Judgment

KRISHNA IYER, J.:- In this case, the question of dealing with the appellant under S. 360, Cr. P. C. remains to be considered. For this purpose we had directed that a report be called for from the Probation Officer having jurisdiction. That report has been put in. His age, according to the Jail Doctor, was 24 years on 23-4-1973 which means that on the date of the offence, he was less than 21 years old. The offence, for which conviction has been rendered, is one which will be attracted by S. 360 or at any rate the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The materials before us are imperfect because the Trial Court has been perfunctory in discharging its sentencing functions. We must emphasise that sentencing an accused person is a sensitive exercise of discretion and not a routine or mechanical prescription acting on hunch. The Trial Court should have collected materials necessary to help award a just punishment in the circumstances. The social background and the personal factors of the crime-doer are very relevant although in practice Criminal Courts have hardly paid attention to the social milieu or the personal circumstances of the offender. Even if S. 360, Cr. P. C. is not attr