The Bombay high court on Wednesday lowered the sentence of an accused after it observed that the crime was not pre-meditated. A division bench of Justice V.K. Tahilramani and Justice S.S. Jadhav was hearing an appeal filed by murder convict Ramu Nathu Jadhav sentenced to life imprisonment by a lower court in Kolhapur, for killing his brother during a quarrel. On May 1, 2005, the brother of the accused, Ambo, went to his house and demanded his share of woods from their dismantled house. The duo got into a quarrel over the issue and had a verbal altercation. In the midst of the argument, the accused Ramu picked up a stick lying nearby and assaulted his brother. After sustaining grievous injuries to his head and his body, the brother of the accused died the following day. While passing the order, the accused noted that the act of the accused was not pre-meditated and that the accused had assaulted his brother in a scuffle. “The accused had no knowledge that his brother would come to his house at that time, to demand his share. The provocation was such that the accused was temporarily deprived of the power of self-control and hence, the act was committed in the spur of the moment,” the court observed. The court held the accused guilty of committing an offence under Section 304 ii (culpable homicide, not amounting to murder) and commuted his sentence from life to 10 years.
*** Mid-term transfer should be given in writing: hc Age Correspondent Mumbai, March 13
Observing that a mid-term or premature transfer ought to have been stated in writing, the Bombay high court on Wednesday set aside the transfer order of the district manager of Maharashtra OBC Finance and Development Corporation. A division bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice K.K. Tated was hearing a petition filed by district manager Kishore Mhaske, challenging the firm’s transfer order. In his petition, he had stated that he was posted in Mumbai in 2011 and according to the rules he could not be transferred for a period of three years. He informed the court that he had hardly completed three years when he was transferred. While quashing the transfer order, the court said that the reason for transfer should have been given in writing. “The exercise of exceptional statutory power has to be transparent, reasonable and rational to serve objectives of the law,” the court observed.
