1 2025:CGHC:7624 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 357 of 2020 Bhagwat Patel S/o Late Shri Chhavi Lal Patel, Aged About 24 Years R/o Maanas Nagar, Ward No. 17, C.S.E.B., Korba, Police Station Kotwali, Civil & Revenue District Korba Chhattisgarh. …..Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Anusuchit Jati Kalyan, Korba, Civil And Revenue District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Itu Rani Mukherjee, Advocate. (Through legal Aid) For Respondent/State : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, P. L. for the State. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 12/02/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, filed by the appellant against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.01.2020 VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.03.17 12:56:21 +0530 2 passed by learned Special Judge, (SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989) District - Korba in Special Criminal Case No.23 of 2018, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as below :- Conviction Sentence Under Section 341 of IPC : S.I. for 10 dyas with fine of Rs. 50/- in default of fine amount two days additional S.I. Under Section 3(2)(va) of SC/SC Prevision of Atrocities Act. : S.I. for 10 days with fine of Rs. 50/- in default of fine amount two days additional S.I. Under Section 427 of IPC : S.I. for one month with fine of Rs.2,00/- in default of fine amount five days additional S.I. (All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.) 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 03.04.2018 at about 6:00pm, the complainant PW-1 was going to her house along with her friend by his motorcycle. Near NCDC school, the present appellant wrongfully restrained her and slapped repeatedly. He also abused and threaten her that she will be defamed. He also cause mischief by breaking her mobile phone. The complainant PW-1 has made a written complaint Ex.P/1 on 03.04.2018 and Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/2 was recorded for the offence under Section 341, 294,323,506 &427 of IPC against the appellant. FIR, Ex.P/14 was also registered against the appellant for the aforesaid offences. One damaged mobile phone has been seized from the complainant vide seizure memo Ex.P/4, the social status certificate of the complaint has also been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/5. Spot map Ex.P/7 was prepared by the police. The damage panchanama has also been prepared which is Ex.P/9, the victim was 3 sent for her medical examination to District Hospital, korba where she was being medically examined by PW-10 Dr. G.S. Jatra, who gave his report Ex.P/15 while examining the complainant doctor has found contusion and swelling on right side of cheek, abrasion on posterior side of left middle finger over proximal phalanx abrasion over tip of left middle finger and pain over left cheek and interior side of neck tenderness present. The injuries were simple in nature. The appellant has been arrested on 13.04.2018 and statement of the witnesses have been recorded and after completion of usual investigation charge -sheet has been filed against the appellant for the offence under Section 341, 294, 323, 506 & 427 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r) and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act before the learned trial Court. 3. The learned trial Court framed charged against the appellant for the offence under Section 341, 294, 323,506-B & 427 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r) and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act (on two count). The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove the charge against the appellant the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has also been recorded in which he denied the circumstances appears against him plead innocence and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. Three defence witnesses have been examined by the appellant. 4 5. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, the learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant from the offence under Section 294, 323 & 506-B of IPC and Section 3(1)(r) and (3)(2)(va) of SC/ST Act (for causing simple hurt to the complainant). However, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 341 & 427 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act (for wrongfully retrain the way of the complainant) as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omission and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which cannot be made basis for his conviction of the appellant. The evidence of complainant is full of contradictions with that of her 161 Cr.P.C. statement. On the same set of evidence, the appellant has been acquitted from the other offences. There is no cogent and clinching evidence with respect to the allegation that the appellant has caused mischief by damaging her mobile phone further there is no any other witness who supported the prosecution's case. She would further submit that the learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence given by the defence witnesses, therefore, the appellant cannot be convicted for the alleged offence. In the alternative, she would submit that the alleged offences does not provide minimum sentence, the appellant has already remained in jail for about 8 days and the offence is of the year 2018 and therefore, his 5 undergone period may be considered to be sufficient sentence by enhancing the fine amount suitably. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. But for minor omissions or contradictions there is no any infirmity in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. After appreciating the entire evidence led by prosecution the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant which need no interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. PW-1 is the complainant who stated in her evidence that on the date of incident when she had gone to PG college Korba along with her friend and returning back to her house, on the way she met with her another friend who was going to left her in her house. At that time, near NCDC school, the appellant came there and restrained her and slapped 8-10 times. He abused her and damaged her mobile phone and fled away. She return back to her house, informed the incident to her family members and then she lodged the report. At this stage, the complainant have declared hostile on the point of threatening given by the appellant that he will defamed her. In cross-examination the complainant has admitted that she came into contact with the appellant during her studies, they visited to various places and they were having love affair with each other. She admitted that she used to go to the house of the appellant and used to go to visit places also. She was being detailed cross- examined by the defence with respect 6 to the proposal of marriage between them and there was counter proposal by either side and they have made allegation upon each other that the other party is not ready for the marriage. She remain firm by saying that on the date of incident when she was going to her house, the appellant came there, restrained her and damaged her mobile phone. 10. PW-6 is the eye-witness to the incident. He is the person with whom the complainant was going to her house by his motorcycle. He too have stated that near NCDC school, the appellant came there, he restrained her and damaged mobile phone of the complainant. Although, he too have been declared hostile but he firmly stated that the appellant has restrain them and damaged the mobile phone of the complainant. 11. Although, the PW-10 Dr. G.S. Jatra, who medically examined the complainant have proved the MLC report Ex.P/15 and injuries have been found on the body of the victim but the learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant for causing simple hurt to the complainant and there is no appeal by either the state or the complainant against the said finding. 12. From the evidence of the complainant as well as PW-6, also from the other witnesses of police persons who are the witnesses of procedure of investigation, have duly proved the offence against the appellant and there is no infirmity or illegality committed by the learned trial Court while holding conviction of the appellant. The defence witnesses examined by the appellant is relates to their relationship. Though, 7 there may be some instances of dispute between them but from the evidence of the complainant and eye-witness PW-6, it has been proved that on the date of incident, he wrongfully restrained her and caused damage to her mobile phone. Therefore, the evidence of defence witnesses also does not help the appellant in his rescue. 13. From the aforesaid consideration, this Court is in the agreement with the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the appellant is guilty for the offence under Section 341 & 427 of IPC and Section 3(2) (va) of SC/ST Act for wrongfully restrain the complainant. 14. So far as the sentence part is concerned In the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. 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 Samuel 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 Micodotis, Director of Criminological Research Center, Athens, Greece, maintains that 'crime is the result of the lack of the right kind of education'. If 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 reculturisation. Therefore, the focus of 8 interest in penology is the individual, and the 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.” 15. The incident of the year 2018, the appellant was 24 years of the age at that time and presently he is having some innumerable responsibility of his family. Considering the evidence available on record as well as the evidence of defence witnesses, the relation between the appellant and complainant and the nature of allegation against him, this Court deem fit to reduce the sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court. The offence of Sections 341 and 427 of IPC does not provide any minimum sentence, therefore, the sentence awarded to the appellant for the offence under Sections 341 and 427 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act is reduced for the period already undergone by him with fine of Rs.500/- for the offence 9 of Section 341 of IPC, Rs.5,000/- for the offence of Section 427 of IPC and Rs.500/- for the offence of Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act. The fine amount shall be paid by the appellant within 3 months from today failing which, in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo further imprisonment for 7 days. On being so deposited fine amount, Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to the complainant PW-1 as compensation as provided under Section 396 of the B.N.S.S. 16. With this modification/alteration of sentence the appeal is partly allowed. 17. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Vaibhav