1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 848 of 2024 Tajeshwar @ Tillu Janghel S/o Lt. Mangal Janghel Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Pandariya, P.S. Chuikhadan, District : Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Chuikhadan, District : Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan- Gandai, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 01/08/2025 1 The present appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.03.2024 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Khairagarh, District Khairagarh-Chuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No.17/2022 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under : Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.08.02 13:22:43 +0530 2 Conviction Sentence U/s 307 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. 2 The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 30.03.2022, at about 6:30 am, near Gupta Hotel, village Pandariya, PS Chuikhadan, District Khairagarh-Chuikhadan-Gandai, the appellant, due to land dispute, assaulted injured Bhupendra Janghel (PW-6) with a knife, as a result of which he suffered grievous injuries on his neck & abdomen and intestine came out. On report being lodged in this regard by complainant Arjunlal Janghel (PW-1), a case was registered against the appellant for the aforesaid offence. 3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 26 documents. 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, 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 submit that he is not pressing the appeal so far as the conviction part of the impugned judgment is concerned and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. He submits that the appellant is in jail since 30.03.2022 and out of 10 3 years of rigorous imprisonment, he has already served about 03 years & 04 months. He submits that the injured is the uncle (Chacha) of the appellant and due to land dispute between them, the incident took place. Therefore, he prays that 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. However, she submits that there is no previous criminal record of the appellant. 7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8 Dr. Yogesh Mandavi (PW-7), who conducted the medical examination of the injured, Bhupendra Janghel, found a cut mark on the front side of the neck, caused by a sharp- edged weapon, measuring 11 cm x 2.5 cm x 1 cm, with bleeding. Another cut mark was found near the navel, measuring 7 cm x 3 cm x 3 cm. He found that a portion of the small intestine had protruded out of the abdominal cavity due to the injury near the navel. The injured person's condition was serious, and he was unconscious. In cross-examination, he has stated that the injury to the throat was limited to the skin depth, with no internal damage. If timely medical treatment had not been provided, the injuries could have become serious. However, if timely medical treatment had been provided, the injuries would not have been sufficient to cause death. He has stated that the knife was a domestic knife used for cutting vegetables, etc. and such knives are commonly found in kitchens. 4 9 Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of complainant Arjun Ram Janghel (PW-1), injured Bhupendra Janghel, witness Taran Ram Janghel (PW-2), Samelal Janghel (PW-3), Komal Janghel (PW-8), Dr. Yogesh Mandavi (PW-7) and the medical report of the injured, the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question is clearly established. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court regarding conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 307 of IPC. 10 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 5 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 the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that out of 10 years rigorous imprisonment, the appellant has already served about 03 years & 04 months, the appellant is a farmer and has studied upto 9th Class, he has no previous criminal record, the incident took place over the matter of land dispute and also considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would serve if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 12 Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of IPC is maintained but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 03 years, 04 months. However, the fine and its default stipulation imposed upon the appellant by the Trial Court under the said section shall remain intact. 13 Consequently, the appeal stands allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 14 The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released 6 forthwith if not required to be detained in default of fine and not required in any other case. 15 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