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