1 2026:CGHC:17692 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2030 of 2024 1 - Anshuman Tandi S/o Virendra Tandi Aged About 35 Years R/o Virendra Nagar, Sankara, P.S. - Sankara District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 2 - Kunal Yadav S/o Basant Yadav Aged About 21 Years R/o Virendra Nagar, Sankara, P.S. - Sankara District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh --- Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O., Sankara, Mahasamund District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Anoop Majumdar, Advocate. For State/respondent : Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L. CRA No. 1333 of 2025 1 - Subhash Barik S/o Narsingh Barik Aged About 50 Years R/o Virendra Nagar, Sankra, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ---Appellant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sankra, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) --- Respondent HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.04.20 10:15:27 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate. For State/respondent : Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order/Judgment on Board 17/04/2026 1. Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment of conviction and sentence, they are being heard and disposed of by this common order. 2. The present criminal appeals under Section 415(2) of BNSS have been preferred by appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.10.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 62/2022 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction : Sentence U/s 307/34 of IPC : R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default of payment of fine amount additional imprisonment for 2 months each. 3. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Jitesh Gond (PW-1) lodged a report stating that on 01.03.2022 at about 07:00 pm, when his father namely Tulsi Gond (PW-2) was bringing milk from R.B. cheap Society, appellants along with one juvenile co- accused assaulted his father with hands, fists and sticks in front of Rajasthani Dhaba and threatened to kill him. One minor co-accused 3 assaulted the victim in his right eye with a knife; due to the said assault, his right eye was injured. His father somehow reached his dhaba from there, and he took him to Raipur for treatment. His eye was badly injured. Based on this, FIR was lodged and after due investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellants/accused persons. 4. The prosecution has in all examined 10 witnesses and exhibited 21 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 the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 294 and 506 Part-II of IPC. However, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. Hence, the appeal. 5. At this stage, learned counsels for the appellants submit that they do not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 2022 and the appellants have already been served the jail sentence of 1 year 11 months and 5 days (from 01.05.2022 to 26.09.2022 and from 07.10.2024 till date). The appellants are not highly educated and appellants Anshuman Tandi and Subhash Barik have no criminal antecedents. Therefore, they pray that the sentence awarded to the appellants for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the 4 Appellants. He submits that the appellant, Kunal Yadav, has one criminal antecedent under the IPC. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 8. Dr. Gourav Khemka (PW-8) stated that the victim, Tulsi Gond (PW-2), was admitted to Narayana Hospital, Raipur, on 02.03.2022. The injured has suffered a rupture of the pupil, for which treatment was provided at the hospital; the eye surgery was performed by Dr. Ekta. On the advice of Dr. Ekta, the injured was discharged from the hospital on 08.03.2022. Discharge summary is Ex.P-20. 9. Dr. Vinita Patel (PW-10) conducted the MLC of the injured Tulsi Gond (PW-2) and gave her report vide Ex. P-21. Dr Vinita Patel stated that the injured party sustained an eye injury and had brought a CT scan report. On examination of the CT scan brought by the injured and on physical examination, she observed that the globe of the injured's right eye had ruptured, and a bone within the eye socket had fractured. The area surrounding the injured’s right eye had turned black. The injured person underwent surgery on his right eye, where stitches were applied; as a result, he lost her eyesight. 10. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of witnesses Jitesh Gond (P.W.1), Tulsi Gond (P.W.2), Ravindra Kumar Sahu (P.W.6), Khemraj Yadav (P.W.7), Dr. Gourav Khemka (P.W.8), Ramcharan Chouhan (P.W.9) and Dr. Vinita Patel (P.W.10), establish the involvement of the appellants in crime in question, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the 5 findings recorded by the trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of IPC and it is hereby affirmed. 11. 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 6 with the criminal Courts, you should see for yourself the conditions under which prisoners serve their sentences.” 12. Applying the analogy laid down in Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellants is 10 years under Section 307/34 of IPC and the appellants have already served the jail sentence of 1 year, 11 months and 5 days till date and as per the Arrest Memo (Ex.P.10), appellant Anshuman has studied upto 12th class; he is a painter, Arrest Memo (Ex.P.11) appellant Kunal Yadav has studied upto 10th class; he is a driver, Arrest Memo (Ex.P.9) appellant Subhash Barik has studied upto 5th class; he is a barber, the incident occurred about 4 years ago, the appellants have their family liabilities, and thus looking to the over-all circumstances it will be just and proper if the sentence of 10 years R.I. awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 307/34 IPC is reduced to 2 years R.I. 13. Accordingly, the conviction u/s 307/34 IPC of each of the appellants is maintained, and the sentence is reduced from 10 years’ R.I. to 2 years’ R.I. for each of the appellants. However, the sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/- imposed by the trial Court upon each of the appellants is hereby enhanced to Rs. 25,000/-. Each of the appellants shall pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. In default of payment of the fine amount imposed/enhanced by this Court today, the appellants shall be liable to undergo S.I. for 4 months. Fine amount, if any, already deposited by the appellants shall be adjusted. 14. The period of total custody shall be set off against the jail sentence. 7 15. The enhanced/imposed fine amount by this Court today shall be payable to the victim – Tulsi Gond, as compensation after due verification. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated here-in-above. 17. 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 H.L. Sahu