Holding

The Court held that, due to the appellant’s youth and the time already served, the imprisonment term should be reduced to the period already undergone, while the fines and the default imprisonment period must remain unchanged.

Summary

Ashok Kumar, a 19‑year‑old college student, was convicted of scooter theft (two years' imprisonment and a Rs.2,000 fine) and car theft (converted to an offence under Section 411 IPC, resulting in six months' imprisonment and a Rs.500 fine). He appealed solely on the sentence, arguing his youth and the time already served. The Supreme Court considered the deterrent effect of prolonged litigation, the rehabilitative purpose of sentencing, and the appellant's age, family responsibilities, and the potential counter‑productive impact of a long prison term on a young offender. It held that the imprisonment should be reduced to the period already served, but the fines and the alternative imprisonment period for default must remain. The Court emphasized that short imprisonment combined with fines can effectively instill responsibility, and it ordered the appeal allowed with the reduced sentence.

Issues considered

The appropriateness of reducing the term of imprisonment for a youthful offender who has already served part of the sentence
Whether the fines imposed should be altered on appeal
Whether the alternative period of imprisonment in case of default should be retained

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 411

Subjects

sentencingmitigating circumstancesyouthful offenderimprisonmentfineIndian Penal CodeSection 411criminal lawrehabilitationalternative imprisonmentdefaultfamily circumstances

Judgment

863

ASHOK KUMAR A
v.
STATE (DELHI ADMJNISTRATION)
lanuary 29, 1980
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.] B
Criminat trials-Sentence-Offender in his teens at the time of committing
the offence-Age, if a mitigating circumstance.

The appellant wtls co•victed and sentenced to two years' im.prisoE.ment and
fine of Rs. 2,000 asd imprisoament for six months aad fiae of Rs. 500 for
car ]ifting and scooter poaching. On the question of sentence. C
Allowing the appeals,

HELD : (a) The sentence of imprisonment is reduced to th.e extent of the
period already undera;oae; but th0; se11.tences of fiae a11d tlle alternative period
of imprisonment in case of default are maintained. [865 H]
(b) The long protracted liticatioa fr••
1971 oaward• is so- deterrent D
for a youag man in his 20s. The youthful age of the otfeader io a factor which
deServe consideration.. A long period of in.carceration may brutalise a boy and
blunt his finer sensibilities so th•t the elildwproduct may perhaps be aore
criminal than the one at the point of entry. The ole•tler havi•g served a
term of nearly six months must have realised that the gamo of crime does not
pay. [864 D, 865 Cl
E
( c) Payment of fine brings home the sense of respoll5ihility in a surer
fashion than even shortwterms of imprisonment in some cases. [865 CJ

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JUJUSDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 66-67:
of 19-80.
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated F
30/8/1979 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Revision Nos. 65-66
Of 1979.
N. S. Das Bahl for the Appellant.
M. N. Shroff for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G
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 H
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
864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 2 S.C.R,

A 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
B 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
C and habilitation.
We do not deem it necessary to set out elaborately all the socio-
legal 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
D in his twenties. The accused was nineteen when the offences were
committed and his youthful age is a factor which deserve& considera-
tion. A long period of incarceration in tile present condition of prisons
may brutalise tile boy and blunt his finer sensibilities so that the end-
product 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
E 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 ·---1
\
years. I cannot remember a single man who was reformed
IF
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
B 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
ASHOK KUMAR v. STATE (Krishna Iyer, 1.) 865

i'n the amelioration of conditions in prison; but, to refer A
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."
B
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. c
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.
D
More important than these circumstances is, the social urgency of
making this student offender a non-offender. There are two circum-
stances 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 E
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
F
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 G
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. B

P.B.R. Appeals allowed.