1 2025:CGHC:53771 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 1332 of 2025 Bajrangi Lal Prajapati S/o Dashrath Lal Aged About 42 Years R/o Chindanpara, Chowki Kotmikala, P.S. Pendra, Distt. Gaurela-Penfra- Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho, P.S. Pendra, Distt. Gaurela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent ___________________________________________________________ For Applicant : Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Ajit Singh, GA ___________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order On Board 04/11/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.02/2025, application for condonation of delay in filing the revision. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons stated in the application, 2 the same is allowed. Delay of 221 days in filing the revision is condoned. 3. This revision has been preferred by the applicant/accused being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.12.2024 (Annexuer A-1) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.17/2024, whereby the trial Court has convicted and sentenced as under : Conviction Sentence In Default U/S 420/34 of IPC RI for 03 years and fine amount of Rs.200/- In default of payment of fine amount additional SI for one month U/S 467/34 of IPC RI for 05 years and fine amount of Rs.200/- In default of payment of fine amount additional SI for one month U/S 468/34 of IPC RI for 03 years and fine amount of Rs.200/- In default of payment of fine amount additional SI for one month U/S 471/34 of IPC RI for 05 years and fine amount of Rs.200/- In default of payment of fine amount additional SI for one month All sentences shall run concurrently 3 4. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 3/3/2023, Complainant - Sudhar Singh was looking to purchase a used motorcycle, and the Applicant approached the complainant that one of his relative namely Dinesh Kumar is looking to sell his motor cycle bearing registration number C.G 10A 8023, with the papers of the said motorcycle intact. The complainant purchased the said motorcycle for Rs.38,000/-. Thereafter, on 23/3/2023, Janjgir Police approached the complainant and stated that the said motor cycle is stolen and took away the said vehicle and consequently the Police apprehended the Applicant and other co-accused for selling the stolen motor cycle and preparing the forged registration papers. 5. On the basis of complaint, the FIR was registered against appellant/accused for the offence punishable U/s 420 of IPC and after investigation the charge sheet was filed for the offence punishable U/s-420/34, 467/34, 468/34, 471/34 of 1.P.C. 6. On the basis of charge sheet the Criminal Case No. 1015/2023 was registered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pendraroad and after examination of witnesses, Learned Magistrate, Pendraroad vide Judgment dated-15/5/2024 convicted the Applicant, U/s- 420/34, 467/34, 468/34, 471/34 of LP.C, along with other co-accused. 7. Against conviction and sentenced imposed by Learned CJM, 4 Pendraroad an appeal was preferred by the Applicant which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 17/2024 and thereafter the Additional Session Judge, Pendra Road has affirmed the order dated 04/12/2024 passed by learned CJM, Pendraroad. Hence, this revision 8. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he is not pressing this appeal on merits and confining his arguments to the quantum of sentence only. He further submits that the learned trial Court has not properly evaluated the evidence of prosecution witnesses and wrongly convicted the appellant, which deserves to be quashed. He further submits that there are two accused in the present case and another coaccused Dinesh Kumar Prajapati has filed criminal revision bearing No.241 of 2025 which has been decided by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 30.07.2025. 9. He further submits that appellant has undergone about 02 years and 45 days, hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to applicant be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 10. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for applicant, would submit that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant and therefore, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. 5 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment with utmost circumspection. 12. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of the complainant Sudhar Singh Oladi (PW-1), Upendra Singh (PW-2), Ashok Kumar Puri (PW-3), Ramprasad Yadav (PW- 4), Hirasingh Oladi (PW-5), Hirasingh Marabi (PW-6), Veernarayan Katiyar (PW-10), Manvijay Singh (PW-15), Ramprasad Baghel (PW- 19) and the relevant documents exhibited on record, the involvement of the applicant in the crime in question is clearly established. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court regarding conviction of the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 420/34, 467/34, 468/34 & 471/34 of IPC. 13. 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 : 6 "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 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 Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the maximum sentence imposed upon the applicant is 05 years, out of which he has already served the jail sentence of about 02 years and 45 days 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 applicant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 15. Accordingly, the conviction of the applicant under Sections 420/34, 467/34, 468/34 & 471/34 of IPC is maintained, but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 02 years and 45 days. However, the fine and its default stipulation imposed upon the applicant by the appellate Court under the said sections shall remain intact. 7 16. Consequently, the Criminal Revision stands allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 17. The applicant 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/offence. 18. 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 applicant is suffering the jail sentence. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant