1 2025:CGHC:37271 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 241 of 2025 Dinesh Kumar Prajapati S/o Shri Radhe Lal Aged About 22 Years R/o Newsa Gorratikra, P.S. Gaurela, District Gaurela- Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Officer-In-Charge, Police Station Pendra, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 30/07/2025 1 The present revision has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.12.2024 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Pendraroad, Bilaspur (C.G.), in Criminal Appeal No.19/2024 whereby the applicant has been convicted and sentenced as under : Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.07.31 17:37:21 +0530 2 Conviction Sentence U/s 420/34 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 03 years with fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional simple imprisonment for 1 month. U/s 467/34 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 05 years with fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional simple imprisonment for 1 month. U/s 468/34 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 03 years with fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional simple imprisonment for 1 month. U/s 471/34 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 05 years with fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional simple imprisonment for 1 month. 2 The case of prosecution, in short, is that the applicant along with co-accused Bajrangi Lal, in furtherance of their common intention, by showing forged registration papers of HF Deluxe motorcycle to the complainant, cheated and dishonestly induced him and sold the said motorcycle to the complainant by claiming it to be his nephew’s motorcycle and received the sale consideration of Rs.38,000. It is the further case of prosecution that complainant Sudhir Singh Oladi was looking for a second- hand motorcycle for his personal use. Co-accused Bajrangi Lal told that his nephew Dinesh Kumar Prajapati i.e. the present applicant had given him one HF Deluxe motorcycle for sale with documents. The said motorcycle was purchased by the complainant and kept at his house. Later, during investigation, the police informed him that the said motorcycle is a theft property and seized the same on 23.03.2023. Based on the complainant's report, a case was registered against the applicant and co-accused for the 3 aforesaid offence. 3 So as to hold the applicant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 22 witnesses and exhibited 84 documents. The statement of the applicant 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 After appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court vide judgment dated 15.05.2024 in Criminal Case No.1015/2023 convicted and sentenced the applicant and co-accused as mentioned in paragraph-1 of this judgment. This order was challenged by applicant and co-accused before the appellate Court and in the appeal, learned Appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 04.12.2024 confirmed the conviction and sentence of the applicant and co-accused and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present revision has been preferred by the applicant. Co-accused Bajrangi Lal is absconding. 5 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is not pressing the revision so far as the conviction part of the impugned judgment is concerned and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 13.06.2023, the maximum sentence imposed upon the applicant is 5 years, out of which the applicant has already served the jail sentence for about 2 years & 45 days. He prays that the sentence imposed upon the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him and he may be released from jail. 6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the 4 arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for applicant and submitted that there are 18 criminal antecedents against the present applicant out of which 2 cases are under Sections 467 & 468 of IPC and 16 cases are of theft i.e. under Section 379 of IPC. 7 At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the other cases as pointed out by the State counsel are under trial, therefore, even if the jail sentence of the applicant in this case is reduced to the period already undergone by him, he will still remain in jail in other cases. 8 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9 Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of the complainant Sudhir Singh Oladi (PW- 1), Upendra Singh (PW-2), Ashok Kumar Puri (PW-3), Ramprasad Yadav (PW-4), Hirasingh Oladi (PW-5), Hirasingh Marabi (PW-6), Manvijay Singh (PW-15), Ramprasad Baghel (PW-19), Veernarayan Katiyar (PW-10) and the relevant documents exhibited on record, the involvement of the applicant in the crime in question is clearly established. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court regarding conviction of the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 420/34, 467/34, 468/34 & 471/34 of IPC. 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 5 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.” 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 maximum sentence imposed upon the applicant is 5 years, out of which he has already served the 6 jail sentence of about 02 years and 45 days and also considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would serve if the applicant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 12 Accordingly, the conviction of the applicant under Sections 420/34, 467/34, 468/34 & 471/34 of IPC is maintained but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 02 years and 45 days. However, the fine and its default stipulation imposed upon the applicant by the appellate Court under the said sections shall remain intact. 13 Consequently, the Criminal Revision stands allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 14 The applicant is reported to be in jail. He be released forthwith if not required to be detained in default of fine and not required in any other case/offence. 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 applicant is suffering the jail sentence. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai