Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
ASHOK KUMAR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)
DATE OF JUDGMENT29/01/1980
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
PATHAK, R.S.
CITATION:
1980 AIR 636 1980 SCR (2) 863
1980 SCC (2) 282
ACT:
Criminal trials-Sentence-Offender in his teens at the
time of committing the offence-Age, if a mitigating
circumstance.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant was convicted and sentenced to two years’
imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000 and imprisonment for six
months and fine of Rs. 500 for car lifting and scooter
poaching. On the question of sentence.
Allowing the appeals,
^
HELD : (a) The sentence of imprisonment is reduced to
the extent of the period already undergone; but the
sentences of fine and the alternative period of imprisonment
in case of default are maintained. [865 H]
(b) The long protracted litigation from 1971 onwards is
some deterrent for a young man in his 20s. The youthful age
of the offender is a factor which deserve consideration. A
long period of incarceration may brutalise a boy and blunt
his finer sensibilities so that the incarceration may
perhaps be more criminal than the one at the point of entry.
The offender having served a term of nearly six months must
have realised that the game of crime does not pay. [864 D,
865 C]
(c) Payment of fine brings home the sense of
responsibility in a surer fashion than even short-terms of
imprisonment in some cases. [865 C]
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos.
66-67 of 1980.
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and order
dated 30/8/1979 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Revision
Nos. 65-66 of 1979.
N. S. Das Bahl for the Appellant.
M. N. Shroff for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA IYER, J.-The common appellant in both these
appeals is a teen-aged student turned criminal adventurer in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
the elitist area of car-lifting and scooter-poaching current
in our fashionable cities, including Delhi. While he was a
college student and but 19 years old, the appellant tried
his hand at stealing a scooter way back in 1971. He was
arrested but bailed out and while on bail was accused of
committing a car theft. Both these cases were tried and he
was found guilty. The
864
scooter offence resulted in a sentence of two years’
imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000. The car theft case got
converted into an offence under Section 411 I.P.C. and,
consequently, a reduced sentence of imprisonment for six
months and a fine of Rs. 500.
The convictions being concurrent and no substantial
infirmity being present, we have confined leave to appeal to
the question of sentence only. But sentencing-the cutting
edge of the judicial process is the crucial strategy of the
criminal law in achieving social defence and delinquent
rehabilitation. So we have to consider the totality of
factors bearing on the offence and the offender and fix a
punishment which will promote effectively the punitive
objective of the law-deterrence and habilitation.
We do not deem it necessary to set out elaborately all
the socio-legal facts which have been discussed at the bar.
All that we need say is that the offence took place in 1971
and we are now in 1980. A long protracted litigation is some
deterrent for a young man in his twenties. The accused was
nineteen when the offences were committed and his youthful
age is a factor which deserves consideration. A long period
of incarceration in the present condition of prisons may
brutalise the boy and blunt his finer sensibilities so that
the end-product may perhaps be more criminal than the one at
the point of entry. Not that all prison terms are not
deterrent but some cases prove to be counter productive
especially when the delinquent is young.
It may be interesting to recall Lord Soper’s
observations in the House of Lords in a debate on British
Prisons, where he said:
"Now as to reform. I was a prison chaplain for 30
years. I cannot remember a single man who was reformed
by being in prison-not one. I can remember those who,
serving very short sentences, were for a time, perhaps,
brought to recognise something of the gravity of what
they had been doing; but I am completely convinced that
the longer a man stays in prison, the longer he stays
in that kind of incarceration, the less is the prospect
of reform and the more certain is the process of decay.
That is why I have consistently tried to say that any
man who is imprisoned in one particular set of
circumstances for more than five years is probably dead
for life. It is highly unlikely that those who have
endured that kind of monotonous deadening will be able
to recover in the real world what they have lost in the
artificial element and environment of prison life.
There has been, I think, in my time, a considerable
increase
865
in the amelioration of conditions in prison; but, to
refer again for a moment to the artificiality of it,
the longer a man stays in prison the less capable he
will be of recovering his place and establishing his
position back in the real world to which he is
increasingly made alien by the very processes which he
undergoes."
Moreover, the appellant has already suffered nearly six
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
months’ imprisonment and it is a well-known fact for
criminologists that the initial few months of jail life are
the most painful and, therefore, the most deterrent. In the
present case the offender having served a term of nearly six
months must well have realised that the game of crime does
not pay.
The fines of Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 500 imposed on the
appellant should remain without interference. Payment of
fine brings home the sense for responsibility in a surer
fashion than even short terms of imprisonment in some cases.
We, therefore, decline to reduce the fine and reject
counsel’s plea in this behalf.
More important than these circumstances is the social
urgency of making this student offender a non-offender.
There are two circumstances which weigh in our mind. The
young man has married and has three children. This is a
measure of assurance that he will not play recklessly with
his freedom. Family life is ordinarily an insurance against
a career of crime. We have also insisted on the uncle of the
appellant undertaking to assure the good behaviour of the
nephew who is the delinquent in question. The uncle Shri
Kohli has filed an affidavit dated 10-12-1979 in this Court
making the necessary undertaking to guarantee the good
behaviour of his nephew. Thoughtless parents and guardians
leaving a free hand for their wards account for flippant
criminality of the type we come across in middle class
society. The undertaking given by the uncle has, therefore,
considerable relevance. We make a breach of the conditions
in the affidavit actionable on the motion of the State.
It is a tragic reflection that affluent criminality
should become so pervasive among the student community. It
is uncomplimentary to the character-building component of
the system of education in the prestigious institutions of
our cities. We hope the State will take better care to
instil a sense of values in the college campuses than it
does now. We allow the appeals to the extent of reducing the
sentence of the appellant to the period undergone, but
maintain the sentences of fine and the alternative period of
imprisonment in case of default.
P.B.R. Appeals allowed.
866