INDER SINGH & ANR. v.

THE STATE (DELHI ADMN.)

February 24, 1978

[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND JAswANT SINGH, JJ.]

Proof-l'lature of Proof and credibility of testimony in crbninal cases- Co11stitutio1: of India, 1950 Art. 21-Duty of the Court in giving directions in criminal cases to ensure that deprivation of liberty is accompanied by curative strategy and human dignity. ·

Criminal Procedure Code, (Act II of 1974) 1973-Ss. 149 to 151-Police to prevent cognizable offences-Their duties reiterated.

The petitioners aged 16 and 20 were convicted for offences u/s 302 read with s. 34 and s. 307 I.P.C. and sentenced tO''life in1prisonment by the trial Court and the High Court affirmed both the conviction and the sentnce awarded to the accused.

Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court

HELD: 1. Credibility of testimony, oral and circumstantial, depe:'lds D considerably on a judicial evaluation of the. totality, not isolated scrutiny.

While it is necessary that proof beyond reasonable doubt should be adduced in all criminal cases, it is not necessary that it should be perfect. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish and guilty man cannot get away with it because truth suffers some infirmity '-":hen projected_ through human processes. Judicial uestq for perfect proof often accounts for police presen~ tation of fool-proof-concoction.

Infirmity in some aspect or other of this prosecution case cannot invalidate the culpability \Vhich is otherwise vcraclouslY

made out. [394 DF] E

The rationale of Court sentence is social defence coupled \Vith personal correction. Article 21 of the Constitution is the jurisdictional root for legal liberalism.

Courts are responsible to ensure that deprivation of liberty ts accompanied by curative strategy and human dignity, by issuing certitn positive directions in this regard. [397 B]

The Court directed the State Government (a) to issue appropriate instruc- F tions to the jail authorities to give the prisoners treatment and work whtch are not likely to offend dignity and decency and if necessary in consultation with t.he medical officer; (b ) _ _If their beha".iour shows responsibility and trustworth1ness, to allow them hberal and cautious parole so that their family Lies may be maintained and inner tensions may not further build up; (c) To enlarge. them. on parole f?r two months after every period of one year, (d) to afford 1nterv1ews by. fmtly !Jlembers as often as ar~ sought, and (e) to teach them useful crafts 1ns1de prison and encourage their studies.

The Court further directed the Sessions Judge to make jail visits to ensure cornPfiance \Vith G the above directions. [396 G-H, 397 A]

OBSERVATION:

Criminology is n1o:e tha.n. police. "billy" and "peace and order" is more than smrt F.LR.

It is positive action for prevention. detection and prompt prosecutwn. [395 G] ·

(The Court reiterated the preventive action of the police u/ss. 149 to 1 ~1 contained in Ch. XI of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 "which duty has goe by default"]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRInICTION : Special Lea\'e Petition (Criminal) No. 238 of 1978.

(Appeal by Special from the Judgment and Order dt. 16-12-77 of the Delhi High Court in Cr!. A. No. 135 of I 975).

Frank A lllhony, Chanum Lal ltorara and o. P. Soni for the Peti- B lioners.

The Order of the Court was delivered by

KRISHNA IYER, J.-Mr. Frank Anthony has argued elaborately, punctuated with stridant emphasis, several points in support of the innocence of the petitioners who have been convicted under s. 302 read with s. 34 and s. 307 I.P.C.

The High Court has affirmed the conviction entered by the trial court and ~ntenccs of life imprisonment have been awarded by both the courts for both the _accnsed.

Certainly, some persuasive factors, which may militate against the culpability of the accused and the prosecution version of the precise nature of the occurrence, were brought to our notice by counsel who also strongly urged that there were embellishments and improbabilities invalidating the conviction. We have had the advantage of persuing the extensively spread-out judgment of the High Court, in the Jigl1t of the critical arguments addressed, but remain unconvinced that there is any serious error which warrants grant of leave. ·

Credibility of testimony, oral and circumstantial, depends considerably on a judicial evaluation of the totality, not isolated scrutiny.

While it is necessary that proof beyond reasonable doubt should be adduced in all criminal cases, it is not necessary that it should be perfect.

If a case is proved too perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some flaws, inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it il; too imperfect.

One wonders whether in the meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being punished, mauy, guilty men must be callously allowed to escape.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish and guilty man cannot away with it because truth suffers some infirmity when projected through human processes.

Judicial quest for perfect proof often accounts for police presentation of fool-proof concoction.

Why fake up ?

Because the court asks for manufacture to make truth look true ?

No, we must be realistic.

We are satisfied that the broad features of the case, the general trend of the testimony and the convincing array of facts which are indi~ potable converge to the only conclusion that may be reasonably drawn,' namely, that the accused are guilty.

Theoretical possibilities may not shake up, fancied weaknesses may not defeat, when verdicts are rested on sure foundations.

Stray chances of innocence haunting the corridors of the court cannot topple concurrent findings of guilt.

We feel unhappy that, while infirmity in some aspect or other of this prosecution case should not _invalidate the c1:1Ipabiity which is otherwise veraciously made out, tragic occurrences hke this one. should and

• • "

, .

INDER SINGH v. DELHI STATE (Kris/z1111 lyer, J.) 39;;

.could he avoickd by pre-emptive State action, given iuiagination aml intelligence.

Had that been done the lethal episode might not have materialised and a young life not been lost.

And, on the other side, two boys. if we may say so, are the convicts, one who is 16 years and the other barely 20 years; and yet the attack was induced by a previous murder, rending a family into two feuding branches and leading to this vengeful murder. And the pity of it is this bleeding explosion was sparked off by a trivial friction caused by turns of irrigation.

We refer to the observation of the High Court :

"As is well known and borne out by the reported cases the drawing of water by turns is an endless cause of dispute." If this socio-economic source of irritation induced by turns of irrigation, were so frequent, it behoved any aware Government not to watch and wait for murders to take pface and then to prosecute after lives have been lost but to anticipate and smoothen the whole process so that avoidable frictions and tensions do not hot up. Violence often erupts from stress and distress. If wars are made in the minds oE man crimes

ar• rooted in the consciousness of man. It is the vigilant duty of a responsible Government not to merely track down criminals after the crime but to forestall escalation of traumatic build-up$ by quia timet steps before the crime.

The Administration, we hope, will not wait for

drunken.brawls and deaths in fustivals, fights over turns of water and deaths in fields and other like collisions, but, like good Governments should do, produce detente in the villages by appropriate measures which deepen the finer awareness and foster the better fellowship of men. It is obvious that this duty has gone by default and may continue to be so, unless the stiology of crime, in a broader social perspective, were traced and holistic measures adapted in advance.

Criminology is more than police hilly and 'peaoe and order' is more than smart FJ.R. It is positive action for prevention, detection and prompt prosecution.

Once we agree, as we do, that the conviction under s. 302 is right. the sentence imposed, namely, life imprisonment is foe minimum. Even so, there is an amount of psychic distress in marching two youngj men into lifelong incarceration.

The humanistic aspect of the case may highlight the deplorable plight of the man behind the murderer and the mind behind bars.

The fact that he has committed a murder in a fit of anger or prodded by family feud cannot warrant his being further criminalised by a long term of brutalising prison life.. These two young men must be redeemed for society because they are after all, men. In

this land elevated by the noble example of Va/mild and the humane faith of Gandhiji, anyone with any background lias a hopeful future given a tlierapcutic prison process.

The spiritual basis of our constitutional order-and that is the dharma of danda neeti-is human dignity and 'social justice and not the sedastic cruelty of hard confinement for years on end. The rationale of conrt sentence is social defence coupled with personal correction.

The California Supreme Conrt implied rehabilitation when it srud '.

"There is no place in the scheme for punishment for its own sake, for the product simply of vengeance or retribution."

A Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972).

Most correctional codes acknowledge the intent to rehabilitate-- making it the purpose of confinement. In that context, Justice Blackman's language is meaningful iu a United States Supreme Court decision :

"At the least due process requires that the nature and duration of commitment bear some reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual is committed." Jackson v.

In re Estrada; 63 Cal. 2nd 740 (1965).

In 1971 a U.S. District Court in Maryland found total rehabilitative effort was missing in a prison system and urdered that treatment be accelerated.

Budgetary limitations imposed by the State were no excuse.

Neither was noncooperative prisoners.

After all, they need rehabilitation the most. (McCray v. State, 10 Crim L Reptr 2132.) We are clear-and, indeed, this Court has on prior occasions c:riven home the sentencing essence-that the judicial imprimatur is given to keeping a mau in jail, not irr a: cage, the difference being that in the former, the healing technique and hospital setting chasten the tiny world behind the tall walls.

Therefore we emphasise the spirit of change towards rehabilitation.

And "You cannot rehabilitate a man through brutality and disrespect.

Regardless of the crime a man may commit, he still is a human being and has feeling. And the main reason most inmates in prison today disrespect their keepers, is because they themselves (the inmates) are disrespected and are not treated like human beings.

Does this type of treatment bring about respect and rehabilitation ? No ! It only instils hostility and causes alienation toward the prison officials from the inmate or inmates involved.

If you treat a man like an animal, then you must expect.him to act like one.

For every action, there is a reaction. This is only human nature. And in order for an inmate to act lil, e a human heing, you must treat him as such. Treating him like an animal will only get F negative results from him. Lewis Moore (71 p. 72)".

This reasoning compels us to issue certain positive directions, responsible as the court is to ensure that the deprivation of liberty is accompanied by curative strategy and human dignity.

Kamna must refine life in sarcer.

G So, insteaol of bolting these two young men behind the high walls of a prison and forgetting about them, humanising influences must be brought to bear npon them so that a better sense of responsibility, a ki.ndlier attitude, behavioral maturity and values of a good life may be generated under controlled conditions.

In this view we direct the State Government to issue appropriate instructions to the jail authorites to give these two prisoners treatment which is not likely to degrade or offend H dignity and decency but nplift and elevate. Work has a curative property but the kind of work assigned must be satisfying not degrading. The Medical Officer concerned will also be consulted on the proper prescription in this behalf. Furthermore, if the behaviour of these two prisooers

• •

INDER SINGH v. DELHI STATE (Krishna Iyer, J.) 39 7

shows responsibility and trustworthiness, liberal though cautious, parole A will be allowed to them so that their family ties may be maintained and inner tensions may not further build up. After every period of one year, they should be enlarged on parole for two mouths.

In!t"views by family members must be affocded as often as are sought.

Useful crafts must be taught inside prison and studies encouraged.

The Sessions Judge whose sentence we uphold, shall make jail visits to ensure compliance with these directions.

Art. 21 of the Constitution is the juris- B dictional root for this legal liberalism.

The State Government will t_ake proper steps to comply with this curial oommand. With these broad obligations cast on the State and the superintendent, we dismiss the special leave petition .

S.R.

Petition dis1tiissed.

S-277SCI/78