High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.09.26 09:54:17 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 21 of 2025 NAFR 1 - Aakash Chaudhary S/o Sanjeet Chaudhary Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Ajabnagar, P.S. Jainagar, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Jainagar, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) For Respondent(s) : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate Mr. Karan Kumar Bahrani, Panel Lawyer S.B. Hon’ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order On Board 24.09.2025. 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the impugned judgment dated 03-12-2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Surajpur, in Sessions Case No. 65/2019, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 325 of IPC and Sentence RI for one year with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount further R.I. for one month. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 01.04.2019, there were 2 altercation between the appellant and the complainant on the issued of playing cricket at Ajab Nagar High School ground and when the complainant pull the pant of the appellant, he assaulted him on his head by the cricket bat by which the complainant received injury on his head including fracture of head bone. The complainant was taken to Mission Hospital, Ambikapur, from where he was shifted to Jivan Jyoti Hospital, Ambikapur and subsequently to D.K. Superficiality Hospital, Raipur. The incident was reported to the Police by the brother of the complainant namely Vikas Sarkar (PW/6) on which report (Ex-P/3) and the FIR (Ex-P/7) was registered against the appellant for the offence under Section 294, 506, 323 of IPC. The MLC report of the complainant (Ex-P/6A) was obtaining and after receiving the medical treatment, documents of the complainant recording statement of the witnesses. The charge-sheet has been filed by the Police before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surajpur for the offence under Section 294, 506, 323, 325 and 307 of IPC. The case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Surajpur for its trial. 3. The learned Trial Court has framed charge against the appellant for the offence under Sections 294, 506-B, 307 of IPC. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove the charges against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. The statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C of the appellant was also recorded in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him, plead innocence and have submitted that when the complainant came from his back side and played a mockery with him, he suddenly turned to his back side by which the complainant received head injury by the cricket bat. 5. After considering and appreciating the oral as well as document evidenct let by the prosecution, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant and 3 sentenced him as mentioned in earlier para of this judgement. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that he is not challenging the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 325 of IPC, however, he is challenging the sentence part as for the alleged offence sufficient sentence has been awarded to the appellant. The offence of Section 325 of IPC does not provide any minimum sentence. The appellant is a young boy of 19 years of age and it is not an intentional assault but it is the incident occurred during the playing cricket. The appellant and the complainant were the friends. The appellant is remained in jail for about 02 months and 22 days and therefore, his undergone period may be considered to be the sufficient sentence and by reducing the sentence awarded to the appellant, the fine amount may be enhanced suitably. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the state opposes and has submitted that there is allegation against the appellant that he assaulted the complainant on his head by which the fracture of head bone of the complainant was found. The evidence clearly suggests that the appellant has assaulted the complainant for which he has been convicted for the offence under Section 325 of IPC and in view of the nature of incident and nature of injury found on the body of the complainant, the appellant is not entitled for any leniency and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court. Though, the appellant has not challenged the conviction yet this Court deem it appropriate to examine the legality and correctness of the judgment passed by learned trial Court holding the conviction of the appellant. From perusal of the impugned judgment it transpires that the learned trial Court after meticulously examined the evidence of Prakash Sarkar (PW/1/ complainant), 8. 9. 4 and the eye witnesses Akash Rai Choudhary (PW/2), Anuj Biswas (PW/4), Pritam Haldar (PW/5) and Vikas Sarkar (PW/6), came into conclusion that it is the appellant who caused injury on the body of the complainant by which he received head injury and his head bone was found fractured. The injury found on the body of the complainant was also proved by (PW/8) Dr. Chitranjan Das and (PW/9) Dr. Sanjeev Gupta, who duly proved the injury of the complainant and fracture of his head bone. Therefore, I do not fine any scope for interference in the conviction of the appellant as held by the learned trial Court and the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 325 of IPC is hereby affirmed. 10. So far as the sentence for the offence under Section 325 of IPC is concerned, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the offence of Section 325 does not provide any minimum sentence, the appellant was 19 years of age at the time of incident, both of them were friends and during playing cricket the incident was occurred and therefore, it was not an intentional assault, however, looking to the nature of evidence and overall circumstances in which the incident occurred, the sentence may be reduced by the period already under gone by the appellant is appears to be sufficient and this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would meet if the sentence of the appellant would be reduced for the period already undergone by him by enhancing the fine amount. 11. In the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. 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 Samuel 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 5 Micodotis, Director of Criminological Research Center, Athens, Greece, maintains that 'crime is the result of the lack of the right kind of education'. If 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 reculturisation. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology is the individual, and the 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." 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence available on record and also submissions made by the appellant, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 325 of IPC, his sentence is reduced for the period already undergone by him with fine of Rs. 15,000/-. The amount of fine shall be payable by the appellant within two months from today. Failing which the appellant shall under additional R.I. for one month. The amount of fine awarded by the learned trial Court, if paid, shall be adjusted to the fine amount awarded by this Court. 13. Out of total fine amount of Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 14,000/- shall be paid to the Prakash Sarkar (complainant /PW/1) as compensation as provided under Section 395 of BNSS, 2023. 14. With the aforesaid modification of sentence of the appellant, the appeal is partly allowed. 6 15. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bond shall continue for the further period of six months as provided under Section 481 of B.N.S.S. 16. The trial court records along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court, concerned for compliance and necessary action. sagrika Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge