Gariyaband (C.G.) v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Gariyaband District
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:32525 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 825 of 2025 Thanwar Nishad S/o Bhanwar Lal Nishad Aged About 36 Years R/o- Raniparteva, Police Station- Chhura, District- Gariyaband (C.G.). ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Gariyaband District- Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Shivendue Pandya, Advocate For Res./State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 14/07/2025 1 The present appeal under Section 415(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.03.2025 passed by learned Upper Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband (C.G.), in Sessions Case No. 16/2022 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under : 2 Conviction Sentence Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine U/s 307 of IPC amount, additional R.I. for 6 months. The fine amount has already been deposited by the appellant in the instant case 2 The prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant namely Bhojram Sahu (P.W. 01) lodged a report in the Police Station Chhura, District – Gariyaband to the effect that on the date of incident i.e.10.11.2021 at about 09:00 A.M., when the injured namely Smt. Rekha Bai Yadav (P.W. 06) along with other labour was working in his agriculture field situated at village karkara, Police Station Chhura, District Gariyaband, at that time, the present appellant came there and assaulted Smt. Rekha Bai Yadav by means of iron rod, as a result thereof, she sustained multiple injuries on her person. After the incident, the complainant went to the Police Station - Chhura, District - Gariyaband and lodged the report. The matter was enquired by the Police and on the basis of memorandum statement of victim/injured Smt. Rekha Bai Yadav, the offence under Section 307 of the IPC has been registered offence against the appellant. After usual investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gariaband for the offence punishable under Sections 307 & 294 of the IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act. 3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 26 documents. The statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded 3 innocence and false implication in the case. 4 Upper Sessions Judge, Gariaband, after appreciating the oral & documentary evidence available on record and after considering the same, vide impugned judgment dated 01.3.2025 acquitted the appellant of the offences punishable under Sections 294 of IPC and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act by extending him benefit of doubt, however, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned in paragraph-1 of this judgment leading to the filing of this appeal. 5 Learned counsel for the appellant 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 appellant is in detention since 11.11.2021, the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is of 7 years, out of which, the appellant has already served the jail sentence of about 3 years and 8 month and no criminal antecedents have been reported against the appellant. Hence, considering all theses facts, the sentence imposed upon the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 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 Having gone through the material available on record and considering the deposition of Dr. B. B. Aarya (PW-15), Bhojram Sahu (PW-1), Smt. Rekha Bai Yadav (PW-6), Jagmohan (PW-3), Ram Baii (PW-2) and Investigating Officer of the case, namely, Heeralal Chandrakar (PW-13), the involvement of the appellant 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 appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of 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 man retributively, you 4 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 the 5 appellant is in detention since 11.11.2021, the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is of 7 years, out of which he has already served the jail sentence of 3 years and 8 month, no criminal antecedent of the appellant is recorded in the arrest memo, 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. 11 Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of IPC is maintained but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 3 years and 8 month. However, in lieu thereof, the fine amount of Rs. 1000/- imposed by the Trial Court enhanced to Rs. 12,000/- and the said enhanced fine amount shall be given to the victim as compensation. In default of payment of aforesaid enhanced fine amount, the appellant shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. It is made clear that if any amount of fine has been paid by the appellant/accused earlier, the same shall be adjusted in the enhanced amount. 12 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 13 The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 14 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 amita AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.07.17 17:25:31 +0530