1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 740 of 2025 1 - Khulsai Tigga S/o Dhansai Tigga Aged About 35 Years R/o Bhuhanallah, Podikala, P.S. - Pasaan, District - Korba Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station - Pasan, District - Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 21 / 08 /202 5 1 The present appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.02.2025 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No.12/2023 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 307 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.08.22 10:45:15 +0530 2 payment of fine, additional imprisonment for 1 month. 2 The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 18.09.2022, at about 4:00 pm, when the injured Jagdish Prasad was in his small hotel at Chuhanala, village Podikala, PS Pasan, District Korba, the appellant came there and assaulted him with an axe, resulting in grievous injuries on his cheek and right hand. On report being lodged in this regard by complainant Krishna Kumar Rajak (PW-2), a case was registered against the appellant for the aforesaid offence. 3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 26 documents. The statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case 4 After appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, vide impugned judgment, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5 Learned counsel for the appellant submit that he is not pressing the appeal so far as the conviction part of the impugned judgment is concerned and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. He submits that the appellant is in jail since 19.09.2022 and out of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, he has already served about 02 years & 11 months jail sentence. Therefore, he prays that the sentence imposed upon the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him and he 3 may be released from jail. 6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellant. She further submits that there is one criminal antecedent of the appellant. 7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8 Dr. Sandeep Kanwar (PW-11) who conducted the medical examination of the injured, Jagdish Prasad, found a cut injury on his left cheek measuring 4 x 1 x 1 cm and another injury on the palm of his right hand measuring 3 x 0.5 x 0.7 cm. According to him, the said injuries were caused by a hard and sharp object and grievous in nature. He had referred the injured for X-ray of his head and consultation with an orthopedist. 9 Dr. Bidya Bhushan Sahu (PW-10) has stated that as per the X-ray report, there was a fracture in the left jaw of the injured. 10 Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of the injured Jagdish Prasad (PW-1), his son complainant Krishna Kumar Rajak (PW-2), Dr. Sandeep Kanwar (PW-11), Dr. Bidya Bhushan Sahu (PW-10) and the medical reports of the injured, 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 307 of IPC. 11 As regards sentence, in the matter of Mohammad 4 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.” 12 In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case 5 of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that out of 10 years rigorous imprisonment, the appellant has already served about 02 years & 11 months jail sentence, he has studied upto 5th Class and does labour work 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 Section 307 of IPC is maintained but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 02 years & 11 months. However, the fine and its default stipulation imposed upon the appellant by the Trial Court under the said section shall remain intact. 14 Consequently, the 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. 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 appellant is suffering the jail sentence. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai