1 2025:CGHC:55575 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2150 of 2025 Gulab Singh S/o Shri Tejram Dansena Aged About 50 Years R/o Chalha, Thana - Kapu, Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) ...Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Raigarh, Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment On Board 14/11/2025 1. This revision has been preferred by the appellant/accused being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.09.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by the 2 Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gharghoda, District- Raigarh (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 03/2020. The applicant convicted and sentenced as under : Conviction Sentence In Default u/S 304 Part-II of the IPC RI for 7 years and fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- In default of payment of fine amount, additional RI for 1 month. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 05.11.2019, the informant Keshav Das Mahant with Ramesh Mishra lodged a complaint in Thana- Kapu that on 05.11.2019 in the morning Gulab Singh came to them and said that on 04.11.2019 at morning 8:00 am when he was going for harvesting the crops, he said to his wife Bichlo Bai to daub the courtyard but when he came home at 6:00 pm he found that his wife was drunk and was abusing at that time he asked her for food, he was eating the food thereafter, at that time she started saying him that he goes to harvest paddy with other women, so he got aggressive, drawn a stick from the fireplace (chulha) towards her and it struck her on the right side of her head near her ear and after that appellant went to sleep and when he woke up he saw his wife dead. 3. On the basis of above report, the FIR bearing no. 118/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of IPC were 3 registered against the applicant. 4. On completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the competent court of law and the trial was commenced against the present applicant in Sessions Trial No. 03/2020. 5. The learned trial court after recording the material witnesses examined before the learned trial court, convicted the appellant for the offence U/s 304 part-II of IPC for the period of 7 years for R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/-, and in case of default of payment of fine, further R.I. of one month. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant 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 appellant is in jail from 05.11.2019 and has undergone more than 5 years and 10 months. Hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellant, would submit that the trial Court has 4 rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant and therefore, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment with utmost circumspection. 9. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of the witnesses- Rohit Yadav (PW-1), Phootwati (PW- 2), Keshavdas Mahant (PW-3), Fool Singh Dansena (PW-4), Mohan Ram Baiga (PW-5), Umen Singh (PW-6), Dr. B.L. Bhagat (PW-7), Suresh Kumar Toppo (PW-8), Chaman Sinha (PW-9), Balram Mahant (PW-10), Manbodh Manjhwar (PW-11), Ravi Yadav (PW-12), Simson Minj (PW-13) and the relevant documents exhibited on record, 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 304 part-II 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: 5 “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 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. Considering the facts of the case and submission made by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the statement given by the witnesses, thus, it is proved that after heated argument between the appellant with his wife he got aggressive and draws a stick from the fireplace (chulha) and struck it on the face of his wife and went to sleep. The act of the appellant herein 6 completely satisfied the four necessary ingredients of Section 304 part-II that (I) there must be a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was committed in a heat of passion and (iv) the appellant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 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 the maximum sentence imposed upon the applicant is RI for 7 years, out of which he has already served the jail sentence of more than 5 years 10 months 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 appellnt is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 13. Accordingly, the conviction of the applicant under Section 304 part-II of IPC is maintained, but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine and its default stipulation imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court under the said sections shall remain intact. 14. Consequently, the Criminal Revision stands allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 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/offence. 7 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 applicant is suffering the jail sentence. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Madhurima