1 2026:CGHC:16495 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1956 of 2025 Lalchand Ram @ Ramdev Baba S/o Nadhiya Ram Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Devri, P.S. Dhourpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station Shankargarh, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh .. Respondent For the appellant : Smt. Uma Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 09.04.2026 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 415(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred by appellant against the judgment dated 25.07.2025 passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G) in Sessions Case No.94/2015 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.04.13 17:16:51 +0530 2 Conviction : Sentence U/s 307 of IPC RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 1 month. U/s 25 (1-b)(b) of the Arms Act RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 1 month. Sentences have been directed to run concurrently 2. However, the trial Court after considering the evidence acquitted the appellant from offence u/s 294 and 506 IPC. 3. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that the informant Urmila Toppo (P.W.2) had lodged a report in Shankargarh Police station on 25.07.2015 that in the morning of 22.7.2015 appellant called her sister’s son Pankaj (injured) and said that the accused is in Jarang Path cave and asked to bring the puja material like coconut and incense sticks. The victim Pankaj went to Jarang-path cave with pooja material on his motorcycle and called out accused. A short while later, accused Lalchand came out of the cave with a sword and hit him on the head from behind with the sword. When Pankaj tried to stop the assault with his left hand, the club in his hand got cut off and he got injuries on his left arm and back of his head. Hearing the voices of shepherds, the accused released the injured Pankaj. Pankaj then went to Tejnarayan Yadav and Balmiki Yadav, who were ploughing the field, and asked them to make a call to Lalchand’s house on their mobile phones. Tejnarayan made the call and took the injured to Dhourpur Hospital and then to the District Hospital for treatment. On that report, the crime was registered and during investigation the statements of injured witnesses were recorded and 3 after complying with the procedural formalities, the charge sheet was filed. 4. The prosecution has in all examined 9 witnesses and exhibited above 13 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 on appreciation of evidence of prosecution witnesses and material available on record, learned Trial Court by impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned above. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the incident dates back to the year 2015 and the appellant is suffering trauma of trial for long and further as the accused has spent in jail for more than 1 year 10 months and 6 days; at present he is in jail and as stated by learned State Counsel there are no criminal antecedents against him, therefore, at this stage, the sentence awarded to the appellant u/s 307 and section 25(1-b)(b) of Arms Act may be reduced to the period already undergone by the accused. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. He submits that the medical report Ex. P-9A would show that the injuries sustained by the injured are grievous in nature. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 4 8. Perusal of statements of material witnesses i.e., injured Pankaj Dubey (P.W.1) and complainant Urmila (P.W.2) would show the assault and injuries caused to the victim by accused with a knife. Their statements further stood firm by the evidence of Dr. K.P. Vishwakarma (P.W.9) as also the medical report Ex.P-9A. Further, the I.O., Roshan Lal Tonde (P.W.8) states that at the instance of accused, knife used in the offence was recovered at the cave by seizure memo (Ex.P-6), and the seized knife on examination by the Doctor (P.W.9), was found to be 30 inches long. The doctor gave report regarding examination of knife by Ex.P-11A. 9. Having thus considered the material available on record and evidence of above witnesses, 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 u/s 307 of IPC & section 25(1-b)(b) of the Arms Act and it is hereby affirmed. 10. 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 : 5 "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.” 11. 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 u/s 307 IPC and the sentence u/s 25(1-b)(b) of the Arms Act is RI for 2 years and till date the appellant has spent in jail for 1 year 10 months & 6 days and at present, he is in jail since 24.03.2025 and as stated by learned State Counsel there are no criminal antecedents against him, it will be just and proper if the sentence of 10 years RI awarded by the trial court for offence under section 307 IPC is reduced to 3 years RI. 6 Accordingly, the conviction u/s 307 IPC and 25(1-b)(b) of the Arms Act is maintained and the maximum sentence is reduced from 10 years to 3 years. However, the sentences of fine imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. The jail sentence imposed u/s 25(1-b)(b) of the Arms Act is affirmed. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated here-in-above. 13. The appellant in jail. His period of custody will be set off against the 3-year sentence. 14. 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 Rao