Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:33108 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 3 of 2021 SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.07.16 11:34:38 +0530 1 - Jagrup Singh @ Rubi S/o Late Charan Singh, Aged About 42 Years, Occupation Driver, R/o Kachhar, Ludeg, P.S. Pathalgaon, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Appellant 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Pathalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 15/07/2025 1 The present appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.11.2020 passed by learned Upper Sessions Judge, Pathalgaon, District-Jashpur (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 24/2019 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 307 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 07 years 2 with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for 06 months. 2 The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.02.2019, the complainant, Jashveer Kaur, lodged a report at Police Station Pathalgaon, alleging that her daughter, Papinder Kaur, and her son-in-law, Jagrup Singh, resided in a neighboring room with their family. On the morning of 23.02.2019, at around 8:40 a.m., Jagrup Singh returned home intoxicated and, upon being reprimanded by his wife (Papinder Kaur) for his drinking, abused her with filthy language and threatened to kill her. He then assaulted Papinder Kaur with a "basula" (an agricultural tool) kept in the courtyard, causing her to lose consciousness. When the complainant attempted to intervene, Jagrup Singh chased him, intending to harm him as well. After assaulting his wife, Jagrup Singh fled the scene. The complainant then took Papinder Kaur to the Government Hospital in Pathalgaon for medical treatment. Based on the complainant's report, a case was registered against the applicant and he was arrested for the aforesaid offence. 3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 29 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 innocence and false implication in the case. 4 The trial Court, taking into consideration the evidences which have come on record, vide impugned judgment dated 25.11.2020 found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section Section 307 of IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him under the said section as mentioned in paragraph-1 of this judgment leading to the filing of this appeal. 3 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 maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 07 years, out of which the appellant has already served the jail sentence from 28.05.2019 to 22.09.2022 about 3 year 3 months 25 days. There is no criminal antecedent 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 Dr. D. Sahana (Pw-12) opined in his statement that during the operation, it was observed that injured Papinder Kaur had suffered a fracture of the frontotemporal bone of the skull, which was surgically removed. 9 Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of Papinder (PW-1), Jashveer Kaur (PW-2), Balveer Singh (PW-3), Dr.A.S.Thakur (PW-4), Jeevnath Giri (PW-7), Nashiruddin Ansari (PW-10) and Dr.D.Sahana (PW-12), 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. 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: 4 “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.” 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 injured person is the wife of the applicant and the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 07 years, out of which he has already served the jail sentence from 28.05.2019 to 22.09.2022 about 3 year 3 months & 25 days, no criminal antecedent of the appellant is recorded in the arrest memo, he has studied upto 08th class and residing in a mud house (कच्चा(cid:4)), and also considering the 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 5 undergone by him. 12 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. 03 year 03 months & 25 days. However, the fine imposed upon the appellant by the Trial Court shall remain intact. 13 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 14 The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender in this case. However, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months. 15 Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. Sourabh P. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE