1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1303 of 2025 Mangalsai Dhanuhar S/o Late Samarsai Dhanuhar Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Rava Pandopara Chowki Jatga Thana- Katghora Dist- Korba (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through PS- Katghora Dist- Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. J. K. Gupta, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Priya Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 05/08/2025 1 The present appeal under Section 415(2) of BNSS, 2023 has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.05.2025 passed by learned 1st Additional Session Judge, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No.15/2020 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 307 of IPC (two times) Rigorous imprisonment for 5-5 years with fine of Rs.2000 – 2000 total Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.08.06 10:42:30 +0530 2 Rs.4,000, in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for 3-3 months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2 The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 18.11.2019, in village Rava Pandopara, Chowki Jatga, PS Katghora, the appellant assaulted Maksudan Yadav with a Tangi and Rajendra Yadav a bow and arrow, as a result of which they suffered grievous injuries. It is the further case of prosecution that complainant Pardesi and his uncle Maksudan Yadavwere returning home with harvested paddy from their field. Around 3 pm, near Ghutri, the appellant inquired about the ownership of the paddy. Upon learning it was their own field's produce, the appellant assaulted Maksudan with a Tangi, causing head injury. When Rajendra Yadav, the son of Maksudan, rushed to the scene upon hearing about the attack, he was shot with an arrow by the appellant, which pierced his chest. On report being lodged in this regard by complainant Pardesi (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 14 witnesses and exhibited 24 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. 3 5 Learned counsel for 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 during trial, the appellant remained in jail for about 2 years, 9 months & 7 days and now from the date of judgment i.e. 05.05.2025, he has been in jail for about 3 months. As such, he has already served the jail sentence for about 3 years & 7 days out of the maximum sentence of 5 years. 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. Kamlesh Porte (PW-9), who conducted the medical examination of the injured, Maksudan Yadav, found a wound on left side of head, caused by a heavy object, measuring 3 x 0.1cm, which was healing. The injury was simple in nature. The medical report is Ex.P-11. 9 Dr. Krishna Kumar Kanwar (PW-14), who conducted the medical examination of the injured, Rajendra Yadav, found i) a stab wound on left side of chest between 5th, 6th & 7th ribs measuring 4cm x 3cm deep up to the lung. ii) A fracture of the 6th rib on left side of chest. The injury was grievous in nature and was caused by hard, blunt & sharp 4 object. The medical report is Ex.P-13. 10 Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of complainant Pardesi (PW-1), injured Rajendra Prasad Yadav (PW-2), injured Maksudan Sai Yadav (PW-4), Aarti Yadav (PW-3), Sumran Kumar Yadav (PW-5), Dr. Kamlesh Porte (PW-9) and Dr. Krishna Kumar Kanwar (PW-14) and their medical reports, 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 Section 307 of IPC. 11 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 5 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.” 12 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 the maximum sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment, the appellant has already served about 03 years & 07 days, as per the arrest memo, the appellant is a farm worker, he has no previous criminal record 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. 13 Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of IPC (two times) is maintained but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 03 years & 07 days. However, the fine and its default stipulation imposed upon the appellant by the Trial Court under the said section shall remain intact. 14 Consequently, the appeal stands allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 6 15 The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released forthwith if not required to be detained in default of fine and not required in any other case. 16 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