LexJUGAL KISHORE PRASAD versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
c
D
E
F
G
II
JUGAL. KISHORE PRASAD
v.
STAlE OF BIHAR
August 16. 1972
875
[1. M. SHELAT, I. D. DuA AND H. R . .KHANNA, JJ.]
~~!ba:ion ,o,h1 o,Demfer;r Act, 1(20 o,t 1958). II, 6-Convicticns tor obtDU
p11nu,.. 1t w
m~ruonTMnt or 1/e or leJ>ur ttrm-Witnh
~
..
below 21 ytars can mvoke uction.
tr o.tu:rt.
The appellant, who was les!l. than 21 yean of age, waa convicted far
an oft'~.:;ce . under s. 326 read 'Mth. t. 1<40 I.P.C., and was sentenced to 3
years 1111pnsonment • . On the question whether he could claim the bellllt
of s. 6 of the Probalton of Offenders Act, 1958,
HELD : ( 1) The Act Wa! enacted with a view to provide for the ·re-
k:ase o! offenders of certain categora:.. on probation or after due admoa.i-
tion with the object of preventing the conver!ion of youthful offenders of
lts5 than 21 yean ~into obdurate c:rimiiWs IIlia result of their a.s5o~atioa
with hardened criminal! dl mature a~ in the jail Where, however, tb
ofi'enc.e tor which a person has been convicted is of a serious naturo
puni!hable with imprisonment for life, or i~ one of thoae speCified in a. IS
of the Act, the benefit of the Act woul~ not be available. [877G-H; 879A-CJ
(2) '[he appellant, on being convicted for the offence under a. 3l0
re:od with a. 149. I.P.C., was liable to be punished with impruonmenl r.r
li!e. Therefore. he would not be entitled to the beneftt of ,_ 6 of 1U
Probation of Offenders Act. To bold othel"'''t'iee would be treatinJ the 'lt'il~ir.!
'but not with imprisonment for life' in the section, as oti~. contra,ry
to rules ot construction. (878B-GJ
.
(3) The 'lact that impri5onmeot for a lesser term can also be a~ard.ed
for the offence would not take it out of the categJry of offent'CS pun~ble
with impruonment for life. [8780·Hl .
.
Som Natfr Puri v. State of Rajattlran, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1•90, followea.
CRntrNAL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Criminal
Appeal
No, 46 of J 969 .
.4 p~l under Article 134 (1 )(c) of the
Co~mrrgo~ 96~£
lndia from tbe juds~ment and ~rd~ 1daAted ~~: 1 r 6 of 1966:
of Che Patna Hi~h Court in Cnmma
ppea
·
S M M . h
d S S Jaulwr for the nppell::mt.
.
.
ts ra an
. .
•
B. P. Jha, lor the respondent.
The Judgment of the Courl was delivered by
.
.
.
hlch arises for deteriiiJ.JlatJon
. ~.
J. The short quC-'tion w
Patna High Court is wbe-
ln thU appeal on certificnte granted b~ 1
ear-~ of age on the date
lher the appellant who was lc:ss =
y tion 326 read wit~ 8ec·
or hi'! ronviction for an offence
fr· sec the benefit of sectton 6
tion 149 Indian Penal Code, can 195gn(Act No. 20 of 1958).
or the Prob<~tion of Offenders Act,
~ ..
.,
'
. I.
I
.
t'
'
j t
I
I.
816 .
sUPJJ!ME CO'llllT :&EPOI.TS
[1973] 1 S.C.R..
Uan and five- otherS. who belong to. ~I.agc Mand.il
~.
ap~aya.,t were tried in the court of Additional Sessions
in d
15~ct for offences under sections 147, 148, 307,, 323 and
111 ge ;~th ~tion 149 Indian Penal Code and S;CCtion 25 of
~: ~
Act. Jugal Kishore appellant 'Yas convict~ under
5eetion 326 read with section 149 and .sectton !48 ~Penal
Code and was sentenced to undergo ngoro.us IID.P'JSOilJ?lent for
a period of five years on the first COilDt and ngorous unPnsonment
for a period of two years on the second count. The sentcnce5
awarded to the appellant were ord~red to run c~ncurrently. The
other five accused were also conVlcted for vanous offences and
were sentencd on those counts.
On appeal the Patna High Court as per judgment . ~a~
January 22 1968 acquitted two of the accused. The convtction
<>f the appe'Uant for offences under section 326 read with section
149 and 148 Indian Penal Code was maintained. The sentence of
the a!)pel!ant for the offence under section 326 read with section
149 Indian Penal Code wa'! reduced from five years to three years.
The sentence for the offence under section 148 ·Indian Penal Code
was, however, maintained.
The conviction. of the other three
accused was maintained for som'=!' of the offences, and they were
awarded sentences of impnsonmcnt on that count. After Ll-)e pro-
nouncement of the jud~ment by the High Court, an app!icatiot)
was made on behalf o{ the appellant that his case be deal with
under t.lJe Probation of Offeuders Act on the ground that hCJ was
below 21 years of age at the time of his conviction bv the trial
court. This application was reject~ by the High Court as per ·
order ~ated December 12, 196R . n the ground that the offence
for wh1ch _thExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.