NADELLA VENKATAKRISHNA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave is granted on the question of sentence only.

(2.) This is a case where the accused have 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 10 years rigorous imprisonment and that has been affirmed by the High Court. We think that harsh and prolonged incarceration may sometimes be selfdefeating. 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 dehumansied. 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 and 59 in the rules applicable to prisoners under sentence framed as the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (U. N. Document A/COF/6/1, Annex. 1. A.):

(3.) 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 no unduly long 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 criminality and turn a new leaf.