1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 82 of 2017 Deepak Kujur S/o Gabrel Kujur, Aged About 20 Years Now 24 Years R/o Birnitola Kukarbhuka, Police Station Bagbahar District Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Bagbahar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vishal Chandravanshi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Akash Agrawal, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on board 09/04/2026 1. This appeal under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC has been filed challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.01.2017 passed by learned Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kunkuri, District Jashpur (CG) in Criminal Appeal No.22/2014 upholding the judgment dated BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.04.10 15:38:25 +0530 2 26.03.2014 passed by the JMFC, Pathalgaon, District Jashpur (CG) in Criminal Case No.359/2013, whereby the applicant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 326 of IPC R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional S.I. for 1 month. 2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that the complainant, Mikhel Khalkho, lodged a report at Bagbahar Police Station alleging that on 05.11.2013, at approximately 1:00 pm, he was standing near his house. At that time, his neighbour, applicant Deepak Kujur, was coming towards his house shouting abuses and creating a disturbance. When the complainant asked the applicant whom he was abusing, the applicant began hurling filthy abuses at him and threatened to kill him. During the altercation, the applicant knocked the complainant down and bit his nose with such force that a portion of the nose was severed. Based on the report, FIR was registered against the applicant under sections 294, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, and the case was taken up for investigation. After complete investigation, charges were framed against the applicant for the offence under sections 294, 506 & 326 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. So as to hold the accused/applicant guilty, the prosecution 3 has examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 4 documents. The statement of the accused/applicant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties, the trial Court i.e. JMFC, Pathalgaon, District Jashpur vide judgment dated 26.03.2014 acquitted the applicant of the charges under Sections 294 & 506 of IPC, however, convicted him under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment fine, to undergo additional simple imprisonment for one month. The applicant challenged this conviction before the Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kunkuri, District Jashpur. The appellate Court, vide impugned judgment dated 10.01.2017, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial court’s judgment, leading to the filing of this criminal revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is not pressing the revision so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident took place in the year 2013 and thereby more than 12 years have rolled by since then. Out of two years jail sentence, the 4 applicant has already remained in custody for about 4 months & 12 days. At the time of incident, the applicant was about 20 years old and now he is 32 years having family responsibility. The applicant has no criminal antecedent. He submits that considering all these facts, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State/Respondent opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant and supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Upon medical examination of the injured, Dr. Ranjit Toppo (PW-2) recorded the following injuries:: 1. The tip of the nose was severed by approximately 3 cm. 2. A crescent shaped scratch mark on the right cheek, measuring 2 x 1/3 cm. According to the medical testimony, these injuries were caused by human teeth, and one was classified as grievous in nature. 9. Having gone through the material on record and the evidence of the injured Mikhel Khalkho (PW-3), his wife Fulobai (PW-4), witness Krishna (PW-5) and Dr. Ranjit Toppo (PW-2) and the report given by him, the involvement 5 of the applicant in the crime in question is clearly established. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by both the Courts regarding conviction of applicant for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC. 10. As regards sentence, in the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1977) 3 SCC 287, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that if you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries and held in para-9 as follows: “9. Western jurisprudence and 'sociologists, from their own angle have struck a like note. Sir Samual Romilly, critical of the brutal penalties in the then Britain, said in 1817 : “The laws of England are written in blood". Alfieri has suggested : 'society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it’. George Nicodotis, Director of Criminological Research Centre, Athens, Greece, maintains that 'Crime is the result of the lack of the right kind of education.' It is thus plain that crime is a pathological aberration, that the criminal can ordinarily be redeemed, that the State has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub-culture that leads to anti-social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by re- culturisation. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology is the individual, and goal is salvaging him for society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today views sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender 6 as a means of social defense. We, therefore consider a therapeutic, rather than an in 'terrorem' outlook, should prevail in our criminal courts, since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. In the words of George Bernard Shaw : 'If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries'. We may permit ourselves the liberty to quote from Judge Sir Jeoffrey Streatfield : “If you are going to have anything to do with the criminal Courts, you should see for yourself the conditions under which prisoners serve their sentences.” 11. In the instant case, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2013, and thereby more than 12 years have passed since then. At the time of incident, the applicant was 20 years old and now he is approximately 32 years having family responsibility. As per the arrest memo, the applicant has studied upto 8th class, works in agriculture and has no previous criminal record. The applicant has already served the jail sentence of 4 months & 12 days and he is currently on bail. 12. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and also considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it would not be appropriate to send back the applicant to jail and the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 13. Accordingly, the conviction of the applicant for the offence 7 under Section 326 of IPC is maintained, but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 4 months & 12 days instead of R.I. for 2 years. However, the fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed upon the applicant is hereby enhanced to Rs.5,000/- which shall be paid within a period of 60 days from today. In default of payment of fine amount, the applicant shall be liable to undergo R.I. for 1 month. Any fine amount already deposited by the applicant shall be adjusted. 14. The fine amount enhanced/imposed by this Court today shall be disbursed to the injured, Mikhel Khalkho, upon due verification. 15. Consequently, the criminal revision is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 16. The applicant is on bail. He need not to surrender in this case. However, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437A of the CrPC. 17. Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai