In a nuanced judgment, the Bombay High Court’s Nagpur Bench ruled that strangulation in a case of murder, though violent, does not automatically qualify as “exceptionally brutal” under the law. The court granted eligibility for remission to a former police officer convicted of murdering his pregnant wife, reshaping the debate on proportionality in sentencing.
Case Background
The case involved Pradipsingh Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition No. 38 of 2024). The petitioner, Pradipsingh Murlidharsingh Thakur, was convicted in 2001 for strangling his wife over unmet dowry demands, less than seven years after their marriage. Initially sentenced to death by the trial court, the Bombay High Court modified the sentence to life imprisonment in 2003.
Thakur sought premature release based on the remission guidelines in the Government Resolution dated March 15, 2010. His plea had been rejected by the state in 2018, citing the “heinous nature” of the crime, his position as a police officer, and the fact that the victim was pregnant.
Key Legal Issues
1. Categorization Under Remission Rules: The petitioner contested the state’s refusal to grant remission, arguing he should be categorized under Category 2(b) (crimes with premeditation but without exceptional brutality), making him eligible for remission after 22 years.
2. Exceptional Brutality: The court had to decide if the act of strangulation constituted “exceptional violence or brutality,” which would place him under Category 2(c), requiring a minimum of 26 years of imprisonment.
3. Discrimination Against Convicts: The petitioner challenged the state’s decision, claiming the remission policy was applied inconsistently, with no specific exclusion for police personnel.
Court’s Findings
The division bench of Justice Nitin W. Sambre and Justice Vrushali V. Joshi critically analyzed the crime, the remission policy, and previous judicial precedents to reach their decision.
– On Exceptional Brutality: The court noted, “Though every act of murder is violent, not every murder can be classified as exceptionally brutal. Exceptional brutality is marked by depravity and shock value beyond the ordinary framework of violence. This case, involving strangulation and minimal injuries, does not meet that threshold.”
– On Remission Eligibility: Citing remission guidelines, the court ruled that the petitioner’s crime falls under Category 2(b) and does not warrant the extended term mandated by Category 2(c). “To refuse remission solely on his occupation as a police officer is arbitrary and lacks statutory backing.”
– On Policy Uniformity: The bench reiterated the principle of equal application of laws, referencing prior rulings: “The State, having formulated Rules and Standing Policies for deciding remission cases, is bound by its own formulations of law. Arbitrary deviations undermine justice.”
Judgment and Directives
The court quashed the state’s 2018 order denying remission and directed prison authorities to implement the revised categorization. The petitioner, having served over 22 years, including remission and parole periods, may now be eligible for release after administrative review.
Observations on Proportionality
The judgment underscored the importance of proportionality in criminal justice. While acknowledging the gravity of domestic violence, the court maintained that subjective assessments without legal basis could not dictate categorization.
“Every murder shocks society, but not every murder embodies the extraordinary perversity or depravity required to justify harsher categorization under remission policies,” the court observed.
Representation and Parties
Advocate Shri Y. P. Bhelande, appointed counsel for the petitioner, argued that the denial of remission contravened the principles of fairness and consistency. Additional Public Prosecutor Smt. N. R. Tripathi represented the state, emphasizing the petitioner’s role as a police officer and the victim’s pregnancy as aggravating factors.
