1 2026:CGHC:12184 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 725 of 2024 1 - Anil Yadav @ Ballu Son of Sonuram Yadav Aged About 21 Years Resident Of Village- Jharadih, Police Station-Kharsia, Dist. Raigarh, C.G. 2 - Sunil @ Dabbu Yadav S/o Sonuram Yadav Aged About 20 Years Resident Of Village- Jharadih, Police Station-Kharsia, Dist. Raigarh, C.G. 3 - Manendra Yadav @ Tinsu Son Of Krishna Murari Yadav Aged About 18 Years Resident Of Village- Tiur, Police Station- Kharsia, Dist. Raigarh, C.G. ... Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police Station Kharsia, Dist. Raigarh, C.G. ... Respondent For the Appellants : Mr. Amitesh Kumar Pandey, advocate For the State : Ms. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order/Judgment on Board 13.03.2026 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been preferred by appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.03.16 14:50:23 +0530 2 sentence dated 24.01.2024 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge Raigarh, District Raigarh in Sessions Case No. 45/2019 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction : Sentence U/s 450/34 of IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine amount of Rs.5000/- each, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 6 months each U/s 307/34 of IPC (P.W.2) R.I. for 10 years and fine amount of Rs.5000/- each, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 6 months each Sentences were directed to run concurrently 2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 03.05.2019 at about 9 – 10 a.m., Appellants Anil Yadav, Sunil Yadav and Manendra Yadav were speeding the motorcycle through the village. When the complainant Dhaniram Sahu asked them to slow down, the appellants abused the complainant and assaulted him with hands and fists. In order to save his life Complainant ran away to his shop. Then the three accused entered the shop, abused him and threatened to kill and assaulted him with hands and fists and an iron bar, due to which, the complainant suffered injuries and was admitted in hospital. When his mother Chamarin Bai, tried to intervene, the appellants pushed her. Eye-witnesses Manoj Sahu, Laxmin Bai and their mother, Chamrin Bai witnessed the incident. During investigation, the statements of witnesses were recorded and after complying with the procedural formalities, the charge sheet was filed. 3. The prosecution has in all examined 16 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents to prove its case. The accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein they pleaded innocence and false implication. After conclusion of trial and considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and material available on record, learned Trial Court by impugned 3 judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned above. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction and sentenc. The occurrence is related to the year 2019 and since then they are suffering the trauma of trial. Appellant No.1 Anil Yadav @ Ballu and Sunil alias Dabbu Yadav had so far remained in jail for 1 year, 7 months and 8 days and now they are on bail. Appellant no.3 Manendra Yadav @ Tinsu is still undergoing the jail sentence since 24.01.2024 and by now he has already completed the jail sentence 2 years, 1 month and 20 days, therefore, it is prayed that the maximum sentence awarded to the appellants for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by them instead of subjecting them to undergo the further remaining jail sentence. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and opposes the arguments of the Appellant. He submits that there are eye- witness to the incident; their evidence is supported by the evidence of doctors and further as per the C.T. Scan report, a fracture was found in occipital region of injured. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 7. It appears from the record that A-1 Anil Yadav @ Ballu and A-2 Sunil @ Dabbu Yadav assaulted the victim with hands and fists and A-3 Manendra Yadav @ Tinsu assaulted with iron bar. Appellants 1 & 2 are on bail while appellant no.3 is in jail. 8. Having gone through the material evidence on record especially the statement of injured witness P.W.2 Dhaniram Sahu which is supported by P.W.3 Chamarin Bai the mother of complainant; P.W.10 Laxmeen Bai 4 and P.W.16 Manoj Sahu and their evidence further stood firm by P.W.12 Dr. Sajan Agrawal and P.W.7 Dr. Alok Kediya and the medical report (Ex.P-12) & C.T. Scan (Ex.P-8), this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under sections 450/34 and 307/34 of IPC and it is hereby affirmed. 9. In the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1977) 3 SCC 287, Hon’ble Supreme Court while emphasizing the reformative approach has exposited the words expressed by 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. Para-9 of the said judgment is quoted below : “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 5 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. Applying the analogy laid down in Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the facts that the sentence imposed upon the appellants are 10 years each under sections 450/34 and section 307/34 of IPC respectively out of which they have already served the jail sentence for certain period as mentioned above and no criminal antecedents are reported against appellants and further they have also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial and thus looking to the over-all circumstances it will be just and proper if the sentences awarded by the trial court for offence under sections 450/34 and section 307/34 IPC are reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants. 11. Accordingly, while maintaining the appellants' conviction for offence under Section 450/34 and 307/34 IPC, the sentences awarded to them are hereby reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the fine amounts as follows : (i) The fine of Rs.5000/- imposed under section 450/34 IPC is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- each; (ii) the fine of Rs.5,000/- imposed u/s 307/34 IPC is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- each; Meaning thereby each appellant is required to deposit a total fine of Rs.20,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellants shall undergo additional RI for 6 months. The appellants are granted two months' time to deposit the fine amount before the trial court. The fine amounts, if any, 6 already deposited by the appellants shall be adjusted in the total fine amount enhanced by this Court. Out of the amount to be so deposited, Rs.60,000/- shall be paid to the injured victim. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 13. Appellants Anil Yadav @ Ballu and Sunil @ Dabbu Yadav are on bail. They are not required to surrender again. 14. Appellant Manendra Yadav is in jail. He shall be released from jail forthwith if he is not required in any other offence. 15. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith for information and necessary action. A copy of this judgment be also sent to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are undergoing jail sentence. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao