LexSATTO & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B D I! F G • 768 SAITO & OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. April 26, 1979 [V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.J Utiur Prade.sh Children Act 1952 and approved School!. under it, Sectio11s 2(4), 29, 30, 34, 60, 68, 70, 79 and 79, Scope of- Three Petitioners between the ages of 10 & 14 .::ame by an eleven year eld girl, tending cattle in a village, near a neglected btick kiln which temptingly offered protective privacy for committing rape. T!iey ndvanced towards the: victim 11nd tied her up. They forcibly went through the exercise of rape. The courls beJO\V have held the three petitioners guilty of an offence under section 376 J.P.C. and sentenced each to two y~ars' rigo1ous imprisonment. The offenders being children the dilemmatic issue is to fix the. sentencing guide•lines for juvenile delinquents. It was argued that "Justice and the Child" is a distinct jurisprudential criminological branch of 3ocio~leg<.Jl speciality which i5 still in its infant status in India and many other countries. The children Act is a preliminary exercise, the BO!!tal School is an experiment in reformation and even Section 360 Criminal Procedure Code tends in the same direction. In the absence of any report from the Reformation Officer nor any considera- tion of the social milieu, personal oo.fecedents, parental influence, educational status and other material factorn bearing on the three petitioners, the Court while accepting the appeal, 1-IELD : The appellant! should be released on probation of good conduct and com1nitted to the care of their respective pare.nts and if no surviving parents, then their guardian, .executing a bond each without sureties to be responsible for the good behaviour of the youthful oJfender for n. period of two years from the date of release and for the observance of a condition namely that the child shall he put to school or continue its studies if it is already at school and attend any recrea.tional or meditational centre, if any, of the parents' choice regulnrly. The Reformation Officer enjoying jurisdiction in the locality wilf have supervision over each Of the appellants and shall make a report once every three month! to the Trial Court. The Reformation Officer will explain to the appellants and their parents the import of this order. [776H, 777A-C] Pathak, J. (concurring)-On the question \vhether the youthful offender should be proceeded 3gainst under section 29 or Section JO of tbe U.P. Children· Act 1951, the court must apply its mind to certain con~iJerations like the age of the child, his family background, his general past conduct and antece- dents, the circumstances in which he committed the ~!fence ar.d which of the measures provided by section 29 or section 30 would more effectively and yet not hatshly enable the child to develop into a responsible· men1ber of society. The statute is concerned with a person whose personality, judg1nent and discretion ha;.! not yet attained maturity. A "child" has been defined under Sec. 2(4) of the Act as a person under the age of sixteen years. T1tcrefore the primary obj'ect must be to place the 'Child in an environment conducive to his reha.bilita- • I._ )- , ' ~ - < ...... SATTO & ORS v. u.P. STATE (Krishna Iyer, I.) 7 6 9 tion ai1d providing scope for corrective actiolt which fa the basic c.riteria for A detern1ining the choice between section 29 and section JO o( the Act. \Vhere a child has acted on an impulse in committing an off~nc~ and there is nothing to show the 1fresencc of any vicious streak of chara-cler, it would be more approp1 iate to leave him to the care and attention of parental authority under section 30( I) (b) of the Act rather than send him to an approved echool. On the iarts of the present case, such an order would n1eet the ends of justice and serve the object of the statute. [779E-H, 780A-BJ B Willia111 v. /Vcw York, 337 US 241, 249, Sentencing and probation- Nationt.I College of the State Judiciary Reno, Nevada, page 258 relied upon . .,, CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 239 c of 1979. , Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 3· 11-78 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision Nos. l 064 and 1065/75. S. K. SabharwaJ for the Appellants. 0. P. Rana for the Respondent. D ; The following Judgments were delivered : .. ·( • KRISHNA IYER, J. Concurrent convictions by both the courts below have, by a rule of restriction
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.