DILBAG SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1134 · Decided: 25-01-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A. 
8 
c 
D 
1134 
DILBAG SINGH 
". 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
January 25, 1979 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER, D. A. DESAI AND A. P. SEN, JJ.] 
Sentence-Senteucing power under Section 248(2) and s. 235(2) of 
the 
CrimiMl .Procedune Code, 1973 (Act II uf 1974)-Ne.ed for 
non-imtilution· 
alised sentendng and value of pre·sentencin~ investfgation reports while exer~ 
cising the right to sentence-Guidelines to be l1:iid down--Purpose of s. 366· 
of Criminal Procedure Code highlighted. 
In the ci!sc of a trial before a court of 5cssion, under s. 235(2) Criminal· 
Procedure Code "if the accused is convicted, the Judge sJlali, unlf'ss he pro--
ceedi in accordance with the provisions of s. 360, hear the 
acCUled on the· 
question of sentence, and then pass sentence on him according to law." Similarly, 
in the case of trial of warrant cases by Magistrates, under s. 248(2) of the 
Code, ''where the Magistrate finds the accused guilty, but does not proceed in 
accordance with the provisions of s. 325 or s: 360, he shall after hearing the 
accused on the question of sentence, pass sentence upon him according to law." 
Section 361 of the Code mandates that "where ia any case, the court could! 
have dealt with :-
(a) an ac..cused person under s. 360 or under thC .Provisions of the Proba-
E 
lion of Offenders' Act, 1958 (Act XX of 1958) or; 
F 
G 
II 
(b) a youthful offender under the Children Act, 1960 (Act LX of 1960)-
or any other law for the ·time being in force for the treatment, training or reha-
bilitation of youthful offenders, but has not done- so, it shall record in its. 
judgment, the special reasons for not having done so." Thus, under the Cri-
minal Procedure Code, 1973, recourse to the provisions of s. 360 is a must. 
• 
In a trial aogain~t four persons charged by the Police with offences under 
ss. 302, 324, 323 IPC, including constructive liability under s. 34, two were, 
acquitted by the trial ,court and two were convicted. The appellant was sen-· 
tenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of 
Rs. 200 /-
for 
causing simple injury to one Arjan Singh. He was held 
vicariously 
guilty 
under ss. 324/34 JPC and awarded two :,rears rigorous imprisonment and a 
fine of Rs.' 1000/-. Jn addition he was convicted under 
s. 323 IPC, 
for 
causing hurt to the daughter of the deceased and on this count punished with· 
RI. for one year together with a fine of Rs. 200/·. 
Releasing the appellant on probation, the Court 
HELD : 1. Enacted law is guilty of inaction; because its obscure presence 
on the statute book escapes the vigilance of the Bar. Where. even the Court 
ignores what is vital to the little man the guarantee of sentencia.g 
legality--
becomes a casualty. [1135H, 1\36A] 
.. 
I-
\o 
jii 
.. 
,_, 
"' 
,I 
• 
' I
y 
·' 
, 
' 
• 
• 
DILBAG SINGH v. PUNJAB (Krishna [~er, J.) 
1135 
2. To jail an accused is mechanical farewell to the finer sentencing sensi-
A 
tivity of the Judge of salvaging lai redeemable man 
by 
non-institutionalised; 
treatment. If the judge has before him a complete and accurate pre-sentence; 
investigation report which sets forth the conditions, circumstances, background, 
and surrounding of the accused and the circumstances underlying the offence 
which has been committe~ the judge could then impose sentence with greater· 
assurance that he has adopted the proper course. The purpose of s. 360 of 
the Code is pre<:isely 
this and the goal of s. 235(2) is just this. 
[1138H, 
B 
1140B-C] 
3. Sentencing legality is violated when the judge shirks. And the Bar is 
often alien to correcti9nal alternatives and concentrates its 
ammunition on 
culpab1Jity and extenuatory scaling down of h11prisonment. 
[1189F] 
4. Calling pre-sentence investigation reports, bestowal of intelligent care 
C 
on the choice between institutional and non-institutional disposition like proba-
tion, C'll!ditional release and such community .Jllethods must form 
part 
of 
innova1"'e sentences. 
But this should be based on careful study 
of 
the 
convict and his potentiality for reform; not guess-work, nor insensitive assess-
ments. [1137B-El 
Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 249; quoted with approval. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeat No. 313 
of 1978. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
22-3-78 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal 
D 
No. 189/75. 
E 
A. S. Sohal and S. K. Jain for the Appellant. 
Hardev Singh for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivere

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.