1 2026:CGHC:14612 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2358 of 2025 1 - Ruchu @ Amar Sai Prajapati S/o Chattar Prajapati Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Jhingo, Ps Rajpur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj C.G. ... Respondent For the appellant : Mr. Praveen Soni, Advocate For the State : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order/Judgment on Board 27/03/2026 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 415(2) of BNSS has been preferred by appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.08.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge Ramanujganj, District – Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) in Sessions Case - Warrant or Summons Criminal cases/105/2019 (nature of case wrongly mentioned at Annexure-A/1, so taken from CIS), whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.03.27 18:04:50 +0530 2 Conviction : Sentence U/s 376 of IPC : RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 6 months. U/s 392 of IPC : RI for 7 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 3 months. U/s 506(B) of IPC : SI for 6 months with fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine, additional SI for 1 month. (All the sentences were directed to run concurrently). 2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.04.2017, the complainant/victim (PW-1) appeared at the concerned police station and submitted a written report stating that, on Sunday, she had gone to the Rajpur market to purchase goods. While she was waiting for a bus, two young men approached her on a black motorcycle and asked where she needed to go. She replied that she was headed to Kododipa. One of the men then stated that they are going to Kochli to distribute invitations; they could drop her off on her way. Deceiving her, they seated her on the motorcycle at about 6:30 pm. Upon reaching Kododipa, they did not drop her off; instead, they forcibly took her past the Chaudhary Gate and deeper into the Gahanadand forest. She had begun shouting for help right from the moment, but no one heard her cries. He led her a short distance away and severely terrified her by threatening to hang her using her odhni (veil). He then snatched her mobile phone, removed her lower garments, threw her to the ground right there, and forcibly raped her at about 8:00 pm. Subsequently, he fled the spot, taking with him her belongings. Somehow, without any lower garments, she made her way to the road and reached Siyansarai village, where villagers spotted her; a local family took her into their home and provided her with clothing. On 3 reaching her house, she narrated the incident to his family and then a complaint was lodged. Based on this, FIR was registered against the accused and after due investigation charge sheet was filed. 3. The prosecution has in all examined 18 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents to prove its case. The accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC, abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. After conclusion of trial and considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and material available on record, learned Trial Court by impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned above. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 2017 and the accused appellant has already served the jail sentence of more than 6 years and 6 months as he is in jail since 23.09.2019 in this case and in another case the appellant has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRA No. 1137/2024 on 14.01.2025 by suspending his jail sentence. Therefore, the sentence awarded to the appellant for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him, and he may be released from jail. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. He submits that the appellant committed a heinous offence with the victim, as the appellant committed rape upon her and, after taking the belongings of the victim, including the clothes, fled away from the spot, and the appellant has a criminal antecedent of the 4 same nature; therefore, it is not a fit case to reduce the sentence of the appellant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 7. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of witnesses – complainant/victim (PW-1), Budheshwar (PW-2), Jogsay Ekka (PW-3), Suchita (PW-4), Lalmuni Kujur (PW-5), Jugul Ekka (PW-6), Dr. Asrita Kachchhap (PW-9), Shri Pramod Dubey (PW-13), Dilbag Singh (PW-14), Ram Bharosh (PW-16), Alma Tirki (PW-17) and Amit Singh Baghel (PW-18), establishes the involvement of the accused/appellant in crime in question, 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 376, 392 and 506(B) IPC. 8. However, as regards sentence, in 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 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.” 9. Applying the analogy laid down in Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 10 years under section 376 IPC and the appellant has already served the jail sentence of 6 years, 6 months and 4 days and as per the Arrest Memo (Ex.P.23), the appellant is a farmer, thus looking to the over-all circumstances it will be just and proper if the sentence of 10 years RI awarded by the trial Court for offence under Section 376 IPC is reduced to 7 years RI. However, the conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 392 and 506(B) of the IPC is hereby maintained. Accordingly, the conviction u/s 376 IPC is also maintained, and the jail sentence is reduced from 10 years to 7 years. However, the 6 sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court for each offence shall remain intact. 10. The appellant has already served a jail sentence of 6 years, 6 months and 4 days, as he is in jail since 23.09.2019. His period of custody will be set off against the 7-year sentence. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated here-in-above. 12. Let a certified copy of this order 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 appellant is undergoing jail sentence. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu