LexSUBHASH CHAND versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
SUBHASH CHAND
v.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
JANUARY I I, 1988.
[RANGANATH MISRA, B.C. RAY AND
K.JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.]
Punjab Borstal Act, 1926: ss. 5 and 2(4)(i)(a)-Adolescent con-
victed for offence of murder and sentenced to imprisonment for life-;
Whether entitled to the benefit of the Act.
Section S of the Punjab Borstal Act, 1926 empowers courts to pass
a sentence of detention in a Borstal institution in the case of male
persons less than twenty one years of age convicted of an offence, in lieu
of transportation or rigorous imprisonment, Section 2(4)(i)(a) of the Act
D
which defines 'offence' takes in offences other than an offence punish-
able with death,
In his writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, the
petitioner who has been convicted for the offence of murder and
sentenced to imprisonment for life claimed benefit of the Punjab Borstal
E
Act relying on Hava Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 2001. The
State contested his claim.
Dismissing the writ petition.
HELD: I. I The Punjab Borstal Act does not have application to :r
F
an offence punishable under s. 302 I.P.C. [561F-G]
1.2 What is excepted in the definition of 'offence' ins. 2(4)(i)(a)
of the Act is an offence which is punishable with death. One of the
punishments under s. 302 1,P.C. for the offence of murder is death,
and. therefore, the offence of murder would be covered with s. 2(4)(i)(a)
G
of the Act and to such a conviction the Punjab Borstal Act would have
no application. [560 F-G]
1.3 The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of the
Punjab Borstal Act as he has been sentenced to imprisonment for life for
the offence of murder punishable under s. 302 I.P.C. for which the
H sentence of death is prescribed as an alternate. [561 G I
556
{
•
i
SUBHASH CHAND v. STATE OF HARYANA [MISRA, J.J
557
'f
1.4 In Hava Singh's, case the definition of offence was not placed
A
for consideration before the court and, therefore, the conclusion which
has been reached is not correct. l561FI
Emperor v. Mt. Janki & Anr., AIR 1932 Nag. 130; King Emperor
v. Nga San Htwa & Ors., AIR 1927 Rangoon 205; Chetti v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1959 MP 291; Emperor v. Bahawati, AIR 1928
B
Labore 920; State v. Sheo Shankar, AIR 1956 All. 326; Public Pro-
secutor of Madras v. Paneswar Rao, AIR 1946 Mad. 178; Sarkar v.
Jalam Singh, AIR 1950 Raj. 28 and Narauji Premji v. Emperor, AIR
1928 Born .. 244, referred to.
Hava Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 2001 overruled.
C
r·
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ
Petition
•
'
(CRL) No. 745 of 1987.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
J.M. Khanna for the Petitioner
Ravindra Bana, G. Venkatesh Rao and C.V. Sobba Rao for the
Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
ORDER
•
The petitioner has been convicted for the offence of murder and
'< sentenced to imprisonment for life. He claims in this application under
Article 32 of the Constitution the benefit of the Punjab Borstal Act
and has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Hava
Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 2001. A counter affidavit has
been filed disputing the tenability of the claim.
In Hava Singh's case (supra) a two-Judge Bench (including one
of us) was considering the claim of a convict for an offence of murder
to release taking into account the period the prisoner had stayed in the
Borstal institution. In that case, it was observed:
"It is evident from the averments made in the writ
petition as well as in the said counter-affidavit that the
petitioner was admittedly adolescent at the time of his con-
D
E
F
G
H
558
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ·
[ 1988] 2 S.C.R.
viction was sent to Borstal Institute at Hissar. Subse-
)/
quently, he has been transferred to the District Jail at
Rohtak and is undergoing the sentence of imprisonment for
{
life. It appears from the objects and reasons of Punjab
Borstal Act, 1926 that the object of the Act is to provide
for segregation of adolescent prisoners from those of more
mature age, and their subsequent training in separate in-
stitutions. These Borstal Institutions meant for detaining
adolescent offenders and to impart to them such industrial
training and other instructions and subject them to such
disciplinary and moral influence as will conduce to their
reformation. This is evident from the provisions of section
2(1) of PunjabExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.