1 2026:CGHC:7182 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2516 of 2025 Ranmat Singh Shyam S/o Jai Singh Shyam Aged About 35 Years R/o Raha Chowki Chaitma P.S. Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Appellant. Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Pali, District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent. For Appellant : Mr. Pawan Kumar Kashyap, Adv (Legal Aid) For Res/State : Ms. Veethika Choubey, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 09.02.2026 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 415 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Surkasha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS) has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.10.2025 passed by the learned First Upper Sessions Judge Katghora, District Korba (CG) in Sessions Case No.04/2023, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction : Sentence under Section 307 IPC RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 3 months. Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.02.10 14:42:31 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 07.09.2022 the complainant/victim Dhaniram (PW-1) lodged an FIR at Police Station Pali, District Korba to the effect that on the intervening night of September 1, 2022, at about 02:30 AM, the complainant, Dhaniram Khusro (PW-1), was sleeping in his courtyard alongside his wife Laxmin Bai (PW-3) and daughter Ku. Sumitra (PW-2). It is alleged that the appellant, Ranmat Gond, suddenly reached there and assaulted on the complainant using an axe (Tangiya), causing bodily injuries to the complainant’s head and back. Upon the complainant raising an alarm, his wife and daughter were awakened, however, the appellant fled away from the spot. After treatment from the hospital on 07.09.2022 the complainant lodged an FIR against the appellant and subsequently the offence was registered against him. During investigation the statement of injured and other witnesses were recorded and after complying with the procedural formalities, the charge sheet was filed. 3. The prosecution has in all examined 13 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents to prove its case. The accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC, abjured the guilt and pleaded 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 above. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that, at this stage, he does not want to challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 2022 and the accused appellant is in jail since 19.11.2022 3 and there are no criminal antecedents against him and further looking to the nature of profession as he is a farmer and an illiterate person, he prays that the sentence awarded to the appellant for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant. She submits that there are two eye-witnesses to the incident viz. Ku. Sumitra (PW-2) daughter of complainant and Laxmin Bai (PW-3) wife of the complainant who have clearly deposed about occurrence of the incident. Moreover, the medical report Ex.-P/9 would show that the injuries sustained by the complainant in his head was caused by the sharp edged weapon. Therefore, this appeal is deserves to be dismissed. However, she submits that as per records no prior criminal antecedents are registered against the appellant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 7. Testimonies of the injured complainant (PW-1) and the eyewitnesses (PW-2 and PW-3) daughter and wife of the victim Dhaniram whose presence at the scene is indisputable due to the injuries sustained on his head and back, provided a vivid account of the unprovoked night-time assault by the appellant with an axe, clearly supports the case of the prosecution. Further, Dr. Hemant Paikra (PW-9) in his deposition clearly deposed that vide his medical report (Ex.P-9) he has found clots and parietal bone fracture in the head of the victim and said injures appear to be caused by the sharp and heavy object. Considering the aforesaid evidence of Doctor (PW-9), his Medical report (Ex.P-9) as well as the evidence of eye-witnesses Ku. Sumitra (PW-2) and Laxmin Bai (PW-3), this Court does not find any illegality or 4 infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable 307 of IPC, and thus it is hereby affirmed. 8. However, as regards sentence, in Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1977) 3 SCC 287 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court while emphasizing the reformative approach has exposited the words expressed by 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”. Para-9 of the said judgment is quoted below : “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 5 Courts, you should see for yourself the conditions under which prisoners serve their sentences.” 9. Applying the aforesaid law laid down in Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 5 years under section 307 IPC and the appellant is in jail since about 3 years 2 months & 20 days and as per the Arrest Memo (Ex.P.17) the appellant is an illiterate person, by profession he is a farmer and that there are no criminal antecedents against him and looking to the over-all circumstances it will be just and proper if the sentence of 5 years RI awarded by the trial court is reduced to 3 years and 6 months RI. Accordingly, the conviction u/s 307 IPC maintained and the sentence is reduced from 5 years to 3 years and 6 months. However, the sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated here-in- above. 11. The appellant in jail since 19.11.2022. His period of custody will be set off against the 3 years and 6 months sentence. 12. Let a certified copy of this order along with the original record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith for information and necessary action. A copy of this judgment be also sent to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing jail sentence. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Ajay