1 2026:CGHC:11686 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 657 of 2026 1 - Kishore Sapre S/o Chabil Sapre, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Palchuwa, Piparpara, P.S. City Kotwali Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- City Kotwali Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. R.L. Rajak, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. Akash Agrawal, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 11/03/2026 1 Heard on admission. 2 Admit. 3 The present appeal has been filed under Section 415(2) of BNSS against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Mungeli (C.G.), in Sessions Case No. 41/2024 whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 323 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 06 months with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 01 month. 4 The prosecution case, in brief, is that, on 01.10.2024, the 2 Prosecutrix (PW-04) lodged a FIR at P.S. City Kotwali, Mungeli, stating that her husband had died about 10 years ago and she had been living with her two daughters in a house separate from her in-laws. On 10.04.2024, the present appellant, who belongs to her village, entered her house at night and forcibly committed rape upon her. Since then, the appellant had been continuously having physical relations with her. When she refused, the appellant threatened to kill her and her children and also used to beat her. The prosecutrix could not inform anyone due to fear of public shame. When she conceived and was five months pregnant, she lodged the FIR. Based on the complaint, a case was registered against the appellant under Sections 376(2)(n), 456, 506 and 323 of IPC vide Crime No. 376/2024. 5 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents. The statement of the appellant 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. After conclusion of trial and considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and material available on record, learned Trial Court by impugned judgment acquitted the appellant from the offence punishable under Sections 456, 506 Part-2, 376(2) (n) of IPC and convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned in the opening paragraph. 6 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing the appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2024, about 02 years ago. The maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is R.I. for 06 months out of which he has already remained in jail for about 02 months 03 day during trial. The appellant is aged about 30 years and he has no criminal antecedents, 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. 3 7 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellant. 8 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 9 Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the witnesses Brother of the victim (PW-01), Father of the victim (PW-2), Santosh Manikpuri (PW-3), Victim (PW-4), Dr. Shivani (PW-05), Dr. Avkash Kumar (PW-06) and Nandini Sahu (PW-07), establish the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC. 10 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 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 4 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.” 11 In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is R.I. for 06 months, out of which he has already served the jail sentence of about i.e. 02 months and 03 days, no criminal antecedent of the appellant is recorded in the arrest memo (Ex- P/02), this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would serve if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 12 Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 323 of IPC is maintained and his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 02 months and 03 days. However, the fine amount with default stipulation imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court shall remain intact. 13 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 14 The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender in this case. However, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC. 15 Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Sourabh P.