1 2025:CGHC:32425 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1295 of 2024 1 - Ramkishun Saket S/o Shri Babulal Saket Aged About 52 Years R/o Village- Mahuli, Police Station- Chandani, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chandirka Saket S/o Ramkishun Saket Aged About 21 Years R/o Village- Mahuli, Police Station- Chandani, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Kamlesh Saket S/o Ramkishun Saket Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Mahuli, Police Station- Chandani, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Aarakshi Kendra Chandani, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For the appellants : Smt. Meena Shastri, Advocate For the State : Mr. Karan Kumar Bahrani, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order/Judgment on Board 11.07.2025 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been preferred by appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2025.07.15 16:12:18 +0530 2 Judge (FTC) Surajpur, District Surajpur in Sessions Case No. 42/2021 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction : Sentence U/s 341 of IPC Simple Imprisonment for 1 - 1 month with fine of Rs.100/- each, in default of payment of fine, additional SI for 10 days. U/s 324/34 of IPC for causing injuries to Subechand (P.W.1) & Anita (P.W.2) RI for 3 – 3 years with fine of Rs.100/- each, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 1 month. U/s 307 of IPC for causing injury to Kamlesh (P.W.3) RI for 5 – 5 years with fine of Rs.100/- each, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 3 months The above sentences are to run concurrently. 2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Subechand filed a written complaint in Chandni Police Station that on 11.10.2020 at 9.00 a.m., he and his brother Kamlesh alias Babuji were going to Jitendra’s work and at that time when accused/appellant Chandrika hit Kamlesh @ Babuji with a bamboo-stick over an old dispute, they hid in Jitendra’s house. Later, at about 4.30 pm, he (complainant) along with Kamlesh alias Babuji, his wife Anita and one-and-half year old child Gaurakh were going to Biharpur Police Station to lodge a report, all four were sitting on a motorcycle No.M.P. 53-B 1347, he was driving the said motorcycle, when they reached the village Biharpur at about 5.00 pm, at the same time, appellants Ramkishun, and Chandrika intercepted them and used obscene language in the name of mother and sister and threatened to kill them. Appellant Ramkishun assaulted the complainant Subechand with a bamboo stick, due to which he sustained injury on his left shoulder and all they all fell down with the vehicle. Thereafter, Appellants Ramkishun and Kamlesh beat the complainant, his wife Anita and Kamlesh alias Babuji with bamboo sticks and accused Kamlesh s/o 3 Ramkishun assaulted with an iron rod, due to which, complainant Subechand, Kamlesh @ Babuki and Anita sustained injuries. It is alleged that all the three accused intercepted the complainant Subechand and his brother Babuji on the way with an intention to kill them and hit them on the head with lathi and rod and due to the said injury, blood started oozing from the head and the injured ran away with great difficulty to save their lives. During investigation, the statements of witnesses were recorded and after complying with the procedural formalities, the charge sheet was filed. The witnesses Indres Saket, Jiyawan, Shyamlal Saket, Rajkumar Saket and Siyaram had seen and heard about the incident. On the basis of the said written report, FIR was registered against the accused under sections 341, 294, 506, 324, 34 of the IPC . 3. The prosecution has in all examined 12 witnesses and exhibited 31 documents to prove its case. The accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein they pleaded innocence and false implication. After conclusion of trial and considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and material available on record, learned Trial Court by impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned above. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants submits that she does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 2020 and the accused appellants have so far suffered a sentence of about 1 year and 24 days out of total sentence of 5 years' RI. She further submits that as per medical report, the injuries sustained by complainant Subechand and Anita were simple in nature whereas injures Kamlesh sustained one grievous injury. It is prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellants for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 4 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 7. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of witnesses especially P.W.1 Subechand, P.W.2 Smt. Anita and P.W.3 Kamlesh, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 341, 324/34 & 307 of IPC and it is hereby affirmed. 8. As regards sentence, in 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 5 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.” 9. Applying the analogy laid down in Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the sentence imposed upon the appellants are 3 years and 5 years under section 324/34 and section 307 respectively, out of which they have already served the jail sentence of 1 year and 24 days and further they have also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial and thus looking to the over-all circumstances, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under section 324/34 and section 307 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants. Accordingly, while maintaining the appellants' conviction and sentence for offence under Section 324/34 and 307 IPC the sentence awarded to them is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the fine amounts as follows : (i) The fine of Rs.100/- imposed under section 324/34 IPC is hereby enhanced to Rs.2000/- each; (ii) the fine of Rs.100/- imposed u/s 307 IPC is enhanced to Rs.5000/- each; and 6 (iii) The fine of Rs.100/- imposed u/s 341 IPC is maintained. Meaning thereby each appellant is required to pay a total fine of Rs.7100/-, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo RI for 4 months. Out of the total deposit of amount, Rs.2000/- shall be paid to injured Anita and Rs.2000/- to injured complaint Subechand and the remaining amount be paid to injured Kamlesh. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 11. The appellants are in jail. They shall be released from jail forthwith if they are not required in any other offence. 12. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith for information and necessary action. A copy of this judgment be also sent to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are undergoing jail sentence. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao