Ichhpal Singh vs State of J&K and Others

The petitioner after having passes his B.Sc. PartII examination during the session 199899 was admitted in Govt. Degree College Udhampur.

This was for the Sessions 199899. During this session he was suspended as he was involved in a stabbing incident. The victim died later on. An

order to this effect was passed on 12.10.1999. The petitioner came to be arrested on 12.10.1999. This stabbing incident led to the death of one

student Daljeet Singh. Criminal Proceedings were initiated against him. The petitioner submits that as he stands acquitted by the Court of Sessions,

therefore, he is entitled to admission/ readmission and the decision taken by the respondents not to grant admission is not sustainable.

The respondents have filed objections. The stand taken by them is that no doubt the petitioner was acquitted of the charge under section 302 of

the Penal Code but this acquittal was because nobody came forward to support the prosecution version. It is accordingly submitted that merely

because the petitioner stands acquitted of the charge cannot lead to the consequence of the petitioner being granted admission. It is submitted that

the respondents can form their own view in the matter. It is submitted that if a decision is taken by the educational authorities in this regard, then

this is not normally to be interfered with. For this reliance is being placed on the following authorities.

U.R.Singh Vs. Board of Governors MACT Bhartai And Others AIR 1982 MP 59.

Arun Kumar Pateria and Another. Vs Vikram University Ujjain and Others AIR 1982 M.P. 217

Subir Kumar Saha Vs The Indian Institute of Technology and Another AIR 1987 Bombay 35

Smt. Shraddha Kumari Vs. Lucknow University and Others AIR 1985 Allahabad 71.

In addition to above, it is submitted that on account of provisions contained in paragraphs 5 and 8 of the prospectus, the petitioner cannot seek

admission. It is submitted that the petitioner is supposed to furnish a character certificate and again he cannot be admitted when there is a gap of

more than one academic session.

The argument which is put across by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has passed B.Sc. Part II, examination with 62%

marks. It is submitted that the incident which led to the petitioner being suspended led to a criminal trial. In the criminal trial, the petitioner stands

acquitted. If this be the situation then there should be no justification to not to permit the petitioner to continue with the course of studies. It is

submitted that if an undertrial is permitted to taken part in the examination, then the petitioner who was a freeman and has been absolved of the

blame cannot be denied admission in the college.

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and after having gone through the record. I am of the opinion that the decision in these matters

is basically to be taken by the respondent authorities. Petitioner stands acquitted of the charge. May be there was not sufficient evidence. In this

situation would it be apt to keep the petitioner illiterate and uneducated and force him to a situation where he may again be exposed to an influence

which may take him away from a civilised and ordinarily life.

In this regard what was said by K.T. Thomas J in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat (1998) 7 SCC 392. can well

be taken as a guide. Issue arose under Penal laws. It was observed that the retributive theory of punishment has waned into a relic of primitively

because civilised society has realised the retribution cannot solve the problem of escalating criminal offences. Crime is now considered to be a

problem of social hygiene. That modern diagnosis made by criminologists is now causing a sea change to the whole approach towards crime and

punishment. The emphasis involved in punishment has now been transposed from retribution to cure and reforms so that the original man, who was

mentally, healthy can be recreated from the ailing criminal What was said in paragraph 29 of the judgment is being quoted again :

To Mother Teresa, the prisoner is Jesus to me ""The world renowned philanthropist as she was would have been very much inspired by the

scriptural words pronounced by Lord Jesus as quoted in the gospel according to Matthew (Chapter 25 verse 36) :

Then the King will say to those on his right handcome ye. who are blessed by my father in Heaven, for I was in prison and you came to see me!

To those on the left the King said Go away from me you cursed ones, for I was in prison and you did not visit me.

The grand transformation recorded in the epics regarding Hunter Valmiki who turned out to be a poet of eternal recognition, is referred to in

para 30 of the judgment. It was observed :

If the powers which brought about that transformation had remained inactive the world would have been poorer without the great epic

Ramayana"". History is replete with instances of bad persons transforming into men of great usefulness to humanity"".

In this regard it would again be apt to refer to the decision reported as Mohd Giasuddin Vs. State of A.P. (1977) 3. SCC 287, which decision

was noticed in the case of State of Gujarat (supra). In the above case it was observed as under:

..............The aphorism that ""if every saint has a past every sinner has a future"" is a tested philosophy concerning human life"".

It was accordingly observed that:

A reformative approach is now very much interviewed with a rehabilitative aspect to a convicted prisoner....

It was observed that the whole goal of punishment being curative, the accent should therefore, be more and more on rehabilitation rather then

retributive and punitive. In Ashok Kumar Vs. State AIR 1980 SC 636 what was said in paragraph 6 of the judgment is being quoted below :

More important than these circumstances is the social urgency of making this student offender a onoffender These are the two circumstances

which weigh in our mind. The young man has married and has three children. This is a measure of assurance that he will not play with his freedom

recklessly. Family life is an assurance against a career of crime"".

The above factothers are required to be taken note of. These are of paramount consideration. This petition is accordingly disposed of with an

observation that the respondents would reconsider the entire matter. In case parents of the petitioner assure the respondent authorities and if the

petitioner has mellowed down by now then it would be apt to allow the petitioner to lead disciplined life of the school and the institution. As

indicated above, these are the matters on which decision has to be taken by the respondent authorities. They would reconsider the whole issue at

their own level. It is hoped that the respondents would not let the petitioner become a wanderer and road side roamer. This has to be avoided. Let

this be done and a decision be taken at an earliest, in any case not latter than one month from the date copy of the order becomes available to the

respondents.

Disposed off accordingly.