1 2025:CGHC:49456 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 745 of 2017 1 - Amar Sai S/o Birbal Ram Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Bantoli, Chowki- Dokda, Police Station-Kansabel, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Sunil Ram S/o Amar Sai Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Bantoli, Chowki- Dokda, Police Station-Kansabel, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station, Kansabel, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 26/09/2025 1. The present criminal revision under Section 397 & 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed by the applicant against the impugned judgment dated 26.07.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jashpur in Criminal Appeal No. 34/2017, whereby the criminal appeal filed by the applicants against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.09.26 19:19:23 +0530 2 27.04.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagicha, District Jashpur in Criminal Case No. 571/2016 has been dismissed. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 01.11.2016, the complainant Tejlal (PW-1) lodged a report to the police that on 31.10.2016 at about 07:30 p.m. when he returning back to his house and on the way when he had gone to the house of the applicants, the applicants assaulted him by lathi and danda and abused by which he received injuries. The unnumbered FIR Ex.P/1 was registered for the offence under Section 294, 506-B, 323, 325, 34 of IPC and the was sent for his medical examination to Primary Health Centre Dokra, he was medically examined by Dr. Neelesh Kumar Xalxo (PW-5) who found lacerated wound with clotted blood at parital area of his scalp, abrasion on right forearm, abrasion on right elbow on dorsal aspect, contusion on right shoulder and multiple inflamed wound with redness was also found on the back and the complainant was unable to lift his left eye and left arm. He was referred for x-ray examination and in the x-ray examination his right tibia and fubila bone was found fracture. 3. The statement of the witnesses have been recorded under Section 161 and after completion of usual investigation charge-sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagicha for the offence under Section 294, 506-B, 323, 325, 34 of IPC. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the applicant for the offence under Section 294, 506 part- II 325, 34 of IPC. They denied the charge and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove charge against the applicants, the prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses. Statement of the applicants under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. have also been recorded in which they denied the circumstances that appears against them, pleaded innocence and submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. 5. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentence the 3 applicants for the offence under Section 325/34 of IPC and sentenced him for R.I. 01 year with fine of Rs. 500/- to each of the applicants with default stipulation. 6. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial Court was challenged by the applicants before the learned Sessions Judge, Jashpur and after hearing the parties the appeal filed by the applicants have been partly allowed and while maintaing the conviction of the applicant under Section 325,34 of IPC, their sentence have been reduced for R.I. for 03 months instead of 01 year. However, their fine have been enhanced from 500/- to 2000/- to each of the applicants which is under challenge in the present criminal revision. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the applicants are not challenging their conviction part but challenging the sentence part awarded to them as excessive sentence has been awarded for the alleged offence. The offence of Section 325 of IPC does not provided any minimum sentence. The complainant and the applicants are close relative. The complainant had gone to the house of the applicants for drinking water. The applicants are remained in jail for about 10 days, therefore, the sentence awarded to the applicants may be reduced for the period already undergone by them by enhancing the fine amount suitably. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the state opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants and would submit that looking to the nature of the injuries and the manner in which the complaint was being assaulted, the applicants are not entitled for any leniency. The allegation against the applicants have duly been supported by complainant PW-1 and doctor PW-5 who treated the complainant, therefore, there is no merit in the revision and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court as well as appellate Court. 4 10. Although the applicants are not challenging their conviction part yet, this Court deem it appropriate to examine the legality of the proprietory of the judgment passed by learned trial Court as well as appellate Court. From perusal of the judgment passed by learned trial Court, it transpires that the learned trial Court has duly considered the evidence of PW-1 Tejlal who is the injured in the case who stated in his evidence that on the date of incident when he had gone to the house of the applicants for drinking water they assaulted him by lathi on the pretext that he entered into their house to commit the theft. 11. In cross-examination he remained firm that he was being assaulted by the applicants and the injuries received by them and not by falling on the ground. The evidence of PW-1 is supported by the wife of the complainant PW-3 who also stated that her husband has immediately informed about the incident that he was being assaulted by the applicants. The injuries found on the body of the complainant was duly supported by the PW-5 Dr. Neelesh Kumar Xalxo who medically treated the complainant nothing could be extracted from the evidence of these witnesses so that their evidence could be disbelieved or the prosecution case can be doubted. 12. Thus, the learned trial Court as well as appellate Court has rightly considered the evidence available on record while convicting the applicants for the offence under Section 325, 34 of IPC, therefore, the conviction of the applicants are hereby affirmed. 13. So far as the sentence awarded to the applicant are concerned the submissions of the applicants are that the applicants and complainant are close relative, the incident is of the year 2016, the applicants are son and father and the incident occurred when the complainant entered into their house, looking to the injuries and the nature and mode of the incident, excessive sentence has been awarded to the applicant there is no minimum sentence provided for the offence under Section 325 of IPC, therefore, and 5 the applicants are belongs to remote tribal area, therefore, their sentence may be reduced for the period already undergone by them by enhancing the fine amount appears to be genuine. 14. In the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. 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 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 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.” 15. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, overall facts and circumstance of the case, the manner in which the incident occurred, the nature of injuries found on the body of the complainant and also in view of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Giasuddin (Supra), I am of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the sentence awarded to the applicant is reduced by enhancing find amount. 16. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the applicants for the offence under Section 325, 34 of IPC, the sentence awarded to them is reduced for the period already undergone by them. The fine is enhanced from Rs. 2,000/- 6 to Rs. 10,000/- to each of the applicants which shall be payable within 03 months from today. Failing which they shall undergo additional RI for 01 month. On being so deposited the fine amount, the entire amount of Rs. 20,000/- shall be paid to the complainant PW-1 Tejlal as compensation as provided under Section 395 of BNSS, 2023. 17. With the aforesaid alteration/modification, the revision is partly allowed. 18. The applicants are on bail, their bail bond shall continue for further period of 06 months as provided 481 of BNSS, 2023. 19. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with the copy of this judgment. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok