1 2025:CGHC:43645 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 746 of 2003 1 - Mahendra @ Vijay Kumar, S/o Santram Patel, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Sahaspali, Police Station Sarangarh, At present Murrabhatha, Gandhi Nagar, Gudhiari, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through: Police Station Sheorinarayan, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Arvind Dubey, Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Judgment on Board 28/08/2025 1. The present criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.06.2003, passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Janjgir, Sessions Division, Bilaspur, in Sessions Case No. 193 of 2002, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.30 15:08:41 +0530 2 Conviction Sentence U/s. 324 of IPC One year R.I. of each of the section. U/s. 324 of IPC U/s. 333/34 of IPC 5 Years R.I. with fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 2 months. U/s. 25 and 27 of Arms Act 5 years R.I. each of the section with fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 2 months. All sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 02.05.2002, the complainant Kartikram Sahu, Constable was on duty to manage the market at Sheorinarayan. At about 5:30 PM, the another constable Ramprasad Baghel informed him about the offence of loot and theft at Bilaigarh area and Prabhat Laundry yesterday night and they were assigned duty for investigation of that case. At about 7:00 PM, when they were in Kera chowk, they saw 03 persons in a motorcycle going towards bus stand. On being suspicion, they followed them and when they tried to interrogate them, they started running. With the help of other persons of vicinity, they could have catch one of the accused by Ramprasad and his another friend tried to get him free and made an assault by knife on the abdomen of Ramprasad. The second blow of knife was inflicted on his left thigh. One Radhehari Gupta was also tried to intervene, but he too was being assaulted by knife and on being telephonically informed the police station, other two constables came there and somehow they could control the accused persons. The present appellant Mahendra Kumar Patel @ Vijay and other accused Saroj Kumar disclosed their names and caught on the spot. 3 Their third friend fled away. The FIR (exhibit P-4) was registered against the appellant and co-accused Saroj Kumar for the offence under Sections 307, 353, 332 and 34 of IPC. Injured Ramprasad was sent for his treatment to Govt. Hospital, Sheorinarayan, where Dr. K.K. Thawait/PW-15 medically examined him and gave his report (exhibit P-9). While medically examining the injured Ramprasad, the doctor has found the following injures:- (i) left arm-abrasions and laceration-tooth marks of upper and lower jaw-5 cm x 3 cm in elliptical shape. (ii) Linear abrasion, 8 cm from qutei angle of eye up to new nasal bone. (iii) abrasion, small multiple on lateral orifice of right palm and thumb and index finger. (iv) right leg, thumb, lacerated wound 4 x 0.3 cm. (v) Incised wound above knee joint, left, on medial condyle of femur 1½ inch x 2 cm x 3 cm. (vi) Linear abrasion on left renal region on lateral surface vital part kidney region. The doctor has opined that the nature of injuries are grievous and caused by hard and sharp object. 3. The another injured Radhehari Gupta was also sent for his medical treatment to Govt. Hospital, Sheorinarayan, where he was also 4 examined by PW-15/Dr. K.K. Thawait, who after his medical examination gave report (exhibit P-12) and found the lacerated wound on left side of chest on lateral surface at the level of 8th rib, 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm (vital part lung and heart). The doctor has also pined that the nature of injury is grievous and caused by hard and sharp object. 4. Spot map (exhibit P-7) was prepared by the Patwari. One button knife has been seized from the present appellant vide seizure memo (exhibit P-15). Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of CRPC have been recorded and after completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant and co-accused Saroj Kumar before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Janjgir for the offence under Sections 307, 353, 333/34 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. The case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, from where the same was transferred to the learned trial Court for its trial. 5. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellant for the offence under Sections 307 (on two counts), 333/34 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. The charge against the co-accused Saroj Kumar was framed for the offence under Sections 307/34 (on two counts) and 333/34 of the IPC. The accused persons denied the charge and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove the charge against the appellant and co-accused Saroj Kumar, the prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses. Statements of the appellant and co-accused Saroj Kumar under 5 Section 313 of CRPC have also been recorded, in which they denied the circumstances appears against them, plead innocence and have submitted that the constable Kartik Ram and Ramprasad looted their cash amount and implicated them in the false case. 7. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant and the co-accused Saroj Kumar as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment. The co-accused Saroj Kumar had filed CRA No. 895 of 2003 before this Court challenging his conviction and sentence and since the co-accused Saroj Kumar has already completed the entire sentence, his appeal was disposed of on 13.03.2014 on the ground that he has already undergone his entire sentence. Hence this appeal by the present appellant. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and their statements are inconsistent. There are 03 accused persons in the present case, however the witnesses have not specifically stated as to who caused injuries to the injured persons. There was a scuffling on the date of incident and in that scuffling, the injuries received by the injured persons, which cannot be said to be sharing of common intention to cause injury to the injured persons. Who used the arm/knife would not be established by the prosecution, and therefore, conviction under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act and under Section 324 of IPC (on two counts) cannot be upheld. He would 6 further submit that the appellant has already remained in jail for about one year. The offence of Section 333 of IPC does not provide any minimum sentence. The offence is of the year 2002 and the appellant is presently aged about 46 years and settled in his family life having innumerable responsibilities, therefore, by acquitting him from the offence under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act and under Section 324 of IPC (on two counts), he may be sentenced for the offence under Section 333 of IPC for the period already undergone by him. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have submitted that there is sufficient evidence available in the case against the appellant that he caused injuries to the injured persons by knife and the knife has also been seized from him. He was caught on the spot and thus, possession and use of knife, which is a prohibited arm, has been proved, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced him. But for minor omissions or contradictions, the evidence of prosecution witnesses are reliable and corroborative. The injured witnesses PW-2 and PW-4 have duly supported the prosecution case, and therefore, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court. 11. PW-2, Ramprasad Baghel is the constable, who was on duty and injured. He stated in his evidence that, when they were in searching 7 the information about the accused, on being suspicion, they tried to interrogate the accused persons at bus stand Sheorinarayan, but they started running from there. Out of three, one has already fled away and two persons running towards Mela ground. He catch one of them and he could not get himself free from his clutches, he took out a knife and gave a blow on his abdomen. Somehow he could save himself and superficial injury was received. He made second blow by knife, which was inflicted on his left thigh. In that scuffling, he gave teeth bite on his left hand, and then the other persons of the vicinity were also come. The accused has also gave knife blow to another injured Radhehari, which was inflicted on his abdomen. Kartik Ram/PW-3 made a telephonic call to the police and then police came there. The accused persons disclosed their names as Mahendra Patel and Saroj. In cross-examination, he stated that he was not known to the accused persons previously and he followed them only on suspicion. He was in civil dress at that time and Kartik Ram was in uniform. After catching the accused persons, the police persons came there from police station and took the accused persons to police station. He admitted that the accused Saroj was having a bag, but he did not know, whether cash amount was there in the bag or not. He lost his consciousness, when he was being taken to hospital. From his evidence, it has not come that the person, who caused injuries to him is the present appellant. It is only come in his evidence that the accused persons, who were caught on the spot, have disclosed their names as Mahendra and Saroj. He has not specifically stated that Mahendra has 8 caused injuries to him by knife. Admittedly, there was three accused persons and one of them fled away. Two accused persons were there, out of them, one has inflicted injuries by sharp object to the injured. PW-2/Ramprasad had not identified that it is the present appellant, who caused injuries to him. 12. PW-4, Radhehari Gupta is another injured, who stated in his evidence that on 02.05.2002, in the evening, he heard the noise of “Bachao- bachao”, when he went on the spot, the injured Ramprasad asked him to catch the accused and when tried to catch him, he given a knife blow on him, which was inflicted on his chest. Thereafter, he had gone to his shop. In cross-examination, he stated that, on being heard the noise of Ramprasad, he went there and saw the Ramprasad was already injured. He caught hold the accused, but he did not know that who caused injuries to Ramprasad. The police persons have not conducted test identification parade. He denied that the police persons informed him that Mahendra has assaulted by knife. This witness has also not identified that the person, whom the injured Ramprasad hold was the present appellant Mahendra. He also could not identify about the accused, who caused injuries to him. 13. PW-3/Kartik Ram Sahu is the constable, who was with the injured Ramprasad at that time. He stated in his evidence that at the time of incident, on being suspicion, they followed the accused persons, but they started running. Ramprasad chased the appellant Mahendra and caught him hold and then Mahendra gave knife blow on Ramprasad and then they intervened in the incident. He informed the police and 9 other police persons came there, and controlled the accused persons. In the scuffling, Radhehari has also got injured by knife. Ramprasad went in unconsciousness and taken to hospital and he lodged the report. The accused persons disclosed their names as Mahendra and Saroj. In cross-examination, he stated that when the accused persons were running, Ramprasad caught one of them and he was behind him about 10 paces. He admitted that after catching Mahendra, he injured Ramprasad shouted and he went there after hearing the noise of Ramprasad. He denied the suggestion that he had not seen the assault made by the appellant Mahendra. From the evidence of this witness, it is quite vivid that the injured and witnesses were chasing the accused persons and there was a scuffling between them. It was the night time, and the accused persons were unknown to the injured persons. Though he stated that he had seen the assault made by the appellant, but in the fact that the appellant had not tried to assault this witness Kartik Ram Sahu, and thereafter, when the other witness PW- 4/Radhehari came there, he assaulted him, the use of knife by the appellant for making assault appears to be doubtful. 14. PW-5, is the head constable, who went on the spot, when he received information about the incident from Kartik Sahu. Both the accused persons were caught hold by the injured and other witnesses and the accused persons disclosed their names as Mahendra and Saroj. He neither the witness of the incident, nor any seizure made from the appellant. 10 15. PW-6, Kanhaiyalal Sharma, constable has stated in his evidence that he had also gone to the spot along with other police constable and when, they reached there, they saw that the appellant Mahendra was having a knife in his hand and Ramprasad caught him hold. He get the knife removed and took the accused persons to the police station. In the police station, they disclosed their name as Mahendra and Saroj. In cross-examination, he stated that he did not disclose in his police statement that Mahendra was having a knife with him. He admitted that he had not seen any assault made by the accused Mahendra. 16. It is alleged in the case against the accused Mahendra that he caused injuries by knife, which he was in possession at the time of incident and the alleged knife is said to have been seized from the appellant vide seizure memo (exhibit P-15). The witness to the seizure memo Sudhir Gupta/PW-1 has not stated anything about seizure of knife from the appellant. Even the prosecution has not examined this witness after declaring him hostile about the seizure of knife from the appellant. The other witness to the seizure memo (exhibit P-15) is PW-7/Pramod Kumar Yadav. He stated in his evidence that in the night, they had gone to police station and full pant and knife have been seized in his presence. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had not gone to police station on the date of incident, but had gone there on the next day and thus, he has also not supported that the knife have been seized from the appellant Mahendra. From all these evidence, it is very difficult for this Court to hold that it is the appellant Mahendra, who was having possession of knife and caused injuries by using said 11 knife to the injured persons Ramprasad and Radhehari. When the injured persons Ramprasad and Radhehari have not specifically stated about the person, who caused injuries to them, there are more than one accused persons in the case, it cannot be said that the present appellant was having possession of knife and by using said knife, caused injuries to the injured Ramprasad and Radhehari. It is also notable that the witnesses to the seizure memo (exhibit P-15) have not supported the prosecution case, that the knife has been seized from the appellant Mahendra. When more than one accused persons in the case, the prosecution is required to establish that it is the present appellant, who was having possession of knife and by using the said knife caused injuries to the injured persons. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it also cannot be held that he accused persons shared common intention to cause injuries to the injured, because on suspicion, the accused persons were followed by the witnesses and during their interrogation, they started running, they caught hold by the witnesses and during the scuffling, one the accused persons caused injuries to the injured persons. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the offence under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act could not be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt against the present appellant Mahendra and he is entitled for benefit of doubt. 17. So far as the conviction under Section 324 of IPC (on two counts) are concerned, the use of the knife and possession could not be established by the prosecution against the accused Mahendra, it 12 cannot be said that he is guilty to cause hurt by dangerous weapon to the injured persons, therefore, he is also entitled for benefit of doubt for the offence under Section 324 of IPC (on two counts) and acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt. 18. So far as the conviction of the appellant Mahendra for the offence under Section 333/34 of IPC is concerned, there is sufficient evidence available on record that the appellant Mahendra caused grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty along with the co-accused Saroj. When the police persons interrogated him, they started running and one out of them caused injuries to the injured persons and tried to get themselves free from their clutches, and thus, the offence under Section 333/34 of IPC against the present appellant is found proved and his conviction for that offence is maintained. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction of the appellant for that offence under Section 333/34 of IPC and would submit that the appellant has already undergone about one year of sentence, the offence is of the year 2003 and presently he engaged in his family life having innumerable responsibilities, therefore, his sentence may be reduced for his undergone period, is appears to be appealable. 20. In the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (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 13 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 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 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 14 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." 21. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence and the evidence available on record, by giving benefit of doubt, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act and Section 324 of IPC (on two counts) are set aside and he has been acquitted from that offences. So far as the offence of Section 333/34 of IPC is concerned, the conviction of the appellant is upheld and his sentence is reduced for the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence and default stipulation awarded by the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 333/34 of IPC are also maintained. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. 22. The appellant is reported to be remained in jail from 03.05.2002 to 26.03.2003 during the trial, from 28.06.2003 to 18.07.2003 during the appeal and from 26.08.2025, when he has been arrested in compliance of the order dated 15.07.2025, passed in the present appeal. Since the sentence of the appellant has already been reduced for the period already undergone by him, he shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 15 23. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing her that she is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 24. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved