VED PRAKASH versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [1981] 1 S.C.R. 1279 · Decided: 13-11-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

<-;), -1 
. ., 
.. ~ _, ,,,; 
. ' :.: [ 
• 
VED PRAKASH 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
November 13, 1980 
(V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.] 
Sentencing exercise by the 
Court-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, 
Section 360 read with Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958- · 
Duty of the Bench and .the Bm:, explained. 
Maintaining the conviction, alfowing the 
appeals as 
to, sentence and 
releasing the accused on Probation. the. Court. 
HELD : Sentencing an accused person is a sensitive exercise of discretion 
't' 
ancl not a routine .or mechanical prescription acting as hunch. 
The 
social 
background ano the personal factors of the 
crime-doer . are very relevant, 
although in practice Criminal eourts have hardly paid attention to the social 
milieu or the personal circumstances of the offender. 
Even if Section 360 
Criminal Procedure Codie is not attacted, it is the duty of the sentencing court 
to be activist enough to collect such facts as have a bearing on punishment 
with a rehabilitating slant. 
The Bench must fulfil the humanising mission of 
sentencing implicit in such enactments as the Probation of Offenders Act. [1279 
H, 12SOA-D] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Criminal Appeal Nos. 29}-
292 of 1980. 
· l 
(Appeals 
by 
Special leave from the Judgment and Order 
_. 
dated the 10th of February, 1977 of the Punjab and Haryana Hrgh 
Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 430, 828 and 429/73.) 
~"( 
A. P. Mohanty and S. K. Sabharwal for the Appellant. 
R. N. Poddar for the Respondent. 
The Order of the Court was' delivered by 
KRISHNA IYER, J.-ln this. case, 
the 
question 
of 
dealing 
with the appellant under S. 360 Cr.P.C. remains to be considered. 
For this purpose we had directed that .a report be called for from the 
Probation Officer having jurisdiction. That report has been put in. 
His age, according to the Jail Doctor, was 24 years on 23-4-1973 
which means that on the date of the offence, he was less' than 21 
years old; ·The offence, for which conviction has been rendered, is 
Orie which will be attracted by S. 360 or at any rate the Probation of 
·offenders Act, 1958. The materials before us are iniperfect because 
the Trial Court h~ beell perfunctory in discharging its 
sentencing 
functions. 
We must emphasise that sentencing an accused person iS 
A 
c 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1280 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[198i] 1 S.C.R. 
.A 
B 
c 
D 
E. 
F 
G 
H 
a sensitive exercise of discretion and not a routine or mechanical 
prescription acting on hunch. The Trial Court should have collected 
materials necessary to help award a just punishment in t4e circum-
stances. The social background and the personal factors of the crime-
doer are 'Very relevant although in practice Criminal Courts · have 
hardly paid attention to the social milieu or the personal circum-
stances of the offender. Even if S. 360 Cr.P.C. is not attracted, it is 
the duty of the sentencing Court to be activist enough to collect such 
facts as have a bearing on punishment with a rehabilitating slant. 
The absence of such materials, in the present case has left us with 
little assistance even from the counsel. Indeed members of the bar 
also do not pay sufficient attention to these legislative provisions 
which relate to dealing with an offender in such manner that he 
becomes a non-offender. We emphasise this because the legislations 
which relate to amelioration in punishment have been regarded as 
'Minor Acts' and, therefore, of little consequence. This is a totally 
wrong approach and even if the Bar does not help, the Bench must 
fulfil the humanising mission of sentencing implicit in such enactments 
a~ the Probation of Offenders Act. In the present case, the offender 
is a young person and his antecedents have no blemish. His life is 
not unsettled or restless and the report indicates that he is an agricul-
turist, pursuing a peaceful vocation. 
His parents are alive and he 
lrns a wife and children to maintain. These are stablising factors in 
life. A long period of litigation and the little period of imprisonment 
suffered, will surely serve as a deterrant. We are mindful of the fact 
that a fire-arm has been used by the appellant and we cannot sleep 
over the gravity of the offence. 
Nevertheless, the report of the 
Probation Officer states that the appellant is not given to any bad 
habits or stresses of poverty. 1 A land dispute led to the crime and 
that does not survive any longer. The Probation Officer recommends 
that a

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