continue to be in jail without any assistance, though under the G.R issued by the State Government, their continued detention may be illegal. 7. The need for assistance, to such convicts is essential. Lawyers if not atleast students under-going law courses can visit jails to ascertain the genuine grievances of such persons who are in prison and to address representations of their grievances to the concerned administratives authorities and also to the Courts in those cases where relief can only be granted by the Courts. In these circumstances, it would be appropriate that various Law Colleges either for convicts or under trials within whose jurisdiction there may be jails, the students as a part of sensitising them to human rights law, should be allowed an active role in providing legal assistance to such convicts, languishing in jails by way of addressing Petitions directly to the Court or to the Legal Service Authority. 6 8. The Supreme Court and this Court has directed setting up of visitor's committee which have been constituted of which District/Sessions Judge is the chairman. We, therefore, direct the District/Sessions Judge incharge of the area when there are jails for convicts and or under trials to call the principals of Law Colleges within their session area, so as to initiate the legal aid process, where by students as a part of curriculam or otherwise can give legal aid to such convicts where no legal aid is otherwise available. 9. Our attention is also invited to the provisions of The Juvenile Justice Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 with The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2006. A Juvenile is now defined as a person who has not completed eighteenth year of age. Such juvenile in conflict with law if had committed an offence, they considering Section 15 of the Act, no order can be passed for a period of more than three years irrespective of the nature of offence. On a combined reading of the provisons of the Act, it is clear that a juvenile in conflict with law who has been sentenced to imprisonment, if he makes an application 7 under Section 7A even, if no proceedings are pending, the Court has to consider such an application bearing in mind the provisions of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. It is possible that a large number of persons were sentenced when the definition of juvenile was upto 16 years. It has now been extended upto 18 years. Pursuant to the new act such juvenile in conflict with law may be entitled to the benefits of the Act of 2000, even if such persons have crossed the age, provided the offence was committed when they were aged less than eighteen years. Such matters can also be taken up. 10. We have only highlighted some areas for legal aid assistance. It will always be open to those who are rendering assistance by way of legal to go into other issues as well. 11. A copy of this Judgment be forwarded to the Registrar General, High Court to be forwarded to all the Principal District Courts/Sessions Courts, in all the Districts of Maharashtra, Goa, Daman Diu and Dadra Nagar Haveli. The District Judges to file a 8 complaince report of the steps they have taken to provide legal aid in terms of what is set out in the Judgment. The compliance report to be filed before this Court on or before 15th July, 2008. A copy of this Judgment also be forwarded to the Secretary incharge of jail in the respective secretariat of the State of Maharashtra, Goa and Union Territory of Daman Diu at Dadra and Nagar Haveli so that facilities are provided in the jails to the students who may be visiting for the purpose of providing legal aid. An affidavit to be filed by the Governments of Maharashtra as also Goa as also the administration of the Union Territory of the steps taken to provide facilities. Such affidavit be filed by 15th July, 2008. 12. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. 13. Place the matter for directions on 18th July, 2008. (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)