Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court has recently directed jail authorities to consider the remission of police personnel who strangulated his pregnant wife, observing that the act was not brutal.

“..we are of the view that it cannot be inferred that the petitioner has caused the murder of his wife with exceptional violence or that with brutality. We are required to be sensitive to the nature of injuries suffered by the deceased,” the order reads.

The division bench of the high court at Nagpur, comprising Justice Nitin Sambre and Justice Vrushali Joshi was hearing a petition filed by Pradipsingh Murlidharsingh Thakur, a police personnel, who was convicted under Sections 302 and 498A of IPC for killing his pregnant wife.

Thakur married his wife in 1994. In 2001 he was booked for strangulating his wife.  The sessions court, based on the testimony of the deceased convicted Thakur and awarded him death penalty.

Thakur filed an appeal in the high court which was heard along with the State’s plea seeking confirmation of the death penalty. The division bench said that it was not the rarest of the rare cases and modified the sentence to life imprisonment.

Thakur sought categorization pursuant to the resolution issued by the State Government under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code meaning that the petitioner should be categorized which shall make him entitled to the benefit of remission in his punishment. The same was rejected considering that he was police personnel and had murdered his pregnant wife. Therefore, he challenged the communication of rejection before the high court.

Advocate Y. P. Bhelande, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the communication cannot be said to be sustainable as the scheme of Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not confer any power on the State Government to discriminate amongst the convict to refuse the prayer for categorization.

He added that at the most the act of the petitioner can be categorized under category 2(b) which is where the crime is committed with premeditation having regard to the factual matrix.

Additional Public Prosecutor NR Tripathi argued that the petitioner's occupation of being police personnel at the relevant time when the offence was committed. She emphasized that the nature of duty entrusted to the petitioner, and the act of strangulating his pregnant wife sufficiently prompted the State to exercise the powers not to extend the benefit of premature release.

Tripathi further submitted that the act of Thakur falls under the exceptional category and that being so, the State has powers to decide whether to extend the benefit of premature release so conferred under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The high court, while quashing the order, noted that “..just because the petitioner was an employee of Police department and the fact that he murdered his pregnant wife by itself would not disenttile him to get the benefit of remission which is provided under the aforesaid legal provision. Rather there is no separate category carved out as an exception to the normal Rules of remission provided under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code for a Police personnel committing heinous crime of murdering his pregnant wife,” the order states.

The high court categorized the crime as premeditation which would make Thakur liable to undergo 22 years imprisonment including remission.

Accordingly, the bench directed the jail authorities to form an opinion as to whether the petitioner has undergone 22 years of imprisonment including remission

Case title: Pradipsingh Murlidharsingh Thakur vs State of Maharashtra & Ors