1 - Sourabh Mishra S/o Dinesh Kumar Mishra Aged About 29 Years R/o Ward v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Singhoda, District- Mahasamund
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:40770 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 831 of 2025 1 - Sourabh Mishra S/o Dinesh Kumar Mishra Aged About 29 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Village Manikwar Post Duara, Thana- Manganea District- Rewa (M.P.). --- Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Singhoda, District- Mahasamund (C.G.). --- Respondent CRA No. 778 of 2025 1 - Kaushalesh Prasad Tiwari S/o Keshari Prasad Tiwari Aged About 24 Years Resident Of Village Patela Post Duara, Thana Mangawan, District- Rewa (M.P.). ---Appellant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Singhoda, District- Mahasamund (C.G.). --- Respondent For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Anjali Pradhan, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.08.14 10:19:47 +0530 13/08/2025 2 1 Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment
Decision
dated 05.03.2025, they are being heard and disposed of by this common judgment. 2 The present appeals under Section 415(2) of B.N.S.S., 2023 have been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.03.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Saraipali, District-Mahasamund (C.G.), in Special Criminal (NDPS Act) Case No.05/2024, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each with fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 6 months each. 3 The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 24.12.2023, Assistant Sub-Inspector Sanatan Behra (PW-10) received secret information that two persons from a white-coloured Hero Destiny scooty without registration number were coming from Odisha to Chhattisgarh and were carrying Ganja. On the said information police reached near the village Rehatikhol, N.H. 53 and stopped the scooty and searched and seized 12 kg ganja in 12 packets from the joint possession of the appellants. After due procedure and due investigation, charge sheet was filed. 4 So as to hold the appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 68 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 3 pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 5 The trial Court, taking into consideration the evidences which have come on record, vide impugned judgment dated 05.03.2025 found the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them under the said section as mentioned in paragraph-1 of this judgment leading to the filing of these appeals. 6 Learned counsel for the appellants submits that she is not pressing the appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine her argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to her, appellant Sourabh Mishra was in jail from 24.12.2023 till date; appellant Kaushalesh Prasad Tiwari was in jail from 24.12.2023 to 08.04.2024 during trial and from 05.03.2025 till date, the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 10 years, out of which appellant Sourabh Mishra has already served the jail sentence of about 1 year 7 months and 20 days; appellant Kaushalesh Prasad Tiwari has already served the jail sentence of about 8 months and 22 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. 7 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellant. 8 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9 Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of Jiwardhan Bariha (PW-3), Majesh Kumar Bhoi (PW-4), Madhu Mangal Sahu (PW-6), Shrikant Bhoi 4 (PW-7), Bhupati Patel (PW-8), Bodhan Diwan (PW-9) and the proceedings conducted by the Investigating Officer Sanatan Behra (PW-10), the involvement of the appellants in the crime in question is clearly established. Thus, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record the seizure of narcotic substance from the joint possession of the accused/appellants which was subsequently found to be ‘Ganja’ as per FSL report Ex.P-66. 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 Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS 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, 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 5 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 appellants is 10 years, out of which appellant Sourabh Mishra has already served the jail sentence of about 1 year 7 months and 20 days; appellant Kaushalesh Prasad Tiwari has already served the jail sentence of about 8 months and 22 days, as per arrest memo appellant Sourabh Mishra has studied upto 10th Class and is a agriculturist; appellant Kaushalesh Prasad Tiwari has studied upto 12th Class and is a agriculturist and they have no criminal antecedents. Also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, 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 of the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is maintained but their jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them i.e. about 1 year 7 months and 20 days by Sourabh Mishra; about 8 months and 22 days by Kaushalesh 6 Prasad Tiwari. However, the fine of Rs. 50,000/- imposed upon appellant Sourabh Mishra by the Trial Court shall remain intact with default stipulation, and the fine of Rs. 50,000/- imposed upon appellant Kaushalesh Prasad by the Trial Court is hereby enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount by appellant Kaushalesh Prasad he shall be liable to undergo R.I. for 1 year. 13 Consequently, the appeals are allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 14 The appellants are reported to be in jail. If there is no need to detain the appellants in the default of fine amount, they be released forthwith, if 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. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE H.L. Sahu