LexDHARAMBIR AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•
7
DHARAMBIR AND ANR.
v.
STATE OF U.P.
July 16, 1979
(V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND A. P. SEN, JJ.J
Sentencing process and directions as may be necessary for the ends of
justice-Supreme Court Rules 1966 Order XLVIl Rule 6.
Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court
B
HELD· : 1. The conviction being one und'er Se1:tion 302 I.P.C., the sentence
awarded namely, one of life imprisonment, is beyond interference.
{2A]
C
2. One of the principa.1 purposes of punitive deprivation of liberty, coDBtitu·
tionally sanctioned,
i~ decriminalisaition of the criminal and re~toration 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 deb::M!e and promote
recidivism.
Life imprisonment meatl9 languishing in prison for ye1111 and yeani.
Such induration of the soul induced by indefinite incarceratiori ha.rdelli the
inmates, not oftens their response!. [2B]
Therefore, the Court issued the following directions designed to make the
life of the sentencee inside j&il restorative of his crippled psyche : (R) despatch-
ing the two prisoners to one of the open prisons in U.P., if they 1ubstactially
fulfil the required conditions; (b) being agriculturists by profession they be
put to use a" agriculturists, whether within or without the prison compass or
them small wages; (c) by keeping the prisoners in contact with their family
then1 small wages; (c) by keeping the prisoners in contact with their family
(i) by allowing member" of the family to visit them and (ii) by permitting the
prisoners under guarded conditions at least once a year, to vUiit their famili'!!i
llnd ( d) the prisoners to b'e relca.,ed on parole for two weeks, once a year,
which will be repeated throughout their period of incarceration provided their
conduct, 'vhile at large, is found to be "atisfactory. [2E, F, H. 3A-41
CRIMINAL APPELLATI': JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Cr!.)
No. 202 of 1979.
From the Judgment and Order dat€d 3-10-1978 of the Allahabad
D
E
F
High Court in Cr!. Appeal No. 1962/74.
G
K. B. Rohtagi and Pravun Jain for the Petitioner.
0. P. Rana for the Respondent
The Order of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA IYER, J.-We arc not impressed with the grounds ur~cd
II
before us and so dismiss the Special Leave Petition. The conviction
being one under section 302 I.P.C. the sentence awarded,
namoly,
B
c
D
E
I!'
G
ff
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1980] I S.C.R.
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 respon-
ses.
Things >as they are, long prison terms do not humanise or habi-
litate but debase ancl promote recidivism. A host of other vices, which
are unmentionable in a judgment, haunt the long careers of incarce-
ration, 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 >appro-
priate directions which are policy-oriented, as part of the sentencing
process, designed to make the life of the sentence inside jail restorative
of his crippl_ed psyche.
One of the principal purposes oE
punitive
deprivation of liberty, constitutionally sanctioned, is decriminalisation
of the criminal and restoration of his dignity, self-esteem and good
citizienship, 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 techExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.