1 CRA No. 574 of 2018 & Anr. 2025:CGHC:42446 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 574 of 2018 1 - Santosh Suryavanshi S/o Ratan Suryavanshi Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Nirtu, Suryavanshi Mohalla, Police Station Koni Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Ratan Lal Suryavanshi (Died and Abated). 3 - Smt. Surekha Suryavanshi W/o Santosh Suryavanshi Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Nirtu, Suryavanshi Mohalla, Police Station Koni Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Koni District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with CRA No. 1228 of 2018 Sant Kumar Suryavanshi S/o Rantan Lal Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Nirtu, Suryavanshi Mohalla, Police Station Koni, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant(s) Versus SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.08.29 10:45:19 +0530 2 CRA No. 574 of 2018 & Anr. State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Bilaspur, Police Station In- charge Koni, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Suresh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Complainant : Mr. Amit Xalxo, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 21/08/2025 1. Since both the above-captioned appeals arising out of same Sessions Trial No. 135/2017, they are being considered and decided by this common judgment. 2. In the case at hand, 04 accused persons were tried and out of them, three accused persons preferred CRA No. 574/2018 and one accused person preferred CRA No. 1228/2018. Out of three accused in CRA No. 574/2018, Appellant No.2- Ratan Lal Suryavanshi has died on 23/06/2023. As such, on account of death of Accused- Ratan Lal Suryavanshi, the appeal filed in respect of him in CRA No. 574/2018 already stands abated by order dated 30-4-2025. 3. Both these criminal appeals preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.03.2018 passed in Sessions Trial No. 135/2017 by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, C.G., whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- 3 CRA No. 574 of 2018 & Anr. Conviction Sentence U/s 307/34 of the IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, with default stipulation. U/s 324/34 of the IPC R.I. for 02 years and fine of Rs. 100/-, with default stipulation. U/s 506 II of IPC R.I. for 02 years and fine of Rs. 100/-, with default stipulation. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Pankaj Suryavanshi appeared at Koni police station on 08/10/2017 at 09:30 pm and lodged a verbal report that he is a resident of village Nirtu, he is an agricultural worker. About a year ago Surekha Suryavanshi implicated him in a molestation case, the matter is pending in the concerned Court. Surekha's testimony in her case was done on 07/10/2017, co-accused Raju Suryavanshi's testimony in the said case was to be done on 09/10/2017. On the date of incident i.e. 08/10/2017, he was standing in front of his house alongwith his uncle Ramavtar to go to the market at around 04:00 pm, at the same time Santosh Suryavanshi was standing near his door and after seeing him and Ramavatar started abusing them and saying that you have become a big lawyer, today I will not leave you alive, saying this and threatening to kill them, he said to his wife that bring the tangia, I will cut them, then his wife caught Santosh and took him inside the house, then they had gone to the market of village- Ghutku, when they came back from the market, chicken was cooked in his house, then he called Ramavatar to his house to get chicken, then 4 CRA No. 574 of 2018 & Anr. Ramavatar was going to his house with chicken from his house, at the same time at around 08:00 pm in the night, Ratan Suryavanshi was standing in front of his house, seeing whom Ramavatar Suryavanshi said that uncle whatever had to happen has happened, do not abuse while fighting on old matter and make Santosh understand, at the same time Santosh Suryavanshi came out of his house with the tangia, abused him and said that today I will not leave you alive, threatening to kill him. He tried to kill Ramavatar by attacking him with a fatal tangia on his head and when he came to intervene, Ratanlal injured him too by hitting him on his forehead with the tangia. Surekha and Santkumar also started beating him and Ramavatar with sticks. He got injured near the elbow of his right hand and near the shoulder of his left hand when Santkumar hit him with the stick. At the same time his wife Anjula Devi and other people of the house came and they too saw and heard the incident happening. Santosh, Ratan, Surekha and Sant Suryavanshi all together tried to kill him by making a fatal attack due to old enmity. On the basis of the complaint made by the complainant, the Koni police station registered a case against the accused and initiated investigation in the case. 5. During the investigation, Spot Map (Ex. P/28)n was got prepared. The Accused were apprehended and statements of the witnesses including the victim was recorded by the police as well as before the Judicial Magistrate. Upon completion thereof, charge-sheet was submitted accordingly. After framing the charges against the accused/appellants, the charges were read out and explained to the appellants, they denied 5 CRA No. 574 of 2018 & Anr. committing the crime and demanded trial. 6. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses in its support. Statements of the accused/appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded, wherein they have pleaded their innocence and false implication in the matter. 7. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 27/03/2018 convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in paragraph three of this judgment. Hence, the present appeals. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the statements of the victim is filled with contradictions and omissions, thus not worthy of being given credence. He further submits that conviction cannot be based on guesswork. He submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. He would submit that the conviction against the appellants is bad in law and it is not supported by the evidence of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and without there being any cogent evidence, the conviction of the appellants is bad in the eyes of law. Learned counsel would further submit that he is not pressing this appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the appellants Santosh, Surekha and Sant Kumar have served 11 months, more than 05 months and more than 08 months respectively and presently, they are on bail. Hence, considering all these facts, the sentence imposed upon the appellants may be reduced to the 6 CRA No. 574 of 2018 & Anr. period already undergone by him. He further submits that the the appeals may be disposed of by acquitting the appellants as there is a compromise being entered into the parties for the purpose of which, they have filed I.A. No. 04, i.e. application for disposing the appeals by acquitting the appellants/ accused by the case of the appeal, as the compromise has been taken place amongst the rival parties. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the State, per contra, would submit that that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court is just and proper. 10. Learned counsel for the complainant/ victim also supported the application I.A. No.4 filed by the appellants/ accused and submits that both the parties have entered into the amicable settlement of the dispute and the compromise arrived at between the parties. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the learned trial Court with utmost circumspection and carefully as well. Further perused the applications I.A.No.4. 12. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of witnesses in the case as well as the statements of Investigating Officer, the involvement of the appellants in the crime in question is clearly established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts, this Court does not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards conviction of the appellants for the offence under Sections 307/34, 324/34 and 506-II of the IPC. 7 CRA No. 574 of 2018 & Anr. 13. 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 jurisprudence 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 8 CRA No. 574 of 2018 & Anr. 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” 14. Further the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Pramod Kumar Mishra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2023) 9 SCC 810 has reiterated the above facts and also placed reliance upon the decision rendered in Mohammad Giasuddin (supra). 15. Coming to the facts of the case, admittedly, there is a settlement arrived at between the parties, which is evident from the application I.A.No.4 which consists of signature of both the parties and the same duly supported with the affidavit. The case filed by the appellants which was prior in point of time, has been settled. 16. In the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in cases of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and Pramod Kumar Mishra (supra); keeping in view the fact that the appellants have already served the jail sentence as stated above; looking to their age and also considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and upon cumulative analysis of the evidence available on record, taking into consideration the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties and they are living happily and cozily, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellants and in the considered opinion of this Court the ends of justice would serve if the appellants are sentenced to the 9 CRA No. 574 of 2018 & Anr. period already undergone by them. 17. period already undergone by them. 17. Also considering the overall circumstances, the nature of the weapon and the nature of the injury, the offence alleged, on facts, does not fall in that category of cases where the Court should deny relief in the event of a settlement. It could not be said, on facts, considering all the circumstances that this is a crime which has such an harmful effect on the public and that it has the effect of seriously threatening the well-being of the society. I make it clear that I am saying so on the facts of the present case. 18. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants under Sections 307/34, 324/34 and 506-II of the IPC is maintained however, their jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them. Whereas, the fine amount imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. 19. Consequently, both the appeals are allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 20. The appellants are on bail. They need not to surrender. Surety and personal bonds earlier furnished by them at the time of suspension of sentence shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of the provisions of Section 481 of the BNSS. The appellants shall appear before the higher Court as and when directed. 21. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge $. Bhilwar/ Gowri