1 2025:CGHC:29110 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 776 of 2005 1 - Ghansu @ Ghanshyam Ganda S/o Late Punit Ram Ganda aged about 25 years. 2- Banshilal Ganda S/o Late Punit Ram Ganda aged about 21 years. 3- Rohit Ganda S/o Late Punit Ram Ganda aged about 28 years. All appellants are R/o Joginagar Tikarapara P. S.- Tikarapara District- Raipur (CG) ... Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Raipur (CG) ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Aishwarya Diwan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Neeta Tulsani, P. L. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Judgment on Board 30/06/2025 1. This appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”) has been filed challenging the judgment dated 31.08.2005 passed in Sessions Trial No.120/2005 by 11th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur (CG) by which the appellants has been convicted under Section 324 read with 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years each and fine of Rs.500/- each with default stipulations. 2. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 03.12.2004 at about 9.30 pm, the complainant Mirza Hashim Beg had gone towards Joginagar Tikarapara where the accused Ghanshu Ganda met him who prior on 02.12.2004 assaulted the friend of 2 complainant namely Sunny by a shaving razor. On being questioned as to why the appellant has assaulted Sunny, he started filthily abusing him and with the common intention of other appellants, the brother of appellant No.1 asked them to tie the hands of complainant Mirza Hashim Beg. Thereafter appellants Banshilal and Rohit slammed him on floor and tied his hands from behind. Appellant Ghansu took out the shaving razor from his pocket and with intention to kill caused the injury on his throat. On being shouted, people of the vicinity came running upon which the appellants ran away. The incident was reported to the Police Station Tikarapara upon which crime under Section 307/34 IPC was registered and investigation was set on motion. Complainant (PW-6) was medically examined. His full pant worn at the time of incident was seized. Appellant Ghansu was arrested and his memorandum statement was recorded and on the strength of that memorandum statement in presence of witnesses, the shaving razor was seized at the instance of appellant Ghansu vide seizure memo Ex. P-5. The clothes worn by him was also seized. Spot map was prepared, seized articles were sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, statement of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Court who committed the case to the Sessions Court, Raipur who made over the case to the trial Court for trial. The appellants were charged as stated above, however, denied the charge framed against them and claimed for trial. 3. So as to establish its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 27 documents. The statement of the accused/appellants under Section 313 CrPC was also recorded where they pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. 4. By the judgment impugned learned trial Court has held the accused/appellants guilty and imposed the sentence as described above which is challenged before this Court by the appellants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the prosecution was not able to bring home the guilt of the accused persons and the finding recorded by trial Court is bad in law and contrary to evidence and material on record. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence brought before it to its proper perspective and erroneously 3 convicted the appellants as stated above. He submits that the incident had occurred on 03.12.2004, during pendency of the appeal, the appellants were granted bail by this Court, they have never misused the liberty granted to them, their sentences were suspended by this Court and they have been duly following the conditions. They were aged about 25, 21 & 28 years respectively at the time of incident and faced the lis for more than 20 years. Therefore, he prays that the appeal may be allowed and the sentence imposed upon the appellants may be reduced to period already undergone by them. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for appellants and submits that statement of PW-6 is very categorical against the appellants which is also corroborated by the statement of Dr. Sarita Dubey (PW-11) and the meritorious finding has been recorded by learned trial Court. Hence, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 8. The incident is said to have occurred on 03.12.2004. A prompt FIR within 15 minutes was lodged at Police Station Tikarapara Ex. P-8 naming the present appellants and detailing the manner in which the incident had occurred. Complainant- injured (PW- 6) in his deposition before the Court has categorically deposed the manner in which the incident had occurred and he deposed that the appellant Ghansu has kept the shaving razor in his pocket and he was filthily abused and during this course the shaving razor was touched on his throat and he further deposed that both the brothers held him and tied him from behind as he fell down he could not shout. When the Police people came they lifted him up. The incident was reported and report is Ex. P- 8. He also happens to prove the seizure of his full pant and t-shirt vide Ex. P-6. In detailed cross-examination nothing incriminating is brought on record. The statement of this witness finds corroboration from the statement of Dr. Sarita Dubey (PW-11) who found a incised wound in front of his throat which is 5x2 cm and was caused within 6 hrs by a sharp edged weapon and the report is Ex. P-20. Therefore, looking to the statement of complainant and corroborated by statement of doctor (PW-11), the prosecution was able to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable 4 doubt, therefore, their conviction under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC is hereby maintained. 9. The second submission which is placed before this Court whether the sentence of appellant can be reduced to period already undergone or what would be adequate sentence to be imposed in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of UP reported in (2004) 7 SCC 257 observed in paragraph 8 as under : “8. This brings us to the next question in regard to the reduction of sentence made by the High Court. In criminal cases awarding of sentence is not a mere formality. Where the statute has given the court a choice of sentence with maximum and minimum limit presented then an element of discretion is vested with the court. This discretion can not be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically. It will have to be exercised taking into consideration the gravity of offence, the manner in which it is committed, the age, the sex of the accused, in other words, the sentence to be awarded will have to be considered in the background of the fact of each case and the court while doing so should bear in mind the principle of proportionality. The sentence awarded should be neither excessively harsh nor ridiculously low.” 10. In the same breath, I am persuaded to mention herein below few lines from the judgment authored by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1977 SC 1926 :- “Western jurisdiction 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 Micodotis, 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 5 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.'” 11. In light of above broad principle for imposing adequate sentence the facts of this case examined. 12. While determining the quantum of punishment various factors need to be considered. Nature and gravity of offence, penalty provided for the offence, manner of commission of offence, proportionality between crime & punishment, character of the offender, age and sex of the offender, antecedents if any, possibility of reforms, impact of crime on society etc are some of the relevant consideration in determining the quantum of punishment. Court has to strike a balance between crime and punishment. Possibility of reform is an important mitigating factor while imposing appropriate sentence. Undue sympathy should not be given only because of long drawn pendency of criminal proceedings. The incident had occurred on 03.12.2004. The appellants were aged about 25, 21 & 28 years respectively at the time of incident and now they are at mature age and facing the lis for about more than 20 years. During trial, they were granted bail by this Court and their sentences were also suspended by this Court. Nothing incriminating is brought to the notice of this Court that they have not reformed during pendency of this appeal. Nothing significant is on record to suggest that their freedom is detrimental to society at large. The appellant Dhansu @ Ghanshyam was in judicial custody from 04.12.2004 to 05.03.2005, appellant Banshilal from 09.12.2004 to 05.03.2005 and appellant Rohit from 6 29.03.2005 to 01.04.2005. Overall facts & circumstances indicates that no harm to society at large is likely to cause in case the appellants are prematurely released. However, in order to meet the ends of justice and looking to the injuries sustained by injured, it requires to be compensated suitably. Section 324 IPC may be punishable with fine only. In view of above, this court is inclined to reduce the sentence imposed upon the appellants to the sentence already undergone/served by them by enhancing the fine amount of Rs.500/- to 1000/- for each appellants. The fine amount shall be deposited by each of appellants within 90 days, failing which they will undergo R.I. for 20 days. On depositing the fine, the enhanced amount shall be paid to injured- Mirza Hashim Beg (PW-6) in view of Section 395 of BNSS, 2023 after due identification. 13. As a consequence of the above discussion, while maintaining the conviction, the sentence imposed upon the appellants is reduced to sentence already served/undergone by them. The appellants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds shall remain in force for 6 months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023. The record be sent back with copy of this Judgment forthwith for necessary action and compliance. Appeal thus partly allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.07.15 11:02:22 +0530