Holding

The Supreme Court reduced the sentence from four years to two years' rigorous imprisonment, invoking Section 354 of the CrPC and directing rehabilitative measures under the Prison Act.

Summary

Phul Singh, a 22‑year‑old, was convicted of raping his cousin's wife and sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment by the Sessions Court, a decision affirmed by the High Court. On appeal before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued his youth, lack of prior convictions, and the forgiveness of the victim's family as mitigating factors. The Court noted that while rape is a grave offence, the appellant was not a habitual offender and showed signs of repentance, and that a lengthy term might be more punitive than rehabilitative. Relying on Section 354 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the objectives of the Prison Act, the Court reduced the sentence to two years' rigorous imprisonment and ordered specific rehabilitative measures, including parole and furlough provisions to maintain family ties. The judgment emphasized a restorative approach to sentencing, stressing the need for prison reform and therapeutic treatment of offenders.

Issues considered

Whether the sentence of four years' rigorous imprisonment for rape should be reduced on account of the appellant's youth, lack of prior record, and victim's family's forgiveness.
Whether Section 354 of the Criminal Procedure Code permits reduction of sentence in such circumstances.
Whether the Court can impose rehabilitative directives under the Prison Act alongside the reduced sentence.

Legislation cited

Subjects

rapesentence reductionCriminal Procedure CodeSection 354Prison Actrehabilitationrestorative justiceparolefamily forgiveness

Judgment

589

PHUL SINGH A
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
September 10, 1979
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] B
~"

·.~
Crin1inal Procedure Code-Sentence-When can be reduced.

.,, The appellant who was· 22 committed rape on the wife of his cousin who
was a next door neighbour in broad-day-light. The Sessions Judge ·found the
appellant guilty of the offence of rape and sentenced him to four years R.I.
On appeal, the High Court affirmed it.· It was urged that the appellant was
in his early twenties and that there were signs of repentance. The fact remains
c
that the two families being close cousins are ready to take a lenient view
of the situation which of course does not bind the court in any manner. Partly
accepting the appeal, the Court

1-IELD : The appellant is not a 'habitual' and has no vicious antecedents
ex.;ept this fugitive, randy molestation which is bad enough in a society where
women are often socially ¥.'eak and sexually victimised. It may be marginally D
extenuatory to mention that mcxlern Indian conditions are drifting into societal
permissiveness on the carnal front promoting proneness to pornos in life, what
\Vith libidinous 'brahmacharis', womanising public men, lascivious dating and
mating by unwed students, sex explosion in celluloid and book stalls and .cor-
rupt morals teaching a new 'high' in high places. [591 F-H]
The appellant is a youth barely 22 with no criminal antecedents save this E
offence. He has a young wife and a farm to look after. Given correctional
courses 1hrough meditational therapy and other measures, his erotic aberration
may \Vither away. A man like the appellant has a reasonable prospect of
shaping jnto a balanced person, given propitious social environs, curative and
congenial work and techniques of internal stress release or of reformatory
self expression. In this background the court regarded a four year term of
rigorous in1prisonment more hardening than habilitative, even though the court F
deplored the sex violance the young appellant had inflicted on his cousin's wife
snatching a tricky opportunity. [592 B-D]
A hyper sexed homo sapiens cannot be habilitated by humiliating or harsh
treatment. In prison treatment must, therefore, be geared to psychic healing,
re1ease of stresses, restoration of self-respect :ind cultural normalisation, apart
from training to adapt oneself to the life outside. The functional failure of G
our pachydermic prison projects, exacerbated by its tension and trauma on the
one hand and the reverse ethos inside on the other, deserves judicial cog-
nisance. [591 A, D-E]
The current efforts of Governments, Central and Staie, to reform' jail regimen,
it was hoped, will give a better deal to the caged community. For these reasons,
in this case, it is desirable to superadd to the sentence of imprisonment a few
directives to ensure that the carceral period reforms the convict. A set of H
positive prescriptions will ensure appellant turning a new leaf. One major
m•::thod in securing thi! goal is to keep alive the family ties of the person in

\
590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1980] 1 S.C.R.
A prison so that the appellant may not deteriorate into a non-person. Within the
limits of the Prison Act and Rules thereunder, the State Government 0r the
Inspector General of Prisons will ensure that on parole, furlough or orders, the
young appellant turns a new leaf of normal life. [591 E-F, 592 Fl

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 5(}5
of 1979.
B
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order_ dated
3-5-79 of the Punjab.& Haryana High Court in Cr!. A. No. 166/76.
Harbans Singh Marwah for the Appellant.
R. N. Sachthey for the Respondent.
c The Jndgment of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA IYER, J. A philanderer of 22, appellant Phul Singh, over-
powered by sex stress in excess, hoisted himself into his cousin's house
next door, and in broad day-light, overpowered the temptingly lonely
prosecutrix of twenty four, Pushpa, raped her in hurned heat and
D made an urgent exist having fulfilled ms erotic soctie. The screaming
victim complained to her mother working in the field; thereafter a
first information, prosecntion and conviction ensued, a sentence of 4
years R.I. was imposed by the Sessions Court, and the High Court
affirmed it in appeal. The broad facts bearing on the instant act of
carnal assault look too probable for pettifogging legalistics about poor
E corroboration, consent and false implication to devalue their credibi-
lity. The culpability is beyond doubt and we uphold the conviction.
Ordinarily, rape is violation, with violence, of the private person
of a woman-an outrage by all canons. In our conditions of escalat-
ing sex brutality a four-year term for rape is not excessive. But
F here, the offender is in ms early twenties and signs of repentance are
seen. The victim and her parents have forgive'n the molester who is a
first cousin, says counsel. An affidavit from the fathcr-in-.Jaw of the
woman has been filed and, if needed, connsel is ready to produce the
victim's statement that she has forgiven the criminal. While it is
possible that the accused may procure such condonation from ail un-
G willing victim, the fact remains that the two families being close
cousins are ready to take a lenient view of the situation. Of course,
this does not bind the Court in any manner. Therefore, taking an
overall view of the familial and the criminal. factors involved, we
reduce the imprisonment from 4 years to 2 yeans R.I.
H We must, however, direct on~ attention in a different penological
direction. For sentencing efficacy in cases of lusHoaded criminality
cannot be simplistically assumed by award of long incarceration, for,
PHUL SINGH v. HARYANA (Krishna Iyer, J.) 591

orte·n that rem~dy aggravates the malady. Punitive therapeutics must A
be more enlightened than the blind strategy of prison severity where
all that happens is sex starvation, brutalisation, criminal companion-
ship, versatile vices through bio-environmental pollution, dehumanised
cell drill under 'zoological' conditions and emergence, at the time of
release, of an embittered enemy of society and its values with an in-
delible stigma as convict stamped on him-a potentially good person
'successfully' processed into a hardened delinquent, thanks to the
penal illiteracy of the Prison System. The Court must restore the
mail.
A hyper-sexed homo sapiens cannot be habilitated by humiliating
or harsh treatment, but that is precisely the perversion of unreformed
c
Jail Justice which some criminologists have described as the crime of
punishment. This Court has held, in Sunil Batra's case and later that,
constitutionally viewed, punitive deprivation of personal freedom must
be goal-oriented aild humanely restorative, apart from being deter-
rent. The insulated years behind the insensitive bars must possess a D
hospital setting if correction is a social purpose, as Gandhiji often
insisted. In-prison treatment must, therefore, be geared to psychic
healing, release of stresses, restoration of self-respect and cultural
normalisatio"n, apart from training to adapt oneself to the life outside.
The functional failure of our pachydermic prison projects, exacer-
bated by its tension and trauma on the one hand and the reverse E
ethos inside on the other, deserves judicial cognizance. The current
efforts of Governments, Ce"ntral and State, to reform jail regimen, we
hope, wiil give a better deal to the caged community. For these
reasons, in this case, we deem· it desirable to superadd to the sentence
of imprisonment a few directives to ensure that the carceral period
reforms the convict. F
The appellant is not a 'habitual' and has no vicious antecedents
except this fugitive, randy molestation which is bad e"nough in a society
where women are often socially weak and sexually victimised. It may
be marginally extenuatory to mention that modern Indian conditions
are drifting into societal permissivene15s on the carnal front promoting G·
proneness to pornos in life, what with libidinous 'brahmacharis',
womanising public men, lascivious dating and mating by unwed stu-
dents, sex explosion ih celluloid and book stalls and corrupt morals
reaching a new 'high' in high places. The unconvicted deviants in
society are demoralisingly large and the State has, as yet, no convinc-
ing national policy on female flesh and S>~X sa'nity. We hope, at this If
belated hour, the Central Government will defend Indian Womanhood
by stamping out voluptuous meat markets hy merciless criminal action.
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 s.c.R.

A. Isolated prosecutions and annual suppression rhitoric will stultify the
Jaw where the vice is widespread and the larger felons are often let
··"'-
loose.
This reflection apart, we must, as part of the sentencing package,
design a curative course for this prisoner to rid him of his aphrodisiac
B overflow and restore him into safe citizenship.
He is a youth barely 22 with no c.riminal antecedents save this
offence. He has a young wife and a farm to look after. Given cor-
rectional courses through meditational therapy and other measures,

c
his erotic aberration may wither away. A man like the appellant has
a reasonable prospect of shaping into a balanced person, given propi-
tious social environs, curative and congeni~l work and techniqnes of
internal stress release or of reformatory self expression.
•
In this background, we. regard a four year term of rigorous im-
prisonment more hardening than habiliiative, even though we deplore
•
the sex violence the young appellant has inflicted on his cousin's wife · f
D snatching a tricky opportu"nity. Even so, the incriminating company
of lifors and others for long may be counter-productive, and in this
perspective, we blend deterrence with correction and reduce the sen-
tence to rigorous imprisonment for two years. We wish to emphasise
that the special circumstances of this case constrain us to relent a
little o·n principle because the restorative approach to sentencing has
E been jettisoned by the courts below.
The task is not done by a negative reduction in the prison term.
What is more important is a set of positive prescriptions which will en-
sure his turning a new leaf. One major method in securing this goal
is to keep alive the family tie of the person in prison so that he may
F not deteriorate into a non-parson. Within limits of the Prison Act
and Rules thereunder, the State Government or the Inspector General
of Prisons will ensure that on parole, furlough or orders, the young
appellant turns a new leaf of normal life.

N.K.A. Appeal allowed in part.
•