1 2026:CGHC:16925 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 125 of 2026 1 - Anil Kashyap S/o Santram Aged About 22 Years. 2 - Jitendra @ Raju Sahu S/o Ashok Kumar Sahu Aged About 21 Years. Both are R/o Godhna, Thana Navagarh, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Applicants. versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- District Magistrate Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ---- Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicants : Mr. TR Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate For the State/Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PL. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, Judge Judgment on Board 13.04.2026 1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of BNNS, 2023, challenging the impugned order/judgment dated 12.01.2026 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Session Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.), 2 in Criminal Appeal No.89/2025, whereby appeal of the applicants came to be dismissed upholding the judgment/order dated 10.06.2025 passed by the JMFC, Navagarh, District -Janjgir Champa (C.G.), (Annexure A-2), whereby the applicants stand convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 323/34 of IPC (two times) Fine amount of Rs.250/- to each victims. U/s 325/34 of IPC S.I. for 06 months and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional S.I. for 15 days to each applicants. 2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that victim namely Balwant Kumar Ratnakar has lodged report against present applicants stating that present applicants have assaulted him and Rajesh Khute & Jaiksi Ratnakar with hands and fist, due to which, they received injuries. Based upon report, FIR was registered against the applicants for offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 325, 506 part II read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the applicants, based upon which, trial Court framed the charges against them under Sections 294, 323, 325, 506 part II read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 3 4. So as to hold the accused/applicants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses and exhibited 10 documents. The statements of the accused/applicants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 5. After hearing the parties, learned trial Court vide judgment/order dated 10.06.2025 convicted and sentenced the applicants as mentioned in para -1 of this judgment. 6. The applicants have challenged the said conviction order before the learned Session Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.), in Criminal Appeal No.89/2025, however, learned Appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 12.01.2026 (Annexure A-1) dismissed the appeal of applicants and affirmed the trial court’s judgment/order, leading to the filing of this criminal revision. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he is not pressing the revision so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. The alleged incident took place in the year 2023, the applicants are in jail from the date of impugned judgment, ie, (12.01.2026) and thereby out of 06 months of jail sentence, they have already remained in custody for about 03 months. At the time of incident, age of the applicants are 21-22 4 years and they are not having any previous criminal antecedent. Hence, considering all these facts, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon the applicants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State/Respondent opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicants and supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. There are three injured/victims in the present case, first is PW-1/Balwant Ratnakar, second is PW-2/Jacksy Ratnakar and third is PW-5/Rajesh Kumar Khunte. 11. Upon medical examination of the injured/victims, PW-9/Dr. Hemant Kumar Khunte (medical officer) has found that victim/Balwant Ratnakar has suffered fracture injury on his left Ulna and he (doctor) has opined that the injuries sustained by the injured persons were caused by a hard and blunt object and said injuries are simple in nature. Medical reports of the injured are exhibited as Ex.P/06 to P/08. 12. Having gone through the material available on record, evidence of injured/victims (PW-1/Balwant Ratnakar, PW-2/Jacksy Ratnakar & PW-5/Rajesh Kumar Khunte) including other prosecution evidence, particularly evidence of PW-9/Dr. Hemant 5 Kumar Khunte (medical officer) and the report given by him, the involvement of the applicants in the crime in question is clearly established. This Court does not see any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by both the Courts regarding conviction of applicants for the aforementioned offence/crime. 13. As regards the 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 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 6 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.” 14. In the instant case, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2023, the applicants are in jail since 12.01.2026 and thereby out of 06 months of jail sentence, they have already remained in custody for about 03 months; at the time of incident, age of the applicants are 21-22 years and they are not having any previous criminal antecedent. As per the arrest memo, applicant No.1 has studied upto 10th class and works in agriculture, however, applicant No.2 has studied upto 12th class and works as Driver and both applicants/accused are currently in jail. 15. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and also considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to applicants is reduced to the period already undergone by them by enhancing fine amount. 7 16. Accordingly, conviction and fine sentence of applicants under Section 323/34 o f IPC (two times) is hereby maintained, however, conviction of applicants under Section 325/34 of IPC is also maintained, but their jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them, ie., about 03 months. The fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed upon the applicants is hereby enhanced to Rs.10,000/- to each applicants which shall be paid within a period of 45 days from today. In default of payment of fine amount, the applicants shall be liable to undergo SI for two months. Any fine amount already deposited by the applicants shall be adjusted. 17. The fine amount enhanced/imposed by this Court today shall be disbursed to the injured/victim (PW-1/Balwant Ratnakar), upon due verification. 18. Consequently, the criminal revision is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 19. The applicants are reported to be in jail, therefore, they be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 20. Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE J/-