The Bombay High Court has upheld the classification of a woman convicted of participating in the dowry death of another woman under the remission category dealing with crimes against women, rather than the category dealing with crimes committed by women. The Court observed that the case of the victim cannot be totally neglected, and a beneficial interpretation cannot provide a way for erroneous interpretation of remission guidelines.

A Division Bench of Justice Sandipkumar C. More and Justice Vaishali Patil-Jadhav was hearing a writ petition challenging the State Government's decision to place her under Category 2(C) of the 2010 remission guidelines and Category 1(d) of the 1992 guidelines. These categories prescribe 26 years of imprisonment, including remissions, for consideration of premature release.

The petitioner sought classification under Category 1(B) of the 2010 guidelines, which prescribes 20 years. The petitioner was convicted in 2005 under Sections 498A and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The petitioner argued that Category 1(B), which specifically covers offences relating to crimes by women, was a special and beneficial category applicable to her because she was a woman. The State opposed the plea, contending that the case fell under Category 2(C), which covers crimes against women and minors involving exceptional violence, brutality or death caused by burns.

The Court noted that Category 1(B) of the 2010 guidelines concerns murders committed by women with premeditation or by a gang, prescribing 20 years of imprisonment. In contrast, Category 2(C) covers crimes against women and minors involving exceptional violence or brutality, or where the victim dies due to burns, prescribing 26 years.

The Court noted that the present case involved a conflict between two categories relating to women: one concerning crimes committed by women and the other concerning crimes against women. The involved a situation where the victim and accused both are women; the Court held that the application of categories will have to be harmoniously construed.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Jagdish [2010 AIR (SC) 1690], the Court clarified that the apex court did not lay down that whichever category in a particular guideline is more beneficial to the convict should be applied, observing that the case of the victim cannot be totally neglected.

“No doubt, the law has always been in favour of the accused but some consideration is also required to be given to the victim. The case of the victim cannot be totally neglected. That would be the travesty of justice… a liberal approach or beneficial interpretation cannot be equated with erroneous approach or incorrect application of guidelines issued for remission,” the Court remarked.

The Bench observed that Category 2(C) was introduced in the 2010 guidelines in view of the large number of dowry deaths caused by burning, with the objective of providing for a higher period of imprisonment to deter such crimes.

Since the victim's was caused by burns, the Court held that the petitioner's case appropriately fell under Category 2(C), notwithstanding that the petitioner herself was a woman. It observed:

“… the cause of the death of the victim was due to burns and category 2(C) specifically deals with "death due to burns". In such a situation, harmonious construction is required and hence, we deem it appropriate to categorize the case of the petitioner in category 2(C) of the Guidelines of 2010.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and declined to interfere with the State Government's decision to classify the petitioner under Category 2(C) of the 2010 remission guidelines.

Case Title: Ashabai Puna Tayade v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Writ Petition No. 1193 of 2026]