Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Md. Sharif Badshah Khan, was convicted for murder along with two other accused persons. The trial court found that there were disputes between the petitioner's family and the informant, Smt. Gausabi Farid Shaikh. On the fateful day, the petitioner along with two other accused persons went to the informant's house and committed the murder. The Competent Authority, i.e., Respondent No.2, passed an order on 14th May 2021 placing the petitioner in Category 4(d) of the 15th March 2010 guidelines issued by the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department. Category 4(d) pertains to 'Murder committed by more than one person/group of persons' and requires the prisoner to undergo 24 years of imprisonment including remission, subject to a minimum of 14 years of actual imprisonment. The petitioner challenged this classification by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner argued that the classification was mechanical and did not consider his individual role, conduct, or the fact that he was not the main perpetrator. The State opposed the petition, contending that the classification was correct as the murder was committed by more than one person. The court, after perusing the judgment of the trial court and the impugned order, held that the guidelines require an individualized assessment of the prisoner's criminality and conduct. The court noted that the Competent Authority had not considered the petitioner's role, the nature of the crime, or his conduct in prison. The court quashed the impugned order and directed the Competent Authority to reconsider the petitioner's classification afresh, taking into account all relevant factors. The court also directed that the reconsideration be done within a period of three months from the date of the order.
Headnote
A) Prison Law - Classification of Prisoners - Category 4(d) of 15th March 2010 Guidelines - The petitioner, convicted for murder along with two others, was placed in Category 4(d) requiring 24 years imprisonment. The court held that the guidelines require an individualized assessment of the prisoner's criminality and conduct, and the mere fact that the murder was committed by more than one person does not automatically place the prisoner in Category 4(d). The Competent Authority must consider the role of the prisoner, the nature of the crime, and conduct in prison. (Paras 1-5) B) Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Writ Jurisdiction - The court exercised its writ jurisdiction to quash the order of the Competent Authority and directed reconsideration of the petitioner's classification, emphasizing that the guidelines must be applied with due regard to the facts of each case. (Paras 1, 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Competent Authority's classification of the petitioner under Category 4(d) of the 15th March 2010 guidelines issued by the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, was proper and whether the petitioner is entitled to be placed in a lower category for premature release.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order dated 14th May 2021, and directed the Competent Authority to reconsider the petitioner's classification afresh, taking into account all relevant factors including the nature of the crime, role of the petitioner, and his conduct in prison, within a period of three months from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Classification of prisoners under Government guidelines must be based on individual assessment of criminality and conduct
- not solely on the number of accused
- Category 4(d) of 15th March 2010 guidelines requires murder committed by more than one person
- but the court held that the guidelines contemplate an individualized assessment
- the Competent Authority must consider the nature of the crime
- role of the prisoner
- and conduct in prison.
