2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties at the stage of admission.
3. By this Petition, the Petitioner is seeking quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Respondent No.1/State of Maharashtra through the Secretary Home Department Mantralaya, Mumbai dated 18.02.2022 and direction for premature release of the Petitioner after 26 years with remission.
4. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner who submitted that, the Petitioner is undergoing an imprisonment for life with fine at Central Jail, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 376 (2f), 363, 366 of the Indian Penal Code. The Petitioner has been convicted for the said offence by the learned 1st Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhandara in the judgment and order dated 25.04.2008 in Sessions Trial No. 43/2006.
5. The Respondent No.2/Superintendent, Central Prison, Nagpur has forwarded the proposal of premature release of the Petitioner before the Respondent No.1. Thereafter the Respondent No.1 passed the order dated 18.02.2022 rejecting the said proposal by assigning the reason that, the Petitioner cannot be released until he completes 28 years of imprisonment including remission.
6. It is further submitted by her that, the Petitioner has been categorized under the category 2(d) instead of category 4(e). Thus, the order passed by the Respondent No.1 is wrong and illegal by wrongly categorizing the Petitioner and, therefore, the order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
7. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the said contention and submitted that, the Petitioner was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 376 (2f), 363, 366 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that he has kidnapped a minor girl aged about 4 years and subjected her for the forceful sexual assault and thereafter committed her murder. She also invited our attention towards the facts of the case and submitted that, after considering the entire evidence on record, the learned Trial Court held him guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2f) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
8. She submitted that, in view of the Government Notification dated 11.04.2008, the Petitioner requires to be categorized under 2(d) and accordingly he was categorized under 2(d), which deals with murder with rape. She further invited our attention towards the category and submitted that, the category 2 itself is in respect of offences relating to crimes against women and minors. Here the victim girl was minor who was subjected for forceful sexual assault and thereafter her murder was committed. Therefore, the Respondent No.1 has rightly categorized the Petitioner and rightly passed the order and, therefore, no interference is called for.
9. On going through the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned APP, perused the impugned judgment, from which it reveals that, the victim girl aged about 4 years was kidnapped by the accused i.e. the Petitioner and thereafter she was subjected for the forceful sexual assault and the murder was committed. The learned Trial Court after appreciating the evidence held him guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2f) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
10. As far as the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is concerned, she submitted that, the Petitioner required to be categorized under 4(e). Clause 4 deals with murder for other reasons and clause (e) states murders committed by dacoits and robbers in the act of committing dacoities and robberies. Therefore, it is not a relevant clause as far as the present case is concerned. On the contrary, clause 2 which is rightly applied by the Respondent No.1 and clause 2(d) is relevant clause which deals with murder with rape. Clause 2 states about the offences relating to crimes against women and minors and clause (d) specifically states murder with rape.
11. On perusal of the impugned order, the Respondent No.1/State of Maharashtra through the Secretary Home Department Mantralaya, Mumbai has considered the allegations against the present Petitioner and thereafter he has recorded the relevant paras of the judgment and rightly considered that the case of the Petitioner covers under clause 2(d), for which maximum period to be undergone including a remission subject to a minimum of 14 years of actual imprisonment or 28 years. In view of that, the Petition being devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
12. Criminal Writ Petition is dismissed.
13. Rule is discharged.
14. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
