1 CGHC010002202005 2026:CGHC:39241 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 367 of 2005 Arun Kumar Naidu, aged about 30 years, S/o Late Dana Naidu, Occupation- Driver, R/o Bhagelpur, Police Station Jashpur, District Jashpur (CG) ... Appellant. -Versus- State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Bagicha, District Jashpur (CG) ... Respondent. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Appellant : Ms. Seema Singh, Advocate. For State : Mr. Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 07/09/2026 1. This Criminal Appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.03.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur in Sessions Trial No.40/2003. By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court held the accused/appellant guilty and sentenced him as follows:- Conviction Sentence Section 394 IPC 7 Years R.I. and Rs. 1000 Fine (In default, 6 months R.I.) Section 397 IPC 7 Years R.I. and Rs. 1000 Fine (In default, 6 months R.I.) (Both substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.) Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 2. Prosecution case is that on 17.11.2002, the complainant Rameshwar Yadav (PW-7), his son Trilochan (PW-3), Dinesh Ram (PW-2), Madhusudan (PW-1), Jadumani (PW-4), and a few others had gone to the Jashpur cattle market. Around 5:00 PM, they began their return journey towards Bagicha in a Commander Jeep (bearing registration number CG 15 0263), which was being driven by Dinesh Ram. At approximately 7:00 PM, when the jeep reached the Bendo Nala bridge, the driver noticed that the road was deliberately blocked with wooden logs and stones. As Dinesh slowed the vehicle down, two individuals armed with country-made pistols (katta) emerged from either side of the road. They attacked the driver, demanded the vehicle keys, and when he denied, one of the attackers struck Dinesh near the eye with the barrel (Naal) of the pistol, causing him to bleed. 3. The assailants pulled the driver out and proceeded to extort and loot money from the passengers. They robbed Rs. 22,000, a voter ID card, and cattle purchase receipts from Rameshwar Yadav; Rs. 15,000 from Jadumani; and Rs. 5,000 from Madhusudan. During the incident, a Tata Sumo vehicle approached from behind, prompting the driver, Dinesh, to throw a stone at one of the robbers. A third associate, Nandlal, arrived on a Boxer motorcycle to aid their escape, but upon seeing the people from the Sumo vehicle, Nandlal fled alone on the motorcycle. The appellant, Arun Kumar Naidu, attempted to escape by jumping off the bridge towards the river/nala. However, the complainant, his son Trilochan, and Madhusudan chased him at the spot. 4. Subsequently, the police were informed regarding the incident, and the Station House Officer of P.S. Bagicha, C.S. Sharma (PW-10), arrived at the 3 scene. Based on the information provided by Rameshwar Yadav, an FIR (Ex. P-14) was registered at Police Station Bagicha on 17.11.2002 at 21:00 hours. The Investigating Officer sent the injured victim Rameshwar (PW-7), Dinesh (PW-2), and Trilochan (PW-3) for medical examination, which was conducted by Dr. R.N. Dubey (PW-5). 5. Thereafter, the police filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Jashpur. The JMFC committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The trial court framed charges under Sections 394, 397 IPC, and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. 6. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses to prove its case. Under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the incriminating evidence, stating he was falsely implicated due to a prior dispute with the complainant over cattle market receipts. The defence also examined one witness, Sarhul Bhagat (DW-2). 7. Upon evaluating the evidence, the trial court vide impugned judgment acquitting Nandlal of all charges and Arun Naidu of the Arms Act charges, while convicting the appellant under Sections 394 and 397 IPC as mentioned opening Para of this Judgment. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that she does not press the conviction part of the judgment in respect of Section 394 IPC and wishes to confine her arguments in respect of 397 IPC and and the sentence part. She submits that the statutory requirement of Section 397 of the IPC are not met in the present case, as to attract the minimum punishment under Section 397 IPC, the injuries caused must be "grievous" in nature. Looking to the testimonies of Dinesh Ram (PW-2) and Rameshwar Yadav (PW-7), she submits that the victims only suffered simple injuries. Furthermore, the 4 medical expert, Dr. R.N. Dubey (PW-5), categorically opined in his reports (Ex. P-10, P-11, and P-12) and his court testimony that the injuries sustained by all three victims were "simple in nature" and my cause due to fell on floor. Thus, she asserts that Section 397 IPC is not made out and the conviction under this section may be set aside. Regarding the conviction under Section 394 IPC, learned counsel submits that the appellant has already suffered incarceration from 19.11.2002 to 19.01.2007 i.e. more than 4 years, therefore, she prays that the sentence for this offence may be reduced to the period already undergone. 9. Per contra, the learned State Counsel opposes the above prayer and submits that the evidence of the eyewitnesses clearly establishes the appellant's active role in the robbery and the assault. 10. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records with utmost circumspection. 11. The Complainant Rameshwar Yadav (PW-7) in his evidence deposed that on 17.11.2002, he and others were returning from the Jashpur cattle market in a Commander jeep. Near Bendo Nala, the vehicle was forced to stop because wooden logs and stones were placed across the road. Assailants armed with kattas (pistols) approached from both sides. He was threatened and struck on the forehead with a katta, causing his nose to bleed. The robbers looted cash. He further stated that his son Trilochan and Madhusudan chased the fleeing robbers, caught one of them (identified in court as the appellant, Arun Naidu) in the nala (drain/riverbed) on the north side of the road, and brought him back. However, he declared hostile in his chief examination. 12. The another main witness is Dinesh Ram (PW-2), Jeep Driver. He stated that he was driving the jeep and slowed down near Bendo Nala around 7:00 PM 5 upon seeing stones on the road. An armed person attacked him from the right side and demanded the vehicle keys. When he hesitated, he was struck on the nose, causing it to bleed. He was pulled out of the vehicle and sat quietly. While the looting took place, he managed to escape to Bhitghara and called the Bagicha police station. However, in his cross-examination he admitted that it became completely dark when the vehicle stopped and its lights went off, making it difficult to see exactly who hit him. He was declared hostile by the prosecution. The another witness Trilochan (PW-3) corroborated the blockade and testified that the assailants threatened to blow up the vehicle if the driver did not hand over the keys. 13. Dr. R.N. Dubey (PW-5) is the - Medical Officer. He examined the victims at the Community Health Centre, Bagicha, on the night of the incident (17.11.2002). In examination of Rameshwar (PW-7), he found a 2x1 cm scratch on the forehead and a 6x4 cm swelling on the front right side of the head (Ex. P-10). On examination of Dinesh (PW-2), doctor found a 2x1x1 cm lacerated wound on the front of the head, a 1x1x1 cm lacerated wound near the left eye, and a scratch on the left thumb (Ex. P-11). On examination of Trilochan (PW-3) minor scratches on his right thumb, right hand, and leg (Ex. P-12). After examination of the victims, the doctor categorically stated that all the injuries sustained by the victims were simple in nature and were caused by hard and blunt objects. However, in respect of Dinesh and Trilochan, doctor stated that the injuries may caused them due to fell on ground. 14. Section 397 of the IPC deals with Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, which speaks that:- 6 "397. Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.- If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years." 15. A plain reading of Section 397 IPC clarifies that the provision is attracted only when an offender uses a deadly weapon, causes grievous hurt, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt. 16. In the present, the accused was already acquitted for the offences under the Arms Act by the Trial Court. Hence, the medical evidence on record is pivotal here. Dr. R.N. Dubey (PW-5), who examined the injured persons on the night of the incident, unequivocally deposed that the injuries found on Rameshwar (PW-7), Dinesh (PW-2), and Trilochan (PW-3) were simple in nature. There is no medical or circumstantial evidence to suggest that the hurt caused was grievous or that there was a concerted attempt to cause death. In the absence of these essential ingredients, the trial court erred in convicting the appellant under Section 397 IPC. Thus, the conviction under Section 397 IPC is not justifiable and liable to be set aside. 17. However, the evidence on record, particularly the testimonies of the injured witnesses PW-2, PW-3 and PW-7, establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant voluntarily caused hurt while committing the robbery. Therefore, the conviction under Section 394 IPC is well-founded and is hereby maintained. 18. In respect of sentence, in Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1977) 3 SCC 287, Hon’ble Supreme Court while emphasizing the 7 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 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.” 19. The record reveals that the appellant was in continuous custody from 19.11.2002 until he was granted bail on 19.01.2007. Considering that the incident occurred over two decades ago and the appellant has already served a substantial period of imprisonment (more than 4 years), this Court is of the 8 considered opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately met by reducing his substantive sentence to the period already undergone (19.11.2002 till 19.01.2007) in respect of the sentence for the offence under Section 394 IPC, . 20. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 397 of the IPC is hereby set aside, and he is acquitted of the said charge. However, his conviction under Section 394 of the IPC is maintained. The substantive sentence of jail sentence awarded for the offence under Section 394 of the IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant in custody. 21. The fine amount imposed upon the appellant by the trial court under Section 394 IPC shall remain intact. 22. The appellant is reported to be on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds shall remain in operation for a further period of six months as per the provision contained in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C (Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). 23. Let a copy of this judgment, along with the original records, be sent to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay