Strangulating pregnant wife to death not exceptionally violent to deny remission: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently observed that though the act of strangulating a pregnant women to death is a violent act, but it cannot be termed as death caused with exceptional violence and brutality to deny the convict the benefit of remission [Pradipsingh Thakur vs State of Maharashtra]..A Bench of Justices Nitin W Sambre and Vrushali V Joshi made the observation setting aside the State government's denial of remission (premature release from prison) to a police officer who was convicted by a trial court for strangulating his pregnant wife."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 with exceptional violence, is required to be looked into ... 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," the Court said..The Court was dealing with a plea by one, Pradipsingh Murlidharsingh Thakur (petitioner) who was convicted for killing his pregnant wife by strangulating her. In 2001, a sessions court convicted the petitioner for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to death by hanging. Additionally, the petitioner was found guilty under Section 498-A (cruelty to married woman by husband or in-laws) of the IPC, resulting in a sentence of three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹3,000. However, the petitioner was acquitted of charges under Section 304-B (causing death by negligence) of the IPC.After he filed an appeal, his death sentence was modified to life imprisonment by the High Court. .The petitioner later moved another plea before the High Court seeking remission. He based his remission request on a government resolution dated March 15, 2010, issued under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. This resolution, under category 2(b), allows for remission after the convict has served serving 22 years of imprisonment, including time reduced as a reward for good behavior.The State rejected his request, arguing that his case falls under Category 2(c) of the resolution, which requires a convict to serve 26 years of imprisonment before they are eligible for release, in cases involving exceptional violence or brutality..However, the Court quashed State's 2018 decision denying remission and held that the petitioner fell under category 2(b). The Court emphasized that the petitioner’s act was premeditated but did not meet the threshold of "exceptional violence and brutality" to warrant additional incarceration..The Court found no evidence of “exceptional violence” or “brutality” in the petitioner’s act. The Court noted injuries inflicted on the victim — a ligature mark on the neck and a nail abrasion — did not justify the State’s stricter categorization."We are required to be sensitive to the nature of injuries suffered by the deceased. In this case, the victim suffered two injuries; one ligature mark on neck and another nail abrasion on right side of neck. The aforesaid injuries have also prompted us to form an opinion that the case of the petitioner cannot fall under exceptional circumstances so as to make him liable to undergo 26 years of imprisonment for murdering his wife with exceptional violence or brutality," the Court said..The Court also underscored that the petitioner could not be excluded from remission benefits merely because of his professional background. "Just because the petitioner was an employee of Police department and the fact that he murdered his pregnant wife by itself would not disentitle him to get the benefit of remission ... 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 Court observed. .The Court, therefore, set aside the State's earlier denial of remission and asked it to reconsider the petitioner's case under category 2(b) of its remission policy. "We direct the Jail authorities to appropriately implement the (Court's) observations to form an opinion as to whether the petitioner has undergone 22 years of imprisonment including remission," the Court said. .Advocate YP Bhelande appeared for the petitioner, while Additional Public Prosecution NR Tripathi appeared for the State..[Read order]