Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:40402 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 82 of 2021 1 - Mohitram S/o Banwarilal Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- Kerabahra, Police Station- Kelhari, Distt.- Korea, Chhattisgarh 2 - Amritlal S/o Banwarilal Aged About 26 Years R/o Village- Kerabahra, Police Station- Kelhari, Distt.- Korea, Chhattisgarh 3 - Banwarilal S/o Molai Ram Aged About 59 Years R/o Village- Kerabahra, Police Station- Kelhari, Distt.- Korea, Chhattisgarh 4 - Maansai S/o Mewalal Aged About 38 Years R/o Village- Kerabahra, Police Station- Kelhari, Distt.- Korea, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station In Charge, Police Station Kelhari, Distt.- Korea, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Priya Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 12/08/2025 1 The present appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.12.2020 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District - Korea (C.G.), in S.T. No.46/2019, whereby the appellants have Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.08.13 10:19:05 +0530 2 been convicted and sentenced as under:- Name of the appellant/accused Mohitram (A1), Conviction Sentence Simple imprisonment for 1 Amritlal (A2), U/s 506 Part- year each. Banwarilal (A3) and I of IPC Maansai (A4) Mohitram (A1), Amritlal (A2), U/s 307/34 Banwarilal (A3) and of IPC Maansai (A4) Mohitram (A1) and U/s 27 of Amritlal (A2) Arms Act R.I. for 7 year each and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional S.I. for 1 month each. R.I. for 3 year each and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default f payment of fine amount, additional S.I. for 1 month each. (All the sentence were directed to run concurrently). 2 The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 19.04.2019, at about 10:00 am, the complainant Jaydan Khalkho went to collect Mahua in the Bichli forest, where his brother-in-law, son, injured Samuel Beck and Mohitram, Amritlal of village Kerabhara, were also collecting Mahua. At that time, the accused persons told Samuel Beck that he is collecting Mahua form the tree in his possession, he does not listen even after being forbidden, today they will kill him and finish him, saying this, while abusing, threatening to kill him, the accused persons started assaulting Samuel Beck on the right arm, head, back below both legs with an axe in their hands with the intention to kill him,, then Samuel Beck fell while running. Due to the said assault, Samuel Beck’s leg got fractured, then Samuel Beck’s mother reached there and called the ambulance, after that, Samuel 3 Beck was taken to the hospital for treatment and admitted. Based on this, after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the present appellants. 3 So as to hold the appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 28 documents. The statements of the appellants 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. 4 The trial Court, taking into consideration the evidence which has come on record, vide impugned judgment dated 14.12.2020, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in paragraph-1 of this judgment, leading to the filing of this criminal appeal. 5 Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he is not pressing the appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2019, since then the appellants have been facing lis, appellants No. 1 and 2 were in custody from 04.05.2019 to 10.01.2023; appellant No.3 was in custody from 04.05.2019 to 08.09.2022 and appellant No. 4 was in custody from 29.05.2019 to 10.01.2023, meaning thereby the appellants No. 1 and 2 have already served the jail sentence of about 3 years, 8 months and 6 days; appellant No. 3 has already served the jail sentence of about 3 years, 4 months and 4 days and appellant No. 4 has already served the jail sentence of about 3 years, 7 months and 11 days. The appellants have no criminal antecedents. Hence, considering all these facts, the sentence imposed upon the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 4 6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellants. 7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8 Dr. Mahesh Singh (PW-8) examined the injured Samuel Beck (PW-2) and gave his report Ex.P-24. As per Ex.P-24 following injuries were found:- 1. a 4 inch long and cut all around wound on the lower part of the left leg 2. a 3x1.5 inch cut wound on the single joint of the right leg. 3. a 3.5x5 cm cut wound on the back of the right arm. 4. a 2x2 cm swollen injury on the front side of the head. Dr. Mahesh Singh (PW-8) has stated that all the injuries except injury No. 4 were caused by a sharp weapon. He advised for X-ray. In X-ray report, both the bones of the left leg, tibia and fibula were found fractured. 9 Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of complainant Jaydan Khalkho (PW-1), injured Samuel Beck (PW-2), Khistina Beck (PW-3), Shrawan Kumar Tandan (PW-4), Sunil Kumar Paikra (PW- 5), Miliquar Beck 9PW-6), Bhalentinus (PW-7), Dr. Mahesh Singh (PW-8), Prabal Ram Paikra (PW-10) and Sunil Ekka (PW-11), the involvement of the appellants in the crime in question is clearly established. This Court does not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 506 Part I and 307/34 of IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act. 10 As regards sentence, in the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1977) 5 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 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.” 11 In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the 6 fact that the incident is said to have taken place about 6 years ago in the year 2019 since than the appellants are facing lis, the appellants have already served the jail sentence of about more than 3 years and 4 months, as per arrest memo, they have no criminal antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would serve if the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 12 Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offence under Section 506 Part I of IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act is maintained; the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 307/34 of IPC is also maintained, but their jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them i.e. 3 years, 8 months and 6 days by appellants No. 1 and 2; 3 years 4 months and 4 days by appellant No. 3 and 3 years, 7 months and 11 days by appellant No. 4. However, the fine imposed by the trial Court upon each of the appellants shall remain intact. 13 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 14 The appellants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds shall continue for a further period of 6 months as per requirement of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 15 Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE H.L. Sahu