1 2026:CGHC:4771 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 964 of 2025 1 - Khemraj Gond @ Khemraj Thakur S/o Brijlal Gond Aged About 26 Years R/o Shikaripali, Village- Khairatkala, Choki- Tuhalu, Police Station- Komakhan, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Adv. For Respondent/State : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 28/01/2026 1 The present appeal has been filed under Section 415(2) of BNSS against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.04.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.), in Sessions Case No. H-66/2024 whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 325 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.01.29 15:38:28 +0530 2 payment of fine amount additional imprisonment for 2 months. U/s 307 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional imprisonment for 2 months. (Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently). 2 The prosecution's case, in brief, is that complainant Smt. Sukwaro Bai (PW-2), lodged a report to the effect that on the date of incident i.e. 19.06.2024 at about 2:30 pm, when injured Tijauram (PW-1) came in his house from outside then the present appellant came in the house and used filthy language as well as abused the injured on which the injured was explain to prohibit such type of language other thing to the appellant but he did not understand and thereafter, the appellant assaulted by way of a brick to the injured Tijauram (PW-1), due to which the injured sustained multiple injuries. 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 294, 325 and 307 of IPC. 3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 24 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 16.04.2025 learned Judge has acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 294 of IPC. However, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence 3 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 sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2024, victim Tijauram is the appellant's uncle, and the dispute was over land partition. The appellant is in jail since 09.07.2024 till date i.e. 1 year, 6 months and 21 days. The appellant is aged about 26 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. Premchand Dhruv (PW-7) initially examined victim Tijauram Thakur (PW-1), who stated that the injured person had a deep wound on the left side of his head and face, for which he provided first aid and referred him to the district hospital, Mahasamund, for further treatment. He has also stated that, considering the possibility of a skull fracture due to the head injury, he advised a CT Scan to determine the exact extent of the injury. He signed the discharge summary (Ex.P-9). 9 Dr. Yugal Chandrakar (PW-12), the treating doctor has stated that injured Tijauram Thakur was admitted on 19.06.2024, for a head injury. After admission, a CT scan 4 was conducted, which revealed a blood clot and fractures in the skull. The head injury was serious and was treated at the hospital during his admission. He further stated that on 20.04.2024 a written complaint was received from the City Kotwali Police Station, Mahasamund, regarding an injury sustained by the victim, which is Ex.P-16. A query vide Ex.P-18 was asked whether the injury sustained by the victim was likely to be fatal if immediate treatment was not provided, on which the doctor wrote “yes’ the patient was likely to die if immediate treatment was not provided”. 10 Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the witnesses Dr. Premchand Dhruv (PW-7), Dr. Yugal Chandrakar (PW-12), injured Tijauram Thakur (PW-1), Sukwaro (PW-2), Kunjbihari Vishal (PW-8), Rajendra Kumar (PW-9), Rajiv Nahar (PW-11) and Murlidhar Bhoi (PW-13), 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 325 & 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 5 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.” 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 09.07.2024, he is the nephew of the injured and the alleged incident is said to have occurred due to a land dispute, the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 7 years, out of which he has already served the jail sentence of 1 year, 6 months and 21 days, no 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 6 him. 13 Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 325 and 307 of IPC is maintained, but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 1 year, 6 months and 21 days. Since the offence under Section 325 of IPC comes under the offence under Section 307 of IPC, it is sufficient to sentence the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. Therefore, the fine imposed upon the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of IPC by the Trial Court is hereby enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- from 500/-. In default of payment of the enhanced/imposed fine amount by this Court today, the appellant shall be liable to undergo R.I. for 6 months. Fine amount, if any, already deposited by the appellant shall be adjusted. 14 The enhanced/imposed fine amount by this Court today shall be payable to the victim Tijauram Thakur (PW-1), as compensation after due verification. 15 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 16 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. 17 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) H.L. Sahu JUDGE