1 2025:CGHC:30804 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 456 of 2025 1 - Chotu Alias Shrawan Kumar Dhruw S/o Rajkumar Dhruw Aged About 27 Years R/o Shiv Nagar, Infront Of Sheetla Mandir, Police Station - Aazad Chowk, Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh (Correct Spelling Of Applicant Name Is Mentioned) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Aazad Chowk, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 07/07/2025 1 The present appeal under Section 415(2) BNSS, 2023 has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.11.2024 passed by learned 5th Sessions Judge, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.), in Sessions Case No.317/2022 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 307 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.07.08 10:28:36 +0530 2 payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 2 months. 2 The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.04.2022, at about 11:30 pm, the complainant returned from his work and sitting at home eating food, at that time his elder brother Golu Manikpuri informed him that appellant had stabbed him (Golu Manikpuri) near the pachari pond, due to which he suffered grievous injuries on his shoulder, back, knee and he had been taken to AIIMS hospital for treatment. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present applicant. 3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 19 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 evidences which have come on record, vide impugned judgment dated 08.11.2024 acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 294 & 506 Part II of IPC, 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 appellant is in jail since 05.06.2022, the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 5 years, out of which the appellant has already served the jail sentence of about 3 years and 1 month. There is no criminal antecedent of the appellant. 3 Hence, considering all theses facts, the sentence imposed upon the appellant may be reduced 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 Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of Dr. Subham Kumar Indurkar (PW-2), Golu Manikpuri (PW-3), Samir Manikpuri (PW-4), Gulab Singh (PW-7), Kamlesh Tiwari (PW-8) and Kamlesh Prasad Thakur (PW-9), 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. 9 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 4 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.” 10 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 in jail since 05.06.2022, the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 5 years, out of which he has already served the jail sentence of 3 years and 1 month, no criminal antecedent of the appellant is recorded in the arrest memo, he works as a labour, 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. 11 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. 3 years and 1 month. However, the fine imposed upon the appellant by 5 the Trial Court shall remain intact. 12 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 13 The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 14 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