Devki Alas Vs Stat of Haryana

Devki Alias Kala V.
The State Of Haryana
 CITATION: 1979 AIR 1948 1980 SCR (1) 21 1979 SCC (3) 760
 DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 24/07/1979
 PETITIONER: DEVKI ALIAS KALA
 RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF HARYANA
 BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
DESAI, D.A.
KOSHAL, A.D.
 LAWS APPLICABLE:
Sentencing process-Plea for an order to release antisocial specialist criminals on probation under the Probation
of Offenders Act, 1958 (Act XX of 1958) is an insulting stultification of the ameliorator legislation.
 FACTS OF THE CASE:
Parvati, an unsophisticated girl of 17 was wending her way home at about sunset along a public street in the
artless town of Sitalpur in Bihar when Smt.Devki, the petitioner before us, swooped down and snatched her into
a taxi-cab and blized away. The weeping victim was medicated into unconsciousness, removed to Dhanbad and
further on, to final destination Haryana.
NOW, Parvati, by enslaved in a village villa was offered for sale to youths. Basically she was forced into
prostitutioin. But she got a chance and she ran away from the villa and eventually landed in a police station.
The police investigation unrevealed the pathetic story and ended up in a case, conviction, appeal, confirmation
and, finally, in this special leave petition to this Court which is the last refuge of every vanquished litigant.
 HEADNOTE:
The petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Sections 366 and 368 Penal code to three years’ rigorous
imprisonment on each count for the offences of abduction, seduction and sale of girls to others. In appeal, the
High Court confirmed the said order of conviction under Section 366 I.P.C. but set aside the conviction under
Section 368 ibid.
 ORDER:
The Order of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J.
Confronted by concurrent findings of guilt, counsel for the petitioner gave up his attack on the conviction and
concentrated his fire on the sentence, which, in this case, was three years’ rigorous imprisonment. For what?
For abducting a teenage girl and forcing her into sexual submission with commercial object, a racket which has
become an enormous national menace, notwithstanding the constitutional concern for the weaker sex. Counsel
dared to urge that the Probation of Offenders Act should be extended to this abominable culprit who had shown
sufficient expertise in the art of abduction, seduction and sale of girls to others who offer a tempting price. The
features of this case show that the petitioner suddenly descended in a taxi-cab and kidnapped the young woman,
and when she cried out, administered the potion which rendered her unconscious.
Furthermore, a well layout plan is discernible when we see the geographical spread of the crime. From a small
town in Bihar, the girl is dispatched to Dhanbad and from there, via Delhi, to Haryana, lodged in a house where
young men were asked to view her for obvious immoral purposes. It is an insulting stultification of the
amelioratory legislation viz. Probation of Offenders Act to extend its considerate provisions to such anti-social,
specialist criminals.
 JUDGMENT:
It is an insulting stultification of the amelioratory legislation viz. Probation of Offenders Act to extend its
considerate provisions to such anti-social specialist criminals, as in this case, where the petitioner an
abominable culprit with sufficient expertise in the art of abduction seduction and sale of girls, descended in a
taxi cab, kidnapped the young woman and when she cried out administered the potion which rendered her
unconscious and by a well-laid out plan took her from the small town in Bihar to Dhanbad and from there, via
Delhi to Haryana and lodged her in a house for obvious immoral purposes.
All that we can do is to reject the plea with indignation and follow it up with an appeal to the State
Governments of Bihar and of Haryana to put a special squad on the trail and hound out every such offender so
that the streets of our towns and cities may be sanitized and safe after sunset for Indian womanhood. Dismissed.
S.R. Petition dismissed.
 SECTION 3 OF PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT, 1958:

Section 3 of the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958 deals with the power of court to release the offender after
admonition. An Admonition, in literal terms, means a firm warning or reprimand. Section 3 says how the
offender is benefited on the basis of admonition after satisfying the following conditions:
I. When any person is found guilty of committing an offence under Section 379 or Section 380 or Section
381 or Section 404 or Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 or any offence punishable with
imprisonment for not more than two years, or with fine, or with both, under the Indian Penal Code, or
any other law
II. An offender should not previously be convicted for the same offence.
III. The Court considers the nature of the offence and the character of the offender.
IV. The Court may release the offender on probation of good conduct applying Section 4 of the Act, instead
of sentencing him. And,
V. The Court may release the offender after due admonition, instead of sentencing him.
 CASE EVALUATION:
The Supreme Court rejected the plea for benefit under section 3 of probation of offenders act, 1958 price and
sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment as the offender has shown sufficient excellence in abduction,
seduction and sale of girls to others for tempting price.
The term “probation” is an alternative to prison i.e. it is the criminal sentence in the interest of the offender.
This act tries to stop the turning of young offenders to professional criminals. Court has the power to release
certain offenders after admonition and on the promise of good conduct prescribed under S.3 & S.4 of POA,
1958 respectively. There is a very popular quote by Mahatma Gandhi that “hates the crime, not the criminal”.
Through this act, a fair chance is given to the young offender to become a better human being. We say young
kids learn bad things 10 times faster than good things, so in this case it’s good not to sentence them with
imprisonment, rather give them a chance of improvement with a warning. We can’t guarantee that after being
released from jail, the offender will act well because he might learn more heinous crimes within the jail.
In my opinion, Legislature or the judiciary should explore and pass some orders /laws on various possibilities
which can be exercised in the absence of the guidelines regarding the sentencing policy and also focus on the
need for establishing the specific directions regarding the same.
Also, there should be proper guidelines for judges as to how to use their power while sentencing. Some judges
are lenient and few are extremely harsh in deciding sentences. The most troubling truth highlighted is the non-
consideration of mitigating factors while sentencing.
After this case come into light, it was decided that if there is a case of Rape, Commercial Prostitution, Trespass
(sexual offence/unnatural offence) then “NO PROBATION WILL BE PROVIDED WHATEVER WILL BE
THE AGE OF THE PERSON”.

Devki Alas Vs Stat of Haryana

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Devki Alas Vs Stat of Haryana

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Devki Alias Kala V.

The State Of Haryana

 FACTS OF THE CASE:

The Order of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J.

S.R. Petition dismissed.

 SECTION 3 OF PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT, 1958:

You might also like