Chandraprakash @ Shatrughan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

: Mr. Kishan Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Indira Tripathi, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Ram Kumar Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board

05.05.2026

1. The present revision arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.12.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 68/2010, whereby the learned appellate Court has affirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused/applicant as awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund (C.G.) vide judgment dated 29.03.2010 passed in Criminal Case No. 463/2009. The conviction and sentence of the applicant are as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 279 of IPC R.I. for 06 months and fine of Rs. 200/-, 2 in default of payment of fine amount R.I. for 01 month. U/s 338 of IPC R.I. for 06-06 months and fine of Rs.200- (two times) 200/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 01-01 month. U/s 304-A of IPC R.I. for 01-01 year and fine of Rs. 200- (two times) 200/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 01-01 month. (All the sentences were directed to run concurrently)

2. The brief facts of the case are that is that on 24.04.2009, complainant Jainendra Chandrakar lodged a report at Police Station Mahasamund stating that on 24.04.2009, at about 6:00 a.m., he had gone towards Sanjay Kanan. At that time, Pokhan Chandrakar, Sanat Chandrakar, Yuvraj Chandrakar, and Bhushan Sahu were coming on foot, when the driver of Pick-up vehicle bearing Registration No. CG-04 JA 8742, driving in a rash and negligent manner from the Bagbahara road side, hit them from behind. As a result, Pokhan Chandrakar, Sanat Chandrakar, Yuvraj Chandrakar, and Bhushan Sahu sustained injuries. They were taken to Government Hospital, Mahasamund for treatment, where Yuvraj and Pokhan succumbed to their injuries during treatment. On the basis of the said complaint, an offence was registered against the applicant at Police Station Mahasamund. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the learned Trial Court, which, upon trial, held the accused guilty.

3. So as to hold the accused/applicant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents. Statement of the accused/applicant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charge leveled against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is not pressing the revision insofar as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his arguments only to the sentence. He further submits that the incident is alleged to have 3 taken place in the year 2009. More than 17 years have elapsed since then. Presently, the applicant is aged about 32 years. He has already remained in jail from 18.12.2012 to 01.01.2013 and thereafter from 13.02.2025 to 17.02.2025, i.e., for a total period of about 18 days, and he has no criminal antecedents. Considering all these aspects, it is prayed that the applicant may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him, in the interest of justice.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supports the impugned judgments, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for applicant.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgments.

7. Dr. N.K. Mandpe (PW-11) opined in his statement that on

24.04.2009, he conducted post-mortem examinations of two deceased persons brought by Constable Harish Soni. namely Yuvraj Chandrakar and Pokhan Chandrakar.

8. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the witnesses, namely Denis Kusar Chandrakar (PW-1), Bhushan Lal Sahu (PW-2), Jainendra (PW-3), Soin Chandrakar (PW-4), Lalit Chandrakar (PW-5), Dr. A.K. Tripathi (PW-6), Sapan Chandrakar (PW-7), Santosh Kumar (PW-8), Bharat Yadav (PW-9), Sambhuram (PW-10), Dr. N.K. Mandpe (PW-11), Dr. Surendra Shukla (PW-12), Sanand Kumar (PW-13), Vinod (PW-14), Dr. Sunil Khemka (PW-15), Assistant Sub- Inspector Kampishwar Pushpakar (PW-16), the involvement of the accused/applicant in the crime in question stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by both the Courts below with regard to the conviction of the applicant under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of the IPC.

9. As regards 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 4 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 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 Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that maximum sentence imposed upon the applicant is 01 year rigorous imprisonment, out of which he has already served the jail sentence of about 18 days, no criminal antecedent of the applicant is recorded in the arrest memo (Ex-P/10), he has studied upto 7th class and works as a driver, the incident pertains to the year 2009 i.e., more than 17 years ago, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served 5 by sending him back to jail again, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

11. Accordingly, the conviction of the applicant under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of the IPC is maintained, however, his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him, i.e., 18 days. The fine of Rs. 200/-(two times) imposed by the trial Court under Section 304-A of the IPC is enhanced to Rs.5,000/-(two times) and in default thereof, R.I. for 03 months (two times) instead of 01 month (two times). However, the fine amount and its default stipulation under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC shall remain intact.

12. Consequently, the revision is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above.

13. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender in this case. However, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC.

14. Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. JUDGE Sourabh P. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)