1 2026:CGHC:1520 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1763 of 2024 1 - Dhanai Uraon S/o Vasu Uraon Aged About 19 Years R/o Village- Toto, Police Station And District- Gumla (Jharkhand). 2 - Rakesh Vishwakarma S/o Late Mangle Vishwakarma Aged About 25 Years R/o Village- Argoda Chaputoli, Police Station- Jagannathpur (Jharkhand) Present Address- Pani Tanki, Nursery Mohalla, Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Kotwali Korba, District- Korba, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Shri Kanhaiya Ram Yadav, Advocate. For State : Shri Karan Kumar Bahrani, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 09.01.2026 1. Though the matter was listed for consideration on application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, however, with the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The present appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.08.2024 passed by the Sessions Judge, Korba, in Sessions Trial No.62/2017, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 458/34, 394/34,333/34,307/34 IPC and Sections 25(1)(1-B)(A) and 27(1) of the Arms Act and have sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and fine of INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.01.21 18:28:31 +0530 2 Rs.1000/-, RI for 10 years and fine of Rs.1000/-,RI for 10 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, RI for 10 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, RI for 5 years and fine of Rs.500/- and RI for 7 years and fine of Rs.500/- respectively with default stipulations. 3. The case of prosecution is that, on 26.02.2017 at about 9:15 PM when the complainant was about to close his jewelry shop at Sonaliya Chowk, three unknown persons entered into his shop and on the point of country made pistol (in short, the pistol) they committed loot of ornaments and assaulted the complainant and other persons present on the shop. When they saw police persons coming there, the left the looted ornaments there and fled away. When the police party tried to catch them, they fired upon them by pistol due to which Constable Manoj Pratap received gut shot injury. On the complaint made by the complainant Vinod Kumar Soni, the FIR for the offence under Sections 394,397,398,307/34 IPC and 25 & 27 of Arms Act were registered. CCTV footage was obtained and on the basis of photographs of CCTV footage, the accused Dhanai Uraon was arrested from village Toto District Gumla (Jharkhand) and on his memorandum he disclosed about commission of offence along with other accused persons Ranjit Munda and Pappu Munda. The country made Pistol, Cap, Gamchha, Chappal and Mobile phone were seized. Statement of witnesses were recorded. The injured Manoj Pratap and Vinod Kumar Soni were sent for their medical treatment. The seized Pistol and cartridge were sent for its examination report to Reserved Police, Police Line Korba and obtained report. Spot map was prepared. Test Identification Parade (In short, TIP) of accused Pappu Munda was conducted by the Executive 3 Magistrate, Korba. The accused persons were arrested and after completion of usual investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellants before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba, and after committal of the case it was sent to trial court for its trial. In the present case the accused Ranjit Tirki is absconding from very beginning and accused Pappu Munda @ Lalu is absconding after recording evidence of the prosecution witnesses. After separating trial, it was concluded only with respect to present appellants Dhanai Uraon and Rakesh Vishwakarma. 4. The trial court framed charges against the present accused Dhanau Uraon for the offence under Sections 457, 394/398,333,307 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. Against the accused Rakesh Vishwakarma, the charges for the offence under Sections 457,394/398,333,307 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act have been framed. The accused denied the charge and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove the offence against the appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as 31 witnesses. Statement of appellants under Section 313 CrPC were also recorded in which they denied the circumstances appears against them, plead innocence and submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. 6. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the Trial Court convicted the appellants and have sentenced them as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 4 7. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants are not challenging their conviction for the alleged offences, however, they are praying for reduction of the sentence awarded to the appellants for the period already undergone by them. The appellant No.1-Dhanai Uraon remained in jail for more than 5 years and 10 months. The appellant No.2-Rakesh Vishwakarma is in jail since more than 6 years and 7 months. The offence of Section 398 IPC provides the sentence not less than 7 years. The offence of Section 25(1)(1-B) of Arms Act is provided minimum sentence of 2 years which may extend to 5 years and Section 27(1) of Arms Act is provided minimum sentence of 3 years. Thereby, the appellants have already completed sufficient sentence therefore their sentence may be reduced for the period already undergone by them. He would further submit that at the time of alleged incident, the appellants were of tender age and in view of their socio-economic status as also the nature of offence, their sentence may be reduced. 8. On the other hand, the counsel for the State opposes the prayer made by the counsel for the appellants and would submit that present is a case of loot on gun point and during the protest they fired from country made pistol by which the witnesses were injured. Looking to gravity of offence and evidence available against the present appellants, the trial court has appropriately awarded the sentence and it cannot be said that the sentence awarded to the appellants are disproportionate. The manner in which the offence is committed, the evidence available against the appellants in the case and their involvement in the alleged 5 offence, does not entitle them for any leniency and their appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record of trial court. 10. Although the appellants are not challenging their conviction for the alleged offences, however in the interest of justice this court examines the evidence produced by the prosecution against the appellants. 11. The complainant Vinod Kumar Soni, PW-4, in whose jewelry shop the alleged incident of loot was committed, have stated in his evidence that on the date of incident he was about to close his shop, at that time, three persons armed with country made pistol came there in motorcycle. One person took the employee of shop in the side and two detained him. At the same time, his another staff came inside the shop and then they also caught him and threatened them. Coincidentally his son Rajendra Kumar also came inside the shop and he too was caught by the accused persons. At that time, some altercation took place and the person present outside shop, seeing the situation informed the police and as and when the accused persons saw the police coming, they started running from there. During this time the complainant snatched the carry bag in which the ornaments were kept. One of the accused was caught by the police person and at that time he heard the noise of pistol fire. When he came out from the shop, he saw that one police person was injured and lying on the ground. The accused persons fled away towards Ratakhar road. During investigation, he identified the accused who were present in the court and his signature 6 is there in identification memo Ex.P/4. CCTV footage was also seized by the police and he gave certificate Ex.P/6. In his detail cross examination, he remain firmed in saying that on the date of incident three person armed with country made pistol came inside his jewelry shop and committed the offence of loot. He also duly proved TIP of the accused which was conducted at the office of Tehsildar. He also identified the accused persons who appeared through video conferencing as well as the accused Rakesh Vishwakarma and stated he too entered in his shop having country made pistol. But for trivial discrepancy, he remain firm in his evidence. 12. PW-1, Manoj Mishra, have stated that he was in the point duty at Sonaliya chowk. During his duty time, when he feels some incident at Sonaliya Jewelers, he along with other police persons came to spot to see the situation and all the accused persons started running after seeing them. They caught hold the accused Dhanai Uraon and other accused persons on the spot, however, they made fire from pistol by which Manoj Pratap received gun shot injury in his hand and thereafter all the accused persons fled away. 13. Similar is the evidence of PW-2, Arjun Tiwari, who is also one of the Constable on point duty at Sonaliya Chowk and he too was with PW-1 when they feel some incident at Sonaliya Jewelers. He has also stated in his evidence that they caught hold the accused persons but afte making gunshot fire upon them by the accused persons, they left them and the accused persons fled away. The accused Dhanai Uraon was also one of them who made gunshot fire upon them. 7 14. PW-5, Rajendra Soni, is the son of complainant. He too have stated that at the time of closing of shop when he came there, he saw that three persons were inside the shop. As and when he entered into shop, they caught him and forced to sit on the side. They pressurized his father to keep the ornaments in the carry bag. When he tried to get help from some other persons, he made gesture to call the police persons and at that time after seeing the police persons coming there, the accused started running from there. During scuffling, the carry bag having ornaments was snatched by his father from the accused persons and while running from there, the accused made gunshot fire upon the police persons due to which one of the police person got injured. He too have identified one accused and his signature is there in TIP memo Ex.P/4. But for minor omissions or contradictions, this witness also remain firm in making allegation against the accused persons that they committed the offence on the date of incident and caused injury to one of the policeman. 15. PW-6, Rakesh Kumar Banjare, is also one of the eyewitness who have also proved the incident committed by the accused persons. 16. PW-7, Manoj Pratap, is a Constable who was injured in gunshot fire made by the accused persons. He has stated in his evidence that on the fateful day he alongwith other accused persons were on point duty at Sonaliya market area. During duty, they received information that some untoward incident is occurred at Sonaliya Jewelers and when they proceeded towards the said shop, a person who was standing outside the shop, informed the persons who were inside the shop and then all of them started running from there. They also tried to catch 8 them, but the accused persons made gunshot fire upon them due to which he received injury on his hands and solders. Thereafter he lost his consciousness and fell down. Although, there is no identification by this witness to the accused persons, but the fact remains that by the gunshot made by the accused persons, he received injuries on his body. 17. PW-11, Prem Babu Patel, has examined the firearm seized from the accused person and gave his report Ex.P/10 & P/12 and found the country made pistol in working condition. 18. PW-12, T.R. Bhardwaj is the Executive Magistrate/Tehsildar who conducted TIP of the accused Dhanai Uraon at Tehsil office, Korba. During identification parade, the accused Dhanai Uraon was identified by the witnesses and he prepared the memo Ex.P/4. The defence cross examined this witness and tried to demolish his evidence they could not succeeded in extracting any substantive material which makes the TIP doubtful conducted by this witness. 19. PW-12 Jai Shankar Pandey, is the shopkeeper whose shop is situated just opposite the shop of the complainant. He is witness to the incident who stated that on the date of incident some persons have committed loot in the Sonaliya Jewelers and made gun shot fire on the police persons while fleeing from the place. 20. PW-14, Chandrashekar Kunjam, is the Constable who was with the injured Manoj Pratap who too have supported the prosecution’s case that when they were about to reach near Sonaliya Jewelers the accused persons tried to flee from the place and made gunshot fire by which Manoj Pratap received gun shot injury in his body. 9 21. PW-19, Ravishankar Nath Rathore, is another Naib Tehsildar who conducted TIP of the accused Pappu Munda @ Lalu Munda and the witnesses have duly identified the accused persons and he prepared the identification memo Ex.P/21. He too remain firmed in his cross examination about identification of the accused in the TIP. 22. PW-20, Durgesh Rathore, is Assistant Sub Inspector, posted at Cyber Cell Korba who proved the call details of mobile phone numbers 9199002989 and 9102960863 by which the mobile number 9102960863 belongs to accused Rajesh Saw, R/o Village Toto, Jharkhand and the other mobile No. 9199002989 belongs to accused Dhanai Uraon, R/o village Toto. He also proved the call details of said mobile phones which are Ex.P/26 and the CF are Ex.P/24 & P/25. The certificate of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act is Ex.P/27. From the call details of mobile phone of Dhanai Uraon, his tower location was found in the surroundings of Ward No.2 Korba at the relevant point of time and the mobile tower location of accused Rajesh Saw was also in the surroundings of Railway Station Road, Ward No.6, Korba. 23. The injury found on the victim Vinod Kumar Soni was examined by Dr.Vishal Singh Rajput, PW-21 and after his medical examination he did not find any external injury and referred for expert opinion and his MLC report is Ex.P/29. The injured Manoj Pratap wa medically examined by Dr.Satdal Nath, PW-22, who found gun shot injury on his right thigh, right palm and left thumb and his left metacarpus bone of left thumb was found fractured and his report is Ex.P/31. In cross 10 examination, nothing substantive could be extracted from this witness by the defence. 24. From these evidences, the trial court convicted the accused persons/appellants for the offence under Sections 458/34, 394/34, 333/34, 307/34 IPC and Sections 25(1)(1-B)(A) and 27(1) of the Arms Act, in which this court does not find any infirmity or perversity in their conviction for the alleged offences as there are sufficient and overwhelming evidence against the appellants that they committed the offence and therefore their conviction are hereby affirmed. 25. The submission of counsel for the appellants with regard to sentence part that, the appellants may be awarded minimum sentence as provided under the law as at the time of commission of crime the appellants were 19 years and 25 years of age respectively; the appellant No.1 remained in jail for more than 5 years 10 months and appellant No.2 is in jail since 18.05.2019 and thereby they have already undergone sufficient sentence and looking to the nature of offence, they have already suffered sufficient sentence and also in view of their socio-economic condition and surrounding circumstances, their sentence may be reduced for the period already undergone, are all appealing to this court. 26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1977 (3) SCC 287 has laid down the law with respect to awarding sentence to the accused persons. In paragraph 9 it was held as under: “9. Western jurisdiction 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 11 commits it. George Micodotis, 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.' In the same strain a British Buddhist-Christian Judge, speaking to a BBC reporter underscored the role of compassion : "Circuit Judge Christmas Humphreys told the BBC reporter recently that a judge looks 'at the man in the dock in a different way : not just a criminal to be punished, but a fellow human being, another form of life who is also a form of the same one life as oneself.' In the context of karuna and punishment for karma the same Judge said : 'The two things are not incompatible. You do punish him for what he did, but you bring in a quality of what is sometimes called mercy, rather than an emotional hate against the man for doing something harmful. You feel with him; that is what compassion means." 27. Further, in the matter of Raj Bala Vs. State of Haryana & Others, 2016 (1) SCC 463 in paragraph 1 & 2 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : “1. In Gopal Singh v. State of Uttrakahand[1], while focusing on the gravity of the crime and the concept of proportionality as regards the punishment, the Court had observed:- "18. Just punishment is the collective cry of the society. While the collective cry has to be kept uppermost in the mind, simultaneously the principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment cannot be totally brushed aside. The principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence. A punishment should not be disproportionately excessive. The concept of proportionality allows a significant discretion to the Judge but the same has to be guided by certain principles. In certain cases, the nature of culpability, the antecedents of the accused, the factum of age, the potentiality of the convict to become a criminal in future, capability of his reformation and to lead an acceptable life in the prevalent milieu, the effect - propensity to become a social threat or 12 nuisance, and sometimes lapse of time in the commission of the crime and his conduct in the interregnum bearing in mind the nature of the offence, the relationship between the parties and attractability of the doctrine of bringing the convict to the value-based social mainstream may be the guiding factors. Needless to emphasise, these are certain illustrative aspects put forth in a condensed manner.We may hasten to add that there can neither be a straitjacket formula nor a solvable theory in mathematical exactitude. It would be dependent on the facts of the case and rationalised judicial discretion. Neither the personal perception of a Judge nor self-adhered moralistic vision nor hypothetical apprehensions should be allowed to have any play. For every offence, a drastic measure cannot be thought of. Similarly, an offender cannot be allowed to be treated with leniency solely on the ground of discretion vested in a court.The real requisite is to weigh the circumstances in which the crime has been committed and other concomitant factors which we have indicated hereinbefore and also have been stated in a number of pronouncements by this Court. On such touchstone, the sentences are to be imposed. The discretion should not be in the realm of fancy. It should be embedded in the conceptual essence of just punishment." [Emphasis supplied] 2. Seven years prior to that, in Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat [2], it has been held that:- "7. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross-cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the edifice of "order" should meet the challenges confronting the society. Friedman in his Law in Changing Society stated that: "State of criminal law continues to be-as it should be-a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society." Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. 8. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law, and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed, etc. This position was illuminatingly stated by this Court in Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N.[3]" [Emphasis supplied] And again:- "The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the 13 individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and the victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal"." 28. Thus, taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that appellants must be saddled with innumerable family responsibilities; the appellants already remained in jail for about six years and also considering the ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Raj Bala (Supra) and Mohammad Giasuddin (Supra), this court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced. 29. Accordingly, while maintaining conviction of the appellants for all the offences, their sentence is reduced as under: Conviction U/s Sentence 458/34 IPC Undergone 394 read with 398/34 IPC R.I. for 7 years 333/34 IPC Undergone 307/34 IPC Undergone 25(1)(1-B)(A) of Arms Act R.I. for 5 years (maintained) 27(1) of Arms Act R.I. for 5 years Fine sentence and default stipulations awarded by the trial court shall remain intact. 30. The appellants are reported to be in jail. They are entitled for set off of their undergone period during trial as well as during pendency of appeal. 31. With the aforesaid alteration/modification, the appeal is partly allowed. 32. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail 14 sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 33. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder