1 2025:CGHC:39208 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1282 of 2024 1 - Akash Khanna S/o Rajesh Khanna Aged About 27 Years R/o Ramnagar, Near Durga Pandal, P.S.- Manikpur, District- Korba, C.G. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Chowki- Manikpur, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Korba, C.G. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 06/08/2025 1 The present appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.04.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Korba, District-Korba (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No.8/2022 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 395/149 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 3 months. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.08.07 16:50:56 +0530 2 2 The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant lodged Dehati Nalisi (Ex.P-1) against unknown persons with the allegation that on 11.06.2020, the complainant had a duty shift at SECL, Manikpur, and he was in the workshop of SBS Colony, Korba from 10:00 pm to 06:00 am. Between 03:00-05:00 am, the sound of a dog barking was heard towards the diesel pump. When he went to look towards the voice, there was no one there. As soon as he turned back, about 2-3 unknown persons came from behind and caught hold of him and tied his hands with a towel kept with them, and they started calling their friends. Three more of his companions came there, all of them were covering their faces with black coloured towels. Only one boy among them did not cover his face, which he would recognise by seeing him. About 10-15 meters of cable worth Rs. 15,000/- were taken away from the complainant’s duty point. On the basis of Dehati Nalisi, FIR (Ex.P-26) was registered against unknown accused persons. During the course of investigation, memorandum statements of accused Akash Khanna, Rahul Sarthi, Dauram, Prakash Chouhan and Anil Tigga were recorded in the presence of the witnesses vide Ex. P-6, Ex.P-7, Ex.P-8, Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-10 respectively. On the basis of memorandum statements, seizure proceedings were made vide Ex.P-11, Ex.P-12, Ex.P-13, Ex.P-14 and Ex.P-15. Identification parade was conducted vide Ex. P-2, and Ex.P-22 to Ex.P-25. In which Accused Akash Khanna was identified as per Ex.P-2. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the present appellant and other co-accused persons. 3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 30 documents. The statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he 3 denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 4 The trial Court, taking into consideration the evidence which has come on record, vide impugned judgment dated 01.04.2024, acquitted co-accused Dauram Tandon, Prakash Chouhan, Rahul Sarthi, Anil Tigga of the offence punishable under Section 395/149 of IPC and co-accused Gyanchand Gupta of the offences punishable under Sections 412 and 413 of IPC. However, the appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned in paragraph-1 of this judgment, leading to the filing of this appeal. 5 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not 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. According to him, as per the prosecution case, about 10-15 meters of cable worth Rs. 15,000/- had been stolen, the appellant was in jail from 13.06.2020 to 23.07.2020 during trial and at present he is in jail since 01.04.2024, meaning thereby the appellant has already served the jail sentence of about 1 year, 5 months and 17 days. Hence, considering all these facts, the sentence imposed upon the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellant. She submits that the appellant has 5 criminal antecedents, including the present case, and 5 Istagasa against him. 7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8 Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of Roshan Kumar Chouhan (PW-1), Pawan 4 Kosma (PW-5), Jagannath (PW-7) and Rakesh Gupta (PW- 8), the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question is clearly established. This Court does not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 395 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 5 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.” 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 about 2 meters of cable has been seized from the present appellant, the appellant has already served the jail sentence of about 1 year, 5 months and 17 days, as per arrest memo, he studied upto 10th standard, he works as a labour, 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. 11 Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant is maintained but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 1 year, 5 months and 17 days. However, the fine imposed upon the appellant by the Trial Court shall remain intact. 12 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 13 The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 14 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 H.L. Sahu