CGHC010125912014 2026:CGHC:27049 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 861 of 2014 Teekaram S/o Ramkrishna Choudhary Aged About 57 Years R/o. Vill. Chhotesajapali, P.S. Saraypali, Civil And Rev. Distt. Mahasamund C.G., Chhattisgarh ...Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Distt.Magistrate, Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund C.G., Chhattisgarh ...Respondents ACQA No. 186 of 2014 Neelambar Choudhari S/o Khageshwar Choudhari Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Chhote Sajapali, P.S. Saraipali, Dist. Mahasamund C.G. , Chhattisgarh ...Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. S/o Through The Sho P.S. Saraipali, Dist. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mohanlal S/o Ramkrishna Choudhari Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Chhote Sajapali, P.S. Saraipali, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - Tikaram S/o Ramkrishna Choudhari Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Chhote Sajapali, P.S. Saraipali,District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4 - Jagdish S/o Ramkrishna Choudhari Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Chhote Sajapali, P.S. Saraipali, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sushil S/o Ramkrishna Choudhari Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Chhote Sajapali, P.S. Saraipali, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 6 - Loksagar S/o Tikaram Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Chhote Sajapali, P.S. Saraipali, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) CRA No. 842 of 2014 1 -Jagdish S/o . Ramkrishna Choudhary Aged About 54 Years R/o. Vill. Chhotesajapali, P.S. Saraypali, Civil And Rev. Distt. Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 2 - Loksagar S/o . Teekaram Aged About 22 Years R/o. Vill. Chhotesajapali, P.S. Saraypali, Civil And Rev. District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ...Appellant(s) versus Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.07.07 10:53:21 +0530 Cra 861 of 2014 and other connected cases 2 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Distt. Magistrate Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund C.G., Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) CRA No. 864 of 2014 Sushil S/o . Ramkrishna Choudhari Aged About 40 Years R/o. Chhote Sajapali, P.S. Saraipali, Civil And Rev. Distt. Mahasamund C.G., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, PS Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund C.G., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) CRA No. 890 of 2014 Mohan Lal S/o . Ramkrishna Choudhary Aged About 45 Years R/o. Chhote Sajapali, P.S. Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund C.G., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho,p.S. Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) CRA No. 1234 of 2016 Bhanu Pratap Choudhary S/o Ramkrishna Choudhary Aged About 51 Years R/o Village- Chhotesajapali, Thana- Saraypali, Civil And Revenue District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Respective Appellants : Shri Sunil Sahu, Shri HS Patel, Shri Awadh Tripathi, and Shri Roop Nayak, Advocates For Respondents/State : Shri Ashish Shukla, Addl AG --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Judgment on Board Per Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. 02.07.2026 Cra 861 of 2014 and other connected cases 3 Heard Shri Sunil Sahu, Shri HS Patel, Shri AwadhTripathi, and Shri Roop Nayak, learned counsel for the respective appellants. Also heard Shri Ashish Shukla, learned Addl AG for the State. 1. All the Criminal Appeals and Acquittal Appeal are arising out of the same Crime Number, and same session trial. Therefore, they are being heard and decided together. 2. CRA-861 of 2014 is filed by appellant-Teekaram, CRA-842 of 2014 is filed by appellants-Jagdish and Loksagar, CRA-864 of 2014 is filed by appellant-Sushil, CRA-890 of 2014 is filed by Mohan Lal, CRA-1234 of 2016 is filed by Bhanu Pratap choudhary and ACQA-186 of 2014 is filed by Neelambar Choudhari, against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.08.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Mahasamund, CG, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner: CRA- 861, 842, 864 and 890 of 2014 (Jagdish Choudhary , Teekaram, Sushil, and Mohan Lal) Conviction Sentence U/s 147 of IPC R.I. for 1 year U/s 325/149 of IPC R.I for 3 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine 2 months additional R.I Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Cra 861 of 2014 and other connected cases 4 3. CRA-1234 of 2016 is filed by Bhanu Pratap Choudhary against the impugned judgment dated 28.09.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saraipali, District-Mahasamund, CG in Session Trial No.60 of 2010, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner: CRA-1234/2016 (Bhanu Pratap Choudhary) Conviction Sentence U/s 148 of IPC R.I. for 1 year U/s 323/149 of IPC R.I for 3 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine 2 months additional R.I 326/149 of IPC R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 2000 in default of fine 2 months additional R.I. The sentences to run concurrently, and fine amount has been deposited 4. ACQA-186 of 2014 has been filed by the appellant-Neelambar Choudhari, who was the complainant in the case against acquittal of accused persons from the offence of Section 307 IPC, which has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 28.08.2014 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, FTC, District-Mahasamund, CG in Session Case-60 of 2010, which is with respect to initial arrest of five accused persons, except appellant -Bhanu Pratap Choudhary in CRA- 1234 of 2016. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the injured person, claimed to be in possession of the agricultural land on the basis of an order of partition, passed by Tahsildar, Saraipali and he was put in possession pursuant Cra 861 of 2014 and other connected cases 5 thereof. However, the accused persons disputed his possession and harvested the crop which was earned by him. On the date of incident, injured Neelambar, along with his assistant Subhash Patel, Ved Prakash and Jannath, had gone to the agricultural field for harvesting of the crop and at about 1 pm, Ved Prakash informed to complainant-Khageshwar Choudhary, that his son Neelambar was being assaulted by the accused persons by axe, lathi, danda, and sickle and when they intervened, Subhash Patel also received injuries. The persons, who were coming from village-Saraipali, namely Khiro, Babulal, Gokul and Manbhajan, witnessed the incident and when they were about to intervene, accused persons fled away. Neelambar and Subhash were taken to the Saraipali hospital and on the report of complainant- Khageshwar Choudhary, PW2, FIR, Ex.P11 was registered against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 IPC. Dehati Nalishi was recorded on the instance of PW2 and the FIR was registered. Injured Pitambar and Subhash were sent to the Community Health Centre, Saraipali for their medical examination, where they were examined by Dr GP Patel, PW13. The doctor examined injured Neelambar and gave his report Ex.P16 and Subhash and gave his report Ex.P17. According to the MLC report of Neelaambar, three incised wounds, including one fracture of dental architecture and loss of one tooth was noticed and he was referred to Medical College Hospital, Raipur for further treatment. The incised wound was on his cheek and head. On the body of Subhash, abrasions and incised injuries were found on the left hand and fracture of Alna bone Cra 861 of 2014 and other connected cases 6 was also found and he too was referred for further treatment to Medical College Hospital, Raipur. Spot Map Ex.P3 was prepared by the Police and Ex.P1 was prepared by the Patwari. Accused persons have been arrested and from the accused- Mohan Lal, one danda has been seized. The Police has also seized the copy of judgment passed in Civil Appeal- 29A/2003 dated 25.09.2004. 6. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 CrPC have been recorded and after completion of the usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saraipali for the offence under Section 147, 148, 149 and 307 IPC. 7. Case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, from where, the same has been transferred to the learned trial Court for its trial. 8. Learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellants- Mohan Lal, Jagdish, Loksagar, Sushil, and Teekaram for the offence under Sections 147, 148 and 307/149 IPC and when the other accused Bhanu Pratap Choudhary was subsequently arrested, he was also charged for the offence under Section 148 and 307/149 IPC. Subsequently, vide order dated 21.09.2016, additional charge of 323/149 was also added against him. 9. The accused persons denied the charge and claimed trial. Cra 861 of 2014 and other connected cases 7 10. In order to prove the charge against the accused persons, prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses. Statement of the accused persons under Section 313 CrPC have also been recorded, in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence and have submitted that they have been falsely impleaded in the offence and on the issue of land dispute, complainant party has sold their land. 11. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 28.08.2014, acquitted the accused persons Mohan Lal, Jagdish, Sushil, Teekaram and Loksagar from the offence of 148, and 307/149 IPC. Instead thereof, they have been convicted for the offence under Sections 147, 325/149 IPC. When the accused Bhanu Pratap Choudhary was subsequently arrested and he was also put to trial and after conclusion of the trial, he too was acquitted from the offence of Section 307/149 IPC but has been sentenced for the offence under Section 148 and 323/149 and 326/149 IPC vide judgment dated 28.09.2016. Hence, these appeals against the conviction of the appellants and Acquittal Appeal by the complainant Neelambar against acquittal of the accused persons from the offence 307/149 IPC. Consideration of Criminal Appeals filed by the appellants against conviction and sentence: 12. Learned counsel appearing for the respective appellants would jointly submit that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence against Cra 861 of 2014 and other connected cases 8 the appellants. There are material omissions and contradictions in their evidence. There exists a land dispute between the parties, in which they have been falsely impleaded for the alleged offence. Learned counsel would submit that the appellants do not want to press their appeal on merits, but they are pressing the appeals for reduction of their sentence, awarded for the alleged offence. They would jointly submit that the appellants Mohan Lal, Teekaram, Jagdish, Sushil and Loksagar have been convicted for the offence of Section 325/149 IPC and the appellant- Bhanu Pratap Choudhary has been convicted for the offence of Section 326/149 IPC and awarded sentence of RI for three years. The alleged offences under which the accused persons have been convicted does not provide any minimum sentence. Therefore, their undergone period may be considered to be the sufficient sentence by enhancing the fine amount appropriately. They would also submit that parties are relatives and the dispute arose with respect to harvesting crop and the Civil Suit was also pending between them. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Bhanu Pratap Choudhary would also submit that he already remained in jail for one year and 9 months and therefore, his sentence may also be reduced for the period already undergone by him for the offence under Section 326/149 IPC by suitably enhancing the fine amount. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants Cra 861 of 2014 and other connected cases 9 and have submitted that the prosecution has duly proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. But for minor omissions and contradictions, the evidence of the witnesses is fully reliable and there is no infirmity, or perversity in the conviction of the appellants. Learned trial Court has already taken a lenient view by convicting the appellants for lesser offence of Section 325 and 326 IPC. Looking to the injuries found on the body of the victim, the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants are not liable to be reduced and cannot be said to be dis-proportional. Therefore, the appeals filed by the appellants are liable to be dismissed. 15. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the paper-book prepared in the case on the basis of original record. 16. Though the appellants are not challenging their conviction on merits, and they only challenging the sentence part awarded to them for the alleged offence, however, this Court deem it appropriate to consider the evidence available on record regarding the offence allegedly committed by the appellants for which they have been convicted. 17. PW-9 Neelambar, injured witness, stated in his evidence that on 27.10.2009 at about 10 am, he had gone to his field to harvest the crop earned by him. The accused persons-Bhanu Pratap Choudhary, Sushil, Jagdish, Teekaram, Mohan Lal, Loksagar and Dinesh came there having armed with weapons and extorted them. Bhanu Pratap Choudhary and Sushil were having axe, Loksagar was having Sickle and others were Cra 861 of 2014 and other connected cases 10 having danda with them. By the assault made by the accused persons, he received axe injury on his neck, right cheek and head and also received injury from danda on all over the body. When Subhash and others intervened, they also assaulted him by which he received injury on his left hand. Some other persons came there for intervention and then, accused persons fled away. He was being taken to the Hospital at Saraipali from where he was referred to the Raipur hospital and he remained hospitalized for 26-27 days. 18. In cross-examination, though the defence tried to extract the material that the injured party is aggressors and despite pendency of the Civil suit, they started assaulting the accused party. However, this witness has denied the suggestion given by the accused persons and stated that their appeal is pending before the High Court. He admitted that the judgment of Civil Suit is passed in favour of the accused persons. With respect to causing injury to this witness by the accused persons, he remained firm in saying that while harvesting the crop, the accused persons assaulted him by which he received injuries and hospitalized. 19. Another injured Subhash, PW10 supported prosecution case and has stated in his evidence that on 27.10.2009 at the time of incident, they were harvesting the crop and at that time, the accused persons came there having armed with them and started assaulting Neelambar. Bhanu Pratap Choudhary assaulted him by axe by which he received head injury and the 2nd blow was on his cheek. The other accused persons Cra 861 of 2014 and other connected cases 11 assaulted him by danda. When he intervened, he received injury on his left hand and at the same time, 3-4 other persons came there intervened and the accused persons fled away. Injured Neelambar was taken to the hospital, from where, he was referred to Raipur hospital. In his cross- examination also, the defence could not be able to extract any material to disbelieve the evidence that these accused persons have not committed any offence and have not assaulted the injured persons. 20. PW12 Dr Shah treated the injured Neelambar and Subhash at Yash Hospital, Raipur. He conducted surgery of Subhash on 28.02.2009 and Neelambar on 01.11.2009. Subhash was having fracture of his left wrist bone and after surgery, he could be saved. Neelambar also underwent surgery of his mandible region of face. Thereafter, he was admitted at Raipur hospital on 04.11.2009 from where he was discharged on 22.11.2009. He also proved the discharge certificate Ex.P13. In cross- examination also, he remained firm in the treatment given by him to the injured persons Neelambar and Subhash. 21. PW13-Dr GP Patel, Medical Officer, posted at Community Health Centre, Saraipali. He treated the injured Neelambar on 27.10.2009 and found incised wound on right mid cheek, fracture of dental architecture and loss of one tooth, incised injury on left side of frontal part of head and incised injury on middle part of his back. Active bleeding was present from the incised wounds and after having primary treatment, he was referred to the Medical College Hospital, Raipur and his MLC report is Cra 861 of 2014 and other connected cases 12 Ex.P16. He also medically examined the injured Subhash, and found one linear abrasion on his right side of abdomen, incised injury on left hand, including fracture of ulna and carpal joint and abrasion on right elbow medials. Fresh bleeding was present and he too was referred for Medical College Hospital, Raipur for further treatment and proved his MLC report, Ex.P17. 22. In cross-examination, suggestion was given by the defence that the injury may be caused by falling on remains of paddy found on the field, which he admitted that injury 1 and 3 could be caused by the said fall. However, injury-2 of the injured Subhash was remain stern that it could be caused by the act of the appellants. 23. When these witnesses have been cross examined by the other accused persons, the witnesses further remained firm in raising allegations against the accused persons. But for minor omissions or contradictions, nothing could be elicited in their evidence to make them disbelieved. 24. PW2 Kageshwar Choudhary is the father of injured Neelambar, who lodged the FIR. He has stated in his evidence that on the date of incident when his son had gone to harvest the crop at about 1-1.30pm, he was informed that his son was being assaulted by the accused persons. When he had gone to the field he could not see his son there and when he reached to the hospital he saw him injured. His son informed him that the accused persons assaulted him on the dispute. He lodged report Cra 861 of 2014 and other connected cases 13 which is Ex.P2. In cross-examination nothing is there to discredit the evidence of this witness, though he was not the eyewitness to the incident but he firmly stated about the incident disclosed by his son and assault was made by the accused persons and also the existence of the land dispute between them and there is no reason to disbelieve this witness. 25. PW3 Babulal, PW4 Jagganath Yadav, PW5 Vedprakash, PW7 Manbhajan Patel, and PW8 Gokul are the other witnesses to the incident, who also duly supported the prosecution case about their witnessing the incident and involvement of the accused persons. 26. From all these evidences, particularly the evidence of injured witnesses and the eyewitness, prosecution is able to prove the involvement of the accused persons that on the date of incident, they cause injuries to the injured Neelambar and Subhash, and this court is also in concurrence with the finding recorded by the learned trial court regarding involvement of the accused persons for the offence. 27. Learned trial Court after considering the evidence of the doctor, who treated the injured Neelambar and Subhash, instead of convicting the accused persons for the offence under Section 307 IPC, convicted the accused persons Mohan Lal, Teekaram, Jagannath, Susuil, and Loksagar for the offence of Section 325 of the IPC and the accused Bhanu Pratap Choudhary under Section 326 of the IPC. Learned trial Court has duly considered the manner in which the offence has been Cra 861 of 2014 and other connected cases 14 committed by the accused persons, nature of injuries, found on the body of the injured persons and the other surrounding circumstances and also considering that the doctor has not stated that the injuries found on the body of the injured persons are fatal to life or death could have been caused if they were not treated in time and further that the number of injuries found on the body of the injured persons, they considered that the accused per;sons were not intended to commit murder of the injured persons and the incident occurred due to land dispute. Therefore, the consideration of the learned trial Court is one of the plausible view taken by it to convict the accused per;sons for the offence. Hence, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the conviction of the appellants, for which they have been contended and accordingly, their conviction is hereby maintained. 28. So far as the sentence awarded to the appellants is concerned, proportionality of the sentence has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 3 SCC 287, and it has been 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 paragraph- 9 of its judgment as follows: “9.Western jurisprudes and sociologists. from their own angle have struck a like note. Sir Samuel Romilly, critical of the brutal penalties in the then Britain, said in 1817 : “The laws of England are written in blood”. Alfieri Cra 861 of 2014 and other connected cases 15 has suggested : 'society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it'. George Nicodotis, Director of Criminological Research Center, Athens, Greece, maintains that 'crime is the result of the lack of the right kind of education'. If 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 reculturisation. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology is the individual, and the 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'.” 29. Further, in the matter of Raj Bala Vs. State of Haryana and Others, reported in 2016 (1) SCC 463 in paragraph 1 & 2 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : “1. In Gopal Singh v. State of Uttrakahand [(2013) 7 SCC 545 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 608], while focusing on the gravity of the crime and the concept of proportionality as regards the punishment, the Court had observed:- Cra 861 of 2014 and other connected cases 16 "18. Just punishment is the collective cry of the society. While the collective cry has to be kept uppermost in the mind, simultaneously the principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment cannot be totally brushed aside. The principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence. A punishment should not be disproportionately excessive. The concept of proportionality allows a significant discretion to the Judge but the same has to be guided by certain principles. In certain cases, the nature of culpability, the antecedents of the accused, the factum of age, the potentiality of the convict to become a criminal in future, capability of his reformation and to lead an acceptable life in the prevalent milieu, the effect - propensity to become a social threat or nuisance, and sometimes lapse of time in the commission of the crime and his conduct in the interregnum bearing in mind the nature of the offence, the relationship between the parties and attractability of the doctrine of bringing the convict to the value-based social mainstream may be the guiding factors. Needless to emphasise, these are certain illustrative aspects put forth in a condensed manner.We may hasten to add that there can neither be a straitjacket formula nor a solvable theory in mathematical exactitude. It would be dependent on the facts of the case and rationalised judicial discretion. Neither the personal perception of a Judge nor self-adhered moralistic vision nor hypothetical apprehensions should be allowed to have any play. For every offence, a drastic measure cannot be thought of. Similarly, an offender cannot be allowed to be treated with leniency solely on the ground of discretion vested in a court.The real requisite is to weigh the circumstances in which the crime has been committed and other concomitant factors which we have indicated hereinbefore Cra 861 of 2014 and other connected cases 17 and also have been stated in a number of pronouncements by this Court. On such touchstone, the sentences are to be imposed. The discretion should not be in the realm of fancy. It should be embedded in the conceptual essence of just punishment." [Emphasis supplied] 2. Seven years prior to that, in Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat [(2006) 2 SCC 359 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 499], it has been held that:- (SCC pp. 361-62, paras 7-8) "7. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross-cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the edifice of "order" should meet the challenges confronting the society. riedman in his Law in Changing Society stated that: ‘State of criminal law continues to be-as it should be-a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society.’ Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of Cra 861 of 2014 and other connected cases 18 weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. 8. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law, and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed, etc. This position was illuminatingly stated by this Court in Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N. [(1991) 3 SCC 471 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 724]" [Emphasis supplied] And again: (SCC p. 363, para 13) “13….The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and the victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should ‘respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal’." 30. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also nature of injuries found on the body of injured persons, the relationship between the parties, the land dispute exist between them and also the fact that the alleged offence is said to have been in the year 2009, and the accused persons faced trial for more than 16 years, this Court is of the considered opinion that the sentence awarded to the appellants for the alleged offence may be reduced for the period already undergone by them by enhancing the fine amount suitably. Cra 861 of 2014 and other connected cases 19 31. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the appellants, their sentence has been reduced for the period already undergone by them with cumulative fine amount of Rs.10,000/- each of the appellants, in addition to the fine amount already paid by the appellants. In default of payment of find amount, they shall further undergo RI for one month. Fine amount shall be deposited by the appellants within a period of three weeks from the date of this order. 32. Out of total fine amount of Rs.60,000/- deposited by the appellants, Rs.40,000/- shall be paid to the injured Needambar, PW9, and Rs.20,000/-shall be paid to the other injured Subhash, PW10, as compensation, as provided under Section 395 of the BNSS 2023. 33. With the aforesaid alteration/modification in the sentence, all these appeals are partly allowed. 34. Appellants are reported to be on bail, their bail bonds shall be continued for further period of six months as provided under Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023. Consideration on the Acquittal Appeal – 186 of 2014 35. The Acquittal Appeal has been filed by the injured Neelambar against acquittal of the accused persons from Section 307 IPC. After considering the evidence of injured Neelambar, as well as Subhashsh, this Court has affirmed the acquittal of the accused persons from the offence of Section 307 IPC and their conviction under Section 325 and Cra 861 of 2014 and other connected cases 20 326 IPC against the accused /appellants- Mohan Lal, Jagdish, Loksagar, Sushil, and Teekaram and Section 326 IPC against the accused Bhanu Pratap Choudhary and their sentence has been reduced for the period already undergone by enhancing the fine amount. Therefore, we find no scope for interference in the Acquittal Appeal fined by the injured Neelambar. 36. Scope of interference in an Acquittal Appeal has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jafarudheen and Others Vs. State of Kerala, 2022 (8) SCC 440, and it has considered in paragraph 25 of its judgment as under: “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC, the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 37. Accordingly, the Acquittal Appeal filed by the injured Neelambar is hereby dismissed. Cra 861 of 2014 and other connected cases 21 38. The trial court records along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice padma Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.07.07 10:53:58 +0530