Mahesh Kumar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 1122 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Mahesh Kumar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 August, 2025

                                  1


                           Digitally signed
                           by BHOLA NATH
                           KHATAI
                           Date: 2025.08.07
                           17:17:24 +0530




                                                     NAFR

      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                    CRA No. 1778 of 2024

Mahesh Kumar Sahu S/o. Jivan Lal Sahu Aged About 25 Years
R/o. Village - Ward No. 25, Shriram Colony, Mahasamund,
District - Mahasamund (C.G.)
                                                  --- Appellant
                            versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mahasamund,
District - Mahasamund (C.G.)
                                               --- Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. Virendra Kashyap, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L.

CRA No. 1750 of 2024

Sushil Soni S/o Raju Ghasiya Aged About 25 Years R/o Ward No. 25, Subhash Nagar, Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

---Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - City Kotwali, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

--- Respondent

For Appellants : Mr. K. K. Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board

06/08/2025

1 Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment dated 16.08.2024, they are being heard and disposed of by this common judgment.

2 Both the appeals under Section 415(2)/(3) of BNSS have been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.08.2024 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge Mahasamund, (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. H 32/2022 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under :

          Conviction                    Sentence
                          Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years
    U/s 325/34 of         with fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default
    IPC                   of payment of fine amount, additional
                          R.I. for 3 months.

3 The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20.02.2016, complainant Khelun Patel lodged a report stating that he had gone to Mahasamund for repairing motorcycle, but due to late night, he was unable to return his house, therefore, he was going to the house of one relative namely Narendra Nirmalkar working as constable in crime branch. At that time, he asked the address of Narendra Nirmalkar from the appellants, upon which, they abused him and also tried to snatch his mobile. Thereafter, the complainant reached the house of Narendra Nirmalkar and informed him about the incident. Upon which, Narendra Nirmalkar advised the appellants, but they abused and assaulted Narendra Nirmalkar with a club and fled away from the spot. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed against

the present appellants.

4 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 10 documents. The statements of the appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.

5 The trial Court, taking into consideration the evidence which has come on record, vide impugned judgment dated 16.08.2024, acquitted the appellants of the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506-B, 186/34 and 393 of IPC. However, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced by the impugned judgment as mentioned in paragraph-2 of this judgment, leading to the filing of these appeals.

6 Learned counsel for the appellants submit that they are not pressing the appeals so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine their argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to them, appellant Sushil Soni was in jail from 21.02.2016 to 05.03.2016 (18 days) and from 24.04.2022 to 29.04.2022 (5 days) during trial and at present he is in jail since 08.07.2025, meaning thereby appellant Sushil Soni has already served the jail sentence of about 1 month 16 days; appellant Mahesh was in jail from 21.02.2016 to 27.02.2016 (6 days), appellant Mahesh 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.

7 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the

arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellant. He submits that appellant Sushil Soni has 6 criminal antecedents.

8 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9 Dr. Dinesh Kumar Sinha (PW-7) examined the Injured Narendra Nirmalkar (PW-4) and gave his report Ex.P-9. As per Ex.P-9, following injuries were found:-

1. A cut wound 3x3 cm in L shape in the middle of the head.

2. A cut wound 1x1/2 cm in the left palm.

3. A cut wound 2x1/2 cm on the back side of the right hand.

4. An abrasion wound 2x1 cm in front of the left knee.

5. An abrasion wound 1x1 cm in front of the right waist bone.

Dr. Dinesh Kumar Sinha (PW-7) stated that all the above injuries were likely to have been caused by a hard and blunt object and advised to X-ray. As per the X-ray report, a fracture was found in the second metacarpal of the right palm.

10 Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of complainant Khelun Patel (PW-1), injured Narendra Kumar Nirmalkar (PW-4), Bhikham Patel (PW-2), Vinod Jagat (PW-3), Manish Shrivastava (PW-5), Santosh Kumar Sanwra (PW-6), Mohd. Suleman (PW-8), K. K. Baijpai (PW-9), Dr. Dinesh Kumar Sinha (PW-7) and the medical report of the injured, the involvement of the appellants in the crime in question is clearly established. This Court does not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court regarding conviction of the

appellants for the offence punishable under Section 325/34 of IPC.

11 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 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 In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that appellant Sushil Soni has already served the jail sentence of about 1 month and 16 days and appellant Mahesh has already served the jail sentence of about 6 days, as per arrest memo, the appellants work as labourers, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would serve if the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them.

13 Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants under Section 325/34 of IPC is maintained but their jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them i.e. 1 month 16 days by appellant Sushil and 6 days by appellant Mahesh. However, the fine of Rs.1000/- imposed upon the appellants by the Trial Court is enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- each i.e. a total of Rs.10,000/- which shall be payable to injured Narendra Kumar Nirmalkar. In default of payment of enhanced fine amount, the appellants shall be liable to undergo R.I. for 3 months. The fine amount already deposited by the appellants shall be adjusted.

14 Consequently, both the appeals are allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above.

15 Appellant Sushil is reported to be in jail. He be released forthwith if not required to be detained in default of fine and not required in any other case.

16 Appellant Mahesh is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds shall continue for a further period of six months from today in terms of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

17 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 appellant Sushil is suffering the jail sentence.

Sd/-

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai