Ashok Kumar v. State (Delhi Admjnistration)

Judgment

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J.-The common appellant in both these appeals is a teen-aged student turned criminal adventurer in the elitist area of car-lifting and scooter-poaching current in our fashionable; cities, includ· ing Delhi. While he was a college student and but 19 years old, the appellant tried his hand at stealing a scooter way back in 1971. He was arrested but bailed out and while on bail was accused of committing a car theft. Both these cases were tried and he was found guilty. The [1980] 2 S.C.R, scooter offence resulted in a sentence of two years' imprisonment and, a fine of Rs. 2,000. The car theft case got converted into an, offence under Section 411 I.P.C. and, consequently, a reduced sentence of imprisonment for six month~ and a fine of Rs. 500. The convictions being concurrenf and no substantial infirmity being present, we have confined leave to appeal to the questiqn of sentence only.

But sentencing-the cutting edge of the judicial process is the crucial strategy of the criminal law in achieving social defence and delinquent rehabilitation. Sd we have to consider tile totality of factors bearing on tile offence and the offender and fix a punishment which will promote effectively tile punitive objective of the Jaw--Oeterrence and habilitation. IF We do not deem it necessary to set out elaborately all the sociolegal facts which have been discussed at the bar. All that ,'we need say is tllat tile offence took' place in 1971. and we are now in/ 1980. A long protracted litigation is some deterrent for 3'. young man in his twenties. The accused was nineteen when the offences were committed and his youthful age is a factor which deserve& consideration. A long period of incarceration in tile present condition of prisons may brutalise tile boy and blunt his finer sensibilities so that the endproduct may perhaps be more criminal than the one at the point of entry.

Not tllat all prison terms are not deterrent but some cases prove to be counter productive especially when the delinquent is young. It may be interesting to recall Lord Soper's observations in the House of Lords in a debate on British Prisons, where he said : "Now as to reform. I was a prison chaplain for 30 years. I cannot remember a single man who was reformed by being in prison-not one. I can remember tllose who, serving very short sentences, were for a time, perhaps, brought to recognise something of the gravity of what they had been doing; but I am completely convinced that the longer a man stays in: prison, :the longer' he stays in that kind of incarceration, the less is the prospect of reform and the more certain is the process< of decay. 111at is why I have consistently tried to say that any man wh0i is imprisoned in one particular set of circumstances for more than five years is probably dead for life.

It is highly unlikely that tho5e who have endured that kind of monotonous' deadening will be able to recover in tile real world what they have lost in the artificial element and environment of prison life. There has been, I think, in my time, a considerable increase ·---1 ASHOK KUMAR v. STATE (Krishna Iyer, 1.) i'n the amelioration of conditions in prison; but, to refer again for a moment to the artificiality of it, the longer, a man stays in prison the less capable ltd will be of recovering his place and establishing his positio,n back in the real world to which he is increasingly made alien by the very processes which he undergoes." Moreover, the appellant has already suffered nearly six months' imprisonment and it is a well-known fact for criminologists that the initial few months of jail life are the: most painfu1 and, therefore, the most deterrent.

In the present case, the offender having served a term of nearly six months must well have realised that the game of crime does not pay. The fines of Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 500 imposed on the appellant should remain without interference. Payment of fine brings home thf1 sense for responsibility in a surer fashion than even short terms of imprisonment in some; cases. We, therefore, decline to reduce the fine and reject counsel's plea in this, behalf. More important than these circumstances is, the social urgency of making this student offender a non-offender. There are two circumstances which weigh in our mind. The young man has married and has three children. This is a measure of assurance that he will not play recklessly with his freedom. Family life is ordinarily an insn.rance against a career of crime. We have also insisted on the uncle of the appellant undertaking to assure the good behaviour of the nephew who is the delinquent in question.

The uncle Shri Kohli has filed an affidavit dated 10-12-1979 in this Court making the neces• sary undertaking to guarantee the good behaviour of his nephew. Thoughtless parents and guardians leaving a free hand for their wards account for flippant criminality of the type we come across in middle class society. The undertakin~ given by the uncle has, therefore, considerable relevance. We make a breach of th~ conditions in the affidavit actionable on the motion of the State. It is a tragic reflection that afilnent criminality should become so pervasive among the student community. It is uncomplimentary to the character-building component of the system of education in tl1e presti· gious institutions of onr cities. We hope the State will take better care to instil a sense of values in the college campuses than it does now.

We allow the appeals to the extent of reducing the sentence of the appellant to the period undergone, but maintai'n the sentences of fine and the alternative period of imprisonment in case of default. P.B.R. Appeals allowed.