1 - Fatte Ram Kurmi S/o Late Bhakhala Kurmi Aged About 60 Years R/o v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Janjgir District Janjgir- Champa
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:41108 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 835 of 2025 1 - Fatte Ram Kurmi S/o Late Bhakhala Kurmi Aged About 60 Years R/o Village - Singhul Ward No- 10, Police Station Shivarinarayan District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 2 - Chhatta Ram Kurmi S/o Late Bhakhala Kurmi Aged About 54 Years R/o Village - Singhul Ward No. 10, Police Station Shivarinarayan, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Applicants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Janjgir District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. P.M. Shriwas, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Karan Baharani, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 14/08/2025 1 The present revision petition under Section 438/442 of BNSS has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.07.2025 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge Janjgir, District - Janjgir- Champa (C.G.), in Criminal Appeal No.28/2025, arising out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.01.2025 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.08.14 18:07:38 +0530 2 Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa in Criminal Case No. 446/2018. whereby the applicants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 325/34 of IPC S.I. for 6 months each and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 15 days each. 2 The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Tikaram, lodged a report to the effect that on 02.05.2018 at about 7:00 am, applicants have tried to remove the cable/wire from courtyard/Badi of the complainant namely Sitaram Kurmi which used as boundary wall meanwhile he raised objection and thereafter quarrel had happened amongest them, applicants abused as well as assaulted the complainant by hands, kick and iron rod. Based on this offence has been registered and after due investigation charge sheet was filed against the present applicants. 3 So as to hold the applicants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 4 witnesses and exhibited 6 documents. The statements of the applicants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 4 The trial Court, taking into consideration the evidence which has come on record, vide impugned judgment dated 25.01.2025, acquitted the applicants of the offence under sections 294, 506 Part-II of IPC. However, the applicants have been convicted and sentenced as mentioned in paragraph-1 of this judgment, which has been affirmed by the learned appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 01.07.2025 leading to the filing of this criminal revision. 3 5 Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he is not pressing the revision petition 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 incident is said to have taken place in the year 2018 since then the applicants are facing lis, the applicants are in jail since 01.07.2025 till date, meaning thereby the applicants have already been served the jail sentence of about 45 days. The applicants have no criminal antecedents. Hence, considering all these facts, enhancing the fine amount, the sentence imposed upon the applicants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them, and they 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 applicants. 7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8 Dr. Anvita Dhruv (PW-3) examined the injured Sitaram (PW-1) and gave his/her report Ex.P-5. As per Ex.P-5 following injuries were found:- 1. left front and second premolar tooth was broken and came out. His gums were swollen and bleeding. 2. a bruise on the left side of the head. Dr. Anvita Dhruv (PW-3) has stated that injury No. 1 was of a grievous nature and injury No. 2 was simple in nature. Both injuries were likely to have been caused by a hard and blunt object. 9 Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of injured Sitaram (PW-1), Chhedilal Kashyap (PW-2) and Dr. Anvita Dhruv (PW-3), the involvement of the applicants in the crime in question is 4 clearly established. This Court does not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well as appellate Court as regards conviction of the applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 325/34 of IPC. 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 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 5 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 incident is said to have taken place about 7 years ago in the year 2018 since than the applicants are facing lis, the applicants have already served the jail sentence of about 45 days, as per arrest memo, appellants are illiterate and are agriculturist, they have no criminal antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would serve if the applicants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 12 Accordingly, the conviction of the applicants for the offence under Sections 325/34 of IPC is maintained, but their jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them i.e. 45 days. However, the fine of Rs. 1000/- imposed upon the applicants by the Trial Court is enhanced to Rs. 8,000/- each i.e. a total of Rs. 16,000/- (Rs. 8,000/- each of the applicants), which shall be payable to injured Sitaram as compensation, after due verification. In default of payment of the enhanced fine amount, the applicants shall be liable to undergo R.I. for 3 months. The fine amount already deposited by the applicants shall be adjusted. 13 Consequently, the criminal revision is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 14 The applicants are reported to be in jail. If there is no need to detain the applicants in the default of fine amount, they be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 6 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 applicants are suffering the jail sentence. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE H.L. Sahu