1 2026:CGHC:10288 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 772 of 2024 Titra @ Chhotu Masih S/o Late Dayal @ Bhondu Masih, Aged About 60 Years R/o Nayapara Ward Bhatapara, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (Cg) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Bhatapara (City), District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (Cg) ... Respondent (Cause-title is taken from CIS) For Appellant : Mr. Virendra Kumar Janardan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Tarkeshwar Nande, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 27.02.2026 1. This appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C has been preferred challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.02.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), whereby the appellant has been convicted as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 307 of IPC 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional 6 months’ RI SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.02.28 16:41:49 +0530 2 2. The case of the prosecution is that Aswani Masih (PW-02) lodged a report at Bhatapara City Police Station stating that his father-in- law, Titra @ Chhotu Masih, had been released from jail after serving 22-23 years for robbery and had been harassing her mother-in-law, Hema Masih, on suspicion of her character. On 13.10.2021, his mother-in-law/injured had come to Tilda to her daughter's house. On 14.10.2021, his parents-in-law had gone to the society to collect ration and had returned home. At around 1:00 pm, the appellant had closed the room door and attacked his mother-in-law with a clothes-washing danda (stick), causing injuries to her face and head. His mother-in-law had cried for help, but the door was not opened despite efforts by Sunita, and neighbor, Sonu Masih. After his father-in-law had fled, Sunil Masih, and Arun Kosale, had taken her mother-in-law to Jeevanmal Hospital for treatment. Based on above, FIR was registered against the appellant and the injured, Hema Masih sent for medical examination. The doctor, Dr. Satyajit Jeevanmal (PW-07), had found two fractures on her scalp and swelling in her brain, which were serious in nature. Thereafter, witnesses statements were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant. 3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 28 documents in support of its case. The statement of the appellant / accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. 4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant 3 questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on sentence part. He submits that the appellant is aged about 65 years and having family responsibilities. Out of 10 years of jail sentence, the appellant has already remained in jail for about 4 years, 4 months and 6 days. The incident took place in the year 2021 and since then he is facing the lis. Hence, by considering all these aspects, the sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him in the interest of justice. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment and opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. He further stated that the appellant had served a long jail sentence for the crime of robbery. Therefore, the appeal of the appellant may be rejected. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned judgment. 8. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of Dr. Satyajit Jeevanmal (PW-07), his reports Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-12, statement of injured Hema Masih (PW-1), complainant Ashwani Masih (PW-2) and Sunita (PW-3), establish the involvement of the Appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC which is based on evidence available on record and it is hereby affirmed. 9. 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, 4 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 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." 10. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the appellant is aged about 65 years and having family responsibilities. As per arrest memo (Ex.P-21), he was a labour. 5 He is facing the lis since 2021. He has already remained in jail for about 4 years, 4 months and 6 days. Considering all these facts, this Court opines that justice would be served if the appellant's sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 11. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 307 of the IPC is maintained and the sentence of RI for 10 years is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 4 years, 4 months and 6 days. However, the fine amount and its default stipulation imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. 12. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 13. The appellant is in jail. He be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case/s. 14. 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 Shubham