SUBE SINGH & ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

SUBE SINGH & ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

The Punjab Borstal Act, 1926, by its terms (particularly s. 2(4)), excludes from its benefit any offence punishable with death, regardless of the punishment actually imposed. Section 302 IPC is punishable with death, hence, adolescents convicted under this section are not entitled to detention in a Borstal institution under s. 5 of the Act.

Parties
Petitioners: Sube Singh & Ors.; Respondents: State of Haryana & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
21 September 1988
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (criminal) Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Final Decision on Merits
Outcome
Writ petitions dismissed.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Punjab Borstal Act, 1926, Benefit of Borstal Detention to Adolescents Convicted Under Section 302 IPC, Sentencing of Adolescents Convicted for Murder

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sube Singh & Ors.

Petitioners

State of Haryana & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (criminal) Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Final Decision on Merits

  1. 1 Whether adolescents convicted for murder and sentenced under Section 302 IPC are entitled to the benefit of Section 5 of the Punjab Borstal Act, 1926.

Ratio Decidendi

The Punjab Borstal Act, 1926, by its terms (particularly s. 2(4)), excludes from its benefit any offence punishable with death, regardless of the punishment actually imposed. Section 302 IPC is punishable with death, hence, adolescents convicted under this section are not entitled to detention in a Borstal institution under s. 5 of the Act.

Court Disposition

Writ petitions dismissed.

Orders

  • Each of the writ petitions is dismissed.
  • There is no order for costs.