1 2026:CGHC:8417 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 161 of 2026 Samay Lal Paikra S/o Narayan Paikra Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Lilouti, Chowki Davra, P S Pasta, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chowki Davra Of Police Station Pasta, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Hariom Rai, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 17.02.2026 1. The present revision arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.01.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balrampur at Ramanujganj in Criminal Appeal No. 20/2025, whereby the learned appellate Court has affirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused/applicant as awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balrampur at Ramanujganj vide judgment dated 13.05.2025 passed in Criminal Case No. 204/2021. The conviction and sentence of the applicant are as under:- Conviction Sentence VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.02.17 16:57:34 +0530 2 U/s 325 of IPC R.I. for 03 months and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount S.I. for 15 days. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the victim lodged a report at the concerned police station on 15.06.2021 stating that on 14.06.2021 at about 11:00 p.m., he had gone towards the forest and was talking to Bablu Mia on his mobile phone when the accused suddenly came from behind and questioned him about whom he was talking to. Thereafter, without any provocation, the accused caught hold of him, dragged him, pushed him to the ground, assaulted him and attempted to strangulate him. On the basis of the said report, the case was registered and taken up for investigation, and after completion of the investigation, the final charge-sheet was filed before the Court. Upon consideration, charges were framed against the accused under Sections 294, 506(B), 354,325 and other relevant provisions; however, after trial and appreciation of the evidence on record, the accused was acquitted of those charges and was convicted under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced accordingly. 3. So as to hold the accused/applicant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents. Statement of the accused/applicant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charge leveled against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is not pressing the revision insofar as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his arguments only to the sentence. According to him, the incident is alleged to have taken place in the year 2021 and more than four years have elapsed since then. The applicant is about 22 years of age. He has already remained in jail for about 11 days during the trial and, from the date of judgment i.e., 16.01.2026 till now, for about 1 month and 2 days, totaling approximately 1 month and 13 days, further, the injured person has suffered only an injury on his ring finger, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 3 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgments, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for applicant. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgments. 7. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the witnesses, namely Urmila (PW-1/victim), Rajkumar Paikara (PW-2), Bablu (PW-3) and Dr. Rukhmadi Khesh (PW-16), the involvement of the accused/applicant in the crime in question stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by both the Courts below with regard to the conviction of the applicant under Section 411 of the IPC. 8. 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 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 4 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 keeping in view the fact that maximum sentence imposed upon the applicant is 03 months, out of which he has already served the jail sentence about 01 month and 13 days, no criminal antecedent of the applicant is recorded in the arrest memo (Ex-P/12), he has studied upto 8th class and works as a agriculturist, further, the injured person has suffered only an injury on his ring finger, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would serve if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 10. Accordingly, the conviction of the applicant under Section 325 of the IPC is maintained, however, his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him, i.e., 01 month and 13 days. The fine imposed on the applicant by the trial Court shall remain intact. 11. Consequently, the revision is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 12. The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 13. 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 appellant is suffering the jail sentence. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE vaibhav