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

PETITIONER: VED PRAKASH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/11/1980

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)

CITATION:  1981 AIR  643            1981 SCR  (1)1279  1981 SCC  (1) 447

ACT:      Sentencing  exercise  by  the  Court-Code  of  Criminal Procedure, 1973,  Section 360  read with section 4(1) of the Probation of  offenders, Act  1958-Duty of the Bench and the Bar, explained.

HEADNOTE:      Maintaining the  conviction, allowing the appeals as to sentence and releasing the accused on Probation the Court ^      HELD: Sentencing  an  accused  person  is  a  sensitive exercise of  discretion and  not  a  routine  or  mechanical prescription acting  as hunch. The social background and the personal  factors  or  the  crime-doer  are  very  relevant, although  in  practice  Criminal  Courts  have  hardly  paid attention to the social milieu or the personal circumstances of the offender. Even if Section 360 Criminal Procedure Code is not  attached, it  is the duty of the sentencing court to be activist  enough to collect such facts as  have a bearing on punishment  with    rehabilitating  slant. The Bench must fulfil the humanising mission of sentencing implicit in such enactment as  the Probation  of offenders Act. [1279 H. 1280 A-D]

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION. Criminal  Appeal Nos. 291292 of 1980.      ( Appeals  by Special leave from the Judgment and order dated the  10th of  February, 1977 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 430, 828 and 429/73.)      A. P. Mohanty and S. K. Sabharwal for the Appellant.      R. N. Poddar for the Respondent. F      The order of the Court was delivered by      KRISHNA IYER,  J.-In this case, the question of dealing with the  appellant under  S.  360  Cr.P.C.  remains  to  be considered. For  this purpose  we had directed that a report be  called   for   from   the   Probation   officer   having jurisdiction.  That  report  has  been  put  in.  F{is  age, according to  the Jail  Doctor, was  24 years  on  23-4-1973 which means  that on  the date  of the  offence, he was less

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

than 21  years old.  The offence,  for which  conviction has been rendered,  is one  which will be attracted by S. 360 or at any  rate the  Probation  of  offenders  Act,  1958.  The materials before  us are  imperfect because  the Trial Court has  been   perfunctory  in   discharging   its   sentencing functions. We  must emphasise  that  sentencing  an  accused person is 1280 a sensitive  exercise of  discretion and  not a  routine  or mechanical prescription  acting on  hunch. The  Trial  Court should have  collected materials  necessary to  help award a just punishment  in the circumstances. The social background and the personal factors of the crime-doer are very relevant although  in  practice  Criminal  Courts  have  hardly  paid attention to the social milieu or the personal circumstances of the offender. Even if S. 360 Cr.P.C. is not attracted, it is the duty of the sentencing Court to be activist enough to collect such  facts as  have a  bearing on punishment with a rehabilitating slant.  The absence  of suck materials in the present case  has left  us with  little assistance even from the counsel.  Indeed members  of the  bar also  do  not  pay sufficient attention  to these  legislative provisions which relate to  dealing with  an offender  in such manner that he becomes  a  non-offender.  We  emphasise  this  because  the legislations which relate to amelioration in punishment have been regarded  as ’Minor  Acts’ and,  therefore,  of  little consequence. This  is a  totally wrong  approach and even if the Bar  does not help, the Bench must fulfil the humanising mission of  sentencing implicit  in such  enactments as  the Probation  of  offenders  Act.  In  the  present  case,  the offender is  a young  person and  his  antecedents  have  no blemish. His  life is  not unsettled  or  restless  and  the report indicates  that he  is an  agriculturist, pursuing  a peaceful vocation.  His parents  are alive and he has a wife and children  to maintain.  These are stabilizing factors in life. A  long period  of litigation and the little period of imprisonment suffered?  will surely serve as a deterrent. We are mindful of the fact that a fire-arm has been used by the appellant and  we cannot  sleep  over  the  gravity  of  the offence. Nevertheless,  the report  of the Probation officer states that  the appellant is not given to any bad habits or stresses of  poverty. A  land dispute  led to  the crime and that does  not survive  any longer.  The  Probation  officer recommends that  an opportunity be given to the appellant to improve himself  and bring up his family by honest labour as an agriculturist so that the interests of social defence may be secured.  We are  inclined to agree that in this case the appellant may  be given  the benefit  of  the  Probation  of offenders Act.  We are  satisfied that  the offender  has  a fixed place of abode and regular occupation. We are inclined also  to  rely  on  the  Probation  officer’s  report  which supports  the   direction  for  release  on  probation.  We, therefore, direct  that the  appellant be  released under S. 4(1) of the Probation of offenders Act, 1958, and instead of sentencing him  direct that  he be  released on his entering into a bond before the trial Court with two sureties, one of whom shall  be his  father, to  appear and  receive sentence when called  upon during the period of. three years from the date of release and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. In addition, 1281 we pass  an order  that the  Probation  officer  shall  have supervision A over the offender for a period of one year and shall make  reports once  every three months to the Sessions Court about  the conduct of the offender. We direct further,

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

that the  appellant shall  be specially  supervised from the point of  consumption of  intoxicants and the matter brought to the  notice of  the Court in case the appellant violates. The undertaking to be incorporated in his bond shall contain a term  that he  shall not consume alcohol during the period covered by  the bond.  We allow  the appeals  in the  manner above indicated. S.R.                                         Appeal allowed.

1