Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:39747 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1068 of 2017 • Prabhulal Kerketta, S/o Bisahu Lal, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Kasaibahra, Tahsil Belgahna, Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Applicant • State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Cause title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondent For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Kanhaiya Ram Yadav, counsel appears on behalf of Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 08/08/2025 1. The present revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.11.2017 passed by the learned Ninth Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.78/2016, arising out of the judgment dated 27.04.2016 passed by the JMFC, Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.291/2013, whereby the applicant has been convicted under Section 454 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, 1 month additional S.I. and; under Section 354 A of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, 1 month additional S.I. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 06.07.2013, the applicant (PW- 2 1) was alone in her house, at 12:00 pm noon, her neighbour accused Prabhulal Kerketta entered into her home with the intention of insulting her. Applicnat caught hold of her legs and dragged her inside the house and started lifting her sari-saya and started touching her chest, but when the applicant protested, he caught hold of her throat and started pressing it and showing a knife threatened her that, if she screamed, he would kill her. At the same time, the complainant’s daughter returned home, upon seeing whom the accused ran away. On the complaint of the complainant, FIR was registered at Belgahna Police Station. On the basis of which, Crime No.222/13 was registered at Police Station Kota under Section 454, 354 (A), 506 Part 2 of Indian Penal Code and a report was recorded. During investigation, spot map of the incident was prepared (Ex.P/2)). When the accused brought the vegetable cutting knife with plastic handle and presented it at Belgahna Police Station, was seized and a seizure report (Ex.P/3) was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, the offences under Section 454, 506 Part 2 and 354A of Indian Penal Code has been registered against the present applicant and charge sheet was presented before the trial court. 3. 4. So as to hold the applicant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses, exhibited 4 documents. The statement of the applicant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. The trial Court taking into consideration the evidences which have come on record vide impugned judgment dated 27.04.2016 found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 454 & 354A of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him under the said section, as mentioned in 3 paragraph-1 of this judgment. The said judgment of the learned Trial Court has also been upheld by the learned Session Court. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is not challenging the revision on the conviction part and he confines his prayer only to the extent of sentence imposed upon the applicant. It is further submitted that the maximum sentence imposed upon the applicant is 1 year and he has already served the jail sentence for 75 days. Hence, considering all theses facts, the sentence imposed upon the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. 7. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, opposes the submission made by the counsel for the applicant and submits that the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court is just and proper, therefore, it does not call for any interference of this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record carefully. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of prosecutrix (PW-1), Ku. Meera (PW-2), Gangaram, (PW-3), Dharamsingh (PW-4), Chotelal (PW-5) and ASI Ravishankar Pandey (PW-6), particularly considering the statement of the prosecutrix where she remained firm on this point that the applicant has tried to outrage her modesty, the involvement of the applicant in the crime in question is clearly established, as such this Court does not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards conviction of the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 454 & 354A of IPC. 9. As regards sentence, keeping in view the fact that the maximum sentence imposed upon the applicant is 1 year, out of which the applicant has served 4 the jail sentence for 75 days, the applicant is senior citizen/old person, aged about 65 years and further considering the fact that applicant has no past record, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the applicant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 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 not improved by 5 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 applicant remained in jail for 75 days. Accordingly, the conviction of the applicant under Sections 454 & 354A of IPC is maintained, but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him and the fine imposed upon the applicant by the Trial Court has already been paid. 12. 13. 14. Consequently, the revision is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein- above. The applicant is reported to be on bail. The bail bond shall continue for a further period of 6 months as per requirement of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge DEEPTI JHA NIRALA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA NIRALA