1 2025:CGHC:48869 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1707 of 2025 1 - Prakhar Nagarchi @ Dadu S/o Ved Kumar Nagarchi Aged About 28 Years R/o Indira Market, Baraipara, Durg, Police Station Kotwali Durg, District Durg C.G., At Present R/o Dharampura No. 2, Police Station Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District Bastar C.G. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Of Police Station Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District Bastar C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 23/09/2025 1. The present criminal appeal has been listed for further orders, however, with the consent of the parties, the appeal has been heard finally. 2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 415 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS’) against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11.07.2025, VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.10.13 18:56:30 +0530 2 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bastar, place Jagdalpur, in Sessions Case No. 92 of 2023, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced for R.I. for one year with of fine Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for one month. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 26.09.2023, the complainant Shubham Kundu lodged the report (exhibit P-1) to the police against the appellant with the allegation that, on 09.05.2023, at about 9:40 Hrs in the night, when he was going to betel shop from his house, near Danteshwari Mandir, Dharampura, the appellant abused him and when he asked not to abuse him, he started assaulting him by a sharp object, by which he received injuries on his neck, head and other parts of the body. His friends Sahil and Abhijeet Sarkar intervened and could have saved him. The FIR for the offence under Section 307 of IPC was registered. The complainant was medically examined by PW-6/Dr. Amar Baswar, who found various lacerated wounds and abrasions on his body and referred for NCCT of head, surgeon opinion and X-ray and gave his report (exhibit P-11). Spot map (exhibit P-2) was prepared by the police. The appellant was arrested on 27.09.2023 and his memorandum statement (exhibit P-4) was recorded and based on the memorandum statement a knife was recovered from the shrubs at Dharampura and recovery panchnama (exhibit P-5) and seizure memo (exhibit P-6) was prepared. The seized knife and clothes of the complainant were sent for its query report to the doctor, who gave his query report (exhibit P-12). The knife seized from the appellant and shirt of the complainant were 3 sent for chemical examination to Regional FSL Jagdalpur, from where report (exhibit P-13) was received. As per the FSL report, blood was found on the sent articles, however, human blood was found on the shirt of the complainant. 4. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of CRPC have been recorded and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. 5. The case was committed to the learned Sessions Judge, Bastar for its trial. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and Section 25 (1B)(b) read with Section 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of CRPC has also been recorded, in which he denied the circumstances appears against him, plead innocence and has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. 7. After appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and Section 25(1B)(b) read Section 27(1) of the Arms Act, however, he has been convicted for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 4 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, the appellant is not challenging his conviction, but he is challenging the sentence awarded to the appellant on the ground that the same is excessive. Section 324 of IPC does not provided any minimum sentence. The appellant has already remained in jail for about one month. He was aged about 26 years at the time of incident. He is having no criminal antecedent and the incident occurred only heat and passion. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and surrounding circumstances, the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced for the period already undergone by him by enhancing the fine amount suitably. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Looking to the injuries found on the body of the complainant and the manner in which the appellant assaulted the complainant that too by a knife, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and sentenced him. The appellant was prosecuted for the offence under Section 307 of IPC, but he has been convicted for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and the learned trial Court has already taken lenient view while sentencing him and he is not entitled for any further leniency. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court. 5 11. Although the appellant is not challenging his conviction, however this Court deem it appropriate to examine the evidence available on record. 12. PW-1, Shubham Kundu is the complainant and injured in the present case. He stated in his evidence that, on 25.09.2023, in the night, when the appellant was going for some work, the appellant started abusing him and when he tried to stop him, he assaulted him by knife on his head, nose, face and other parts of the body and thereafter he fled away. He lodged the report to the police and taken to the report. In cross-examination, he remained firm in saying that the appellant caused injuries by knife to him. He specifically denied that, he along with his friends Abhijeet and Sahil assaulted the appellant. He also stated about the previous dispute with the appellant. Nothing could be extracted by the defence, which makes the evidence of complainant doubtful. 13. PW-6, Dr. Amar Baswar, who medically treated the appellant at Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur stated in his evidence that, on 25.09.2023, the complainant Shubham Kundu brought before him. On being examination, he found one lacerated wound on his left side of lower jaw, one lacerated wound on left superior temporal region, bleeding from nose present, linear lacerated wound on lower part of the nose, abrasion on the lower part of the nose and lacerated wound on left elbow. The injuries may be caused by sharp object and opinion will be given after investigation. He referred him for NCCT of head and for surgeon opinion and X-ray and his report is (exhibit P- 11). PW-6 has also proved the query report (exhibit P-12), in which 6 he opined that the injuries found on the body of the complainant could have been caused by the said knife and if the complainant would not be treated immediately, he might have died. In cross- examination, he admitted that he has not admitted the complainant in the hospital and he referred him for expert’s opinion. 14. PW-3, Abhijeet Sarkar and PW-4, Sahil Das have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution’s case. PW-2, Smt. Anuradha Makode and PW-5, Smt. Anita Malli are the sister and maternal aunt of the complainant, to whom the complainant informed about the incident. 15. Considering the evidence of the witnesses and the injuries report of the complainant and also considering the length and width of the seized knife, which does not comes under the definition of arm, as notified under the notification issued by the Central Government, dated 12.11.1974 and State Government, dated 22.11.1974, the learned trial Court after its thoughtful consideration, passed the judgment acquitting the appellant from the alleged offences of IPC and Arms Act, however, they have convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 324 of IPC. This Court is in agreement with the finding recorded by the learned trial Court holding the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and his conviction is hereby affirmed. 16. So far as the sentence awarded to the appellant is concerned, the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant that at the time of incident, the appellant was 26 years of age and the appellant and complainant were friends earlier, looking to the injuries and 7 surrounding circumstances, under which the alleged offence was committed, the undergone period of the appellant and the offence of Section 324 of IPC does not provide any minimum sentence, therefore, the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced for the period already undergone by him by enhancing the fine amount suitably, is appealing. 17. In the matter of “Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh”, (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 Samuel 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 Micodotis, Director of Criminological Research Center, Athens, Greece, maintains that 'crime is the result of the lack of the right kind of education'. If 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 reculturisation. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology is the individual, and the 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 8 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." 18. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of injuries, the manner in which the incident occurred, the provisions of Section 324 of IPC does not provide any minimum sentence and the age of the appellant, this Court deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence awarded to the appellant for the period already undergone by him by enhancing the fine amount. 19. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 324 of IPC is maintained, however, his sentence is reduced for the period already undergone by him with fine of Rs. 16,000/-, which shall be payable by the appellant within 03 months from today before the learned trial Court, failing which the appellant shall undergo the further R.I. for one month. Out of total amount of Rs. 16,000/-, an amount of Rs. 15,000/- shall be paid to the complainant/PW-1, Shubham Kundu as compensation, as provided under Section 395 of BNSS, 2023. The fine amount paid by the appellant, if any, shall be adjusted to the fine amount awarded by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. 9 20. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bond shall continue for the further period of 06 months as provided under Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 21. Let the original record of the trial Court be transmitted back to the trial Court concerned along with a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved