LINGALA VIJAYAKUMAR & ORS. versus PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [1979] 1 S.C.R. 2 · Decided: 02-08-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
2 
LINGALA VIJA Y AKUMAR & ORS. 
v. 
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH 
August 2,. 1978 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER, D. A. DESAI AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.J 
Scnt::nce-E·nhancement of the sentence by the High Court under Secaon 
377 of the Cri!ninal Procedure Code, 1973 explained. 
Sentence-Correctional sentence, p/t'(1 
for-P.~ison justice 
vis-a-\·is 
social 
justice and right of the prisoners to hun1ane treat111ent under Art. 19 of the 
Constitution. 
The appellants were duly prosecuted, ';onvictcd and av,'arded sentences of 
2:! years rigorous imprisonment each for the ofience of having robbed the State 
Bank by committing dacoity. Appeals by the accused and the State ended in 
the enhancement of the sentence to seven yerirs R.I. each. 
Hence the appeal 
by special leave. 
Dismissing the appeal, but mcxlifying the sentence 
as 
a\vardcd 
by 
the 
D 
Sessions. the Court 
E 
HELD : The High Court has superseded the 
trial 
Court's 
discretionary 
impost for which it has power, proYided error in principle or perverse exercise 
or like faux pas is pointed out and those reasons are stated. Appellate power 
to prune or protract is not unbridled when discretion once exercised is 
to 
be 
upset. 
And the higher Court can be draconic, if grounds exist, but it cannot 
be laconic. 
The specific reasons assigned by the 
Sessions 
Court must be 
countered by clear ratioci11ation and then the Supreme Court ordinarily keeps 
out. 
[6 A-B, E] 
In the instant case, the four words v.ihich did justice to the trial court were 
"the ends of justice" V.iithout specifying what they V.'ere 
and 
there was 
no 
speaking order in the High Court's substantial enhancement. None 
of 
the 
reasons given by the Sessions Court have been expressly dissentt.:d from by the 
F 
High Court or can be called impertinent. 
[6E, 7C] 
G 
H 
Observations : 
(i) ."Cash awards for bravery" to \Vitncsses \vhen a criminal case is pend-
ing may be euphemistic officialcse but may be construed by the accused as pur-
cha'\e price tor testimonial fidelity. 
The overzealous antics and objectionable 
tactics are far from fair for a political Ciovernment which par·s 
homage 
to 
judicial justice and betrays a mood of executive interference with the course of 
justice where political vendetta shows up. 
No one is above contempt pov1/er in 
our constitutional order. {5A-B] 
(ii) Prison justice is part of social justice. 
The "'Tit of the rule of lav.', if 
it runs within the jail system shall not permit 
inhumanity. 
On appropriate 
motion made to this Court showing violation of the residual rights of a prisoner 
by unnecessary cruelty and unreasonable impositions and denial and 
depr~va­
tio:ns within the prison-setting, the judicial process \vill call to order the pnson 
aulhorities and make them respect the fundamental rights of the 
appellants 
Prisoners are not non-persons. (88-C, 10-81 
• 
'\ 
• 
VIJAYAKUMAR r: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (Krishna~Ixer~J-), 
J 
' 
-
. 
" 
,~ 
' 
. 
(iii) The CoUrt has responsibility to see that pllnishment serves s1Jt..ial ~efence 
which is the validation .of. deprivation of citizen•s_liberty. _Correctional treat-
ment with a rehabilitative orientatio~ is an imperative of modem penology 
which_ has abandoned jus talionis. The ihefapeutic basis of-_ inC3.i-ceratory life-
style is not wiknown to Gandhian India because the Fither of the Nation ' 
regarded a criminal as a'. morally aberrant patient. A hospital setting and 
a 
~humanitarian 
__ ethos.· must pervade -our prisons if the retributive theory, which 
is but vengearice in disguise, is to disappear and deterrence a; a punitive objec-
tive gcin success not through the _hardening practice of inhlimanity inflicted on 
prisoners but by_ reformation and healing_ whereby the creative potential of the 
prisoner.- is unfolded. Tbt!se Yalu~ haVe their_ roots in Art. 19 of, the Coruti-
tution ·which -sanctions deprivation of freedoms provided they render a reason-
, able 5ervi.,;e to social defence, public order :ind' security of the State. 
[7D-G] 
[The- Court dire(;ted that the ·appellants being '"children" within the meaning 
of the "Saurashtra Children Act", though not under the Andhra Children Act, 
te separat.:d from adul: prisoners. More p:lrticularly the appellants should 
be- allowed opportunities for improving themselves and D.oullihing-their minds 
with wholesome reading so that on retur:n to society they tum a new leaf.] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :Criminal Appeal No. 257 of

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