1 2025:CGHC:1333 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 973 of 2019 1 - Pinky @ Sarla Agrawal W/o Shri Murari Lal Agrawal Aged About 29 Years R/o Vaishnav Darbar, Sitamani, Police Station Kotwali, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 2 - Murari Lal Agrawal (Since dead and appeal stands abated on behalf of appellant-Murari Lal Agrawal). ... Appellants Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station A J K Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Swajeet Ubeja, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 08.01.2025 1. The present appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC has been filed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.06.2019 passed by the Special Judge (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, Prevention of Atrocities Act) (in short, SC & ST Act), Korba in Special Criminal Case No.08 of 2018 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 323/34 IPC and Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.04.07 18:45:12 +0530 2 sentenced for SI for one month and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, additional SI for seven days. 2. Appellant No.2 Murari Lal Agrawal has died on 06.06.2021 and therefore the appeal against appellant No.2/Muraril Lal Agrawal stands abated vide order dated 08.01.2025. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 27.01.2018 the complainant Mangat Lal, PW-3 lodged a report to the police that on 27.01.2018 at about 9 PM when his wife came to his terrace, quarrel raised by the appellants and then appellants assaulted him by a piece of brick and abused him. The incident was witnessed by Raja Chouhan, Atul Kumar and other persons of the vicinity. FIR, Ex.P/4 was recorded against the appellants. The complainant was sent for his medical examination to Primary Health Centre, Korba where he was medically examined by PW-5, Dr. T. Singh, who after his examination found lacerated wound on the head of complainant having size of 3 ½ x1 ½ cm and opined that the nature of injuries will be given after healing of wound. 4. The statement under Section 161 CrPC of the witnesses were recorded. Spot map Ex.P/5 was prepared, the appellants were arrested on 21.02.2018 and after completion of usual investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellants before the trial court for the offence under Sections 294, 323/34 IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v- a) of SC&SC Act. The trial court has framed charge against the appellants for the offence under Sections 294, 323/34 IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of SC&SC Act. The appellants denied the charge and claimed trial. 5. To prove the guilt of appellant, the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses. The statement of appellants under Section 313 CrPC were 3 recorded in which they denied the circumstances appears against them, plead innocence and submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. 6. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence, the Trial Court has acquitted the appellants from the offence of 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of SC&SC Act and Section 294 IPC, but has convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offence under Section 323/34 IPC and sentenced as stated in the earlier paragraph of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants 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 which cannot be made basis for conviction of the appellants. He would submit that appellant No.2 has died in the present case and appellant No.1 is a lady presently aged about 36 years; the incident is of the year, 2018; the appellant No.1 has been convicted only for the offence under Section 323/34 which does not provide any minimum sentence and therefore the appellant is not challenging her conviction, but for the offence under Section 323/34 IPC her sentence may be reduced and she may be sentenced for fine amount only. 8. On the other hand, the counsel for the State opposes the submissions of appellant and have submitted that looking to the nature of injuries which has been caused by a piece of brick and the evidence led by the parties, the trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced her. The trial court has already taken a lenient view against her and she is not entitled for any further leniency. 4 9. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case. 10. Although, the appellant No.1 has not challenged her conviction for the offence under Section 323 IPC, yet from perusal of evidence of complainant, PW-3 who received injuries in the incident have duly supported his case that he was being assaulted by the appellant No.1 by a piece of brick by which he received injuries on his head. The injuries received by him has been corroborated by the evidence of PW- 5, the doctor, who found lacerated wound on the head of the complainant and who opined that injury was caused by hard and blunt object. The evidence of PW-3 was further supported by the evidence of PW-1, Raja Chouhan and PW-2, Atul Kumar who are eyewitness to the incident and whose names have also been reflected in the FIR as eyewitness. The other eyewitness PW-4 Santoshi Gond who is the wife of complainant and PW-6 Hiralal Sarthi have also supported the prosecution’s case and from all these evidences, the guilt of the appellant No.1 has duly been proved that she caused injury to the complainant and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of these witnesses that it was not the appellant who caused injuries, but some other persons have caused injury to the complainant. Therefore, her conviction under Section 323 IPC is upheld. 11. So far as sentence part is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1977 (3) SCC 287 in paragraph 9 of its judgment has held as under: “9. 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 5 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 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.' In the same strain a British Buddhist-Christian Judge, speaking to a BBC reporter underscored the role of compassion : "Circuit Judge Christmas Humphreys told the BBC reporter recently that a judge looks 'at the man in the dock in a different way : not just a criminal to be punished, but a fellow human being, another form of life who is also a form of the same one life as oneself.' In the context of karuna and punishment for karma the same Judge said : 'The two things are not incompatible. You do punish him for what he did, but you bring in a quality of what is sometimes called mercy, rather than an emotional hate against the man for doing something harmful. You feel with him; that is what compassion means." 12. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and also in view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Giasuddin (Supra), further considering the age of the appellant No.1 who is a lady, offence is of the year, 2018 and she already underwent criminal lis for about seven years, the appellant No.2 was her husband and who already died, further the nature of offence for which she has been convicted and the sentence provided for the offence under Section 323 IPC, ends of justice would meet if the sentence awarded to the appellant be reduced and restricted up to fine amount only. Therefore, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant No.1 for the offence under Section 323/34 IPC, her jail sentence is set aside and she is sentenced for fine amount of 6 Rs.1000/- instead of Rs.100/- as awarded by the trial court. In default of payment of fine, she shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for seven days. The fine amount paid by her earlier, if any, shall be adjusted towards total fine amount imposed upon her. Fine amount shall be paid by her within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. 13. With the aforesaid observation/modification, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. The appellant No.1 is reported to be on bail. Her bail bond shall continue for a further period of six months as provided under Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 14. The trial court record be send back forthwith along with copy of this judgment for necessary compliance. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder