1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1543 of 2024 1 - Jagmohan Ghasi S/o Late Ratu Ghasi Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Dhanpuri, Police Station- Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 13/02/2026 1 The present appeal has been filed under Section 415(2) of BNSS against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.07.2024 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District – Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 40/2021 whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- Conviction Sentence HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.02.13 16:56:57 +0530 2 U/s 307 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 3 months. 2 The prosecution's case, in brief, is that complainant Smt. Gujri Nayak (PW-3), lodged a report to the effect that on the date of incident i.e. 10.11.2020 at about 06:00 am, she was informed by her younger brother-in-law, namely Heeralal (PW-4) that the appellant is assaulting with his wife Panwa Nayak (PW-2) (mother-in-law of the complainant) by means of iron rod, due to which she sustained grievous injuries on body. On the basis of the complaint, FIR was registered and after completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant. Thereafter, charges were framed for the offence punishable under Sections 506-II and 307 of IPC. 3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents. The statement of the appellant 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, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.07.2024 learned Judge has acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 506 Part-II of IPC. However, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing the appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the 3 sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2020, the victim is the appellant's wife. The appellant is in jail since 21.01.2021 till date i.e. 5 years and 17 days. The appellant is aged about 59 years, he has no criminal antecedents, and he is still serving the jail sentence; therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him and he may be released from jail. 6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellant. 7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 8 Dr. Ramesh Kumar (PW-8) conducted the MLC of victim Panva Nayak (PW-2), and gave his report vide Ex.P-8. As per MLC report (Ex.P-8) the following injuries were found:- 1. a lacerated wounds measuring 12x12cm, 14x2 cm and 6x2 cm on the back of the head. 2. a lacerated wound measuring 7x2 cm on the front of the head. 3. a lacerated wound measuring 4x2 cm on the right side of the head and 4x2 cm on the left side. 4. the left wrist was painful to move and tender to touch, and when straightened, it was flexed irregularly, and there was a bone fracture sound. Dr. Ramesh Kumar (PW-8) opined that all the injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object. He recommended a CT scan to determine the nature of injuries No. 1 to 3 and an X-ray for injury No. 4. He further stated that the CT scan revealed a blood clot inside the skull and a fractured clavicle bone. The nature of the injuries is grievous due to a 4 fracture of the bone. He also stated that in the X-ray report, a fracture on the left radius ulna was found. A query report was given by him vide Ex.P-10 in which he opined that the injury is grievous in nature and would be caused by an iron rod. 9 Dr. Hemant Bhagat (PW-13), the treating doctor has stated that the victim complained of pain in her back and forearm. After examination, he advised for X-ray. The x-ray report revealed a serious injury, with a fracture in the radius bone of the arm. After treatment with a plaster cast, the victim was discharged by him vide discharges slip Ex. P-28. 10 Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the witnesses Smt. Sandhya (PW-1), victim Panva Nayak (PW-2), Smt. Gujri Nayak (PW-3), Heera Lal Nayak (PW-4), Dr. Ramesh Kumar (PW-8), Sanjeev Kumar Singh (PW-9), Shivkumar Singh (PW-10), Ashvini Pandey (PW-11), Dr. Hemant Bhagat (PW-13) and Devgopal (PW- 14), establish the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. 11 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 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 : 5 "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.” 12 In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the appellant is aged about 59 years, who is in jail since 27.01.2021, he is the husband of the injured, the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 7 years, out of which he has already served the jail sentence of 5 years and 17 days, no criminal antecedent of the appellant is recorded in the arrest memo, he is a labour, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would serve if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by 6 him. 13 Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of IPC is maintained, but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 5 years and 17 days. However, the fine imposed by the learned trial Court shall remain intact. 14 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 15 The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 16 Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. A copy of the judgment may also be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent wherein the appellant is suffering the jail sentence. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) H.L. Sahu JUDGE