A. H. JOSHI, J.:- Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged his categorization in Category 1(e) and requiring him to continue in jail until completion of 28 years. Such Category (e) reads as follows :- “e) Where the crime is committed with exceptional violence or with perversity years." 3. According to the petitioner, said categorization is wrong, as he is not involved in any offence leading to perversity, or exceptional violence. 4. On earlier date, learned Additional Public Prosecutor was directed to make available for perusal of the Court a copy of Judgment in Sessions Case No.54 of 1989, conviction and sentence wherein was the basis of imprisonment of the petitioner. Copy of Judgment is produced as well as is supplied to learned Advocate for the petitioner. 5. It is seen from the body of the said Judgment that the motive behind commission of offence, as revealed from the Dying Declaration of the deceased, is apparent. Accused had put the deceased ablaze by pouring kerosene on her because she refused to offer herself for sexual company to one Police Constable, from whom, according to her, accused had taken Rs.100/-, and he wanted her to live the life of a prostitute. 6. The Dying Declaration was believed by the Sessions Court and that was made foundation of conviction. The said Dying Declaration, therefore, once having been believed, is again liable to be believed and is correctly believed by the Government. 7. This Court does not find any fault in allotment of category to the petitioner. The petition has no merit. The same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.