DHARAMBIR AND ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P.

•


                            DHARAMBIR AND ANR.
                                            v.
                                   STATE OF U.P.
                                    July 16, 1979

                    (V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND A. P. SEN, JJ.J                                B
7      Sentencing process and directions as may be necessary for the ends of
    justice-Supreme Court Rules 1966 Order XLVIl Rule 6.
       Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court
       HELD· : 1. The conviction being one und'er Se1:tion 302 I.P.C., the sentence
    awarded namely, one of life imprisonment, is beyond interference. {2A]                 C
        2. One of the principa.1 purposes of punitive deprivation of liberty, coDBtitu·
    tionally sanctioned, i~ decriminalisaition of the criminal and re~toration of his
    dignity, self-esteem and good citizenship, so that when the man emerges from
    the forbidden gates he becomes a socially useful individual. [2C·E]
        3. Long prison terms do not humanise or habilitate but deb::M!e and promote
    recidivism. Life imprisonment meatl9 languishing in prison for ye1111 and yeani.       D
    Such induration of the soul induced by indefinite incarceratiori ha.rdelli the
    inmates, not oftens their response!. [2B]
         Therefore, the Court issued the following directions designed to make the
    life of the sentencee inside j&il restorative of his crippled psyche : (R) despatch-
    ing the two prisoners to one of the open prisons in U.P., if they 1ubstactially
     fulfil the required conditions; (b) being agriculturists by profession they be        E
    put to use a" agriculturists, whether within or without the prison compass or
     them small wages; (c) by keeping the prisoners in contact with their family
     then1 small wages; (c) by keeping the prisoners in contact with their family
    (i) by allowing member" of the family to visit them and (ii) by permitting the
    prisoners under guarded conditions at least once a year, to vUiit their famili'!!i
    llnd ( d) the prisoners to b'e relca.,ed on parole for two weeks, once a year,
    which will be repeated throughout their period of incarceration provided their         F
     conduct, 'vhile at large, is found to be "atisfactory. [2E, F, H. 3A-41

       CRIMINAL APPELLATI': JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Cr!.)
    No. 202 of 1979.
       From the Judgment and Order dat€d 3-10-1978 of the Allahabad
    High Court in Cr!. Appeal No. 1962/74.                                                 G
         K. B. Rohtagi and Pravun Jain for the Petitioner.
         0. P. Rana for the Respondent
         The Order of the Court was delivered by
        KRISHNA IYER, J.-We arc not impressed with the grounds ur~cd                       II
    before us and so dismiss the Special Leave Petition. The conviction
    being one under section 302 I.P.C. the sentence awarded, namoly,
      2                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [1980] I S.C.R.

      one of life imprisonment, is beyond interference. The conviction and             .
                                                                                       !
      sentence must, therefore, stand.                                             -..
           We, however, notice that the petitioners in this case are in their
      early twenties. We must naturally give thought to the impact on
      these two young lives of a life sentence which means languishing in
B     prison for years and years. Such induration of the soul induced by
      indefinite incarceration hardens the inmates, not softens their respon-
      ses. Things >as they are, long prison terms do not humanise or habi-         \
      litate but debase ancl promote recidivism. A host of other vices, which
      are unmentionable in a judgment, haunt the long careers of incarce-
      ration, especially when young persons are forced into cells in the
c     company of callous convicts who live in sex-starved circumstances
      Therefore, the conscience of the court constrains it to issue >appro-
      priate directions which are policy-oriented, as part of the sentencing
      process, designed to make the life of the sentence inside jail restorative
      of his crippl_ed psyche. One of the principal purposes oE punitive
      deprivation of liberty, constitutionally sanctioned, is decriminalisation
D
      of the criminal and restoration of his dignity, self-esteem and good
      citizienship, so that when the man emerges from the forbidding gates he
      becomes a socially useful individual. From this angle our prisons
      have to travel long distances to meet the ends of social justice.
          In the present case, we think it proper to direct that the State
E     Government and the Superintendent of the Prison concerned will
      ensure that the two prisoners are put to meaningful employment and,
      if permissible, to open prisons, as an experimental measure. Counsel
      for the State represents that there are open prisons in the State of
      Uttar Pradesh. We direct the State Government to despatch these
      two prisoners to one of the open prisons in Uttar Pradesh without
I!'   standing on technical rules, if substantially they fulfil the required
      conditions.
       We may take advantage of this opportunity to make a general
   direction to the State Govermnent to draw up a set of rule to reform
   the pattern of prison life and to transform the present syst~m in itself
G so that the harsher technologies inherited from imperial times are
   abandoned in favour of humane processes constitutionally enlivened
 . under the Republic. These days, Prison Commissions are at work in
   many States and we do hope that the State of Uttar Pradesh will
   hasten to bring compassion into prisons.
ff        We 'are told that the prisoners are agriculturists by profession: It
      is better, therefore, that they are put to use as agricu1t'uri;ts, whether
      within or without the prison compass. Being young, they should also
                 DHARAMBIR v. U.P STATE      (Krishna Iyer, /.)             3

    be trained in any other useful craft, if they have aptitude therefor,        A
    so that when eventually they emerge from the prison walls, they may
    become sensitive citizens and not be an 'addition to the criminals pro-
    liferating in the country. We think that when prisoners are made to
'   work, as !'hose two ought to, be under our directions, a small amount
    by way of wages could be paid and should be paid so that the healing
    effect on their minds is fully felt. Moreover, proper utilisation of
    services of prisoners in some meaningful employment, whether as cul-
     tivators or as craftsmen or even in creative labour will be good from
     the society's angle as it reduces the burden on the Public Exchequer
    and the tension within. Further, the humanising process will be faci-
    litated by keeping the prisoners in contuct with their family. This
     can be made feasible (a) by allowing members of the family to visit
                                                                                 c
     the prisoners and (b) by .the prison,rs, under guarded conditions,
    ):>eing permitted, at least once a year, to visit their families. We
     therefore, direct that all these be done by the State Government 'and
     the Superintendent under the authority of this Court's order. The
      prisoners will be permitted to go on, parole for two weeks, once a year,   I>
      which will be repeated throughout their period of incarceration pro-
      vided their conduct, while at large, is found to be satisfactory. With
      these directions, we dismiss the Special Leave Petition:


     V.D.K.                                               Petition dismissed.