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]
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
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