1 2026:CGHC:14264 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 255 of 2017 Nanku @ Sukhsagar S/o Badri Prasad Vaishnav Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Kharwani, Indra Awas Mohalla, Police Station Kotwali Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. C. R. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Mr. Amit Verma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on board 25/03/2026 1. The present criminal revision has been filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order/judgment dated 23.02.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Korba (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2016, whereby the appeal of the State has been allowed by setting aside the judgment of acquittal of the applicant dated 07.09.2015 passed by the JMFC, Korba, (C.G.), in Criminal Case No. 196/2014 BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.03.30 11:18:47 +0530 2 and the applicant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 323 and 325 of IPC and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 325 of IPC R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional S.I. for 1 month. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.10.2008, at about 8:00 pm, injured Amrit Lal Rathore (the husband of complainant, Smt. Geeta Bai) was sitting with Ramaya Yadav on the porch of Phirat Rathore’s house in the village. At that time, applicant, Nanku alias Sukhsagar, arrived armed with a spade (Rapa) and driven by a previous dispute, the applicant engaged in an altercation with Amrit Lal Rathore, using obscene language and threatening to kill him. The applicant then physically assaulted him with hand and feet and struck Amrit Lal on his leg with the spade. As a result of the assault, Amrit Lal sustained injuries to his right leg and nose. The complainant subsequently lodged a report and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicant for the offence under Sections 294, 506, 323, and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. So as to hold the accused/applicant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents. The statement of the accused/applicant was 3 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 hearing the parties, the trial Court i.e. JMFC, Korba vide judgment dated 07.09.2015 acquitted the applicant of all the charges. The State subsequently challenged this acquittal before the Sessions Judge, Korba. The learned Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment dated 23.02.2017 allowed the appeal of the State setting aside the order/judgment of the trial Court and convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the present revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is not pressing the revision 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 took place place in the year 2008, and thereby more than 17 years have rolled by since then. The applicant has already served the jail sentence for about 9 days. At the time of incident the applicant was about 20 years old and now he is 38 years having family responsibility. The applicant has no criminal antecedent. He submits that considering all these facts, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon the applicant may be reduced to the 4 period already undergone by him. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State/Respondent opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant and supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Dr. P. Verma (PW-5), on examining the injured, found the following injuries: 1. A lacerated wound on the mid-right thigh, measuring 1 x ½ x ½ inch. 2. Swelling above the nose, measuring 1 x 1 inch. After examination of the X-ray report (Ex. P-8) for both the injuries, the doctor found fractures of the nasal bone and the right thigh bone of the applicant. 9. Having gone through the material on record and the evidence of the injured Amrit Lal (PW-2) his wife Geeta Bai (PW-3), eye witnesses Firath Ram (PW-1) and Dr. P. Verma (PW-5) and the report given by him, the involvement of the applicant in the crime in question is clearly established. This Court does not see any illegality in the finding recorded by the Appellate Court regarding conviction of the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 323 & 325 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 5 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.” 6 11. In the instant case, the applicant has already served the jail sentence of 9 days. The incident is said to have taken place in the year 2008, and thereby more than 17 years have passed since then. At the time of incident, the applicant was 20 years old and now he is approximately 38 years having family responsibility. The incident occurred due to a previous dispute. As per the arrest memo, the applicant has studied upto 10th class and he has no previous criminal record. The applicant is currently on bail. 12. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and also considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it would not be appropriate to send back the applicant to jail and the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 13. Accordingly, the conviction of the applicant for the aforesaid offence is maintained, but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 9 days instead of R.I. for 6 months. However, the fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed upon the applicant by the Appellate Court is hereby enhanced to Rs.25,000/- which shall be paid within a period of 60 days from today. In default of payment of fine amount imposed/enhanced by this Court today, the applicant shall be liable to undergo R.I. for 6 months. Fine amount, if any, 7 already deposited by the applicant, shall be adjusted. 14. The fine amount enhanced/imposed by this Court today shall be disbursed to the injured, Amrit Lal Rathore, upon due verification. 15. Consequently, the criminal revision is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 16. The applicant is on bail. He need not to surrender in this case. However, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of sixty days. 17. Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai