1 2026:CGHC:8743 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 895 of 2025 1 - Vinay Kumar S/o Late Thamas Jems, Aged About 38 Years R/o Mission Colony, Police Station Tilda Nevra, Tahsil And District Raipur C.G. ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate/Collector, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Reema Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on board 18/02/2026 1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 438/442 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 03.02.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 364/2024 arising out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.09.2024 passed by the learned JMFC, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.), in Criminal Case No. 18203/2012, whereby, the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the applicant as under :- HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.02.19 10:31:04 +0530 2 Conviction Sentence U/s 420 of IPC R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional S.I. for 1 month. U/s 467 of IPC R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional S.I. for 1 month. U/s 468 of IPC R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional S.I. for 1 month. U/s 471 of IPC R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional S.I. for 1 month. (All the sentences were directed to run concurrently). 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the receipt of a written complaint from the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.), Police Station Gol Bazar, District – Raipur that in Criminal Case No. 1430/2011, Crime No. 396/2011, Police Station Gudhiyari, under Section 380/34 of IPC pending in the said Court, on 28.01.2012, Guarantor Vinay Kumar S/o late Thomas, R/o Saddu, P.S. Dharsiwa, District – Raipur has submitted a bail of Rs. 8,000/- on behalf of accused Shriram Beni S/o Damodar Nayak. When the guarantor was called for verification and questioned, the court got suspicious and hence the surety was sent to P.S. Golbazar, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh for verification. In the written complaint, instructions were given to investigate the Rin Pustika No. 1340679 of the guarantor Vinay Kumar and submit a report, on which, after verification from the Patwari Halka and Tahsildar, 3 the said Rin Pustika was found to be fake. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and the accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicant/accused. 3. So as to hold the accused/applicant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 3 witnesses and exhibited 6 documents. The statement of the accused/applicant 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 judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.09.2024, learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused/applicant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Aggrieved by the said judgment the applicant preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge and vide judgment dated 03.02.2025 the appeal of the applicant has been rejected. Hence, the present revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that she is not pressing the revision so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine her argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to her, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2012, and thereby more than 14 years have rolled by since then. The applicant has already served the jail sentence for 2 years, 1 month and 21 days (from 30.01.2012 to 18.10.2012, 08.12.2022 to 22.12.2022 and 30.09.2024 till 4 date) and the applicant is aged about 52 years at present, he has no criminal antecedent 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/Respondent opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant and supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. 7. Having gone through the material on record and the evidence of the witnesses Anil Singh Thakur (PW-1), Sanjee Kumar Pandey (PW-2) and Naresh Thakur (PW-3), establishes the involvement of the accused/applicant in the crime in question. Thus, considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, this Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as appellate Court as regards conviction of the applicant under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. 8. 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 jurisprudence and 'sociologists, from their own 5 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.” 9. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the facts that the applicant has already served the jail sentence of total 2 years, 1 month and 21 days and at present appellant is aged about 52 years, he have no criminal antecedent, as per arrest 6 memo he has studied upto 7th class and is a welder by profession, this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him while keeping the fine amount with default stipulation as imposed by the Trial Court intact. 10. In the result the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offences, his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. a total of 2 years, 1 month and 21 days instead of R.I. for 3 years. However, the fine imposed upon the appellant by the Trial Court shall remain intact. 11. The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released forthwith if not required in default of payment of the fine amount, and in the other case. 12. Let a certified copy of this order along with original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned as well as to the Superintendent of Jail where the applicant is languishing for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE H.L. Sahu