Rajendra Sinha @ Sonu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 1123 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Rajendra Sinha @ Sonu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 August, 2025

                                                     1




                                                                    2025:CGHC:39209
                                                                                 NAFR

                            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                           CRA No. 1329 of 2025


                     1 - Rajendra Sinha @ Sonu S/o Panchu Ram Sinha, Aged About
        Digitally
        signed by
        SOURABH
SOURABH PATEL
PATEL   Date:


                     20 Years, R/o Panch Rasta, Near Patel Hotel, Police Station
        2025.08.07
        10:28:20
        +0530




                     Supela, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                            ... Appellant
                                                   versus

                     1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO P.S. Supela, District
                     Durg, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                         ... Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. K. K. Baharani, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board

06/08/2025

1 The present appeal under Section 415(2) BNSS, 2023 has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.2025 passed by learned 01 st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.), in Session Case No. 180/2024 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :

                              Conviction                     Sentence


                       Rigorous imprisonment for 02 years
  U/s 324/34 of        with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of
                       payment of fine amount, additional
  IPC                  Rigorous    imprisonment   for   03
                       months.

2 The case of prosecution, in short, is that, on 03.06.2024, at about 11:15 am, the complainant, Aman Sahani, lodged a report at Supela police station alleging that while he was walking with his friend Lucky near Hanuman temple in his locality, Rajendra, a resident of the same locality, along with another person, approached him and questioned him for not answering his phone call on Saturday night. When Aman explained that he couldn't answer due to the late hour, the person accompanying Rajendra got enraged and stabbed Aman with a knife while Rajendra held him. Aman sustained injuries on his left hip when he tried to move away. The incident was witnessed by Rohan, Lucky, and others. On the basis of said report, the police registered a case under Sections 307/34 of the IPC against the appellant and other co-accused.

3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 07 witnesses and exhibited 25 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 30.06.2025 found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324/34 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 insofar as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part only. According to him, during the trial, the appellant remained in jail from 04.06.2024 to 04.07.2024, for about one month, and also since 30.06.2025, from the date of passing of the judgment, for about one month and six days. The maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is two years, out of which the appellant has already served a jail sentence of two months and six days. In the present case, the main accused is a juvenile, and the present appellant only held the injured. There is no criminal antecedent against the appellant. Hence, considering all these facts, the sentence imposed upon the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him

6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellant.

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

8 Dr. A.K. Nagdeve (RW-5) opined in his statement that during treatment, it was observed that the injured, Aman Sahani, had a cut injury on the right hip measuring 1 cm in length, 0.5 cm in width, and 0.5 cm in depth. The injury was caused by a hard and sharp object, and its nature was simple, expected to heal within 0-7 days without complications.

9 Having gone through the material available on record and

the statements of Injured Aman Sahani (PW-1), Rohan Yadav (PW-2), Lokesh (PW-3), Dr. A.K. Nagdeve (PW-5) and Promod Kumar Sinha (PW-7), the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question is clearly established. 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 324/34 of IPC.

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 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."

11 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 appellant remained in jail from 04.06.2024 to 04.07.2024, for about 01 month, and also since 30.06.2025, from the date of passing of the judgment, for about 01 month 06 days. The maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 02 years, out of which the appellant has already served a jail sentence of 02 months and 06 days. In the present case, the main accused is a juvenile, and the present appellant only held the injured, no criminal antecedent of the appellant is recorded 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.

12 Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 324/34 of IPC is maintained but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 02 months & 06 days. However, the fine amount of Rs.500/- imposed upon the appellant by the Trial Court is hereby enhanced to Rs. 2,000/-, and in default thereof, the appellant shall be liable to undergo R.I. for 01 month. The fine, if any, deposited by the appellant shall be adjusted in

the fine imposed/enhanced by this Court.

13 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above.

14 The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.

15 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 Sourabh P.