The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) has ruled that where a convict’s case falls under multiple categories within the same premature release guidelines, the more beneficial category must apply. Accordingly, the Court quashed the State order placing husband who murdered his mother-in-law under the 26-year ‘crime against women with exceptional violence’ bracket. The Court also explained that where the facts of a case attract multiple categories under the very same premature release guidelines, the category more beneficial to the convict must be considered and applied, and such principle is not confined to a change of policy over time.
The Court said that ‘Family feud’ covers long-standing disputes between members of the same family or between two families, including relations by affinity and law, and is not restricted to disputes spanning multiple generations. Hence, a prior dispute within the same generation triggering a subsequent offence qualifies.
The Bench reiterated that the opinion of the trial court under Section 432 CrPC must reflect due consideration of the facts, nature of the offence, manner of commission, and applicable guidelines under Section 432(2), as a non-compliant opinion cannot bind the remission authority. Accordingly, the State was directed to pass the re-categorisation order within 15 days, signalling that administrative delay in implementing beneficial guideline changes will not be tolerated.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sandipkumar C. More and Justice Vaishali Patil-Jadhav noted that the opinion of the convicting court under Section 432 CrPC must be reasoned and must reflect due consideration of the facts, the nature of the offence, the manner of its commission, and the applicable guidelines, as required under Section 432(2) CrPC, following the Full Bench decision in Yovehel Vijaykumar Gouri v. State of Maharashtra [2020 (6) Mh.L.J. 571]. The Bench observed that the convicting court’s opinion in the present case was not in consonance with these requirements.
The Court undertook a detailed dictionary exercise to interpret the expression ‘family feud’, referring to the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, Collins English Dictionary, Black’s Law Dictionary, and the Cambridge Learner’s Dictionary. It held that ‘family feud’ contemplates a long-standing dispute arising out of family relationships, with ‘family’ carrying a broad meaning encompassing blood relatives, relatives by affinity, and those connected by law, extending up to various generations. A family feud does not necessarily mean a dispute running across generations; when a prior dispute between family members of the same generation becomes the reason for a subsequent offence, the resulting conflict amounts to a family feud.
Applying this interpretation to the facts, the Bench held that the petitioner’s case falls squarely within Category 3(b) i.e., ‘Murders arising out of Land Dispute, Family Feuds, Family Prestige, and Superstition, committed with premeditation’, and not within Category 2(c) i.e., ‘Offences relating to crime against women and minor, committed with exceptional violence and/or with brutality’.
Briefly, the petitioner, Devidas Haleghongde aged 58 years, convicted as Accused No. 1 in a sessions case, was sentenced to life imprisonment on May 11, 2012, for offences under Sections 302, 307, 452 read with Section 34 IPC. His appeal was dismissed by the Bombay High Court on Sep 08, 2015. By the time of the impugned order, he had undergone 14 years and 2 months of actual imprisonment and 22 years, 6 months and 29 days inclusive of all remissions till Feb 28, 2026.
The petitioner challenged the order passed by Respondent No. 2 (Home Department, Mantralaya), whereby he was placed under Category 2(c) of the Government Guidelines of 2010, prescribing 26 years of imprisonment (including remissions) for premature release. He sought re-categorisation under Category 3(b), which prescribes 22 years, and prayed for immediate release.
The offence arose from a family dispute. The complainant, Meenabai, is the petitioner’s wife, and Bhagyashree is their daughter. Laxmibai, the deceased, was the petitioner’s mother-in-law. The petitioner and his wife had not been on cordial terms for about seven years before the incident. The petitioner had earlier murdered his brother-in-law Dattatraya and was absconding; Laxmibai had filed a complaint in that case, in which Meenabai and Bhagyashree were witnesses. The petitioner developed a grudge against them and, along with his son (co-accused), attacked them with a ‘katti’ and iron pipe, causing Laxmibai’s instantaneous death and severe injuries to Meenabai and Bhagyashree.
