Chattisgarh High Court
Mahesh Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:12994
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 45 of 2017
1 - Mahesh Patel S/o Mayaram Patel Aged About 40 Years R/o
Village- Mahima Gavadi, Imlipara, Police Station Jharagati,
District- Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate-
Narayanpur, Police Station- Jharagati, District - Narayanpur,
Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Kumar, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Karan Baharani, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on board 18/03/2026
1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 06.12.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kondagaon, District - Kondagaon (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 16/2016, affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15.07.2016 passed by the learned CJM, Narayanpur, (C.G.), in HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.03.18 16:35:38 +0530 2 Criminal Case No. 08/2016, whereby, the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the applicant as under:-
Conviction Sentence
U/s 324 of IPC R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 300/-, in
default of payment of fine amount
additional S.I. for 1 month.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on the date of the incident i.e. 02.12.2015, at about 1:30 pm, the complainant Khagendra Patel along with his elder father, was sitting in front of his house. At that time, the present applicant came there holding an axe, without saying anything, and assaulted the complainant on the head. Due to which the complainant sustained injuries on his body. Based on this, offence has been registered. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicant/accused.
3. So as to hold the accused/applicant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses and exhibited 6 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 15.07.2016, learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused/applicant as mentioned in para-1 of 3 this judgment. Aggrieved by the said judgment the applicant preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge and vide judgment dated 06.12.2016 the appeal of the applicant has been rejected. Hence, the present revision.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is not pressing the revision 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 2015, and thereby more than 10 years have rolled by since then. The applicant has already served the jail sentence for 38 days (from 06.12.2016 to 13.01.2017) and the fine amount has already been deposited, the applicant is aged about 50 years at present, he has no criminal antecedent, 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.
6. Per contra, Learned Counsel appearing for the State/Respondent opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant and supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.
7. Having gone through the material on record and the evidence of the witnesses Khagendra (PW-1), Brajlal (PW-2) and Dr. P.K. Dhote (PW-4), establishes the involvement of the accused/applicant in the crime in question. Thus, considering 4 the oral and documentary evidence available on record, this Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as appellate Court as regards conviction of the applicant under Section 324 of IPC.
8. 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 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 5 '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."
9. 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 applicant has already served the jail sentence of total 38 days and at present appellant is aged about 50 years, he has no criminal antecedent, as per arrest memo he is illiterate and is a farmer, 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.
10. Accordingly, the conviction of the applicant for the aforesaid offence is maintained, but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. a total of 38 days instead of R.I. for 1 year. However, the fine of Rs. 300/- imposed upon the applicant by the Trial Court is hereby enhanced to Rs. 3,000/-. In default of payment of the fine amount imposed/enhanced by this Court today, the applicant shall be liable to undergo S.I. for 2 months. Fine amount, if any, already deposited by the applicant shall be adjusted.
11. The enhanced/imposed fine amount by this Court today 6 shall be payable to the victim - Khagendra Patel, as compensation after due verification.
12. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above.
13. The applicant is on bail. He need not to surrender in this case.
14. Let a certified copy of this order along with original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned for information and necessary action, if any.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE H.L. Sahu