1 2026:CGHC:8253 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1853 of 2024 1 - Pintu Ram Korva S/o Late Prabhu Korva Aged About 24 Years R/o Village - Tharki, Sarnapara, Police Station - Rajpur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Monika Day, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 16/02/2026 1 Heard on admission. 2 Admit. 3 The present appeal has been filed under Section 415(3) of BNSS against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.08.2024 passed by the learned 2nd Upper Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District – Balrampur – Ramanujganj (C.G.), in Sessions Case No.63/2020 whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 Conviction Sentence U/s 307 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 07 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 03 months. 4 The prosecution's case, in brief, is that the complainant, Kaharu, lodged a report at Police Station Rajpur alleging that on 09.04.2020 at about 8:00 p.m., while he and his family members were conversing at their residence, their neighbour, Pintu Korva, arrived and objected to the alleged nuisance, claiming disturbance to his sleep. Upon the complainant responding that he was merely talking with his family members and advising the appellant to return to his house, the appellant allegedly hurled filthy abuses and issued threats to kill. It is further alleged that, in the course of the said altercation, the appellant went to his house, brought a knife, and inflicted a stab injury on the abdomen of the complainant’s father, Prasad Korva, with intent to cause his death. On the basis of the said information, an FIR was registered by P.W.-09; thereafter, P.W.-06 prepared the spot map (Exhibit P/1), the injured was admitted to Community Health Centre, Rajpur, and the knife along with other articles was seized. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the competent Magistrate for offences punishable under Sections 294, 506, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, which was subsequently committed to the Court of Session. During trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried; however, the 3 prosecution examined twelve witnesses, and upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court held the appellant guilty and convicted him under Section 307 IPC, giving rise to the present appeal. 5 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents. The statement of the appellant 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. 6 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.08.2024, learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 7 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing the appeal 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 is said to have taken place in the year 2020, about 06 years ago. The appellant has been in judicial custody from 24.05.2020 to till date i.e. 05 years, 08 months and 22 days. The appellant is aged about 24 years, he has no criminal antecedents, and he is still serving the jail sentence; therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him and he may be released 4 from jail. 8 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellant. 9 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 10 Dr. Alok Mishra (PW-05), in his testimony, opined that the injuries sustained by the injured, Prasad, was caused by sharp edged weapon i.e. knife (25 cm and 1 inch wide) that were serious in nature. He further stated that, as recorded in the bed-head ticket, had the abdominal surgery not been performed in time, the death of the injured was certain. He also deposed that the injured had sustained multiple injuries, detailed as under: • Little and middle fingers of both hand : 2.5 x 25 x 1 inch. • Cut injury in lumber region of his left abdomen : 2.5 x 1 x 3 inches. 11 Having gone through the material available on record, the victim was not examined before the trial Court as he died due to some other reason and the evidence of the witnesses Dr. Alok Mishra (PW-05), Kehru Korwa (PW-01), Madhobai (PW-02) and Smt. Ruchi (PW-03), establish the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 324 and 307 of IPC. 5 12 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 6 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.” 13 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 appellant has been in jail from 24.05.2020 to till date, the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 07 years, out of which he has already served the jail sentence of i.e. 05 years, 08 months 22 days, no criminal antecedent of the appellant is recorded in the arrest memo (Ex-P/14), 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. 14 Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 324, and 307 of IPC is maintained, but his jail sentence is reduced to 7 the period already undergone by him i.e. 05 years, 08 months 22 days. However, the fine amount with default stipulation imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court shall remain intact. 15 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 16 The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case and if not required to be detained in default of the fine amount. 17 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 Saxena