The court considered the impact of prolonged incarceration on young convicts and the principles of restorative justice in modifying the appellant's sentence.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant stands convicted for diverse offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code 1860. The conviction and sentence are as follows:

(i) Section 376 - life imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5000;

(ii) Section 363 - 5 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 5000;

(iii) Section 366 - 10 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 5000;

(iv) Section 307 - 10 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 5000; and

(v) Section 354 - 2 years' rigorous imprisonment.

All sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

3. On 2 August 2019, this Court held that there was no reason to interfere with the conviction and issued notice confined to the quantum of sentence.

4. We have heard Mr Harinder Mohan Singh, counsel for the appellant, who has been nominated by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and Ms Archana Pathak Dave, counsel for the respondent- State.

5. Mr Harinder Mohan Singh has submitted that the appellant was twenty years old on the date of offence and has now undergone 11 years of imprisonment. Hence, it has been submitted that the quantum of sentence which has been imposed should be suitably modified to such an extent as the Court deems appropriate having regard to the need for reformation of the appellant.

6. On the other hand, Ms Archana Pathak Dave, counsel for the respondent has submitted that having regard to the fact that the victim was assaulted on the head after the alleged act, the sentence of life imprisonment meets the ends of justice.

7. In determining the quantum of sentence, the Court must bear in mind the circumstances pertaining to the offence and all other relevant circumstances including the age of the offender. The appellant has undergone actual imprisonment for a period of 11 years as on date. In Dharambir v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1979) 3 SCC 645, a two-Judge Bench of this Court specifically noted the impact of longer prison sentences on convicts who are young. Justice V R Krishna Iyer, speaking on behalf of the Court had noted the impact of prolonged incarceration:

"2. We, however, notice that the petitioners in this case are in their early twenties. We must naturally give thought to the impact on these two young lives of a life sentence which means languishing in prison for years and years. Such induration of the soul induced by indefinite incarceration hardens the inmates, not softens their responses. Things as they are, long prison terms do not humanise or habilitate but debase and promote recidivism. A host of other vices, which are unmentionable in a judgment, haunt the long careers of incarceration, especially when young persons are forced into cells in the company of callous convicts who live in sex-starved circumstances. Therefore, the conscience of the court constrains it to issue appropriate directions which are policy-oriented, as part of the sentencing process, designed to make the life of the sentence inside jail restorative of his crippled psyche. One of the principal purposes of punitive deprivation of liberty, constitutionally sanctioned, is decriminalisation of the criminal and restoration of his dignity, self-esteem and good citizenship, so that when the man emerges from the forbidding gates he becomes a socially useful individual. From this angle our prisons have to travel long distances to meet the ends of social justice."

8. In our view, the ends of justice would be met by directing that instead and in place of the sentence of life imprisonment which has been imposed for the conviction under Section 376, the appellant shall stand sentenced to a term of 15 years' imprisonment. We are not inclined to uphold the argument of the respondent-state that only the sentence of life imprisonment would meet the ends of justice. The principles of restorative justice find place within the Indian Constitution and severity of sentence is not the only determinant for doing justice to the victims. In Maru Ram v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 107, Justice V R Kris