1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 95 of 2022 Kunte Bargah, S/o Balsai Bargah, aged about 62 years, R/o Village Belkharikha, Majhapara, P.S. Darima, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Darima, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Vikram Singh Vishwakarma, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Anish Tiwari, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 02.02.2026 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.01.2022 passed by learned Special Judge(Atrocities) Surguja (Ambikapur)(C.G.) in Special Session (Atrocities) Case No. 46/2019 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence & Fine U/s 307 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of ₹2000/-; in default of payment of fine, 1 year SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.02.03 14:49:03 +0530 2 additional RI. 2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that, on Tuesday, 09.04.2019, at approximately 2:00 PM, the complainant, Santosh Singh, stepped out of his house. At that time, his neighbor, Kunte Bargah, was passing, Santosh Singh asked Kunte Bargah, "How are you, uncle? Where are you going?" The accused, Kunte Bargah, who was intoxicated, responded by saying to the complainant, "Who are you, you bastard Kanwar tribal etc., to ask me that?" Knowing that the complainant was a vulnerable Kanwar tribal, the accused Kunte Bargah, with the intention of killing him, brought a sharp iron rod from his house and struck Santosh Singh on the head three or four times, assaulting and injuring him. Santosh Singh fell to the ground unconscious. The accused, believing the complainant to be dead, fled the scene. The accused Kunte Bargah inflicted the injuries on the complainant's head with iron rod with intention of committing murder. As a result, Santosh Singh was admitted to the District Hospital in Ambikapur for treatment. Based on the complainant's application, a First Information Report was registered against the accused. A site map (Exhibit P-9) and a patwari's sketch map (Exhibit P-10) of the incident site were prepared. During the investigation, the statements of the witnesses were recorded, and the accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. 3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 16 documents in support of its case. The statement of the appellant / accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. 4. The trial Court, upon evaluating the oral and documentary evidence 3 on record, acquitted the appellant of offence under Section 294, 506 (Part II) of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (prevention of atrocities) Act 1989. However, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on sentence part. He submits that the appellant has no criminal history. He is now aged about 66 years and has family responsibilities, the appellant has already completed about 4 years 5 months of jail sentence and pursuant to non-bailable warrant of this Court, he is in jail since 01.02.2026. The incident took place in the year 2019 and since then the appellant is facing the lis. Hence, by considering all these aspects, the sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the period which has already undergone by him in the interest of justice. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment and opposes the argument advanced on behalf of the Appellant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record including the impugned judgment. 8. Having gone through the material available on record and the statement of Dr. Nitesh Kamendra (PW-7), his report (Ex.P-11) the statements of complainant Santosh (PW-6) and his wife Gauri Bai (PW-3), establish the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC which is based on evidence available on record and it is hereby affirmed. 4 9. As regards the sentence of the appellant, 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 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 5 the incident had taken place in the year 2019, the appellant has no criminal history. He's a 66-year-old man with family responsibilities. The appellant is facing the lis since 2019 and is in jail since 01.02.2026. He has already completed about 4 year 5 of jail sentence. Taking into consideration all these facts, this Court would deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone by him. 11. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 307 of the IPC is maintained, and the sentence of RI for 7 years is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The fine amount and its default stipulation, as imposed by the trial Court, shall remain intact. 12. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 13. The appellant is in jail, he be released forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other case/s. 14. Let a certified copy of this judgment, along with the original record, be transmitted forthwith to the concerned trial Court. A copy of this judgment shall also be supplied to the Superintendent of the jail where the appellant is serving his sentence, for information and necessary action. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubh@m