JPP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 678 OF 2020

Mr. Sushil A. Inamdar, Appointed Advocate for the Petitioner Ms. S.D. Shinde, APP for the Respondent- State.

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND N.R. BORKAR, JJ.

DATE : 07 JULY 2022.

P.C. :

Heard the learned advocate appointed for the Petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

2. The Petitioner is challenging his categorization for the purpose of pre-mature release under category 4(e) of the Government Resolution date 15 March 2010.

3. As per category 4(e), for murder committed by decoites and robbers in the act of committing decoity and robberies, the period is 26 years. The Petitioner as on date has completed 24 years

$\mathcal{L}$

4 months and 29 days. The Petitioner was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai in the Sessions Case No. 680 of 2003 under Section 452, 395 and 396 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The appeal filed was dismissed. The reply affidavit is filed on behalf of the State wherein the observations made in the Judgment by the learned Sessions Judge, Sewree have been referred to and reproduced. The prosecution case therein is that the Petitioner with others had committed robbery from the house of the deceased. The evidence laid by the prosecution is incredible and the Petitioner was accordingly convicted. The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge convicting the Petitioner is on record. In the judgment the learned Sessions Judge has recorded the finding that the deceased was an elderly lady female lying dead on the floor of her house, with her hands and legs were tied and the Petitioner along with the others had done so while committing a robbery. There is a specific finding to that effect in the judgment. The learned Sessions Judge has given negative opinion about the pre-mature release of the Petitioner.

$4.$ The learned Counsel for the Petitioner sought to rely upon the Government Resolution dated 11 April 2008. However, this Government Resolution is now superseded and revised by the Government Resolution dated 15 March 2010. The learned Counsel then sought to rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shivalinga @ Shivalingayya $v/s$ . State of Karnataka¹.

<span id="page-1-0"></span>²⁰²¹ SCC 937 $\mathbf{1}$

However, this case arose from an appeal filed against the order of conviction. In that context the Hon'ble Supreme Court had made observations reducing the sentence. Therefore, this decision is not applicable to the case at hand. Thirdly, it was sought to be contended that the co-accused have been given benefit of the pre-mature release. The learned APP pointed out that as regards the co-accused, their sentence was reduced from the life imprisonment in the appeal itself.

5. Considering these facts, we find no error with the categorization made under category 4(e) by the Government Resolution dated 15 March 2010.

6. The Writ Petition is without any merit. It is accordingly dismissed.

(N.R. BORKAR, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

JYOTI PRAKASH PAWAR

Digitally signed by JYOTI PRAKASH PAWAR Date: 2022.07.14 12:40:23 +0530