1 2026:CGHC:16910 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 256 of 2026 1 - Anmol Vasnik @ Hada S/o Kishore Vasnik, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Nayamunda, P.S. Bodhghat, Distt. Bastar Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ankit Peter @ Kalu S/o Nitin Peter, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Madan Malviya Ward, Jagdalpur, P.S. Kotwali, Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ganpat Sethi @ Malinga S/o Raja Sethi, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Atal Awas, Kalipur Jagdalpur, P.S. Kotwali Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Arakshi Kendra Kotwali, District Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate. For State/respondent : Ms. Priya Sharma, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order/Judgment on Board 13/04/2026 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 415(2) of BNSS has been preferred by appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.12.2025 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar, District - Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 57/2024 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under: SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.04.15 14:28:38 +0530 2 Name of the Accused/Appellant Conviction Sentence Anmol Vasnik (A-1), Ankit Peter @ Kalu (A-2) and Ganpat Sethi @ Malinga (A- 3) U/s 115(2), 3(5) of BNS S.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default of payment of fine amount additional S.I. for one month each. U/s 309(4), 3(5) of BNS R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for three months each. U/s 309(6), 3(5) of BNS R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for three months each. Ganpat Sethi (A-3) U/s 118(1) of BNS S.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional S.I. for one month. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Komal Yadav has lodged a report in the Kotwali Police Station to the effect that he works as a driver and daily carries passenger from Chitrakut to Jagdalpur and on 07.07.2024, he parked his vehicle at the taxi stand in front of Foot wear Manke Peti Shop near Sanjay market and after informing the conductor Appu Baghel he went towards the market and at about 6:30 pm, his conductor Apput Baghel has called him and told that appellants have come and threatened him with knife and robbed Rs. 600/- and after on being told he immediately went to the taxi stand and asked from the appellants that why they have robbed his conductor, on which, the appellants started to 3 abused him and assaulted him by hand and knife by which he sustained injury behind the neck and hand. On the basis of the complaint, FIR was registered, and after due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the present appellants. 3. The prosecution has in all examined 7 witnesses and exhibited 27 documents to prove its case. The accused persons were 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, acquitted A-1 and A-2 for the offence under Section 118(1), 3(5) of BNS, and all the appellants have been acquitted for the offence under Sections 296, 351(2), 311, 3(5) of BNS and 25 & 27 of Arms Act. However, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. Hence, the appeal. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 2024 and A-1 has already served the jail sentence of 182 days (from 08.07.2024 to 05.09.2024 and from 11.12.2025 till date); A-2 has already served the jail sentence of 176 days (from 08.07.2024 to 30.08.2024 and from 11.12.2025 till date) and A-3 has already served the jail sentence of 276 days (from 12.07.2024 to 12.12.2024 and from 11.12.2025 till date). A-2 and A-3 has no criminal antecedents, the injuries sustained by the victim is simple in nature. Therefore, he prays that the sentence awarded to the appellants for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by them and they may be released from jail. 4 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellants. He submits that appellant No. 1 has 5 criminal antecedents. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 7. Dr. Smriti Johri (PW-5) conducted the MLC of injured Komal Yadav (PW-4) and gave his report vide Ex.P-15. According to the MLC report (Ex.P-15) following injuries were found on the body of the injured:- 1. An injury measuring 3cm x0.5 cm, and swelling on the neck. 2. An injury measuring 4cm x0.5 cm on the right hand. Dr. Smriti Johri (PW-5) opined that both injuries are of a simple nature. No impairment in the movement of the hand or neck was observed as a result of the injuries. All other body parts were found to be in good condition. 8. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of witnesses Ronak Singh Thakur (P.W.1), Appu Baghel (P.W.2), Mangal Baghel (P.W.3), Komal Yadav (P.W.4), Smriti Johari (P.W.5), Dinesh Usendi (P.W.6) and Bahadur Singh Nag (P.W.7), establish the involvement of the appellants 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 appellants for the aforesaid offences and it is hereby affirmed. 5 9. 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 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.” 6 10. Applying the analogy laid down in Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellants is 3 years under Sections 309(4), 3(5) and 309(6), 3(5) of BNS and the appellant No. 1 has already served the total jail sentence of 182 days; appellant No. 2 has already served the total jail sentence of 176 days and appellant No. 3 has already served the total jail sentence of 276 days, and as per the Arrest Memo (Ex.P.12), appellant No. 1 Anmol has studied upto 8th class; he is a labourer, Arrest Memo (Ex.P.11) appellant No. 2 Ankit has studied upto 8th class; he is a labourer, Arrest Memo (Ex.P.13) appellant No. 3 Ganpat has studied upto 8th class; he is a labourer, the incident occurred about 2 years ago, the appellants have their family liabilities, and the injured sustained simple injuries and thus looking to the over-all circumstances it will be just and proper if the sentence of 3 years R.I. awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 309(4), 3(5) and 309(6), 3(5) of BNS is reduced to 1 year & 6 months RI. 11. 11. Accordingly, the conviction u/s 309(4)/3(5) & 309(6)/3(5) of BNS is maintained and the sentence is reduced from 3 years’ R.I. to 1 year & 6 months’ R.I. for each of the appellants. However, the sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. Further, the conviction and sentence u/s 115(2), 3(5) of each of the appellants and the conviction and sentence u/s 118(1) of BNS of the appellant No. 3 Ganpat Sethi are hereby maintained. 12. The period of total custody shall be set off against the jail sentence. The appellants have served the jail sentence for the period as under:- 7 Name of the Appellant Custody Period Total custody period 1. Anmol Vasnik From 08.07.2024 to 05.09.2024 (59 days) From 11.12.2025 till date (123 days) 182 days. 2. Ankit Peter From 08.07.2024 to 30.08.2024 (53 days) From 11.12.2025 till date (123 days) 176 days. 3. Ganpat Sethi From 12.07.2024 to 12.12.2024 (153 days) From 11.12.2025 till date (123 days) 276 days. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated here-in-above. 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 appellants are undergoing jail sentence. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.