2024:BHC-NAG:13098-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.38 OF 2024 Pradipsingh Murlidharsingh Thakur, aged about 50 years, Occ. Nil, R/o in Central Jail, Nagpur … Petitioner -vs-

1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2. State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Panchpoli Station, Nagpur

3. State of Maharashtra, Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Nagpur … Respondents Shri Y. P. Bhelande, Advocate for petitioner (Appointed).

Smt N. R. Tripathi, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents/State.

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND MRS VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : November 26, 2024.

Oral Judgment : (Per : Nitin W. Sambre, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner, convicted in Sessions Trial Case No.301/2001 by the Court of 2^nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur is seeking his release based on the categorization permitted under Annexure-I Category 2 (b) of the Government Resolution dated March

15, 2010 issued under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

2. The petitioner infact has sought his categorization. The State Government vide its order dated September 14, 2018 refused to extend the benefit of categorization to the petitioner considering the fact that the petitioner was a Police personnel and has murdered his pregnant wife.

3. The facts necessary for deciding the petition are as under :

The petitioner got married to the deceased in 1994 and has committed an offence of strangulating his wife on February 24, 2001. Having regard to the fact that the death occurred within seven years of marriage, the petitioner was charged with the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Court believing the testimony of PW-1 Brijeshsingh, brother of the deceased and PW-11 Vishal Kamble, convicted the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to be hanged till death. The petitioner was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and was sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- and he was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC.

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court vide Criminal Appeal No.141/2003 whereas the State Government made a reference for confirmation of death sentence vide Confirmation Case No.2/2003 which came be decided on August 11, 2003. The appeal against conviction preferred by the petitioner came to be partly allowed thereby converting his punishment to life imprisonment and the judgment of conviction accordingly stood modified.

5. In this backdrop, the petitioner has sought his categorization pursuant to the Resolution issued by the State Government under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code meaning that the petitioner should be categorized which shall make him entitled for the benefit of remission in his punishment. This prayer has been rejected by order dated September 14, 2018.

6. Shri Y. P. Bhelande, learned counsel (appointed) for the petitioner would urge that the impugned communication dated September 14, 2018 cannot be said to be sustainable as the scheme of Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not confer any power on the State Government to discriminate amongst the convicts so as to refuse the prayer for categorization. So as to substantiate his claim, the learned counsel would draw support from the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Satish Ramji Chaurasiya vs. State of Maharashtra 2024(4) MhLJ (Crl) 558 so as to claim that the respondent-State Government in the matter of categorization and release of a convict cannot make discrimination. In paragraphs 13 and 16 of the judgment it is observed thus :

“ 13. Dr.Chaudhry has relied upon a recent decision of the Apex Court in the ca