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 sought remission of the remainder of their sentence under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in accordance with the state government's remission policy dated 15-03-2010. The Secretary of Home Department (Prison) placed them 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. The petitioners argued that the incident occurred without premeditation and that the motive of political rivalry was not attributable to all accused. The court, relying on the principle in State of Haryana v. Jagdish (2010) 9 SCC 496 that the remission scheme beneficial to the prisoner must be taken into consideration, held that the petitioners should be placed in category 3(b) as the motive of political rivalry was not established for all. The court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' case for remission under category 3(b) of the 2010 guidelines.
Headnote
A) Remission Policy - Categorization of Prisoners - Murder for Political Reasons vs. Land/Family Disputes - The petitioners, convicted for murder, were placed in category 5(b) (26 years) under the 2010 guidelines for 'Murder for Political Reasons', but they claimed they should be in category 3(b) (22 years) for murders arising out of land disputes, family feuds, etc. - The court held that the remission policy must be interpreted beneficially to the prisoner, and since the motive of political rivalry was not established for all accused, the petitioners should be placed in category 3(b) - Held that the beneficial scheme of remission must be applied in favor of the prisoner (Paras 2-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners, convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, 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 and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for remission under category 3(b) of the 2010 guidelines.
Law Points
- Remission policy
- beneficial interpretation
- categorization of prisoners
- murder for political reasons
- premeditation
