Nadella Venkata Krishna Rao versus State of Andhra Pradesh — Supreme Court (1978) — LawSathi Research

Nadella Venkata Krishna Rao versus State of Andhra Pradesh — Supreme Court (1978) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Sentence reduced to five years' rigorous imprisonment on each of the two counts, to run concurrently (in place of ten years and seven years); appeal otherwise dismissed.

Issue for consideration

What sentence should be imposed on the appellant (accused No. 2), convicted under ss. 489C and 489B IPC for possession of materials for counterfeiting, leave having been granted on the question of sentence only?

Court's answer

Harsh and prolonged incarceration may sometimes be self-defeating: the most hurtful part of imprisonment is the initial stage, after which the prisoner hardens, becomes callous and dehumanised, and the curative goal of punishment is defeated.

Ratio / Principle

The accent must therefore be more and more on rehabilitation rather than retributive punitivity inside the prison.

Key takeaways

Items 58 and 59 of the U.N. Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners are remembered/quoted with approval: the purpose and justification of a sentence of imprisonment is ultimately to protect society against crime, achievable only if imprisonment ensures the offender's return as a law-abiding, self-supporting citizen.ratio¶20
Balancing the need for rehabilitation and deterrence, a five-year sentence is considered long enough for correctional treatment yet not unduly or repugnantly harsh for this appellant.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Nadella Venkata Krishna Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeal No. 505 of 1977, decided December 15, 1977; Krishna Iyer and Tulzapurkar, JJ.; order delivered by Krishna Iyer, J.). Sentencing — purpose and justification of a sentence. The appellant, accused No. 2, charged along with A1 and A3 under ss. 489A and 489B IPC but convicted under ss. 489C and 489B IPC (acquitted of counterfeiting, convicted of possession of materials for counterfeiting), was sentenced by the trial court to ten years and seven years' rigorous imprisonment running concurrently; the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed his appeal (Crl. A. No. 14 of 1976, order dated 25-2-77) and confirmed the sentence. Leave was granted on the question of sentence only. HELD: harsh and prolonged incarceration may sometimes be self-defeating — the prisoner hardens and is dehumanised, defeating the curative goal of punishment; the accent must be on rehabilitation rather than retributive punitivity inside the prison. Items 58 and 59 of the U.N. Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners were quoted with approval. Five years was considered long enough for correctional treatment yet not repugnantly harsh; the sentence was reduced to five years' rigorous imprisonment on both counts, concurrent, with an expectation of humanising treatment in jail; subject to the reduction, the appeal was dismissed.

A

B

NADELLA VENKATA KRISHNA RAO

V-

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

December 15, 1977

[V. R. KRISHNA !YER AND V. 0. TULZAPURKAR, JJ.J

Sentencing-Purpose and justification of a sentence.

Appellant accused No. 2 was charged along with Al and A3 u/ss. 489A and 4890 LP.C., but found guilty and convicted u/ss. 489C and 4890, and sentenced to ten years and seven years under the said counts, the sentences to run concurrently. The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the appeal pre .. ferred against it and confirmed the sentence. Dismissing the appeal by special leave and reducing the sentence to five years on each count, the Court! HELD : Harsh and prolonged incarceration may sometimes be self-defeating. The most hurtful part of imprisonment is the initial stage when a person is confined in person. Thereafter he gets sufficiently hardened and callous with the result that bv the time be is processed through the years inside the prison he becomes debllmanized. The accent must therefore be more and more on rehabilitation rather than retributive punitivity inside the prison. [403 GH] U.N. Document A/COF/76/1 Annex I.A. Items 38 and 59 quoted with approval. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 505 of 1977. Appeal by Speci&I Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 25-2-77 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Cr!. A. No. 14 of 1976. Frank Anthony and B. Kanta Rao for the Appellant. P. P. Rao, G. N. Rao and L. J. Vadakara for the Respondent. The Order of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA !YER, J.-Leave is granted on the question of sentence only. This is a case where the accused hav been acquitted of counterfeiting but have been convicted of possession of materials for counterfeiting. It makes little difference from the point of view of guilt and injury to society. The trial court awarded a sentence of 1 O years rigorous imprisonment and that has been affirmed by the High Court. We think that health and prolonged incarceration may sometimes be self-defeating. The most hurtful part of imprisonment is the initial stage when a person is confined in prison. Thereafter he gets sufficiently hardened and callous with the result that by the time he is processed through the years inside the prison he becomes more dehumanised. The whole goal of punishment being curative is thereby defeated. The accent must therefore be more and more on rehabilitation, rather than retributive punitivity inside the prison. In this context, it is helpful to remember items 58 & 59 in the rules applicable to prisoners under sentence framed as the Standard Minimum Rules

c D

E

F

G

H

(J 978] 2 S.C.R.

404

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

(

A fu1 the Treatment ul Prisoners (U.N. Document AICOF/76/l, Annex. l.A.) :

The purpose and justification of a sentence of imprisonment or a similar measure deprivative of liberty is ultimately to protect society against crime. This end can only be achieved if the period of imprisonment is used to B ensure, so far as possjble, that upon 1his return to so..:k~ty the offender is not only willing but able to lead a law-abiding and self-supporting life.

To this end, the institution should utilize all the remedial, educational, moral, spiritual and other forces and forms of assistance which are appropriate and available, c and should seek to apply them according to the individual, treatment needs of the prisoners,

Giving anxious consideration to the need for rehabilitation and deterrence we consider that the prisoner in this case, who is the appellant before us may serve a sentence of five years which may be long enough for correctional treatment, at the same time not unduly long D to be regarded as repugnantly harsh. We dare say that during this period the State jail authorities will take care to subject the appellant to humanising treatment so that when he comes out he will desist from crimmality and turn a new leaf.

,

We reduce the sentence awarded by the courts below to five years rigorous imprisonment on both counts which are to run concurrently, E Subject to the above, the appeal is dismissed.

S.R.

Appeal dismissed.