RAM PRASAD SAHU AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 927 · Decided: 12-10-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
RAM PRASAD SAHU AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
October 12, 1979 
[V. R. KRISHNA !YER AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.] 
927 
Special Leave, under Articll' 136 of the Constitution-Lilnitations-Sentencini 
Verdict-Factors to be taken note of. 
Tue appellants were held guilty by the Sessions Court under Section 302 
A 
B 
read with Section 149 J.P.C. plus some lesser offences; but the High Court soften-
C 
·ed both the convictions and sentences h3.ving regard to all but one. Hence the 
.appeals by special leave, limited to sentence. 
Allowing in part, the Court, 
HELD ; 1. Every error does not confer a visa into this Court lest the flood· 
gates of litigation should flow as an irresistible stream making the Supreme 
Court a superior High Court of appeal. Doing so, in exercise of this Court's 
D 
jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the Constitution, would condemn the court to 
functio~1al futility and defeat the design of the founding fathers that ordinarily 
it shall operate as the nation's ~.ummit court deliberating and pronouncing upon 
issues of great moment and constitutional portent. [928 D-EJ 
Constructive liability notwithstanding, the sentencing process will take note of 
the conspectus of circumstances including the absence of overt act, age and 
E 
antecedents of the offender. It is wrong on principle to exclude such special 
circumstances like injuries found on the accused, in apportioning the sentence. 
[930 A-BJ 
Rehabilitation of young offenders is b<isic to juvenile justice, which in turn, 
is a component of social justice. 
The penological purpose being to convert the 
offender into a non-offender, it \vill be a frustration of criminal justice, if young 
F 
lads are walled in and caged in the hope that cruelty will correct. Further it is 
widely accepted by penologists that the sharp shock of the initial phase of a pri· 
son term is what hurts most and therefore, a long term may well be counter· 
pr0ductive and a shorter term sufficiently deterrent. [929 F, 930 B-C] 
t 
Observation. 
[Unfortunately, despite repeated observations of this Court, the conscience 
G 
of the State of Bihar has not been quickened into kindneoo towards children 
and its legislature has not found the mood or time to pass a Children Act. 
This is bad omen in the International Year of the Child and it is hoped that 
amidst_ the general tumult the children will not suffer from legislative neglect, 
Had there b'een a Children Act in the Bihar State like in most other States 
of the country, a compassionate trial/ process would have been 
statutorily 
mandatory and children could not be marched' into regular criminal courts 
B 
for trial and t:onviction, nor incarcerated with adult criminals with obvious 
debasement and subtle torture such as homosexual attacks.] (929 D-FJ 
928 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1980] 1 S.C.R. 
\ A 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 6!J 
~ 
and 614 of 1979. 
B 
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgme)tt and Order dated 
24-4-1979 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 289 of 
1975. 
R. K. lain (613/79), A. N. M11lla (614179) and R. P. Singh for 
the Appellants. 
U. P. Singh for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
6 
KRISHNA IYER, J.-These two appeals lend themselves to disposal 
D 
E 
I!' 
G 
H 
by a common judgment having been filed by two different sets 
of 
accused against the same judgment convicting them all for different 
offence~. 
The facts found by the High Court have our broad concurrence 
although Shri R. K. Jain, Advocate in Criminal Appeal No. 613 of 
1979, has, to some extent, made a dent on the veracity of the prosecu-
tion version. 
But we are not inclined to re-open the findings 
of 
fact concurrently rendered in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 
136 even assuming there are some errors of fact and of law. 
Every 
error does not confer a visa into this Court lest the floodgates 
of 
litigation should flow as an irresistible stream making the Supreme 
Court a superior High Court of appeal. Doing so would condemn the 
court to functional futility and defeat the design of the founding fathers 
that ordinarily it shall operate as the nation's summit court deliberating 
and pronouncing upon issues of great moment and constitutional por-
tent. 
For these reasons we have confined leave to appeal to the 
nature of the offence disclosed on the 
findings on record and the 
sentence to be imposed if variance is justified on p.rinciple. 
The appellants in b

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