Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Devanand Laxmanrao Jamnik, a life convict serving sentence in Open Prison, Morshi, filed a Criminal Writ Petition challenging the order dated 9.10.2012 passed by the State of Maharashtra. The State had held that the petitioner's case was covered by Clause 3(d) of the Guidelines issued on 11.5.1992, entitling him to premature release only after completing 26 years of imprisonment. The petitioner contended that the State had revised the guidelines for premature release of life convicts by Government Resolution dated 15.3.2010, and that his case should be considered under the 2010 guidelines. The petitioner argued that under the 2010 guidelines, his case would fall under categories 2(a) or 2(d), which provide for earlier release. The State, however, argued that even under the 2010 guidelines, the petitioner's case fell under a special category relating to offences against women and minors, requiring longer imprisonment. The Court, after hearing both sides, held that the 2010 Revised Guidelines should apply to the petitioner's case. The Court directed the State to reconsider the petitioner's case for premature release under the 2010 Guidelines within three months from the date of the order. The Court did not accept the State's contention that the petitioner's case fell under a special category requiring longer imprisonment, and left it to the State to decide the appropriate category under the 2010 Guidelines.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Premature Release - Life Sentence - Applicability of Guidelines - The petitioner, a life convict, challenged the State's order applying 1992 Guidelines requiring 26 years imprisonment before premature release. The Court held that the 2010 Revised Guidelines, which provide for earlier consideration, should apply. The Court directed the State to reconsider the petitioner's case under the 2010 Guidelines within three months. (Paras 2-5) B) Criminal Law - Premature Release - Offences Against Women and Minors - Special Category - The State argued that the petitioner's offence (rape and murder of a minor) fell under a special category requiring longer imprisonment. The Court did not accept this contention and directed reconsideration under the 2010 Guidelines. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner's case for premature release should be governed by the 1992 Guidelines or the 2010 Revised Guidelines, and whether the petitioner falls under a special category requiring longer imprisonment.
Final Decision
The Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order dated 9.10.2012, and directed the State to reconsider the petitioner's case for premature release under the 2010 Revised Guidelines within three months from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Premature release
- Life sentence
- Guidelines for premature release
- Applicability of revised guidelines
- Offences against women and minors
- Special category
