1 2025:CGHC:59114 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1304 of 2024 Roshan Yadav @ Chhotu S/o. Late Dilharan Yadav Aged About 28 Years R/o. Nazar Lal Para Sirgitti, Police Station- Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent ___________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Tarun Dansena, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, PL ___________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment On Board 05/12/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.12.10 12:22:33 +0530 2 dated 04/06/2024 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.79/2023, whereby the trial Court has convicted and sentenced as under : Conviction Sentence In Default U/S 304 (Part II) of IPC RI for 05 years and fine amount of Rs.5,00/- In default of payment of fine amount additional RI for 1 year U/s 201 of IPC R.I. for 03 years and fine amount of Rs.100/- In default of payment of fine amount additional RI for 03 months. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 01.10.2022, on receipt of diary for merg panchnama prceeding of merg no. 65/22 deceased Dilharan Yadav in police station Sirgitti, the police went to the spot where the family members of the deceased were present and stated that on 30.09.2022, deceased Dilharan Yadav gave money to his son accused Chhotu alias Roshan Yadav to bring liquor, who brought the liquor and they all consumed the liquor, due to which a dispute took place between accused Roshan Lal Yadav, accused Ramayan Bai and deceased Dilharan Yadav in their own house, due to which accused Ramayan Bai went out after locking them in a room with accused Roshan Yadav. Later 3 Roshan Yadav broke the door and come out and told his sister in law that he had killed Babu and told Ramayan Bai to show his elder brother Sunil that he was ill and called an ambulance where he was declared dead in the hospital. After that during the merg panchnama proceedings the some suspicion occurred because of the injury on the head and cheek of the deceased and opined for postmortem. Thereafter, on the basis of P.M. report query an F.I.R. bearing registration no. 818/2022 against the accused persons. 4. After lodging merg intimation dead body was sent for PM after Panchnama. Site map was prepared, statements of the witnesses were recorded and memorandum statement of the accused persons were recorded, the accused/appellants were arrested and after completion of the entire investigation charge sheet was filed which was committed to Session Court. Session Trial No. 79/2023 was registered and after being transferred the matter was tried by the learned 1st Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.). 5. The trial court framed charges for the offence under section 302, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code which was denied by the present appellant and claimed trial of the case. 4 6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and tendered several documents in evidence. So the trial Court after completion of all the formalities come to the conclusion of the trial, placed reliance upon the witnesses and recovery etc; acquitted the Ramayan bai for the offences under section 302, 201, 34 of Indian Penal Code and convicted the present appellant for the offence under section 304 Part II, 201 of Indian Penal Code vide judgment and order dated 04.06.2024 and imposed the punishment as mentioned here-in-above in paragraph 1 of this Judgment. Hence this appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submit that he is not pressing this appeal on merits and confining his arguments to the quantum of sentence only. He further submits that the maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is 05 years and the appellant is in jail since 12/11/2022 as such he has suffered more than 03 years out of the 05 years of jail sentence, hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. 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. 5 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment with utmost circumspection. 10. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of the witness 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 Sections 304 (Part II) & 201 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 6 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.” 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 sentence imposed upon the appellant No.3 is 02 years, and the incident happened in the year 1994, therefore, more than 30 years have passed till the dispute has taken place. The appellant is villager, illeterate and poor person. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would serve if the appellant No.3 is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 13. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 304 (Part II) & 201 of IPC is maintained, but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine amount is kept intact. 7 14. Consequently, this appeal 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. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC (now Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.10,000/- with one reliable surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 17. 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/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge ashu