Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
PETITIONER:
INDER SINGH & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE (DELHI ADMN.)
DATE OF JUDGMENT24/02/1978
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
SINGH, JASWANT
CITATION:
1978 AIR 1091 1978 SCR (3) 393
1978 SCC (1) 161
ACT:
Proof-Nature of Proof and credibility of testimony in
criminal cases-Constitution of India, 1950 Art. 21-Duty of
the Court in giving directions in criminal cases to ensure
that deprivation of liberty is accompanied by curative
strategy and human dignity.
Criminal Procedure Code, (Act II of 1974) 1973-Ss. 149 to
151-Police to prevent cognizable offences-Their duties
reiterated.
HEADNOTE:
The petitioners aged 16 and 20 were convicted for offences
u/s 302 read with s. 34 and s. 307 I.P.C. and sentenced to
life imprisonment by the trial Court and the High Court
affirmed both the conviction and the sentence awarded to the
accused.
Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court
HELD: 1. Credibility of testimony, oral and
circumstantial, depends considerably on a judicial
evaluation of the totality, not isolated scrutiny. While it
is necessary that proof beyond reasonable doubt should be
adduced in all criminal cases, it is not necessary that it
should be perfect. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a
guideline, not a fetish and guilty man cannot get away with
it because truth suffers some infirmity when projected
through human processes. Judicial uestq for perfect proof
often accounts for police presentation of fool-proof-
concoction. Infirmity in some aspect or other of this
prosecution case cannot invalidate the culpability which is
otherwise veraciously made out. [394 D-F]
The rationale of Court sentence is social defence coupled
with personal correction. Article 21 of the Constitution is
the jurisdictional root for legal liberalism. Courts are
responsible to ensure that deprivation of liberty is
accompanied by curative strategy and human dignity, by
issuing certain positive directions in this regard. [397 B]
The Court directed the State Government (a) to issue
appropriate instructions to the jail authorities to give the
prisoners treatment and work which are not likely to offend
dignity and decency and if necessary in consultation with
the medical officer; (b) If their behaviour shows
responsibility and trustworthiness, to allow them liberal
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
and cautious parole so that their family ties may be
maintained and inner tensions may not further build up; (c)
To enlarge them on parole for two months after every period-
of one year, (d) to afford interviews by family members as
often as are sought, and (e) to teach them useful crafts
inside prison and encourage their studies. The Court fur-
ther directed the Sessions Judge to make jail visits to
ensure compliance with the above directions. [396 G-H, 397
A]
OBSERVATION:
Criminology is more than police "billy" and "peace and
order" is more than smart F.I.R. It is positive action for
prevention. detection and prompt prosecution. [395 G]
[The Court reiterated the preventive action of the police
u/ss. 149 to 151 contained in Ch. XI of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 "which duty has gone by default’]
394
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) No. 238 of 1978.
(Appeal by Special from the Judgment and Order dt. 16-12-77
of the Delhi High Court in Crl. A. No. 135 of 1975).
Frank Anthony, Chaman Lal Itorara and O. P. Soni for the
Petitioners.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA IYER, J.-Mr. Frank Anthony has argued elaborately,
punctuated with strident emphasis, several points in support
of the innocence of the petitioners who have been convicted
under s. 302 read with S. 34 and s. 307 I.P.C. The High
Court has affirmed the conviction entered by the trial court
and sentences of life imprisonment have been awarded by both
the courts for both the accused. Certainly, some persuasive
factors, which may militate against the culpability of the
accused and the prosecution version of the precise nature of
the occurrence, were brought to our notice by counsel who
also strongly urged that there were embellishments and
improbabilities invalidating the conviction. We have had
the advantage of pursuing the extensively spread-out
judgment of the High Court, in the light of the critical
arguments addressed, but remain unconvinced that there is
any serious error which warrants grant of leave.
Credibility of testimony, oral and circumstantial, depends
considerably on a judicial evaluation of the totality, not
isolated scrutiny. While it is necessary that proof beyond
reasonable doubt should be adduced in all criminal cases, it
is not necessary that it should be perfect. If a case is
proved too perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial;
if a case has some flaws, inevitable because human beings
are prone to err, it is argued that it is, too imperfect.
One wonders whether in the meticulous hypersensitivity to
eliminate a rare innocent from being punished, many, guilty
men must be callously allowed to escape. Proof beyond
reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish and guilty man
cannot away with it because truth suffers some infirmity
when projected through human processes. Judicial quest for
perfect proof often accounts for police presentation of
fool-proof concoction. Why fake up ? Because the court asks
for manufacture to make truth look true ? No, we must be
realistic.
We are satisfied that the broad features of the case, the
general trend of the testimony and the convincing array of
facts which are indisputable, converge to the only
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
conclusion that may be reasonably drawn, namely, that the
accused are guilty. Theoretical possibilities may not shake
up, fancied weaknesses may not defeat, when verdicts are
rested on sure foundations. Stray chances of innocence
haunting the corridors of the court cannot topple concurrent
findings of guilt.
We feel unhappy that, while infirmity in some aspect or
other of this prosecution case should not invalidate the
culpability which is otherwise, veraciously made out, tragic
occurrences like this one. should and
39 5
could be avoided by preemptive State action, given
imagination and intelligence. Had that been done the
letlial episode might not have materialised and a young life
not been lost. And, on the other side, two boys, if we may
say so, are the convicts, one who is 16 years and the other
barely 20 years; and yet the attack was induced by a
previous murder, rending a family into two feuding branches
and leading- to this vengeful murder. And the pity of it is
this bleeding explosion was sparked off by a trivial
friction caused by turns of irrigation. We refer ,to the
observation of the High Court :
"As is well known and home out by the reported cases the
drawing of water by turns is an endless cause of dispute,."
If this socioeconomic source of irritation induced by turns
of irrigation, were so frequent, it behaved any aware
Government not to watch and wait for murders to take place
and then to prosecute after lives have ’been lost but to
anticipate and smoothen the whole process so that avoidable
frictions and tensions do not hot up. Violence often erupts
from stress and distress. If wars are made in the minds of
man crimes are rooted in the consciousness of man. It is
the vigilant duty of a responsible Government not to merely
track down criminals after the crime but to forestall
escalation of traumatic build-ups by quia time steps before
the crime. The Administration, we hope, will not wait for
drunken,_brawls and deaths in festivals, fights over turns
of water and deaths in fields and other Eke collisions, but,
like good Governments should do, produce detente in the
villages by appropriate measures which deepen the finer
awareness and foster the better fellowship of men. It is
obvious that this duty has gone by default and may continue
to be so, unless the stiology of crime, in a broader social
perspective, were traced and holistic measures adopted in
advance. Criminology is more than police billy and ’peace
and order’ is more than smart F.I.R. It is positive action
for prevention, detection and prompt prosecution.
Once we agree, as we do, that the conviction under s. 302 is
right. the sentence imposed, namely, life imprisonment is
the minimum. Even so, there is an amount of psychic
distress in marching two young men into lifelong
incarceration. The humanistic aspect of the case may
highlight the deplorable plight of the man behind the
murderer and the mind behind bars. The fact that he has
committed a murder in a fit of anger or prodded by family
feud cannot warrant his being further criminalised by a long
term of brutalising prison life. These two young men must
be redeemed for society because they are after all, men. In
this land elevated by the noble example of Valmiki and the
humane faith of Ghandiji, anyone with any background has a
hopeful future given a therapeutic prison process.
The spiritual basis of our constitutional order-and that is
the dharma of danda neeti-is human dignity and ’social
justice’ and not the, sedastic cruelty of hard confinement
for, years on end. The rationale of court sentence is
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
social defence coupled With personal correction.
The California Supreme Court implied rehabilitation when it
said:
"There is no place in the scheme for punishment for its own
sake, for the product simply of vengeance or retribution."
396
Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972).
Most correctional codes acknowledge the intent to
rehabilitate making it the purpose of confinement. In that
context, Justice Blackman’s language is meaningful in a
United States Supreme Court decision :
"At the least due process requires that the
nature and duration of commitment bear some
reasonable relation to the purpose for which
the individual is committed." Jackson v. In re
Estrada; 63 Cal. 2nd 740 (1965).
In 1971 a U.S. District Court in Maryland found total
rehabilitative effort was missing in a prison system and
ordered that treatment be accelerated. Budgetary
limitations imposed by the State were no excuse. Neither
was noncooperative prisoners. After all, they need
rehabilitation the most. (McCray v. State, 10 Criminal Reptr
2132.) We are clear-and, indeed, this Court has on prior
occasions driven home the sentencing essence-that the
judicial imprimaturs is given to keeping a man in jail, not
in a cage, the difference being that in the former, the
healing technique and hospital setting chasten the tiny
world behind the tall walls. Therefore we emphasis the
spirit of change towards rehabilitation. And "You cannot
rehabilitate a man through brutality and disrespect.
Regardless of the crime a man may commit, he still is a
human being and has feeling. And the main reason most
inmates in prison today disrespect their keepers, is because
they themselves (the inmates) are disrespected and are not
treated like human beings. Does this type of treatment
bring about respect and rehabilitation ? No It only instill
hostility and causes alienation toward the prison officials
from the inmate or inmates involved.
If you treat a man like an animal, then you must expect him
to act Eke one. For every action, there is a reaction.
This is only human nature. And in order for an inmate to
act like a human being, you must treat him as such.
Treating him like an animal will only get negative results
from him. Lewis Moore (71 p. 72)".
This reasoning compels us to issue certain positive
directions, responsible as the court is to ensure that the
deprivation of liberty is accompanied by curative strategy
and human dignity. Karuma must refine life in sarcer.
So, instead of bolting these two young men behind the high
walls of a prison and forgetting about them, humanising
influences must be brought to bear upon them so that a
better sense of responsibility, a kindlier attitude,
behavioral maturity and values of a good life may be
generated under controlled conditions. In this view we
direct the State Government to issue appropriate
instructions to the jail authorites to give these two
prisoners treatment which is not likely to degrade or offend
dignity and decency but uplift and elevate. Work has a
curative, property but the kind of work assigned must be
satisfying not degrading. The Medical Officer concerned
will also be consulted on the proper prescription in this
behalf. Furthermore, if the behaviour of these two
prisoners
397
shows responsibility and trustworthiness, liberal though
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
cautious, Parole will be allowed to them so that their
family ties may be maintained and inner tensions may not
further build up. After every period of one year, they
should be enlarged on parole for two months interviews by
family members must be afforded as often as ire sought.
Useful crafts must be taught inside prison and studies
encouraged. The Sessions Judge whose sentence we uphold,
shall make jail visits to ensure compliance with these
directions. Art. 21 of the Constitution is the juris-
dictional root for this legal liberalism. The State
Government will take proper steps to comply with this curial
command. With these broad obligations cast on the State and
the superintendent, we dismiss the special leave petition.
S.R. Petition dismissed.
9-277SCI/78
398