Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.07.28 11:01:15 +0530 2025:CGHC:36270 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 847 of 2024 Durga Gond Alias Durga Prasad Maravi S/o Late Maniram Maravi, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village- Basaha, Police Station- Seepat, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station- Seepat, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Amit Buxy, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 25/07/2025 1 The present appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.02.2024 passed by learned Sixth Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.), in Sessions Case No.214/2021 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under : Conviction U/s 452 of IPC Sentence Rigorous imprisonment for 02 years with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of 2 payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for 1 month. Rigorous imprisonment for 07 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for 03 months. Rigorous imprisonment for 01 year with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 month. Rigorous imprisonment for 01 year with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 month. U/s 307 of IPC U/s 324 of IPC U/s 25(1B)(b) of Arms Act 2 The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 22.05.2021, at about 6:30 am, the complainant, Santosh Kumar, received a phone call from his wife, informing him that the appellant Durga Gond had entered their home and attacked their daughter-in-law Ganeshi Bai (PW-2) with a sword, causing serious injuries to her head, and also assaulted their son, Sandeep Kumar (PW-4). Upon reaching home, the complainant found Ganesh Bai unconscious with head injuries and bleeding. His son Sandeep informed him that the accused, Durga Gond, had attacked Ganeshi Bai with the intention of killing her due to a long-standing land dispute and had also injured him (Sandeep) while trying to intervene, resulting in injuries to his left arm. Based on the complainant's report, a case was registered against the appellant at Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh for the aforesaid offence. 3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents. The statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he 3 denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case 4 After appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, vide impugned judgment, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5 Learned counsel for the appellant submit that he is not pressing the appeal so far as the conviction part of the impugned judgment is concerned and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. He submits that the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 7 years, out of which the appellant has already served the jail sentence of about 03 year, 7 months & 15 days. He submits that the doctor has not opined about the nature of injury sustained by injured Ganeshi Bai. He prays that the sentence imposed upon the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him and he may be released from jail. 6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellant. 7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8 Dr. Rizwan Siddiqui (PW-8), who conducted the medical examination of the injured, Ganeshi Bai and Sandeep Kumar (PW-4), deposed that: i.) Ganeshi Bai had a lacerated wound on her head, measuring 6 x 1 cm, in the parieto-occipital region, and had lost consciousness due to the injury, although she was conscious at the time of 4 admission. The injury appears to have been caused by a hard and sharp object. ii.) Sandeep Kumar had a lacerated wound on his left palm and index finger, measuring 12 x 0.5 cm. He was referred to the Casualty Ward for further treatment under the care of a surgeon and orthopedic specialist. The injury appears to have been caused by a hard and sharp object. The medical examination report of the injured is Ex-P/9. 9 Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of injured Sandeep Kumar (PW-3) & Ganeshi Bai (PW-2), complainant Santosh Kumar (PW-1), Veena Gandharva (PW-3), Raj Kumar Sori (PW-9), Dr. Rizwan Siddiqui (PW-8), MLC report (Ex.P-8) and FSL report (Ex.P-15), the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question is clearly established. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 307, 324 of IPC and Section 25(1B)(b) of Arms Act. 10 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 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, 5 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 fact that the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 7 years, out of which he has already served the jail sentence of about 03 years, 07 months and 15 days, there is no previous criminal records of the appellant, there is no opinion of the doctor about the nature of injury and also considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would serve if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 12 Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 6 452, 307, 324 of IPC and Section 25(1B)(b) of Arms Act is maintained but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 03 years, 07 months and 15 days. However, the fine and its default stipulation imposed upon the appellant by the Trial Court under the said sections shall remain intact. 13 Consequently, the appeal stands allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 14 The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released forthwith if not required to be detained in default of fine and not required in any other case. 15 Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. A copy of the judgment may also be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent wherein the appellant is suffering the jail sentence. Khatai Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE