1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 615 of 2017 1 - Sanu Goyal @ Saurabh S/o Sudama Goyal Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Bataikela, Police Station Kansabel, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh 2 - Ankit Goyal S/o Ramesh Goyal, Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Bataikela, Police Station Kansabel, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh 3 - Vinod @ Golu Goyal, S/o Suresh Goyal, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Bataikela, Police Station Kansabel, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh 4 - Sikendra Sai S/o Shiv Prasad Sai, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Khuntitoli, Police Station Kansabel, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kansabel District Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate, with Ms. Vidhi Matlani, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Swati Raj Gupta, P.L. BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.04.14 15:47:46 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 10.04.2026 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 16.06.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jashpur (CG) in Criminal Appeal No.18/2017, modifying the judgment dated 30.01.2017 passed by the JMFC, Bagicha, District Jashpur (CG) in Criminal Case No.53/2016, whereby each of the applicants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 323/34 of IPC R.I. for 4 months with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 month. 2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 16.02.2016 at about 7:40 pm when the complainant, Keshav Pandey was going to lodge a report at Kansabel Police Station against the brother of applicant Sanu Goyal, the applicants allegedly intercepted the complainant for reporting the matter, verbally abused him with obscene language and physically assaulted him with their hands and fists, causing injuries to his neck, left ear, and other parts of his body. Based on the report lodged by the complainant, FIR 3 was registered against the applicants under Sections 294, 506, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the Applicants for the said offence. 3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 9 documents in support of its case. The statements of the applicants / accused were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. 4. After hearing the parties, the trial Court i.e. JMFC, Bagicha, District Jashpur vide judgment dated 30.01.2017, acquitted the applicants of the charges under Sections 294 & 506 of IPC, however, convicted them under Section 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment fine, to undergo additional RI for one month. The applicants subsequently challenged this judgment of conviction and sentence before the Sessions Judge, Jashpur. The Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment dated 16.06.2017, affirmed the conviction of applicants under Section 323/34 of IPC but modified the 4 sentence part as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the present revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not want to press the appeal on merits and confines his argument only on sentence part. He submits that the applicants were on bail during trial. However, following the pronouncement of the appellate Court's judgment on 16.06.2017, they were taken into custody and sent to jail. Their sentences were subsequently suspended on 27.06.2017. Thus, the applicants remained in custody for a total of 12 days after the appellate court's judgment. The incident took place 16.02.2016 and since then they are facing the lis. Hence, by considering all these facts, the sentence of the applicants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them in the interest of justice. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment and opposed the argument advanced on behalf of the applicants. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned judgment. 8. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the complainant Keshav Pandey (PW-1), his sister-in-law Babita Singar (PW-2), witness Jamuna Singar (PW-3), Ghanshyam (PW-4) and Dr. Nilesh Kumar Khalkho 5 (PW-7) and his report Ex.P-5, the involvement of the applicants in the crime in question is clearly established. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court as regards the conviction of the applicants for offence punishable under Section 323/34 of IPC which is based on evidence available on record and it is hereby affirmed. 9. As regards the 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 jurisprudes 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 6 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 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." 10. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the maximum sentence imposed on the applicants is 4 months and they have already remained in custody for about 13 days, the incident took place in the year 2016 and since then they are facing the lis and also considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it would not be appropriate to send back the applicants to jail and the ends of justice would be served if they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 11. Accordingly, the conviction of the applicants under Section 323/34 of IPC is maintained but their jail sentence is 7 reduced to the period already undergone by them i.e. 13 days. However, the fine amount and its default stipulation imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. 12. Consequently, the criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 13. The applicants are on bail. They need not to surrender in this case. However, their bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437A of the CrPC. 14. 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