Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Ankush Bharat Gaikwad and Yuvraj Bharat Gaikwad, were convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. They had undergone more than 22 years of imprisonment including remission. They filed a criminal writ petition seeking remission of the remainder of their sentence under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and in accordance with the State of Maharashtra's remission policy dated 15-03-2010. The State, through the Secretary of Home Department (Prison), placed the petitioners in Category 5(b) of the 2010 guidelines, which prescribes 26 years of incarceration for 'Murder for Political Reasons'. The petitioners contended that they should have been placed in Category 3(b), which provides for 22 years of imprisonment for murders arising out of land disputes, family feuds, family prestige, and superstition, committed with premeditation either individually or by a gang. The petitioners argued that the incident occurred without premeditation and that the motive of political rivalry was not attributable to all of them. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the State's categorization, pointing to the trial court's observations attributing political rivalry as the motive. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the facts and circumstances indicated that the incident took place without premeditation and that the motive of political rivalry was not established for all petitioners. The court directed that the petitioners be placed in Category 3(b) of the 2010 guidelines and that the State reconsider their remission accordingly. The court relied on the principle from State of Haryana v. Jagdish that the remission scheme, being beneficial to prisoners, must be interpreted in favor of the convict. The petition was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed to the extent of categorization.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Remission of Sentence - Categorization of Convicts - Murder for Political Reasons vs. Murder Arising out of Land Dispute/Family Feud - The petitioners, life convicts who had undergone over 22 years of imprisonment, sought remission under Section 432 CrPC and the 2010 State Remission Policy. The State placed them in Category 5(b) (murder for political reasons, requiring 26 years), but the court held that the motive of political rivalry was not established for all petitioners, and the incident occurred without premeditation, thus they should be placed in Category 3(b) (murder arising out of land dispute/family feud, requiring 22 years). The court directed the State to reconsider remission in light of the correct categorization. (Paras 2-7) B) Criminal Law - Remission Policy - Beneficial Interpretation - The court relied on State of Haryana v. Jagdish, (2010) 9 SCC 496, holding that the remission scheme being beneficial to prisoners must be interpreted in favor of the convict. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners, convicted for murder, should be placed in category 3(b) (22 years) or category 5(b) (26 years) of the 2010 remission guidelines for the purpose of remission of sentence.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed to the extent of categorization of the petitioners under Category 5(b). The petitioners are directed to be placed in Category 3(b) of the 2010 guidelines. The State is directed to reconsider the remission of the petitioners in accordance with the correct categorization.
Law Points
- Remission policy
- categorization of convicts
- murder for political reasons
- murder arising out of land dispute/family feud
- beneficial interpretation of remission scheme
