1 2025:CGHC:26788 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 453 of 2024 Rajendra Patel, S/o Kalaram Patel, aged about 36 Years, R/o Navagaon Dayali, Outpost Khudiya, P.S. Lormi, District : Mungeli (C.G.) ... Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Of Police Station Lormi, Outpost Khudiya, District – Mungeli (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant : Shri Pallav Mishra, Advocate For Respondent : Shri Karan Kumar Baharani, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 23/07/2025 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been preferred by appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22/01/2024 passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District – Mungeli in Sessions Case No. 23/2021 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.100/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 1 months. 2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 23.08.2019, at about 11:00 AM Rajaram Yadav was returning taking bathing in the river after work in the filed of agriculture, When he reached near the house of accused - Rajendra Patel at ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.07.26 09:44:48 +0530 2 that time accused had came there with ‘Shovel’ in his hand and threatened him to kill by abusing filthily language about the land dispute and beat him with shovel he sustained injuries on head and fell down and became unconscious. The incident was seen by Gulaba Bai. Upon receiving the information of incident, brother – Balram and cousin brother - Rajesh Yadav of the injured were came at the place of incident. Report was lodged at Police Chowki – Khudiya. Injured was sent for medical examination. Spot map was prepared. Shovel, bicycle and chappal were seized from the spot. Appellant was arrested and the witnesses were recorded. After completing the investigation and on complying with other procedural requirements, the charge sheet was filed. 3. The prosecution has in all examined 12 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents to prove its case. The accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein he pleaded innocence and false implication. After conclusion of trial and considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and material available on record, learned Trial Court by impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the first paragraph of the judgment. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only to sentence part. He also submits that out of the maximum jail sentence of 5 years imposed on him u/s 307 IPC for causing injury to P.W.1 – Rajaram Yadav he had already remained in jail for about 1 year, 9 months 24 days. He submits that the incident took place in 2019, since then the appellant is facing the lis. He further submits that there are no criminal antecedent reported against him. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence of the appellant under section 307 IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by him in the interest of justice. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. 3 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 7. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of the injured – Rajaram Yadav (PW-1), Dr. Rupesh Sahu (PW-10) and Dr. Vikash Sharma (PW-09), this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 307 of IPC and it is hereby affirmed. 8. As regards sentence, 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 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 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.” 9. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and as regards to the sentence of appellant, considering 4 the facts that the incident has taken place in the year 2019 about 06 years ago and the maximum jail sentence awarded to him is RI for 5 years u/s 307 of the IPC, out of which, as stated by learned counsel he had already remained in jail for about 1 year 9 month and 24 days and is facing the lis since 2020 and also considering the fact that no criminal antecedents are reported against him, in the interest of justice and in the considered opinion of this Court, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence of the appellant from 05 year R.I. to the period already undergone by him i.e. 1 year, 9 months and 24 days for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and to enhance the fine of Rs.100/- as imposed by the trial Court to Rs. 25,000/- in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. of 08 months. An amount of Rs. 25,000/- be given to injured - Rajaram Yadav. If any fine amount deposited before the trial Court shall be adjusted in the enhanced amount which is hereby imposed by this Court. It is ordered accordingly. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated here-in- above. 11. Appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. 12. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary action. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Ashish