1 2025:CGHC:26785 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 792 of 2025 Divyendra Singh Rajput S/o Dhan Singh Rajput Aged About 31 Years R/o Behind Jagannath Hospital, Saras Vihar Colony Raipura Chowk Police Station- D D Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Arakshi Kendra- D D Nagar District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 23/06/2025 1 The present appeal has been filed under Section 415(2) of BNSS, 2023 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.11.2024 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No.83/2023 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under : BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.06.25 18:03:48 +0530 2 Conviction Sentence U/s 307 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 2 months. U/s 201 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 1 month. 2 The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 27.01.2022 at about 9:30 p.m., due to previous dispute the appellant assaulted injured Shobha Rajput on her head and hand with a hard and sharp object (Gandasa) causing grievous injuries to her. Injured Shobha Rajput was admitted to Jagannath Hospital for treatment. A written complaint being made in this regard, FIR was registered and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant. 3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents in support of its case. 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 appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.11.2024, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant 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 3 pressing the appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. He submits that the injured is the step mother of the appellant. The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC has clearly stated that after death of his father, the injured used to have disputes with him, his wife and brother over his father's property and job. His wife had lodged a complaint against the injured in the Scheduled Caste Welfare Department, Raipur and in order to pressurize him to compromise in the said case, she tried to get my house set on fire. Even then he did not compromise, so the injured conspired with his sons and registered a case against him. Counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant is in jail since 08.11.2024, the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 5 years, out of which he has already served the jail sentence of about 1 year 2 months and 16 days. Therefore, considering all these facts, the sentence imposed upon the appellant 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 record. 8 Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of the injured Shobha Rajput (PW-4), her son Chetan Kumar Dewangan (PW-1), Dr. Amit Kumar Jain (PW-8), Krishna Nand (PW-9) and the medical reports of the injured (Ex.P-13 to P-16), the involvement of the appellant 4 in the crime in question is clearly established. 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 Sections 307 & 201 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 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 5 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 maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 5 years, out of which he has already served the jail sentence of 1 year, 2 months and 16 days, he has no criminal antecedent and also considering the 313 CrPC statement of the appellant and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 11 Accordingly the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Sections 307 & 201 of IPC, his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 1 year, 2 months and 16 days. However, the fine imposed upon the appellant by the Trial Court shall remain intact. 12 The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 13 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) JUDGE Khatai