Thus Supreme Court has held that in case of convicts the
policy which was prevalent when the conviction takes place will apply and if any other liberal policy prevails on the date of consideration of case for premature release then such policy will apply. The said principle of giving benefit to the convict of beneficial policy certainly applies to the two different policies/guidelines but the same will also apply to the categories in the same policy/guidelines, if case falls under both the categories.
10. The present case is squarely governed by the Guideline no. 4 (c)
as the murder took place as a result of trade union activities. Even if, it
is assumed that the petitioners’ case falls under both the categories
namely category no. 4 (c) and category no. 4 (d) of 2010 Guidelines,then also, it is clear that more beneficial category i.e. category no. 4 (c) will apply to the Petitioners’ case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4544 OF 2021
Uday Dhaku Sutar Vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
MADHAV J. JAMDAR, JJ.
DATED : 8 th SEPTEMBER 2022
1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the
consent of the parties and is taken up for final disposal. Learned APP
appearing for the respective Respondents wave notice on behalf of the
said Respondents.
2. The Petitioner in each of the above Petition has challenged
the order dated 09th July, 2021 passed by Home Department
(Government of Maharashtra), by which their respective case by
separate orders has been classified in category no. 3(b) of guidelines
dated 11th May, 1992 and category no. 4(d) of the Guidelines dated
15th March, 2010 and accordingly, both of them have been directed to
be released after completion of 24 years of imprisonment including
remission.
3. Mr. Rupesh Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner submitted that, the incident in question has taken place on
account of a rivalry between two trade unions namely Mumbai Labour
Union and Bhartiya Kamgar Sena. He submitted that, the deceased was
a member of the Mumbai Labour Union, whereas, both, the Petitioners
belonged to the Bhartiya Kamgar Sena. Learned counsel relied on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs.
Jagdish reported in (2010) 4 SCC 216 and the judgment dated 25th
February, 2020 passed by the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court in
Criminal Writ Petition No. 40 of 2020. He submitted that, case of
Petitioners falls under the category 4 (c) of the Guidelines dated 15th
March, 2010.
4. On the other hand, Mr. J. P. Yagnik, learned APP submitted
that the Respondents have rightly categorised the Petitioners’ case as
falling under category 4 (d) of the Guidelines dated 15th March, 2010
as murder is committed by more than one person.
5. We have perused the judgment of the Additional Sessions
Judge, Greater Bombay dated 10th August, 2007 passed in Sessions
Case No. 695 of 2004. By the said judgment inter-alia the respective
Petitioners i.e. Uday Dhaku Sutar and Ranjay Laxman Sawant (Accused
No. 1 and 3) alongwith Prakash Yeragi (Accused No. 2) were convicted
for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of Indian
Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
life.
6. A perusal of the judgment shows that, the deceased in the
year 2000 was in the employment of Nanavati Hospital. At that time,
there were two unions in Nanavati Hospital namely, the Bhartiya
Kamgar Sena and the Mumbai Labour Union. The deceased was a
member of the Mumbai Labour Union, whereas, all the accused were
members of the Bhartiya Kamgar Sena. In the year 2000, due to
dispute between these two unions there was quarrel and deceased
caused grievous hurt to the Petitioner−Uday Sutar. In respect of the
said incident, Santacruz Police Station had registered a crime as against
the deceased and he was arrested. On 02nd June, 2004, incident in
question took place when all the Accused belonging to the Bhartiya
Kamgar Sena, all of a sudden assaulted the deceased belonging to the
Mumbai Labour Union. On 04th June, 2004 the deceased succumbed
to his injuries.
7. The above factual position on record clearly shows that,
the incident in question had taken place due to trade union activities.
It is the contention of Adv. Jaiswal that category 4 (c) of Guidelines
dated 15th March, 2010 applies to the present case, whereas, the
contention of the State is that category 4 (d) of said 2010 Guidelines is
applicable. The said 2010 Guidelines are issued under Section 438 of
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Both these categories namely 4 (c)
and 4 (d) of 2010 Guidelines are set out hereinbelow :-
Category
no.
Sub
category
CATEGORISATION OF
CRIMES
PERIOD OF
IMPRISONMENT TO
BE UNDERGONE
INCLUDING
REMISSION SUBJECT
TO A MINIMUM OF
14 YEARS OF ACTUAL
IMPRISONMENT
INCLUDING SET OFF
PERIOD.
4 MURDERS FOR
OTHER REASON.
c Murder resulting from
trade union activities
and business rivalry.
22 years
d Murder committed by 24 years
more than one person/
group of persons.
8. The guideline no. 4 (c) is regarding murder resulting from
trade union activities and business rivalry. The factual position on
record clearly shows that the incident in question had taken place due
to trade union activities. The guideline no. 4 (d) which has been
applied by the State of Maharashtra is regarding murder committed by
more than one person/group of persons. It is true, that in the present
case, murder has been committed by three persons, however,
Guideline no. 4 (c) specifically contemplates murder resulting from
trade union activities. The said Guideline does not further prescribe
that the same will apply only if murder has been committed by one
person. What is relevant is murder should have been committed as a
result of trade union activities and therefore, whether murder has been
committed by more than one person/group of persons is totally
irrelevant.
9. In the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State
of Haryana and Ors. vs. Jagdish (supra) in paragraph no. 54 it has
been held as follows:
“54. The State authority is under an obligation to at
least exercise its discretion in relation to an honest
expectation perceived by the convict, at the time of his
conviction that his case for premature release would be
considered after serving the sentence, prescribed in the
short-sentencing policy existing on that date. The State
has to exercise its power of remission also keeping in
view any such benefit to be construed liberally in favour
of a convict which may depend upon case to case and for
that purpose, in our opinion, it should relate to a policy
which, in the instant case, was in favour of the
respondent. In case a liberal policy prevails on the date of
consideration of the case of a “lifer” for premature
release, he should be given benefit thereof.”
(Emphasis added)
Thus Supreme Court has held that in case of convicts the
policy which was prevalent when the conviction takes place will apply and if any other liberal policy prevails on the date of consideration of case for premature release then such policy will apply. The said principle of giving benefit to the convict of beneficial policy certainly applies to the two different policies/guidelines but the same will also apply to the categories in the same policy/guidelines, if case falls under both the categories.
10. The present case is squarely governed by the Guideline no. 4 (c)
as the murder took place as a result of trade union activities. Even if, it
is assumed that the petitioners’ case falls under both the categories
namely category no. 4 (c) and category no. 4 (d) of 2010 Guidelines,
then also, it is clear that more beneficial category i.e. category no. 4 (c)
will apply to the Petitioners’ case.
11. In view of the above discussion, we quash and set aside
impugned order dated 09th July, 2021 passed by the Respondent No. 1
vis-a-vis both the Petitioners and direct that case of the Petitioners be
8/9
Arjun 44-WP-4544-2021.doc
classified as falling under category no. 4 (c) of 2010 Guidelines.
12. Rule is made absolute in the above terms and Petitions are
disposed of.
13. All parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
9/9
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment