1 2026:CGHC:5402 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2488 of 2025 1 - Jay Singh S/o Ramsai, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Karri Police Chowki Kudargarh, Police Station Odgi, District Surajpur (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Odgi, District Surajpur (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Adv. For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 31/01/2026 1 The present appeal has been filed under Section 415(2) of BNSS against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), District – Surajpur (C.G.), in Sessions Case No. 11/2022 whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 452 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.01.31 16:10:53 +0530 2 R.I. for 1 month. U/s 307 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 05 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 1 month. (Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently). 2 The prosecution's case, in brief, is that on 18.11.2021, complainant Sohan Gond lodged a report to the effect that on the same day at about 07:00 p.m., when he was having dinner at his house, he heard a noise and when he entered the house of Jagbandhan, his son Dalpratap informed him that the accused, Jay Singh, had entered their house with the intention to kill his father Jagbandhan and had assaulted his father by way of farsa, due to which the injured sustained injury on his right eye. On the basis of the complaint, FIR was registered and after completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant. Thereafter, charges were framed for the offence punishable under Sections 452 and 307 of IPC. 3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 16 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. 4 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.09.2025, learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5 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 3 sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2021, about 04 years ago and the victim Jagbandhan is the appellant's uncle. The appellant is in jail since 19.11.2021 till date i.e. 4 year, 02 months 02 days. The appellant is aged about 44 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 from jail. 6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellant. 7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 8 Dr. Vijay Kumar Chauhan (PW-12) initially examined victim Jagbandhan (PW-1), who stated that the injured person had a clear cut chopping injury with a clear margin below his right eye measuring 8cm x 3cm and there was 2cm x 3cm x 1cm injury mark near the right armpit of the injured for which he provided first aid and advised for an x-ray of the face and surgical opinion after which the injured was referred to the district hospital, Surajpur, for further treatment. He has also stated that the injuries sustained by the injured have been caused by a hard and sharp-edged object. 9 Dr. Suyash Tiwari (PW-17), the treating doctor, stated that after the admission of the injured, Jagbandhan (PW-1), a CT scan of the head, face, and chest was conducted. The scan revealed fractures of the nasal bone, right zygomatic arch, and the wall of the right maxillary sinus. The chest CT scan showed moderate pleural effusion on the right side 4 and minimal pleural effusion on the left side. The third, fourth, fifth, and sixth ribs on the right side were fractured. The reports are Ex. P-12 and Ex. P-13. 10 Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the witnesses Dr. Vijay Kumar Chouhan (PW-12), Dr. Suyash Tiwari (PW-17), injured Jagbandhan (PW-1), Dalpratap (PW-2), Sohan (PW-3), Shivpratap (PW- 4), Sonkali (PW-5) and Shyambai (PW-6), 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 452 & 307 of IPC. 11 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 5 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.” 12 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 is in jail since 19.11.2021 and he is the nephew of the injured, the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 5 years, out of which he has already served the jail sentence of 4 years, 02 months and 02 days, only two criminal antecedent of the appellant is recorded in the arrest memo, he has studied upto 5th class and works as a agriculturist, 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. 13 Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 452 and 307 of IPC is maintained, but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 04 year, 02 months and 02 days. However, the fine amount with default stipulation imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court shall remain intact. 14 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 15 The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case and if not 6 required to be detained in default of the fine amount. 16 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) Sourabh P. JUDGE