The Bombay High Court’s Nagpur Bench has ruled that the act of strangulating a pregnant wife to death over dowry demands does not constitute "exceptional violence or brutality" under the criteria for remission of life sentences.

The Division Bench of Justice Nitin Sambre and Justice Vrushali Joshi passed the order on November 26, granting relief to petitioner Pradipsingh Thakur, who had been convicted in 2001 for the murder of his wife.

The Court held that his case did not meet the threshold of "exceptional violence or brutality" required for extended imprisonment of 26 years under the Government Resolution (GR) of March 15, 2010.

The Court noted that while the act of strangulation was violent, the injuries on the victim did not indicate exceptional brutality. "Of course, the act of strangulation, which is attributed to the petitioner, is a violent act. But whether such an act can be termed as one causing death with brutality or exceptional violence is required to be looked into. ...We are of the view that it cannot be inferred that the petitioner caused the murder of his wife with exceptional violence or brutality," the Bench stated.

The Court highlighted that the victim suffered two injuries: a ligature mark on her neck and a nail abrasion on the right side of her neck. Based on this, the Court concluded that the petitioner’s actions did not warrant extended imprisonment under category 2(c) of the GR, which applies to crimes of exceptional violence.

Thakur, who has been serving a life sentence since 2001, had filed a plea seeking categorization under category 2(b) of the GR. This provision grants remission after 22 years of imprisonment for convicts not meeting the criteria for exceptional violence. The State had earlier denied his request in 2018, citing his role as a police officer and the fact that his wife was pregnant at the time of the murder.

The Court, however, rejected this argument, stating that the GR does not carve out a separate category for police personnel committing heinous crimes.

"Just because the petitioner was an employee of the police department and murdered his pregnant wife does not disentitle him to remission provided under legal provisions. There is no separate exception for such cases under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code," the bench observed.

The Court ruled that Thakur was eligible for remission under the GR and directed that his imprisonment be limited to 22 years. It emphasized that the remission rules apply uniformly to all categories of convicts except those specifically excluded by the GR.

"For the aforesaid reasons we categorize the petitioner under category 2(b) of Annexure-I appended to the Government Resolution 906-J-Cri.-WP-38-24 12/12 dated March 15, 2010 by holding that the petitioner committed crime with premeditation. That being so, the petitioner is liable to undergo 22 years imprisonment including remission. We direct the Jail authorities to appropriately implement the aforesaid observations to form an opinion as to whether the petitioner has undergone 22 years of imprisonment including remission. In view of the aforesaid observations, Rule is made absolute," the Court ordered.

Cause Title: Pradipsingh Murlidharsingh Thakur v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. [Neutral Citation No. 2024:BHC-NAG:13098-DB]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocate Y. P. Bhelande

Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) N. R. Tripathi

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Justice Nitin W. SambreJustice Vrushali V. JoshiBombay High Court

Sukriti Mishra