Nafr High Court
Case Details
2025:CGHC:49101 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 448 of 2017 Venudhar @ Bhuvneshwar S/o Govind Kenwat Aged About 60 Years Caste Kenwat, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Vishnupali, Police Station Baramkela, Tahsil Baramkela, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Applicant (s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through, The District Magistrate, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Applicant : Shri Vikram Pratap, Advocate For Respondent/State ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ : Ms Sunita Manikpuri, Dy GA
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 24.09.2025 1. This matter has been listed for further orders. However, with the consent of the parties, it is heard finally. 2. Present Criminal Revision has been filed by the applicant against judgment dated 26.04.2017, passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Sarangarh, District- Raigarh, in CRA-24 of 2016, whereby the appeal filed by the applicant against the judgment of conviction ;and order of sentence dated 17.08.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sarangarh, District-Raigarh in Criminal Case-717 of 2004 has been dismissed, and his conviction and sentence awarded Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.09.26 19:08:25 +0530 by the learned trial Court has been affirmed. 2 Crr 448 of 2017 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.03.2003, complainant- Saudagar Patel lodged report, Ex.P1 to the Police alleging that on that day at about 5 pm, the applicant abused and assaulted him when he had gone to serve the summons. Based on the written complaint, FIR Ex.P2, for the offences under Sections 394, 353, 506 and 294 of the IPC. Complainant was sent for his medical examination to the Government Hospital, Baramkela, where he was examined by the doctor, and found injuries. Applicant has looted his carry bag, in which four summons, stamp-pad, and the application filed by the plaintiff are there, and thus, the applicant has obstructed the complainant from discharging public duty. Statements of the witnesses have been recorded, and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the learned JMFC Sarangarh, for the offence under Sections 394, 353, 294, 186, 341 and 201 of the IPC. Learned trial Court has framed charge against the applicant initially for the offence under Sections 294, 341, 506 Part-II, 186, 353, 201, and 394 of the IPC. However, on 09.08.2016, charges have been amended, and contents of the charge under Section 394 were added. Opportunity to re-examine and re-cross examine the witnesses has been provided for the parties, but they have not availed the remedy. The applicant denied the charge and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove the offence against the applicant, prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses, statement of the applicant under Section 313 of the CrPC has also been recorded, in which he denied the 3 Crr 448 of 2017 circumstances appearing against him, and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. 5. After appreciation of oral, as well as documentary evidence led lby the prosecution, learned trial Court has convicted the applicant for the offence under Sections 294, 506, 186, and 353 of the IPC, and sentenced him for SI for a month with fine of Rs.100/-, SI for six months with fine of Rs.100/-, SI for a month with fine of Rs.100/-, and SI for six months with fine of Rs.100/- respectively, with default stipulation. 6. Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court was challenged by the applicant in CRA-24 of 2016, filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District-Raigarh, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 26.02.2017, and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court is affirmed. Hence this Revision petition. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant is presently aged about 82 years. Alleged offence is said to have been committed in the year 2003, which does not provide any minimum sentence, and therefore, applicant is not challenging his conviction part, however, he is challenging the sentence part of the judgment. 8. Looking to the nature of offence, and the allegation made against the applicant, the sentence awarded to him is excessive, which may be 4 Crr 448 of 2017 reduced for the period already undergone by him, as the applicant remained in jail for about 15 days. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes, and submitted that the learned trial Court has already considered the leniency in favour of the applicant, and awarded less sentence, therefore, applicant is not entitled for any further leniency. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material annexed with the petition. 11. Though the applicant is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment, however, this Court deem it appropriate to examine the legality and propriety of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, as well as appellate Court, with respect to the conviction. 12. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence of PW1 Saudagar Patel, who is the complainant, and PW11 Rajendra Mourya, who is the Dy CFC, who duly proved the allegation against the applicant. 13. PW1 has clearly stated that on the date of incident, he had gone to the village Kosamdih, for service of the summons, as he was the process server at that time, and was posted at the Civil Court, Sarangarh. When he had gone to Vishnupali for service of summons, applicant committed the offece, and obstructed the complainant in discharging public duty. P 5 Crr 448 of 2017 14. PW11 has duly supported the case of the prosecution that the complainant was posted as process server, and had gone to village for service of summons. He also proved the process register Ex.P9, and duty certificate Ex.P7. From the evidence of PW7 Ashok, who is eyewitness to the incident, has also supported the prosecution case that he saw the applicant abusing and assaulting the complainant by hand and fists, and thus, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court as well as appellate Court, in the opinion of this Court, does not suffer from any perversity, and the applicant has been rightly been convicted by the Courts below. 15. So far as the sentence part is concerned, in the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 3 SCC 287, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under: “9. Western jurisdiction 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 Micodotis, 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 6 Crr 448 of 2017 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.” 16. The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, that the applicant is presently aged about 82 years, and the alleged offences do not provided any minimum sentence, applicant remain in jail for about 15 days, and therefore, looking to age of the applicant, and nature offense, further considering the law laid down in Giasuddin (supra) case, applicant’s prayer appears to be genuine, and this Court is also of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the sentence of the applicant could be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 17. Considering the nature of offence, and the present age of the applicant, while maintaining the conviction of the applicant for the alleged 7 Crr 448 of 2017 offences, his sentence is reduced for the period already undergone by him for all the offences, for which he was convicted. 18.
Decision
In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. 19. Applicant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds shall continue for further period of six months as provided under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 20. Record of the trial court be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned along with copy of this order for compliance and necessary action, without any further delay. padma Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE