1 2025:CGHC:33110 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 52 of 2025 1 - Khemlal Sahu S/o Kanhaiya Sahu, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Kukurmuda, P.S. And Tahsil Khairagarh, District Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.). --- Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The P. S. Khairagarh, District Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.). --- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, P.L. CRA No. 623 of 2025 1 - Lucky Mahaballa ( Sahu) S/o Ramkhilawan Sahu, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Kalmana Road, Gopal Nagar, Nagpur (Maharashtra). ---Appellant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Khairagarh, District Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board (15.07.2025) SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.07.18 10:28:08 +0530 2 1. The present appeals arise out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, District- Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai, (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 03/2022 whereby, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant and sentenced them as under:- Name of the Accused Conviction Sentence Lucky Mahaaballa (Sahu)) U/s 307/34 of IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of fine, R.I. for 05 months. Khemlal Sahu U/s 307/34 of IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of fine, R.I. for 05 months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 06.11.2021, at about 11:30 p.m., the complainant, Amar Pal, lodged a report at Police Station Khairagarh stating that at about 6:30 p.m. on the same day, he was watching a "Matar" program with his friends Gaurav Sahu and the injured, Yuvaraj Thakur. The accused, Lucky Sahu, arrived with his associates and started using abusive language. When the complainant asked them to refrain from using foul language, Lucky Sahu started pushing him. Yuvaraj intervened to stop the altercation, and Lucky Sahu threatened to kill him and stabbed him in the abdomen with a knife. Yuvaraj was taken to CHC Khairagarh and later referred to Medical College Rajnandgaon. Based on the complainant's report, the police registered a case against Lucky Sahu and the present appellant under Section 307/34 IPC. 3. So as to hold the appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 33 documents. The statement of the appellants were also recorded 3 under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 4. The trial Court, taking into consideration the evidences which have come on record, vide impugned judgment dated 28.09.2024 found the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307/2024 of IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him under the said section as mentioned in paragraph-1 of this judgment leading to the filing of this appeal. 5. Learned counsels for the appellants submits that they are not pressing the appeals so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine their argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to them, the appellant namely Lucky Mahaballa is in jail since 07.11.2021 and the appellant namely Khemlal Sahu remained in jail from 08.11.2021 to 23.06.2022 during trial and has been in jail since 28.09.2024, the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellants is 10 years, out of which the appellant (Lucky Mahaballa) has already served the jail sentence of 3 year 8 months 8 days and the appellant (Khemlal Sahu) served the jail sentence of 01 year 05 months 03 days. There is no criminal antecedent against the appellants. Hence, considering all theses facts, the sentence imposed upon the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 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 record. 8. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of Amar Pal (PW-1), Gaurav Sahu (PW-2), Om Prakash (PW-3), Khilawan Gond (PW-4), Prerna Singh (PW-7), 4 Narendra Soni (PW-8), Dr. Vivek Bisen (PW-10), Mayaram Netam (PW-11) and Dr. Neeraj (PW-12), the involvement of the appellants in the crime in question is clearly established. Since the injured Yuvraj Thakur did not testify in Court, his dying declaration (Ex-P/19), which mentions the name of Khemlal Sahu, coupled with the testimony of eyewitness Amarpal (PW-1), supports the conviction of the appellants, Khemlal and Lucky Mahaballa (Sahu). This Court does not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of IPC. 9. 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 : "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 5 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 Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the appellants are in jail, the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellants is 10-10 years, out of which the appellant (Khemlal Sahu) has already served the jail sentence of 1 year 5 months & 3 days and the appellant (Lucky Mahaballa) has served the jail of 03 years 08 months 08 days, no criminal antecedent of the appellants is recorded in the arrest memo, appellant (Khemlal) has studied upto 08th class and works as a driver while appellant (Lucky Mahaballa) works as a labour and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would serve if the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 11. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants under Section 307/34 of IPC is maintained but their jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them i.e. 03 years 08 months 08 days & 01 year 05 months 03 days. However, the fine imposed upon the appellants by the Trial Court shall remain intact with default stipulation. 12. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 13. The appellants are reported to be in jail. They be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 14. Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be 6 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 appellants are suffering the jail sentence. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Sourabh P.