http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: NADELLA VENKATA KRISHNA RAO

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

DATE OF JUDGMENT15/12/1977

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. TULZAPURKAR, V.D.

CITATION:  1978 AIR  480            1978 SCR  (2) 403  1978 SCC  (1) 208

ACT: Sentencing-Purpose and justification of a sentence.

HEADNOTE: Appellant  accused  No. 2 was charged along with Al  and  A3 u/ss.  489A and 489D I.P.C., but found guilty and  convicted u/ss.  489C and 489D, and sentenced to ten years  and  seven years   under  the  said  counts,  the  sentences   to   run concurrently.   The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed  the appeal preferred against it and confirmed the sentence. Dismissing  the  appeal by special leave  and  reducing  the sentence to five years on each count, the Court HELD  : Harsh and prolonged incarceration may  sometimes  be self-defeating.   The most hurtful part of  imprisonment  is the  initial  stage  when a person is  confined  in  person. Thereafter  he gets sufficiently ’hardened and callous  with the  result  that by the time he is  processed  through  the years inside the prison he becomes dehumanized.  The  accent must  therefore  be more and more on  rehabilitation  rather than retributive punitively inside the prison. [403 G-H] U.N.  Document A/COF/76/1 Annex I.A. Items 38 and 59  quoted with approval.

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 505 of 1977. Appeal  by Special Leave from the Judgment and  Order  dated 25-2-77 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Crl.  A. No.  14 of 1976. Frank Anthony and B. Kanta Rao for the Appellant. P. P. Rao, G. N. Rao and L. J. Vadakara for the Respondent. The Order of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA  IYER,  J.-Leave  is  granted  on  the  question  of sentence only. This  is  a case Where the accused have  been  acquitted  of counterfeiting  but  have been convicted  of  possession  of materials  for counterfeiting.  It makes  little  difference from the point of view of guilt and injury to. society.  The trial  court  awarded  a  sentence  of  10  years   rigorous imprisonment  and that has been affirmed by the High  Court.

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

We  think  that  health  and  prolonged  incarceration   may sometimes  be  self-defeating.   The most  hurtful  part  of imprisonment is the initial stage when a person is  confined in  prison.   Thereafter he gets sufficiently  hardened  and callous  with  the result that by the time he  is  processed through  the  years inside the prison he  becomes  more  de- humanised.   The whole goal of punishment being curative  is thereby  defeated.   The accent must therefore be  more  and more  on rehabilitation, rather than retributive  punitivity inside  the  prison.   In this context,  it  is  helpful  to remember items 58 & 59 in the rules applicable to  prisoners under sentence framed as the Standard Minimum Rules 404 of  the Treatment. of Prisoners (U.N.  Document  A/COF/76/1, Annex.  I.A.)               58.   The  purpose  and  justification  of   a               sentence of imprisonment or a similar  measure               derivative of liberty is ultimately to protect               society  against crime.  This end can only  be               achieved if the period of imprisonment is used               to  ensure, so-far as possible, that upon  his               return  to  society the offender is  not  only               willing  but  able to lead a  law-abiding  and               self-supporting life..               59.   To  this  end,  the  institution  should               utilize all the remedial, educational,  moral,               spiritual  and  other  forces  and  forms   of               assistance    which   are   appropriate    and               available,  and  should  seek  to  apply  them               according  to the individual, treatment  needs               of the prisoners., Giving anxious consideration to the need for  rehabilitation and  deterrence we consider that the prisoner in this  case, who is the appellant before us may serve a sentence of  five years  which may be long enough for correctional  treatment, at  the  same  time  not  unduly  lone  to  be  regarded  as repugnantly harsh.  We dare say that during this period  the State  jail  authorities  will  take  care  to  subject  the appellant to humanising treatment so that when he comes  out he will desist from criminality and turn a new leaf. We  reduce the sentence awarded by the courts below to  five years rigorous imprisonment on both counts which are to  run concurrently, Subject to the above, the appeal is dismissed. S.R. Appeal dismissed. 405