Dalichand Satnami vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 747 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Dalichand Satnami vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 July, 2025

                                       1


                         Digitally signed
                         by BHOLA
                         NATH KHATAI
                         Date:
                         2025.07.28
                         18:23:54 +0530




                                               2025:CGHC:36269


                                                            NAFR

         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                     CRA No. 162 of 2021

1 - Dalichand Satnami S/o Shri Baula Satnami Aged About 44
Years R/o Village- Baghamuda, Police Station- Pipariya, District-
Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh)

2 - Bhuvan Satnami S/o Shri Baula Satnami Aged About 48
Years R/o Village- Baghamuda, Police Station- Pipariya, District-
Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh)

3 - Ramendra Satnami S/o Shri Dalichand Satnami Aged About
22 Years R/o Village- Baghamuda, Police Station- Pipariya,
District- Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh)

4 - Kishan Banjare S/o Shri Bhuvan Banjare Aged About 22
Years R/o Village- Baghamuda, Police Station- Pipariya, District-
Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh)

5 - Harichand Satnami S/o Shri Bhuvan Satnami Aged About 28
Years R/o Village- Baghamuda, Police Station- Pipariya, District-
Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh)

6 - Dharmendra Banjare S/o Shri Dalichand Banjare Aged
About 22 Years R/o Village- Baghamuda, Police Station-
Pipariya, District- Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh)

7 - Ravi Khadale S/o Shri Goutam Khandale Aged About 19
Years R/o Village- Baghamuda, Police Station- Pipariya, District-
Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh)
                                   2

8 - Santu Lahre S/o Shri Tingu Lahre Aged About 60 Years R/o
Village-   Baghamuda,    Police       Station-   Pipariya,   District-
Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh)

9 - Meghau Patre S/o Shri Bhaktu Patre Aged About 42 Years
R/o Village- Baghamuda, Police Station- Pipariya, District-
Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh)

10 - Kunwar Satnami S/o Late Shri Baula Satnami Aged About
55 Years R/o Village- Baghamuda, Police Station- Pipariya,
District- Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh)

11 - Mahavir Khandale S/o Shri Ramavtar Khandale Aged About
31 Years R/o Village- Baghamuda, Police Station- Pipariya,
District- Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh)

12 - Hemant Khandale S/o Shri Goutam Khandale Aged About
19 Years R/o Village- Baghamuda, Police Station- Pipariya,
District- Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh)

13 - Sukhdev Lahrey S/o Santu Lahrey Aged About 19 Years
R/o Village - Chandalpur, Police Station - Bodla, District -
Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

14 - Pawan Lahrey S/o Kanhaiya Lahrey Aged About 25 Years
R/o Village- Newari, District- Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh)

15 - Laldas Manikpuri S/o Ishwar Das Aged About 65 Years R/o
Village- Baghamuda, Police Station - Pipariya, District -
Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh)
                                                  ... Petitioner(s)
                             versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police
Station- Pipariya, District - Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh)
                                                  ... Respondent(s)

For Appellants : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Judgment on Board

25/07/2025

1. This appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been preferred challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.01.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.14/2018 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under :

       Conviction                          Sentence
                          Rigorous imprisonment for 6 months
     U/s 148/149          with fine of Rs.200/-, in default of
     of IPC               payment of fine, additional RI for 1
                          month.
                      Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years
     U/s 324 /149     with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of

of IPC (2 times) payment of fine, additional RI for 2 months.

Rigorous imprisonment for 3 months U/s 323/149 with fine of Rs.100/-, in default of of IPC payment of fine, additional RI for 15 days.

2. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that on 26.12.2017 at about 5:00 p.m., when complainant/injured Omprakash Sahu was going to his field, the appellants herein abused him with obscene language and assaulted him with crowbar (Tabal), axe and sticks due to which he suffered grievous injuries on his head, right ear & left arm. When Kheduram and Dhanau came to intervene, the appellants assaulted them also causing injuries. Subsequently, on the

report of the complainant, FIR was registered and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellants.

3. So as to hold the appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 47 documents in support of its case. 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 appellants submits that he is not pressing this appeal 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 maximum sentence imposed upon the appellants is 2 years, out of which appellants No. 1 to 8 & 12 to 14 have already served the jail sentence of about 88 days, appellant No.9 for about 87 days, appellants No. 10 & 11 for about 75 days and appellant No.15 for about 6 days. He prays that the sentence imposed upon the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by him and they may be released from jail.

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. Swadesh Jaiswal (PW-11), who conducted the medical examination of the injured, Omprakash (PW-1) and Kheduram (PW-2), deposed the injuries sustained by Omprakash: i) A lacerated wound on the head, measuring 5 cm x 1cm x 0.5 cm. ii) An incised wound on the lower part of the right arm, measuring 6 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm. iii) A lacerated wound on the upper lip, measuring 2 cm x 1 cm.

iv) Bleeding was observed from the injuries. The injury appears to have been caused by a hard and sharp object. The medical examination report of the injured is Ex-P/46. Injuries sustained by Kheduram: i) A lacerated wound measuring 9cm x 2cm x1.5 cm was observed on the back of his head, with bleeding evident. ii.) A sharp-edged wound, about 6cm long and 0.5 cm deep, was found on his left arm. iii.) A 1 cm lacerated wound was observed on the middle finger of his right hand. iv) Another lacerated wound, measuring 2 cm x 1 cm, was found on the index finger of his right hand. The injury appears to have been caused by a hard and sharp object. The medical examination report of the injured is Ex-P/45. The injuries sustained by both the injured were simple in nature.

9. Dr. Keshav Dhruv (PW-14), who conducted the medical examination of injured Dhanau (PW-3), deposed the injuries sustained by Dhanau that there was swelling and tenderness on the left forearm on the injured with pain which appeared to have been caused by some hard and blunt object. His medical report is Ex.P-47.

10. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of the three injured Omprakash Sahu (PW-

1), Kheduram (PW-2) & Dhanau (PW-3), Dr. Swadesh Jaiswal (PW-11), Dr. Keshav Dhruv (PW-14) and their MLC reports, the involvement of the appellants in the crime in question is established. This Court does not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 148/149, 324/149 (2 times) & 323/149 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 the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellants is 2 years, out of which appellants No. 1 to 8 & 12 to 14 have already served the jail sentence of about 88 days, appellant No.9 for about 87 days, appellants No. 10 & 11 for about 75 days and appellant No.15 for about 6 days, there is no previous criminal records of the appellants and also considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, 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 Sections 148/149, 324/149 (2 times) & 323/149 of IPC is maintained but their jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the fine imposed upon the appellants by the Trial Court under Sections 148/149, 324/149 (2 times) & 323/149 of IPC is enhanced from Rs.200, 500 & 100 to Rs.1,000 i.e. each appellant shall pay fine of Rs.3,000, amounting total Rs.45,000. If all the 15 appellants deposit the said fine amount of Rs.45,000/-, out of it Rs.20,000 will be given to injured Omprakash, Rs.20,000 to injured Kheduram and Rs.5,000 to injured Dhanau. In default of payment of fine, the

appellants shall undergo RI for 2 months. The fine amount already deposited by the appellants shall be adjusted.

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

15. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall continue for a further period of six months from today in terms of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

16. 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 Khatai