Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:34386 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2210 of 2024 1 - Sunderlal Kol S/o Sukhlal Kol Aged About 34 Years R/o Lodi Bahra P.S. Bango District – Korba, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Appellant 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Bango District - Korba (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. S.R. Jaiswal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Karan Baharani, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 21/07/2025 Heard. Admit. 1 The present appeal under Section 415(2) of B.N.S.S. has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.11.2024 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District - Korba (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No.101/2021 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :- Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.07.22 14:07:48 +0530 2 Conviction Sentence U/s 304 Part-II of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 2 months. 2 The case of prosecution, in short, is that complainant Shiv Kuamr (PW-3) lodged a report stating therein that the marriage of his sister Nand Kumari Kol was solemnized with appellant Sunderlal before 13-14 years and on 16.07.2021, appellant Sunderlal assaulted his wife Nand Kumari (now deceased) by hands and fists and ran away from the spot due to which his (complainant's) sister, wife of the appellant sustained grievous injuries and she was admitted in the hospital where she died on 18.07.2021 during treatment. After due investigation charge sheet was filed against the present appellant. 3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 14 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 25.11.2024 found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II 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. 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 3 sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place on 16.07.2021, the appellant is in jail since 18.07.2021 till date, the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 10 years, out of which the appellant has already served the jail sentence of about 4 years, the appellant has a son who was 11 years old at the time of the incident, and the appellant has no criminal antecedents. Hence, considering all these facts, the sentence imposed upon the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellants. 7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8 Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of Smt. Rambai (PW-1), Jai Kumar (PW-2), Shiv Kumar (PW-3), Smt. Nandrani (PW-4), Aadit Kumar (PW-5), Ramesh Pandey (PW-6), Dr. Rakesh Kumar Singh (PW-7), Umesh Kumar (PW-8) and Rajesh Kumar Patel (PW- 9), the involvement of the appellants in the crime in question is clearly established. Thus, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, 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 304 Part II 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 must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, 4 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 incident is said to have taken place in the year 2021, the appellant is in jail since 18.07.2021, the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 10 5 years, out of which he has already served the jail sentence of about 4 years, the deceased was the wife of the appellant, and it is alleged that the appellant committed assault with hands and fists no weapon was used in the said offence, there is an eyewitness, who is the son of the deceased and appellant, aged about 11 years at that time, appellant has responsibility of his son, as per arrest memo the appellant has no criminal antecedents and he has studied upto 5th class, there is no comments against appellant in the arrest memo, 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 undergone by him. 11 Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part II of IPC is maintained, but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. about 4 years. However, the fine imposed upon the appellant by the Trial Court shall remain intact. 12 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 13 The appellant is reported to be in jail. If there is no need to detain the appellant in the default of fine amount, 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 H.L. Sahu