The Bombay High Court recently ruled that strangling a pregnant woman to death, though tragic, does not qualify as an act of “exceptionally violent” conduct that would warrant denying remission to the convicted individual. The case involved a man who had killed his pregnant wife by strangling her, leading to her death and the loss of her unborn child.
Background:
The convict had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of his wife, which was particularly heinous due to the victim’s pregnancy. However, after serving a substantial portion of his sentence, he sought remission (early release). The matter came to the court’s attention, where the prosecution argued that the manner of the crime, including the victim’s pregnancy, justified keeping him imprisoned.
Court’s Rationale:
In its ruling, the Bombay High Court emphasized that while the crime was undoubtedly heinous, it did not meet the criteria for exceptional violence that would justify denying remission. The court noted that the act, while tragic, did not reach the threshold of “exceptionally violent” as required under the law to deny the benefit of remission.
Existing Measures:
Indian law allows for the possibility of remission or early release of prisoners who have served a significant portion of their sentence, provided certain criteria are met. However, courts are tasked with determining whether the nature of the crime justifies such a release.
Conclusion:
This ruling highlights the complex nature of sentencing and remission decisions in India. While the crime was undoubtedly severe, the court’s focus on the specifics of the law underscores the need for consistency in the application of legal principles regarding early release. The case serves as a reminder of the delicate balance courts must maintain in ensuring justice is served while adhering to legal standards.