Jagdish Dhruw vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 1591 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Jagdish Dhruw vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 August, 2025

                                    1


                               Digitally signed
                               by BHOLA NATH
                               KHATAI
                               Date: 2025.08.08
                               10:35:39 +0530




                                                                     NAFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                     CRA No. 564 of 2024

1 - Jagdish Dhruw S/o Ranjulal Dhruw Aged About 26 Years
R/o Village Chorha (Singhanpuri), Chowki- Junapara Police
Station   -   Takhatpur,     District-            Bilaspur,     Chhattisgarh.


2 - Deep Dhruw S/o Ranjulal Dhruw Aged About 19 Years R/o
Village Chorha (Singhanpuri), Chowki - Junapara Police Station
- Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                           ... Appellants
                              versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Takhatpur,
District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                              ... Respondent

For Appellants : Mr. Palash Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board

07/08/2025

1 This appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.01.2024 passed by learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.), in Sessions

Trial No.87/2020 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under :

     Conviction                      Sentence
                        Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years
  U/s 304               with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of
  Part-II/34 of IPC     payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6
                        months.
                        Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years
  U/s 201/34 of         with fine of Rs.300/-, in default of
  IPC                   payment of fine, additional R.I. for 3
                        months.

2 The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 01.12.2019 at about 11:00 p.m., in village Chorha (Singhanpuri) Chowki Junapara, Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, the appellants, in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted their brother Chhotelal Dhruw with wooden Pidha and bamboo stick, as a result of which he suffered grievous injuries and died during treatment in CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur on 11.12.2019. It is alleged that in order to screen themselves from the offence, they destroyed the blood stains at the scene of incident by applying cow dung and burnt the blood-stained clothes of the deceased during the cremation, thereby, the offence has been committed. The matter was reported to the Police by ward boy of CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur based on which Merg was recorded. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the present appellants.

3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited 34 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.

4 After appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, vide impugned judgment, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

5 Learned counsel for the appellants 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. He submits that the deceased and the appellants are real brothers. On the date of incident at about 11 p.m., on hearing the scream of their mother Birij Bai (PW-1) the appellants came out and saw that the deceased Chotella Dhruw was beating their mother with a stick and was also abusing her with filthy language. The appellants tried to escape their mother from the clutches of the deceased, in the meanwhile, they also assaulted the deceased with stick, due to which he suffered grievous injuries and died during treatment in the hospital. He further submits that appellant No.1 Jagdish Dhruw has already served the jail sentence of about 4 years, 5 months & 6 days and appellant No.2 Deep Dhruw has already served the jail sentence of 4 years, 11 months & 22 days. Hence, considering all these facts, the sentence imposed upon the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellant. However, he submits that there is no criminal antecedents against the appellants.

7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

8 Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of witnesses Babulal Dhruv (PW-6), Ramniranjan (PW-14), Suklal (PW-15), Dr. Dinesh Kumar Sahu (PW-17), Dr. N. Varun (PW-18) and medical & postmortem report of the victim, 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 Sections 304 Part-II/34 & 201/34 of IPC.

9 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."

10 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 No.1 Jagdish Dhruw has already served the jail sentence of about 4 years, 5 months & 6 days and appellant No.2 Deep Dhruw has already served the jail sentence of about 4 years, 11 months & 22 days, there is no criminal antecedent against the appellants and also considering the fact that the appellants and the deceased are real brothers and when the appellants saw the deceased abusing and beating their mother with a stick, they assaulted the deceased with bamboo stick and Pidha leading to his death during treatment in the hospital, 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.

11 Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants under Sections 304 Part-II/34 & 201/34 of IPC is maintained but their jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them i.e. 4 years, 5 months & 6 days by appellant appellant No.1 Jagdish and 4 years, 11 months &

22 days by appellant No.2 Deep Dhruv. However, the fine and its default stipulation imposed upon the appellants by the trial Court under the said sections shall remain intact.

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

13 Appellant No.1 Jagdish Dhruw 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.

14 Appellant No.2 Deep Dhruw 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.

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 Appellant No.2 Deep Dhruw is suffering the jail sentence.

Sd/-

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai