1 2025:CGHC:53772 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 1330 of 2025 Laxminarayan Nagarchi S/o Kaliram Nagarchi Aged About 19 Years Residence Of Sumit Nagar Raipur District Raipur (Accused) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Abhanpur District Raipur (C.G.) (Prosecution) ---- Respondent ___________________________________________________________ For Applicant : Mr. Shrestha Gupta, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer ___________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order On Board 04/11/2025 1. This revision has been preferred by the applicant/accused being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.08.2025 (Annexuer A-1) passed by the Court of 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.120/2024, whereby the trial Court has partly 2 allowed the appeal filed by the applicant and reduced the sentence from two years to six months which has been passed in Criminal Case No.8307 of 2022 on 22.11.2023. The applicant convicted and sentenced as under : Conviction Sentence In Default U/S 457 of the IPC RI for 06 months and fine amount of Rs.2,000/- In default of payment of fine amount additional RI for 02 months U/S 380 read with 511 of IPC RI for 06 months and fine amount of Rs.2,000/- In default of payment of fine amount additional RI for 02 months Both sentences shall run concurrently 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that in the mead night on 12.06.2022 when the complainant/P.W. 1 and his family members are sleeping in their house, the accused person came in their house and trying to break the cupboard, at that time they got up and caught them. 3. On the basis of the same, an FIR bearing No. 190 of 2016 for the offence punishable U/s 457, 380 of IPC has been registered against the present applicant and one co-accused. 3 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 with co-accused in Criminal Case No. 8307 of 2022. 5. The learned trial court after recording the material witnesses examined before the learned trial court, convicted the appellant for the offence U/s 457 of IPC for the period of two years for R.I. with fine of Rs. 2000/- and the offence U/s 380 R/w 511 of IPC for two years R.I. and fine of Rs. 2000/-, and in case of default of payment of fine, further R.I. of two months and all the sentence are run concurrently vide its judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.11.2023. 6. Against the said judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court, the appellant has preferred an appeal before the learned Upper Session Judge, but the learned Upper Session Judge has partly allowed the appeal filed by the applicant and reduced the sentence from two years to six months which has been passed in Criminal Case No. 8307 of 2022 dated 22.11.2023. Hence this revision. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he is not pressing this appeal on merits and confining his arguments to the 4 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 has undergone about 04 months, hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to applicant be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. 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. 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 applicant- Rajesh Kumar Joshi (PW-1), Arjun Joshi (PW-2), Shekhar Banjare (PW-3), Yashwant Manhare (PW-4), Mitlesh Kumar Joshi (PW-5), Deepak Kumar Sahu (PW-6) 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 5 applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 380/511 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 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.” 6 12. 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 the appellant Laxminarayan Nagarchi along with co-accused Anil Nagarchi had committed surreptitious house trespass at night with the intention of committing theft in the residence of applicant Rajesh Kumar Joshi and had attempted to commit theft. 13. 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 06 months, out of which he has already served the jail sentence of about 04 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 applicant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 14. Accordingly, the conviction of the applicant under Sections 457, 380/511 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 applicant by the appellate Court under the said sections shall remain intact. 15. Consequently, the Criminal Revision stands allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 7 16. 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. 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 applicant is suffering the jail sentence. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant