the situation with its earlier judgment for providing free legal aid to a poor accused in the

matter Khatri (II) v. State of Bihar1, as a constitutional obligation and stated that considering the
physical and mental health of the accused and providing medical aid is also a matter of
discharging of constitutional obligation.

Therefore, in the present matter, the accused is suffering from the deadly disease that his doctors’
prognosis was death within three to four months. In the very face of it, the right to life of the
accused is so damaged that giving him the punishment will add more harm to it. So, it was the
constitutional obligation on the part of the lower court to consider the health issues of the
accused. By the term Life as here used something more is meant than mere animal existence. The
inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which the life is
enjoyed.2 Similarly, in the present case, the virus had invaded the accused brain and his stomach,
and peripheral nerve damage caused him pain and suffering to the extent that doctors ordered
him to limit his physical exercise to sitting in a chair for one hour a day. So, considering the
article 21 of the constitution and the constitutional obligation, lower court was justified in
discharging the case.

ISSUE 1.2.2 DISCHARGE ON HUMANITARIAN GROUND.

The court on consideration of the condition of the accused, who was suffering from an advanced
stage of AIDS and related complicating illness which had had invaded his brain and his stomach,
and peripheral nerve damage caused him pain and suffering to the extent that doctors ordered
him to limit his physical exercise to sitting in a chair for one hour a day. His doctors’ prognosis
was death within three to four months. Now, even if we assume that the accused has committed
the crime then the maximum punishment that is specified in case of posseion and sale of the
small quantity of manufactured drug is 1 year and since the purpose of punishment is
rehabilitation and restitution, there is no ground of punishing the accused as he may not live until
the punishment specified by the Act. In the foreign Judgement of People v.Camargo3, the court
dismissed the petition against the accused who was charged with the possession of drugs and was
suffering from AIDS stating that:

1
1981 (1) SCC 627.
2
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1964 SCR (1) 332.
3
135 Misc.24937 (1986).