1 2025:CGHC:55573 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2367 of 2025 Raju Agariya Alias Lallu S/o Besahan Agariya Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Lapta, Tikratola, P.S. Jaithari, Distt. Anuppur, M.P. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Arakshi Kendra Marwahi, Distt. Gaurela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, 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 16.10.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by the 2 Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra road, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 27/2025. The appellant convicted and sentenced as under : Conviction Sentence In Default u/S 324(3) of BNS, 2023 R.I. for 3 months. u/S 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs. 2000/- In default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 2 months. u/S 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act R.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs. 1000/- In default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 month. All sentences to run concurrently 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 14.11.2025, the complainant namely Sant Kumar Yadav lodged a complaint stating that at about 10:00 a pickup vehicle bearing registration no. MP 18 GA 6074 was stopped by the complainant for the checking on the barrier check post. The aforesaid vehicle was driven by the appellant and as the complainant tried to stop the said vehicle, the appellant abused the complainant. The complainant further asked for the papers for the vehicle and upon such enquiry the appellant reversed the vehicle for about 20 metres and again came with speed and hit the barrier and also hit the complainant with the intention to kill the complainant. The complainant fell down and sustained injuries 3 on knees, elbows and shoulder. 3. On the basis of above report, the FIR bearing no. 09/2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 109(1), 121(1), 342(3) of the BNS and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act were registered against the appellant. 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. 27/2025. 5. The learned trial court after recording the material witnesses examined before the learned trial court, convicted the appellant for the offence U/s 324(3) of BNS for the period of 3 months for R.I., u/S 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 for R.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs. 2000/-, and in case of default of payment of fine, further R.I. of 2 months, u/S 184 of the Motor Vehicle Act- R.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of fine, additional R.I. for 1 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 4 prosecution witnesses and wrongly convicted the appellant, which deserves to be quashed. He further submits that appellant has undergone 3 months and 12 days in jail. 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 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- Ramaiya (PW-1), Nablu (PW-2), Sant Kumar (PW-3), Anand Tirki (PW-4), Ramesh Lahre (PW-5), Khageshwar Singh Kushram (PW-6), Jogi Ravi Kujur (PW-7), Rajendra Nagwanshi (PW-8), Lav Singh (PW-9) 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 offences punishable under Sections 324(3) of BNS, 2023, Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 184 of the 5 Motor Vehicle Act. 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 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 6 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 on 14.01.2025 when the complainant was doing checking on the barrier check post then the appellant who was driving the pickup vehicle bearing registration no. MP 18 GA 6074 was stopped by the complainant for the checking on the barrier check post. On being asked for the papers of the vehicle, the appellant abused the complainant drove the vehicle with speed and hit the barrier and also hit the complainant with the intention to kill the complainant. The complainant fell down and sustained injuries on knees, elbows and shoulder. 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 6 months, out of which he has already served the jail sentence of 3 months 12 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 appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 13. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 324(3) of BNS, 2023, Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public 7 Property Act, 1984 and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicle Act 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. 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