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