1 2025:CGHC:34204 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1048 of 2025 Subhash Gupta S/o Late Roop Ram Gupta Aged About 28 Years R/o Village - Kodpali, Police Station - Pusour, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Appellant versus The State of Chhattisgarh, through- Station House Officer of Police Station - Pusour, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Roop Ram Naik, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 18.07.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of CrPC challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.04.2025 passed by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 04/2022, by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence & Fine U/s 307 of the IPC RI for 10 years and to pay fine of ₹500/-; in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 3 months SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.07.21 17:40:49 +0530 2 U/s 325 of the IPC RI for 7 years and to pay fine of ₹500/-; in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 3 months Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently 2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that, On 27.08.2021, Complainant Manglawati lodged a report at Pusour Police Station stating that her son Ramkumar Gupta was attacked with an axe by Subhash Gupta near the house of one Nathe Gupta around 6:30 AM while returning from Kolabari. The altercation arose from a dispute over cattle grazing in the field, caused grievous injuries to Ramkumar’s face and head. Manglawati, who tried to intervene, was also pushed and got injured. The injured were taken to Pusour Hospital by family members. Based on the complaint, FIR was registered against the appellant. During investigation, site maps were prepared, blood-stained soil was seized, and on the basis of the accused’s memorandum, the axe was seized from him. After recording witness statements, a charge sheet was filed. 3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses in support of its case. The statement of the appellant / accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. 4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to 3 press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on sentence part. He submits that the appellant is now aged about 32 years and has family responsibilities and he has already remained in jail for about 3 years 9 months and 25 days. The incident took place in the year 2021 and since then the appellant is facing the lis. Hence, considering all these facts, the sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him in the interest of justice. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment and opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned judgment. 8. Dr. Dinesh Kumar Nayak (PW-10), in his Court testimony, stated that on August 27, 2021, he conducted a medical examination of injured Mangalwati, who sustained the following injuries:- 1. One tooth on the upper left side of the injured person was found broken and dislodged. 2. An abrasion injury measuring 2 x 1 cm was present on the front of the left knee. 3. An abrasion injury measuring 2 x 2 cm was present on the lower lip of the injured person. Dr. Nayak has opined that the injuries caused to injured Mangalwati would be caused through hard and blunt object. He referred the injured to the Dentist at Medical College Raigarh. His report is Ex.P-12. 9. On the same day, Dr. Nayak has conducted a medical examination of the injured Ramkumar Gupta, who sustained the following injuries:- 4 1. The injured person was vomiting blood. 2. Blood was oozing from the right ear of the injured. 3. There was swelling on the upper eyelid of the left eye, measuring 6 cm in length and 4 cm in width. 4. There was a lacerated wound on the upper portion of the left cheek, measuring 4 cm × 3 cm × 2 cm (length × width × depth). 5. There was a lacerated wound on the upper part of the left ear, measuring 1 cm × 1 cm × 0.5 cm. 6. There was a lacerated wound on the upper part of the right ear, measuring 2 cm × 1 cm × 1 cm. Dr. Nayak has opined that Injury No. 3 could have been caused by a hard and blunt object, whereas Injuries No. 4 to 6 could have been caused by a hard and sharp-edged object. After receiving primary treatment, the injured was referred to Government Medical College, Raigarh for further examination. His report is Ex.P-14. 10. Injured Ramkumar Gupta was further treated by Dr. Avinash Rathore (PW-11) who in his court testimony, stated that the injured person had a head injury with blood clot formation, and multiple lacerations were present on various parts of the face. There were fractures in both the upper and lower jawbones. After the head surgery, he treated the facial and jaw injuries. The injuries sustained by injured Ramkumar Gupta were grievous in nature. His report is Ex.P-30. 11. Dr. Arjun Singh (PW-16) has also treated the injured Ramkumar Gupta who in his Court testimony also stated that due to the head injury, he was admitted to the ICU and his head was operated. 12.Having gone through the entire material available on record and the evidence of Dr. Dinesh Kumar Nayak (PW-10) his reports Ex.P-12 5 & P-14, Doctor Avinash Rathore (PW-11) his report Ex.P-30, Dr. Arjun Singh (PW-16), Mangalwati (PW-5) and Ramkumar (PW-6) establish the involvement of the Appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 307 & 325 of IPC which is based on evidence available on record and it is hereby affirmed. 13.As regards the 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, 6 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." 14. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the incident arose from a minor dispute over cattle grazing in a field, occurring approximately 4 years ago in 2021. At that time, the appellant was around 28 years old and now, he must be aged about 32 years, having family responsibilities. He is facing the lis since 2021, he has no criminal antecedent and he has already remained in jail for about 3 years 9 months & 25 days. Taking into consideration all these facts, the ends of justice would serve if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 15. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant of offence under Sections 307 & 325 of IPC is maintained and the sentence of RI for 10 years and RI for 7 years is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 3 years 9 months and 25 days. However, the fine amount is enhanced from 500-500/- to 10,000-10,000/- total ₹ ₹ ₹20,000/- which shall be deposited by the Appellant and disbursed to the two injured persons: 5,000 to Mangalwati and 15,000/- to ₹ ₹ Ramkumar Gupta. In default of payment of fine amount, the appellant shall liable to undergo RI for 4-4 months. If any fine amount deposited as fine by the appellant, shall be adjusted in the fine, imposed upon him today by this Court. 16. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated 7 hereinabove. 17. The appellant is reported to be in jail. He shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other case/s. 18. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned. The copy of this judgment be also supplied to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham