1 2026:CGHC:8847 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 110 of 2026 1 - Ramlakhan Kaiwartya S/o Shri Panchram Kaiwartya Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Kot (Katagi Rampur), Thana - Gidhouri, Distt. - Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Lig-853, Sector - 05, Housing Board Colony Saddu, Thana - Vidhansabha, Distt. - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Balodabazar Distt. - Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akash Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 19.02.2026 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.10.2025, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 57/2025 by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar–Bhatapara (C.G.), which arose out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.07.2025 passed in Criminal Case No. 1504/2024 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kasdol, District Balodabazar–Bhatapara (C.G.). The ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 appellant is convicted and sentenced as under :- the appellant as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment for 03 years with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 01 month. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Chhatram Sahu, lodged a report on 24.09.2024 at Police Station Kasdol alleging that he is an agriculturist and also runs a medical store, and that his son Nagesh, holding an M.A. degree along with PGDCA, was unemployed. It was alleged that the applicant approached the complainant at his shop and represented that he had close connections with politicians and that two posts of Clerk were vacant in the Forest Department, assuring that he would secure the appointment of the complainant’s son. On the basis of such representation, the applicant allegedly received a total amount of ₹2,50,000/- from the complainant on 09.11.2022 and on other dates; however, neither was any employment provided to the complainant’s son for nearly two years nor was the said amount returned, and the applicant allegedly stopped responding to telephone calls. On the basis of the said report, the police registered Crime No. 412/2024 for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and, after completion of investigation, filed a charge-sheet. 3 3. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 07 witnesses and annexed as many as 12 documents in support of its case, whereas the present appellant, when examined under Section 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, denied the allegations, pleaded his innocence. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant does not wish to press the present appeal on merits and confines his arguments only to the question of sentence. He further submits that the fine amount imposed by the learned Trial Court has not been deposited. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant further submits that the appellant remained in custody for a period of 1 year, 04 months and 26 days and has been continuously in jail since 24.09.2024, till date. Thus, the appellant has undergone incarceration for a total period of one year, four months, and twenty six days. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is prayed that the sentence imposed upon the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him, in the interest of justice. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State supported the impugned judgment, opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant, and contended that the present appeal is devoid of merit and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned judgment. 4 7. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of Shravan Kumar Netam (PW-06), Ajay Toppo (PW-04) Branch Manager, Baloda Bazar and R. K. Singh (PW-05) Branch Manager, Raipur, establish the involvement of the Appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not find any material contradiction or infirmity has been pointed out so as to dislodge the prosecution case. As regards the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code which is based on evidence available on record, it does not call for any interference and it is hereby affirmed. 8. As regards the 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 5 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." 9. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and so far as the sentence part is concerned, it is an admitted position that the appellant has already undergone incarceration for a period of one year, four months and twenty six days, including pre-trial custody and post- conviction detention. Considering all the factors, the ends of justice would be served if the appellant's sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 10. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby affirmed. However, the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant, i.e., 1 year, 4 months, and 26 days. Further, while the fine amount of ₹2,000/- imposed by the learned trial Court is enhanced to ₹1,50,000/-, the default 6 stipulation shall be rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The amount so deposited shall be paid to Chhatram Sahu (PW-03) as compensation. 11. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 12. 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. 13. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned. A copy of this judgment be also sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent where the Appellant is serving his jail sentence, for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Saxena