1 2026:CGHC:12115 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 205 of 2026 Khubchand Kannauje, S/o Shyamsunder Kannauje, aged about 26 years, resident of Latuwa, Police Station - City Kotwali Balodabazar District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through- the Station House Officer, Police Station- City Kotwali, Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause-title is taken from CIS) For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Vithika Choubey, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal (Judgment on Board) 13.03.2026 1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 415(2) of BNSS, 2023 challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.10.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), in Session Case No.75/2025, whereby the appellant has been convicted as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 351(3) of BNS 6 months SI and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional 1 month’s SI Under Section 109 of BNS 2 years SI and fine of SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.03.17 10:43:03 +0530 2 Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional 2 months’ SI Both sentences were directed to run concurrently 2. As per case of the prosecution, the appellant was desperate to get married. On 23.04.2025, at approximately 11:30 AM, the accused —Khubchand Kannauje approached complainant, Santram Kannauje at the edge of the village's Bandhwa Pond and said "Since you are the head of the Kannauje community, why are you not arranging his marriage? The accused then subjected the complainant to obscene verbal abuse. When the complainant advised the accused to instead speak to his own family members regarding the marriage arrangements, the accused became enraged; he grabbed the complainant by the neck with both hands, dragged him into the deep waters of the pond, and began forcibly submerging his head and throat underwater. Upon hearing cries of the complainant, villagers standing on the bank including Bhagwan Singh Paikra, Tikam Kannauje, and others immediately rushed into the pond, rescued the complainant from the clutches of the accused, and pulled him out of the water. Based on above, First Information Report was registered against the appellant. Thereafter, statements of witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant. 3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 7 documents in support of its case. The statement of the appellant/ accused was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. 4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary 3 evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press the appeal on merits and confines his argument only on sentence part. He submits that the appellant is a painter, now aged about 27 years and having family responsibilities. The appellant is in jail since 26.04.2025. Out of 2 years of jail sentence, he has already remained in jail for about 10 months and 21 days. The incident took place in April, 2025 and since then the appellant is facing the lis. He has no criminal antecedents. Hence, by considering all these facts, the sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him in the interest of justice. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment and opposed the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned judgment. 8. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of Santram Kannauje (PW-1) and Teekamchand Kannauje (PW-3) establish the involvement of the Appellant in the crime. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court as regards the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offence under Section 351(3) of BNS which is based on evidence available on record and it is hereby affirmed. This Court also does not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 109 of BNS which is based on evidence available on record and it is also hereby affirmed. 4 9. As regards the sentence for offence under Section 109 of IPC, 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 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." 5 10. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the appellant is aged about 27 years, he is a Painter and having family responsibilities. He has no criminal antecedents. As per arrest memo (Ex.P-5), he has studied upto 9th standard. He is facing the lis since 2025. he is in jail since 26.04.2025 and already served 10 months and 21 days. Considering all these facts, this Court opines that justice would be served if the appellant’s sentence is reduced to the period from 2 years to 1 year. 11. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offence under Section 351(3) of BNS is maintained. The conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 109 of BNS is also maintained and the sentence is reduced from 2 years to 1 year. However, the fine amount as imposed by the Trial Court shall remain intact. 12. The appellant has already served 10 months and 21 days of jail sentence, this period be set off to the period of sentence as imposed upon him today by this Court. 13. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 14. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned. A copy of this judgment be also transmitted to the concerned Jail Superintendent where the appellant is serving his sentence, for information and necessary action. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham