Chattisgarh High Court
Chhagan Nishad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 March, 2026
Digitally
signed by
HEERA HEERA
SAHU
LAL
LAL Date:
SAHU 2026.03.28
12:30:50
+0530
1
2026:CGHC:14613
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 104 of 2025
1 - Chhagan Nishad S/o Shri Bajrang Nishad Aged About 23
Years R/o Bada Ashok Nagar, Durga Chowk, P.S.- Gudiyari,
Dist.- Raipur (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer
P.S.- Gudiyari, Dist- Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Ashutosh Biswas, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Aman Tamboli, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on board 27/03/2026
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 415(2) of BNSS against the order dated 09.04.2024 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 04/2023, arising out of Cr. No. 375/2022, PS. Gudiyari, District - Raipur (C.G.), whereby, the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the applicant as under:- 2
Conviction Sentence
U/s 307 of IPC R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in
default of payment of fine amount
additional R.I. for 3 months.
U/s 25(1)(b) of Arms R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in Act default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 3 months.
U/s 27(1) of Arms Act R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in
default of payment of fine amount
additional R.I. for 3 months.
(All the sentences were directed to run concurrently).
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Chandan Sahu (PW-1), who is the brother of the injured/victim Suraj Sahu (PW-
5) lodged a report in the police station stating that on 12.09.2022 at about 8:10 am, his younger sister Gayatri Sahu (PW-3) called him and informed him that her brother Suraj Sahu (victim) had been stabbed in the stomach near Jhagarhin Dabra Ganesh Pandal. After that, he went to his sister's house, where his brother Suraj was lying. He asked the victim/Suraj, about the incident where he told that he was travelling in the auto of his friend Amit Bhannat (PW-2), when they reached near Jhagarhin Dabra Ganesh Pandal, the victim was called upon by the accused/appellant and another co-accused, Jawahar @ Dadu, who were standing there. Thereafter accused forcefully pulled him out of the auto and took him to the Ganesh Pandal, where he was allegedly stabbed in the stomach over an old dispute. Based on this FIR was lodged. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the 3 applicant/accused persons.
3. So as to hold the accused/applicant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 33 documents. The statement of the accused/applicant 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. After hearing the parties, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.04.2024, learned Judge has acquitted the co-accused Jawahar @ Dadu. However, the present appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present 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 sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2022, and thereby more than 3 years have rolled by since then. The appellant has already served the jail sentence of 3 years, 6 months and 8 days as he is in jail since 13.09.2022, the appellant is aged about 27 years at present, he has already acquitted in one criminal case of 2020, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him and he may be released from jail.
6. Per contra, Learned Counsel appearing for the 4 State/Respondent opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant and supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. He submits that the appellant has two criminal antecedents.
7. Dr. Priya Dahake (PW-8), conducted the MLC of injured Suraj Sahu (PW-5) and gave her report vide Ex. P-18. As per the MLC report (Ex.P-18), the victim sustained a penetrating injury to the left side of his abdomen, measuring 3x4x2 cm. The injury extended into the peritoneum, with the omentum visibly protruding. She has stated that the injury was caused by a hard and sharp object and the injured was referred to the surgery department for treatment.
8. Dr. Shilendra Pushpkar (PW-12) has stated that Acting in accordance with the instructions of the Medical Officer, he recorded his opinion in the portion marked 'B to B' of the Ex.P- 28, stating that the injured was not in condition to provide a statement; at that very time, the injured was undergoing surgery and was intubated (placed on a ventilator). The query report regarding the knife seized in connection with the said crime was submitted by his junior colleague, Dr. Prachi Shirmor, in which it has been stated that if the injury sustained by the injured was not treated immediately, death would be the outcome. The said query report is Ex.P-29.
9. Having gone through the material on record and the evidence of the witnesses Chandan Sahu (PW-1), Suraj Sahu 5 (PW-5), Dr. Priya Dahake (PW-8), Ravikant Kosle (PW-10), G.P. Pathak (PW-11) and Dr. Shailendra Pushpkar (PW-12), establishes the involvement of the accused/appellant in the crime in question. Thus, considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, this Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant under Sections 307 of IPC and Sections 25(1)(b) & 27(1) of Arms Act.
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 jurisprudence 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 6 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 facts that the appellant has already served the jail sentence of total of 3 years, 6 months and 8 days and at present appellant is aged about 27 years, as per arrest memo he has studied upto 12 th class and is a labour, this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.
12. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offence is maintained, but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. a total of 3 years, 6 months and 8 days instead of R.I. for 5 years for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and the sentence for the offence under Sections 25(1)(b) and 27(1) of Arms Act are also maintained with default stipulation. However, the fine of Rs. 7
1000/- imposed upon the appellant by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 307 of IPC is hereby enhanced to Rs. 25,000/-. In default of payment of the fine amount imposed/enhanced by this Court today, the appellant shall be liable to undergo R.I. for 6 months. Fine amount, if any, already deposited by the appellant shall be adjusted.
13. The enhanced/imposed fine amount by this Court today shall be payable to the victim - Suraj Sahu, as compensation after due verification.
14. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above.
15. The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case and in default of payment of fine amount.
16. Let a certified copy of this order along with original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned and the Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is lodged and suffering jail sentence for information and necessary action, if any.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE H.L. Sahu