http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: DHARAMBIR AND ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P.

DATE OF JUDGMENT16/07/1979

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. SEN, A.P. (J)

CITATION:  1979 AIR 1595            1980 SCR  (1)   1  1979 SCC  (3) 645

ACT:      Sentencing process  and directions  as may be necessary for the ends of justice-Supreme Court Rules 1966 Order XLVII Rule 6.

HEADNOTE:      Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court ^      HELD: 1.  The conviction  being one  under Section  302 I.P.C.,  the   sentence  awarded   namely,   one   of   life imprisonment, is beyond interference. [2A]      2.  One   of  the   principal  purposes   of   punitive deprivation  of  liberty,  constitutionally  sanctioned,  is decriminalization of  the criminal  and restoration  of  his dignity, self-esteem  and good citizenship, so that when the man emerges  from the  forbidden gates he becomes a socially useful individual. [2C-E]      3. Long  prison terms do not humanise or habilitate but debase  and  promote  recidivism.  Life  imprisonment  means languishing in  prison for  years and years. Such induration of the  soul induced by indefinite incarceration hardens the inmates, not oftens their responses. [2B]      Therefore, the  Court issued  the following  directions designed to  make the  life  of  the  sentence  inside  jail restorative of  his crippled psyche: (a) despatching the two prisoners to  one of  the open  prisons  in  U.P.,  if  they substantially fulfil  the  required  conditions;  (b)  being agriculturists  by   profession  they   be  put  to  use  as agriculturists, whether within or without the prison compass or them small wages; (c) by keeping the prisoners in contact with their  family them  small wages;  (c)  by  keeping  the prisoners in  contact with  their  family  (i)  by  allowing members of  the family  to visit them and (ii) by permitting the prisoners under guarded conditions at least once a year, to visit their families and (d) the prisoners to be released on parole for two weeks, once a year, which will be repeated throughout their  period  of  incarceration  provided  their conduct, while  at large,  is found to be satisfactory. [2E, F, H, 3A-4]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL  APPELLATE   JURISDICTION  :   Special   Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 202 of 1979.      From the  Judgment and  Order dated  3-10-1978  of  the Allahabad High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 1962/74.      K. B. Rohtagi and Praveen Jain for the Petitioner.      O. P. Rana for the Respondent      The Order of the Court was delivered by      KRISHNA IYER,  J.-We are not impressed with the grounds urged before  us and  so dismiss the Special Leave Petition. The conviction  being  one  under  section  302  I.P.C.  the sentence awarded, namely, 2 one  of  life  imprisonment,  is  beyond  interference.  The conviction and sentence must, therefore, stand.      We, however,  notice that  the petitioners in this case are in  their early twenties. We must naturally give thought to the  impact on  these two  young lives of a life sentence which means  languishing in prison for years and years. Such induration of  the soul  induced by indefinite incarceration hardens the  inmates, not softens their responses. Things as they are,  long prison  terms do  not humanise or habilitate but debase  and promote  recidivism. A  host of other vices, which are  unmentionable  in  a  judgment,  haunt  the  long careers of  incarceration, especially when young persons are forced into  cells in  the company  of callous  convicts who live in  sex-starved circumstances Therefore, the conscience of the  court constrains  it to issue appropriate directions which  are   policy-oriented,  as  part  of  the  sentencing process, designed  to make  the life  of the sentence inside jail  restorative   of  his  crippled  psyche.  One  of  the principal  purposes  of  punitive  deprivation  of  liberty, constitutionally sanctioned,  is  decriminalization  of  the criminal and  restoration of  his dignity,  self-esteem  and good citizenship,  so that  when the  man emerges  from  the forbidding gates  he becomes  a socially  useful individual. From this angle our prisons have to travel long distances to meet the ends of social justice.      In the  present case, we think it proper to direct that the State  Government and  the Superintendent  of the Prison concerned will  ensure that  the two  prisoners are  put  to meaningful employment  and, if permissible, to open prisons, as an experimental measure. Counsel for the State represents that there  are open  prisons in the State of Uttar Pradesh. We  direct  the  State  Government  to  despatch  these  two prisoners to  one of  the  open  prisons  in  Uttar  Pradesh without standing  on technical  rules, if substantially they fulfil the required conditions.      We may  take advantage  of this  opportunity to  make a general direction  to the  State Government to draw up a set of rule  to  reform  the  pattern  of  prison  life  and  to transform the  present system  in itself so that the harsher technologies inherited  from imperial times are abandoned in favour of  humane processes constitutionally enlivened under the Republic.  These days, Prison Commissions are at work in many States  and we  do hope that the State of Uttar Pradesh will hasten to bring compassion into prisons.      We are  told that  the prisoners  are agriculturists by profession. It  is better,  therefore, that  they are put to use as  agriculturists, whether within or without the prison compass. Being young, they should also 3 be trained  in any other useful craft, if they have aptitude therefor, so  that when  eventually  they  emerge  from  the prison walls,  they may become sensitive citizens and not be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

an addition  to the  criminals proliferating in the country. We think  that when prisoners are made to work, as these two ought to  be under  our directions, a small amount by way of wages could  be paid  and should be paid so that the healing effect on  their  minds  is  fully  felt.  Moreover,  proper utilisation of  services of  prisoners  in  some  meaningful employment, whether  as cultivators  or as craftsmen or even in creative  labour will be good from the society’s angle as it reduces  the burden  on  the  Public  Exchequer  and  the tension within.  Further, the  humanizing  process  will  be facilitated by  keeping the  prisoners in contact with their family. This can be made feasible (a) by allowing members of the family  to visit the prisoners and (b) by the prisoners, under guarded  conditions, being  permitted, at least once a year, to visit their families. We therefore, direct that all these be done by the State Government and the Superintendent under the  authority of  this Court’s  order. The  prisoners will be  permitted to  go on  parole for  two weeks,  once a year, which  will be  repeated throughout  their  period  of incarceration provided  their conduct,  while at  large,  is found to  be satisfactory. With these directions, we dismiss the Special Leave Petition. V.D.K.                                   Petition dismissed. 4