Criminal Appeal No 46 of 1969
Appeal under Article 1341c of the Constitution of India from the judgment and order dated December 10 1968 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal No 116 of 1966
section M Mishra and section section Jauhar for the appellant
B P Jha for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Khanna J
The short question which arises for determination in this appeal on certificate granted by Patna High Court is whether the appellant who was less than 21 years of age on the date of his conviction for an offence under section 326 read with section 149 Indian Penal Code can claim the benefit of section 6 of the Act No 20 of 1958
 876 The appellant and five others who belong to village Mandil in District Gaya were tried in the court of Additional Sessions Judge Gaya for offences under sections 147 148 307 323 and 307 read with section 149 Indian Penal Code and section 25 of the Arms Act
Jugal Kishore appellant was convicted under section 326 read with section 149 and section 148 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years on the first count and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years on the second count
The sentences awarded to the appellant were ordered to run concurrently
The other five accused were also convicted for various offences and were sentenced on those counts
On appeal the Patna High Court as per judgment dated January 22 1968 acquitted two of the accused
The conviction of the appellant for offences under section 326 read with section 149 and 148 Indian Penal Code was maintained
The sentence of the appellant for the offence under section 326 read with section 149 Indian Penal Code was reduced from five years to three years
The sentence for the offence under section 148 Indian Penal Code was however maintained
The conviction of the other three accused was maintained for some of the offences and they were awarded sentences of imprisonment on that count
After the pro nouncement of the judgment by the High Court an application was made on behalf of the appellant that his case be deal with under the on the ground that he wag below 21 years of age at the time of his conviction by the trial court
This application was rejected by the High Court as per order dated December 12 1968 on the ground that the offence for which the appellant had been convicted was punishable with imprisonment for life and as such the provisions of could no be invoked in his case
On prayer made by the appellant the High Court certified the case to be fit for appeal to the Supreme Court as it involved the question relating to the applicability of the 
The appellant and his companions were tried on the allegation that on October 14 1964 at about 10 am while Madho Saran was getting his field bearing No 1678 ploughed by his ploughman Rakshya Mahto the appellant and Raghu accused went there and questioned Madho Saran for cutting the ridge between field No 1678 and 1719
Field No 1719 belonged to the appellant
Madho Saran went to his house and narrated the incident to his brother Sadho Saran
Madho Saran and Sadho Saran along with others then came out of their house and while they were near a barrage they met the accused who were accompanied by about 30 person of their village
One of the accused namely Hira Lal who was armed with a gun fired a shot as a result of which Sadho Saran was hit on his head
Sadho Saran fell down whereafter 87 7 the other accused including the appellant who was armed with a garasa caused further injuries to Sadho Saran and his companions with sharp edged and blunt weapons
The injured were thereafter taken to Jehanabad Hospital
On receipt of intimation from the doctor incharge of the hospital a police Sub Inspector went to the hospital and recorded the statement of Madho Saran Nand Kishore one of the accused also lodged a report at the police station
The question with which we are concerned in this appeal as mentioned earlier is whether the appellant can claim the benefit of the 
The appellant gave
his age to be 19 years in his statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case has been argued before us on the assumption that the appellant was less than 21 years of age at the time of his conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge
The main offence for which the appellant has been convicted is section 326 read with section 149 Indian Penal Code
Section 326 deals with the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means and the punishment prescribed for the offence is imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years
The convicted person shall also be liable to pay fine
According to section 149 of the Code if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object every person who at the time of the committing of that offence is a member of the same assembly is guilty of that offence
It is
 therefore manifest that the appellant on being convicted for the offence under section 326 read with section 149 Indian Penal Code was liable to be punished for imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and was also liable to pay fine
The was enacted in 1958 with a view to provide for the release of offenders of certain categories on probation or after due admonition and for matters connected therewith
The object of the Act is to prevent the conversion of youthful offenders into obdurate criminals as a result of their association with hardened criminals of mature age in case the youthful offenders are sentenced to undergo imprisonment in jail
The above object is in consonance with the present trend in the field of penology according to which effort should be made to bring about correction and reformation of the individual offenders and not to resort to retributive justice
Modern criminal jurisprudence recognises that no one is a born criminal and that good many crimes are the product of socioeconomic milieu
Although net much can be done for hardened criminals considerable stress has 878 been laid on bringing about reform of young offenders not guilty of very serious offences and of preventing their association with hardened criminals
The Act gives statutory recognition to the above objective
It is therefore provided that youthful offenders should not be sent to jail except in certain circumstances
Before however the benefit of the Act can be invoked it has to be shown that the convicted person even though less than 21 years of age is not guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment for life
This is clear from the language of section 6 of the Act
Sub section 1 of that section reads as under When any person under twenty one years of age
is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable with imprisonment but not with imprisonment for life the Court by which the per son is found guilty shall not sentence him to imprisonment unless it is satisfied that having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender it would not be desirable to deal with him under section 3 or section 4 and if the Court passes any sentence of imprisonment on the offender it shall record its reasons for doing so
 Mr Misra on behalf of the appellant has urged that as the offence under section 326 read with section 149 Indian Penal Code is punishable not only with imprisonment for life but also with imprisonment which may extend up to ten years the benefit of section 6 of the Act can be invoked by the appellant
This contention in our opinion is not well founded
Plain reading of section 6 makes it manifest that it deals with persons under twenty one years of age who are found guilty of having committed an offence punishable with imprisonment but not with imprisonment for life
As imprisonment for life can also be awarded for the offence under section 326 read with section 149 Indian Penal Code a person found guilty of such an offence would not be entitled to claim the benefit of section 6
To hold otherwise
would have the effect of ignoring the words but not with imprisonment for life and treating them to be otiose
Such a construction is plainly not permissible
We also cannot subscribe to the view that the offences excluded from the purview of the section are only those offences wherein punishment prescribed is imprisonment for life and not for a lesser term for the language used in the section does not warrant such a view
On the contrary the Plain meaning of the section is that the section cannot be invoked by a person who is convicted for an offence punishable with imprisonment for life
The fact that imprisonment for a lesser term can also be awarded for the offence would not take it out of the category of offences punishable with imprisonment for life
The policy underlying the Act appears to be that it is only in 879 cases of not very serious nature viz offences not punishable with imprisonment for life that the convicted person should have the benefit of provisions of the Act
Where however the offence for which a person has been convicted is of a serious nature punishable with imprisonment for life the benefit of the Act would not be permissible in his case
Likewise there are certain offences like those under the Prevention of Corruption Act wherein the convicted person cannot claim the protection of the Act
Section 18 of the Act expresser excludes such offences from the purview of the Act
In the case of Som Nath Puri vs State of Rajasthan 1 the appellant had been convicted for an offence under section 409 Indian Penal Code
Punishment for the offence under section 409 Indian Penal Code is the same as for the offence under section 326 namely imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and the liability to pay fine
It was held by this Court that in such a case the provisions of section 4 of the cannot be invoked
It may be mentioned that section 4 of the Pro bation of Offenders Act also excludes from its operation persons convicted of offences punishable with imprisonment for life
In that connection the Court observed  As the offence of criminal breach of trust under section 409 IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life the High Court in our view was right because the provisions of section 4 are only applicable to a case of a person found guilty of having comm itted an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life
 We therefore hold that the appellant cannot invoke the benefit of section 6 of the 
The appeal fails and is dismissed
Appellant to surrender to the bail bond
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant who was less than 21 years of age was convicted for an offence under section 326 read with 6 140 IPC and was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment
On the question whether he could claim the benefit of section 6 of the  HELD  1 The Act was enacted with a view to provide for the release of offenders of certain categories on probation or after due admonition with the object of preventing the conversion of youthful Offenders of less than 21 years age into obdurate criminals as a result of their association with hardened criminals of mature age in the jail
Where however the offence for which a person has been convicted is of a serious nature punishable with imprisonment for life or is one of those specified in section 18 of the Act the benefit of the Act would not be available
877G H 879A C 2 The appellant on being convicted for the offence under a 326 read with section 149 IPC was liable to be punished with imprisonment for life
Therefore he would not be entitled to the benefit of section 6 of a  To hold otherwise would be treating the word but not with imprisonment for life  in the section as otiose contrary to rules of construction
878E G 3 The fact that imprisonment for a lesser term can also be awarded for the offence would not take it out of the category of offences punishable with imprisonment for life
1878G H Som Nath Puri vs State of Rajasthan   followed