1 - Ravi @ Mahesh Yadav @ Bahta S/o Late Jogilal Yadav Aged About v. State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Office
Case Details
1 A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2025.08.01 18:07:42 +0530 2025:CGHC:36658 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1000 of 2024 1 - Ravi @ Mahesh Yadav @ Bahta S/o Late Jogilal Yadav Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Near Paltu Kirana Stores Galo No. 4, Shitlapara, Ramnagar, No. 4, Shitlapara, Ramnagar, Police Station Gudhiyari, District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Sourabh Shrivastava S/o Late Dinesh Shrivastava Aged About 20 Years R/o Nehru Chowk Ramnagar, Police Station Gudhiyari, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station Gudhiyari, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For the appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. C. R. Sahu, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 28/07/2025 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.04.2024 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Raipur, District Raipur (C.G) in Sessions Case No. 187/2023 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction : Sentence U/s 307/34 of IPC RI for 5 years and fine of Rs.1000/- each in default of payment of fine, additional 2 RI for 3 months each 2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that mother of the injured Chetani Mannade lodged a report on 22.05.2023 at the outpost Ramnagar Police Station Gudhiyari, District Raipur to the effect that on 21.05.2023 her son Santguru Mannade had gone to a wedding party in Sarona and from there he came to drop his friend Sahil to Ramnagar along with his friends Sahil, Ram Ganvir on his Scooty Activa No. CG 4LS 1020 and dropped Sahil at Krishna Chowk Sheetalpara Ramnagar. At the same time, the present appellants along with juvenile offendors “X” and “Y” intercepted his Scooty and attacked her son while abusing in filthy language. During the investigation, it was found that the present appellants along-with two other Juvenile Offendors “X” and “Y” surrounded the injured Santguru and attacked him. When “X” asked for knife, Appellant No.1 Ravi gave him knife which he had in his possession and “X” stabbed injured on chest and back near waist with the same knife supplied by appellant No.1, due to which, injured sustained grievous injuries and he was taken to Harikrishna Hospital, Karma Chowk Raipur. Sahil informed the mother of injured about the incident on mobile phone, after which she came to Harikrishna Hospital and saw that her son had an injury on the right side of his chest and on the right side behind his waist and blood was coming out. After completing the investigation and other procedural requirements, the charge sheet was filed. 3. The prosecution has in all examined 10 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents to prove its case. The accused/appellants were examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein they pleaded innocence and false implication. After conclusion of trial and considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and material available on record, learned Trial Court by impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only to sentence part. He also submits that out of the maximum jail sentence of 5 years imposed on them u/s 307 IPC for causing grievous injury to Sant Guru (P.W. 3), Appellant no.1 Ravi had already completed the jail sentence of 1 year 8 months and 22 days and appellant no.2 Sourabh has completed the jail sentence of 1 year 7 months and 27 days. He 3 submits that the incident took place in 2023 and since then the appellants are facing the lis. He prays that the sentence of the appellants under section 307/34 IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by them in the interest of justice. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. He submits that appellant no.1 Ravi has criminal back ground as 3 previous cases are reported against him. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 7. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of witnesses especially injured Santdas Santguru (P.W. 3), Sahil Kolhatkar (P.W.2) and Dr. Nindar Singh Chawla (P.W.10) as also the medical Report (Ex.P-11) which shows grievous injury caused to injured (P.W.3), this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 307/34 of IPC and it is hereby affirmed. 8. As regards sentence, in 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 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 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 4 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.” 9. Applying the analogy laid down in Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) to the instant case and keeping in view the fact that the sentence imposed upon the appellants are 5 years RI under section 307/34 IPC, out of which, appellant no.1 Ravi @ Mahesh Yadav had already undergone jail sentence of about 1 year 8 months and 22 days and appellant no.2 Sourabh had already undergone the jail sentence of 1 year 7 months and 27 days and further looking to their present age and further they have also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial and thus looking to the over-all circumstances, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence u/s 307/34 is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants. 10. Accordingly, while maintaining the appellants' conviction and sentence for offence under Section 307/34 IPC the sentence awarded to them is hereby reduced to the period already undergone and the fine of Rs.1000/- as imposed by the trial Court is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- each. After depositing the total fine amount of Rs.20,000/-, the same shall be paid to the injured Santguru (P.W.3). In default of payment of fine, the appellants shall under go additional RI for 4 months. 11.
Decision
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated here-in-above. 5 12. The appellants are in jail. They shall be released from jail forthwith if they are not required in any other offence. 13. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith for information and necessary action. A copy of this judgment be also sent to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are undergoing jail sentence. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao