1 2025:CGHC:41056 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 242 of 2025 1 - Surendra Kumar Sinha S/o Dhruw Kumar Sinha Aged About 23 Years R/o Khartuli, P.S. Arjuni District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Arjuni, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 14/08/2025 1 The present appeal under Section 415(2) of BNSS has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.12.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No.48/2023 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.2000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 1 year. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.08.14 18:11:20 +0530 2 2 The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 09.03.2023 at about 10:00 pm, injured Uma Sahu (PW-2) was at her house and a dispute arose in between the complainant and the appellant near toiled of her house, at that time accused asked her for marriage and when she refused, the appellant/accused started abusing her and assaulted by means of knife, due which she sustained injuries. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the present appellant. 3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 51 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 The trial Court, taking into consideration the evidence which has come on record, vide impugned judgment dated 30.12.2024, acquitted the appellant of the offence punishable under Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act. However, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned in paragraph-1 of this judgment, leading to the filing of this appeal. 5 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing the 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 incident is reported to have occurred in 2023. The appellant is a 23- year-old boy, and he in jail from 09.03.2023 till date, meaning thereby the appellant has already served the jail sentence of about 2 years, 5 months and 5 days; he has no criminal antecedents. Hence, considering all these facts, the sentence imposed upon the appellant may be reduced 3 to the period already undergone by him. 6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellant. 7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8 Dr. Smit Kumar (PW-10) has stated that he was a surgical specialist in Dhamtari Christian Hospital and examined the injured Uma Sahu (PW-2) and gave his report Ex.P-15 and Ex.P-16. As per Ex.P-15 following injuries were found:- Multiple clean cut injuries on the left side of her neck out of which one injury was 2x2 cm, which was on a vein, and one injury was 1x0.5 cm on the left clavicle bone. And as per Ex.P-16 following injuries were found:- a 2.5x2.5 cm cut injury on the lower right side of the stomach, a 1x1 cm cut injury on the right side of the chest in the middle axillary line near the seventh rib. Dr. Smit Kumar (PW-10) has stated that, looking to the severity of the injuries, the injured person was referred from the hospital for better treatment on 11.03.2023. He has also stated that he has not mentioned the nature of the injuries in her report. 9 Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of father of the injured, Hariram Sahu (PW- 1), injured, Ku. Uma Sahu (PW-2), Dinbandhu Sahu (PW- 3), Dhaneshwari Sahu (PW-4), Suresh Sinha (PW-7), Ajit Kumar Taram (PW-9), Dr. Smit Kumar (PW-10), Rajendra Sori (PW-12) and Gagan Bajpai (PW-16), the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question is clearly established. This Court does not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. 4 10 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.” 5 11 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 appellant is a 23-year-old young boy and he has already served the jail sentence of about 2 years, 5 months and 5 days, as per arrest memo, he studied upto 12th standard, he works as a mechanic, he has no criminal antecedents, 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. 12 Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of IPC is maintained, but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 2 years, 5 months and 5 days. However, the fine of Rs. 2,000/- imposed upon the appellant by the Trial Court is hereby enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- which shall be payable to injured Uma Sahu as compensation, after due verification. In default of payment of the fine amount, the appellant shall be liable to undergo R.I. for 1 year. 13 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 14 The appellant is reported to be in jail. If there is no need to detain the appellant in the default of fine amount, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 15 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 H.L. Sahu