863
ASHOK KUMAR
v.
STATE (DELHI ADMJNISTRATION)
_lanuary_ 29, 1980
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.]
_**Criminat**_ _**trials-Sentence-Offender**_ _**in**_ _**his**_ _**teens**_ _**at**_ _**the**_ _**time**_ _**of committing**_
_**the offence-Age,**_ _**if**_ _**a mitigating circumstance.**_
**A**
**B**
**The appellant** **wtls** **co•victed and sentenced to two years'** **im.prisoE.ment** **and**
fine of Rs. 2,000 asd imprisoament for six months aad fiae of Rs. 500 for
**car** **]ifting** **and** **scooter poaching.** **On** **the question of sentence.** **C**
**Allowing the appeals,**
**HELD :** **(a)** **The sentence** **of** **imprisonment is reduced** **to** **th.e** **extent** **of** **the**
**period** **already** **undera;oae;** **but** **th0;** **se11.tences** **of** **fiae** **a11d** **tlle** **alternative** **period**
**of** **imprisonment** **in** **case** **of** **default** **are** **maintained. [865** **H]**
# (b) The long protracted liticatioa fr•• 1971 oaward• is so- deterrent
for a youag man in his 20s. The youthful age of the otfeader io a factor which
**deServe** **consideration.. A long** **period** **of** **in.carceration** **may** **brutalise a boy** **and**
**blunt** **his** **finer** **sensibilities so** **th•t** **the** **elildwproduct** **may** **perhaps** **be** **aore**
**criminal** **than** **the one at the point of** **entry.** **The** **ole•tler** **havi•g served a**
**term** **of** **nearly six months** **must** **have** **realised that** **the** **gamo** **of** **crime** **does not**
pay. [864 D, 865 Cl
( **c)** **Payment of** **fine** **brings** **home the sense of** **respoll5ihility in a** **surer**
**fashion than even** **shortwterms** **of** **imprisonment** **in** **some cases. [865** **CJ**
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JUJUSDICTION _:_ Criminal Appeal Nos. 66-67:
of 19-80.
**D**
E
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated F
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 G
KRISHNA IYER, J.-The common appellant in both these appeals
is a teen-aged student turned criminal adventurer in the elitist area of
car-lifting and scooter-poaching current in our fashionable; cities, includ·
ing 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 **H**
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 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 2 S.C.R,
A 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 month~ and a fine of Rs. 500.
The convictions being concurrenf and no substantial infirmity being
B present, we have confined leave to appeal to the questiqn 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. Sd we have to consider tile totality of factors
bearing on tile offence and the offender and fix a punishment which
will promote effectively tile punitive objective of the Jaw--Oeterrence
C and habilitation.
D
E
IF
B
We do not deem it necessary to set out elaborately all the sociolegal facts which have been discussed at the bar. All that,'we
need say is tllat tile offence took' place in 1971. and we are now in/
1980. A long protracted litigation is some deterrent for 3'. young man
in his twenties. The accused was nineteen when the offences were
committed and his youthful age is a factor which deserve& consideration. A long period of incarceration in tile present condition of prisons
may brutalise tile boy and blunt his finer sensibilities so that the endproduct may perhaps be more criminal than the one at the point of
entry. Not tllat 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 tllose 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. 111at is why I have
consistently tried to say that any man wh0i is imprisoned
in one particular set of circumstances for more than five
years is probably dead for life. It is highly unlikely that
tho5e _who_ have endured that kind of monotonous' deadening
will be able to recover in tile 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
### ·---1
\
'
## ~
.
## '
ASHOK KUMAR _v._ STATE _(Krishna Iyer,_ _**1.)**_ 865
i'n 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 ltd will be of recovering his
place and establishing his positio,n 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 months'
imprisonment and it is a well-known fact for criminologists that the
initial few months of jail life are the: most painfu1 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 thf1
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
insn.rance 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 neces•
sary 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 undertakin~ given by the uncle has, therefore,
considerable relevance. We make a breach of th~ conditions in the
affidavit actionable on the motion of the State.
It is a tragic reflection that afilnent criminality should become so
pervasive among the student community. It is uncomplimentary to the
character-building component of the system of education in tl1e presti·
gious institutions of onr 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 maintai'n the sentences of fine
and the alternative period of imprisonment in case of default.
**P.B.R.** _Appeals allowed._
**A**
**B**
# **c**
**D**
**E**
**F**
**G**
### **B**
