Category For Premature Release More Beneficial To Convict Will Apply If Case Falls Under Two Different Categories Within Same Guidelines: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court recently held that number of persons who committed the murder is irrelevant in cases related to trade union activities while categorizing the case for the purpose of premature release of life convicts."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...
The Bombay High Court recently held that number of persons who committed the murder is irrelevant in cases related to trade union activities while categorizing the case for the purpose of premature release of life convicts.
"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", the court held.
A division bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Madhav J. Jamdar was dealing with two writ petitions challenging state government orders categorizing their case as "murder committed by more than one person".
The petitioners are convicts in a murder case and are serving life imprisonment. The Home Department of the Maharashtra government in 2021 passed two orders classifying their case under Guideline 4(d) "murder committed by more than one person" of the 2010 guidelines for premature release of life convicts. The state government directed that the petitioners be released after completion of 24 years of imprisonment, including remission.
The petitioners approached the High Court praying for categorization of their case under Guideline 4(c) "murder resulting from trade union activities and business rivalry" which has a period of imprisonment of 22 years.
Advocate Rupesh Jaiswal for the petitioners submitted that the incident in question took place because of rivalry between two trade unions. The deceased was a member of Mumbai Labour Union and both the petitioners were members of Bhartiya Kamgar Sena. He submitted that the case falls under category 4(c) of the guidelines.
Additional Public Prosecutor J. P. Yagnik for the state submitted that the case has been categorised under category 4(d) of the guidelines as the murder was committed by more than one person.
The court perused the trial court judgement and found that the incident in question had taken place due to trade union activities.
The court observed that though the murder has been committed by three persons, guideline 4(c) does not restrict its application to murders committed by a single person. The relevant fact is that the murder is a result of trade union activities. Whether murder has been committed by more than one person is irrelevant.
The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Jagdish and held that the category more beneficial to the convict will apply if the case falls under two different categories in the same guideline.
The court held that the case is covered by the guideline no. 4(c). Even assuming that it falls under both the categories 4(c) and 4(d), the more beneficial category will apply to the petitioner's case.
The court set aside the order passed by the state and directed that the case of the petitioners be classified under category number 4(c) of the 2010 guidelines.
Case no. – Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 4544 and 4545 of 2021
Case title – Uday v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. and connected matter.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 342