1 2026:CGHC:12114 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 195 of 2026 Son Singh @ Sonu Pando S/o Dharampal Pando Aged About 21 Years R/o Barbandh (Jagatpur), Thana Charcha, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Aarakshi Kendra- Podi, District- Manendragarh, Koriya (Now Mcb) ... Respondent (Cause-title is taken from CIS) For Appellant : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 13.03.2026 1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 415(2) of BNSS, 2023 challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.2025 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.), in Session Case No.08/2019, 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, to undergo additional 1 year RI SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.03.17 10:43:04 +0530 2 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant, Ramvilas—a resident of Village Lohari Kontapara, Police Station Podi, District MCB, Chhattisgarh—resides there and engages in farming. His ancestors had encroached upon government land, where he has since built a house and currently resides. Previously, appellant Sonu Pando had raised a dispute regarding this very land, claiming that his own ancestors had been the ones to occupy it, and consequently harbored a grudge against the complainant. On 27.10.2018, at around 6:30 PM, while the complainant was sitting alone in the veranda of his house, Sonu Pando approached him carrying an axe (farsa) and initiated a conversation. With the specific intent to murder him, Sonu Pando struck him first on the back, below the neck. He then delivered a second blow, this time striking the complainant on the neck and head with the sharp edge of the axe, causing him to sustain injuries and begin bleeding. Upon hearing his cries for help, his wife Basanti, daughter-in-law Leela, and daughter Lalita rushed to the scene; seeing them, Sonu Pando fled the spot. Thereafter family members of Ramvilas took him to the Manendragarh Hospital and admitted him. On the basis of above, FIR was registered against the appellant and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against him. 3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents in support of its case. The statement of the appellant / accused was also 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 questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned 3 judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that she does not want to press the appeal on merits and confines her argument only on sentence part. She submits that the appellant is now aged about 29 years, he is a farmer and having family responsibilities. Out of 10 years of jail sentence, he has already remained in jail for about 412 days. The incident took place in the year 2018 and since then he is facing the lis. He has no criminal antecedents. Hence, by considering all these facts, 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 argument advanced on behalf of the appellant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned judgment. 8. Dr. Surendra Singh (PW-6) who conducted medical examination of injured Ramvilas in his Court testimony stated that there was a wound on the back of the injured person's head, inflicted by a sharp-edged weapon; the wound measured 5 inches x 1 inch x 1 inch. Further, there was swelling on the upper part of the back, which had been caused by a blunt and hard object. He advised that an X-ray be conducted to ascertain the severity of the first injury. The second injury was of a simple nature. 9. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of Dr. Surendra Singh (PW-6), his report Ex.P-15, injured Ramvilas (PW-7), Lalita (PW-3) & Lilavati (PW-4), 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 IPC which is based on evidence available on record and it is hereby affirmed. 4 10.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 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." 11. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the 5 case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the appellant is aged about 29 years, he is a farmer and having family responsibilities. He has no criminal antecedents. As per arrest memo of appellant (Ex.P-7), he has studied upto 8th standard. He is facing the lis since 2018. he already remained in jail for about 412 days. Considering all these facts, this Court opines that justice would be served if the appellant’s sentence is reduced to the period from 10 years to 1 year and 6 months. 12. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 307 of IPC is maintained and the sentence is reduced from 10 years to 1 year and 6 months. However, the fine amount is enhanced from Rs.500/- to 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall liable to undergo 1 year of rigorous imprisonment. If any amount of fine was deposited, will be adjusted in Rs.5,000/-. 13. The fine amount of Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited by the Appellant herein, after verification will be disbursed to injured Ramvilas. 14. The appellant has already served 412 days of jail sentence, this period be set off to the period of sentence as imposed upon him today by this Court. 15. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 16. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned. A copy of this judgment be also transmitted to the concerned Jail Superintendent where the appellant is serving his sentence, for information and necessary action. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham