1 2025:CGHC:40082 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 733 of 2017 1 - Budhram S/o Kariya Ajgale, Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Dalalpali, P.S. And Tahasil Malkharoda, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Paluram S/o Kariya Ajgale, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Dalalpali, P.S. And Tahasil Malkharoda, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sanjay Kumar S/o Paluram, Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Dalalpali, P.S. And Tahasil Malkharoda, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Laxmi Prasad S/o Budhram, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Dalalpali, P.S. And Tahasil Malkharoda, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Ashwani S/o Budhram Ajgale, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Dalalpali, P.S. And Tahasil Malkharoda, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Janjgir, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.08.12 10:20:24 +0530 2 11/08/2025 1 The present revision petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.07.2017 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Sakti (C.G.), in Criminal Appeal No.32/2017, arising out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.03.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Maalkaroda in Criminal Case No. 1469/2009. whereby the applicants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 147 of IPC Simple imprisonment for 1 year each and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional S.I. for 15 days each. U/s 325/149 of IPC Simple imprisonment for 1 year each and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional S.I. for 15 days each. 2 The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Tikaram, lodged a report at the police station Maalkharoda, that on 11.07.2008, due to previous enmity relating to Gram Panchayat election, the present applicants/accused assaulted him with stick and due to said assault, he sustained injuries. Based on this offence has been registered and after due investigation charge sheet was filed against the present applicants. 3 So as to hold the applicants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses and exhibited 11 documents. The statements of the applicants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 3 4 The trial Court, taking into consideration the evidence which has come on record, vide impugned judgment dated 30.07.2017, convicted and sentenced the applicants as mentioned in paragraph-1 of this judgment, which has been affirmed by the learned appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 20.07.2017 leading to the filing of this criminal revision. 5 Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he is not pressing the revision petition 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, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2008 since then the applicants are facing lis, the applicants were in jail from 20.07.2017 to 30.07.2017, meaning thereby the applicants have already served the jail sentence of about 10 days. The applicants have no criminal antecedents. Hence, considering all these facts, the sentence imposed upon the applicants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for applicants. 7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8 Dr. A.K. Jagat (PW-5) examined the injured Tikaram (PW-1) and gave his report Ex.P-8. As per Ex.P-8 following injuries were found:- 1. a 1x2 cm abrasion on the left elbow. 2. a 4x3 cm contusion on the left cheek. 3. a 2x1 cm lacerated wound on the left ear. 4. a 6x2 cm contusion on the right knee. 4 5. a 3x2 cm contusion on the front of the right leg. 6. a 6x3 cm contusion on the left side of the back. 7. an 8x3 cm contusion on the left side of the waist. 8. a 7x2 cm contusion on the right side of the back. Dr. A.K. Jagat (PW-5) has stated that all the injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object. In the X-ray report (Ex.P-9 & Ex.P-10), he found a fracture on the patella bone of the knee. 9 Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of injured Tikaram (PW-1), Kartikram (PW- 2), Dr. A.K. Jagat (PW-5) and Satya Narayan Tiwari (PW-6), the involvement of the applicants in the crime in question is clearly established. This Court does not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well as appellate Court as regards conviction of the applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 147 & 325/149 of IPC. 10 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 5 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.” 11 In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the incident is said to have taken place about 17 years ago in the year 2008 since than the applicants are facing lis, the applicants have already served the jail sentence of about 10 days, they have no criminal antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would serve if the applicants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 12 Accordingly, the conviction of the applicants for the offence under Sections 147 & 325/149 of IPC is maintained, but their jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them i.e. 10 days. However, the fine of Rs. 500/- imposed upon the applicants by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 147 of IPC is enhanced to Rs. 6 2,000/- each and the fine of Rs. 1000/- imposed upon the applicants by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 325/149 of IPC is enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- each i.e. a total of Rs. 35,000/- (Rs. 7,000/- each of the applicants), which shall be payable to injured Tikaram after due verification. In default of payment of the enhanced fine amount, the applicants shall be liable to undergo S.I. for 4 months. The fine amount already deposited by the applicants shall be adjusted. 13 Consequently, the criminal revision is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 14 The applicants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds shall continue for a further period of 6 months as per requirement of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 15 Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE H.L. Sahu