1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2027 of 2024 Kuldeep Kumar Dheemar S/o Puneet Dheemar, Aged About 27 Years (Dheevar Wrongly Mentioned In Order Sheet), R/o Milan Chowk, Katulboard, P.S.-Mohan Nagar, Durg, District-Durg (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through- P.S. Mohan Nagar, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Prahlad Panda, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Akash Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 23.02.2026 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 415 (2) of BNSS, 2023 challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.09.2024 passed by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.) in Session Case No.105/2019, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 307 of IPC 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional 3 SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.02.25 10:55:05 +0530 2 months’ RI. Under Section 342 of IPC 1 year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, additional 15 days’ RI. The sentences were directed to run concurrently 2. The case of prosecution is that a report was lodged by the complainant Manharan Lal Verma at Police Station Mohan Nagar, District-Durg to the effect that on the date of incident 11.04.2019 at around 06:30 in the evening, his son Saurabh Verma, age 10 years, was returning home from the temple with his friend Neeleshwar Verma, when Kuldeep Dhimar from the neighbourhood took his son Saurabh to his house and with the intention of killing him, closed the front door and was beating him with a knife and iron pipe. When Pawan Banjare, Devendra Yadav, Kailash Yadav from the neighbourhood opened the door and went inside his house, he was hitting him on the head with a knife. Due to the assault, his child had injuries at 4-5 places on his head and both hands are swollen near the wrists. Thereafter, a case was registered against the appellant. A knife and a iron pipe were seized from him vide Ex.P-1. Statements of witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant. 3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents in support of its case. The statement of the appellant / accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. 4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary 3 evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on sentence part. He submits that the appellant is now aged about 34 years and having family responsibilities. He already remained in jail for about 4 years, 4 months and 10 days. The incident took place in the year 2019 and since then he is facing the lis. Hence, by considering all these aspects, the sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him in the interest of justice. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment and opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned judgment. 8. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of injured Sourabh Verma (PW-1), complainant Manharanlal Verma (PW-6) and Dr. Adarsh Trivedi (PW-11), his report (Ex.P-21), establish the involvement of the Appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 342 & 307 of IPC which is based on evidence available on record and it is hereby affirmed. 9. 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, 4 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 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." 10. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the appellant is now aged about 34 years, he is facing the lis since 2019, he has no criminal antecedent and having 5 family responsibilities. As per the detention period details table of the Trial Court, the appellant has already remained in jail for about 4 years 4 months and 10 days. Considering all these facts, this Court opines that justice would be served if the appellant's sentence for offence under Section 307 of IPC is reduced from 10 years to 5 years. 11. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offence under Section 342 of IPC is maintained. The conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 307 of IPC is also maintained, however, the sentence is reduced from RI for 10 years to RI for 5 years. The fine amount and its default stipulation imposed by the trial Court for the aforesaid Sections shall remain intact. The appellant has already undergone about 4 years, 4 months and 10 days of jail sentence. His period of custody be set off to the sentence period of 5 years as imposed upon him today by this Court. 12. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 13. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned. A copy of this judgment be also sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent where the Appellant is serving his jail sentence, for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham