Chhotu Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 3386 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Chhotu Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 August, 2025

                                       1

                                  Digitally signed
                                  by SHUBHAM
                      SHUBHAM     SINGH
                      SINGH       RAGHUVANSHI
                      RAGHUVANSHI Date:
                                  2025.08.26
                                  13:08:57 +0530




                                                     2025:CGHC:43048
                                                                  NAFR

      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                     CRR No. 99 of 2017

Chhotu Yadav S/o Manharan Yadav, Aged About 20 Years R/o
Bangalipara, Gali No. 3 Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Police Station
Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
                                                            ... Applicant
                                 versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police
Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
                                                          ... Respondent

For Applicant : Mr. Rudra Pratap Dubey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Judgment on Board

25/08/2025

1 The present revision petition under Section 397 R/w Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.01.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sessions Division Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.57/2016, arising out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.03.2016 passed by leaned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.

1824/2015. whereby the applicant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

Conviction Sentence R.I. for 1 year and to pay fine of U/s 457 of IPC Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine amount, S.I. for 3 months R.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of U/s 380 of IPC Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine amount, S.I. for 3 months

2 The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Sundari Bai Manikpuri, lodged a First Information Report on 20/01/2015 at Police Station Sarkanda stating that she resides at Bengali Para, Shastri Nagar. On the intervening night of 19th-20th December 2014, after having dinner, she went to sleep. In another room of the house, inside an almirah, a cash amount of ₹3,00,000, one gold chain, one pair of gold earrings, one gold mangalsutra containing six gold beads were kept. It was alleged that by forcibly breaking the latch of the door of the room, the said gold ornaments and cash kept in the almirah were stolen. On the said information, FIR was registered against an unknown person. During investigation, a site map of the place of occurrence was prepared, the stolen property was seized, and the statements of witnesses were recorded. During investigation, the accused/appellant Chhotu Yadav, in his memorandum statement, admitted his involvement in the said theft incidents along with other co-accused persons. Accordingly, the accused Chhotu Yadav was taken into custody and his memorandum statement was recorded. On the basis of the said statement, the stolen property was seized and the accused was arrested. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed.

3 So as to hold the applicant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 10 documents. The statements of the 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 The trial Court, taking into consideration the evidence which has come on record convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in paragraph-1 of this judgment, which has been affirmed by the learned appellate Court leading to the filing of this criminal revision.

5 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is not pressing the revision petition so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2014 since then the applicant is facing lis, the applicant has already been served the jail sentence of about 422 days. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Hence, considering all these facts, the sentence imposed upon the applicant 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 the applicant.

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

8 Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of Sundari Bai (PW-1), Santoshi Manikpuri (PW-2), Head Constable Virendra Singh (PW-3), Shailendra Manikpuri (PW-4), Deepak Manikpuri (PW-5) and Pawan Kumar Kashyap (PW-10), established the involvement of the

applicant in the crime in question. This Court does not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well as appellate Court as regards conviction of the applicant for the aforementioned offence. 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 the incident is said to have taken place about 11 years ago in the year 2014 since than the applicant is facing lis, the applicant has already served the jail sentence of about 422 days, as per arrest memo, the applicant appellants has no criminal antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would serve if the applicant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

11 Accordingly, the conviction of the applicant for offence under Sections 457 & 380 of IPC is maintained, but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 422 days. However, the fine amount imposed upon the applicant by the Trial Court shall remain intact.

12 Consequently, the criminal revision is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above.

13 The applicants are reported to be on bail. He need not to surrender in this case. However, his bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.

14 Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any.

Sd/-

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE

Shubham