Chattisgarh High Court
Budhsen vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 31 July, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH PATEL
PATEL Date:
2025.08.01
2025:CGHC:37596
10:13:28
NAFR
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 108 of 2024
1 - Budhsen S/o Late Bhajju, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village
Ujiyarpur, Police Station Podi District Korea Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer,
Police Station Podi, District Korea Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
31/07/2025
1 The present appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC, 1973 has
been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 25.08.2023 passed by learned First
Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District-Korea
(C.G.), in Session Trial No. 103/2021 whereby the appellant
has been convicted and sentenced as under :
Conviction Sentence
Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years
with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of
U/s 304 of IPC.
payment of fine amount, additional
rigorous imprisonment for 2 years.
2 The case of prosecution, in brief, is that, on 17.03.2021,
the complainant, Vijay Agaria, lodged a report at the police
station alleging that his sister, Kunti, who was married to
the appellant Budhsen and residing in Ujiyarpur, had been
assaulted by her husband. The complainant's niece, Niraso,
had informed him about the incident, prompting him to
rush to Ujiyarapur along with his nephew and brother-in-
law, Budhuram. Upon arrival, they found Kunti lying dead
in the courtyard. As per the statement of Kunti's daughter,
Asha, on the evening of the incident, Budhsen had accused
Kunti of visiting someone's house, which Kunti denied.
Budhsen allegedly kicked Kunti in the chest, and when she
fell, he throttled her to death. Based on the complaint and
investigation, the police registered a case against Budhsen,
conducted inquest and post-mortem,. The investigation
revealed that Budhsen had suspected Kunti of having an
illicit relationship, leading to the assault and throttling that
resulted in her death. The accused was subsequently
arrested and remanded to judicial custody and charge-
sheet has been filed against him.
3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has
examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 27
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
25.08.2023 found the appellant guilty for the offence
punishable under Section 304 of the 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 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 appellant
is in jail since 18.03.2021, the maximum sentence imposed
upon the appellant is 10 years, out of which the appellant
has already served the jail sentence of 04 years 4 months
13 days. There is no criminal antecedent against the
appellant. Hence, considering all theses 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 Having gone through the material available on record and
the statements of Asha (PW-1), Sundari Bai (PW-2), Dr.
Urvashi Nautiyal (PW-3), Nalin Tiwari (pw-11), Vijay Agariya
(PW12) and J.R. Kurre (PW-14), 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 304 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 the appellant is in jail since 18.03.2021, the
maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 10
years, out of which he has already served the jail sentence
of 04 years 4 months & 13 days, no weapon was used in
the assault and no criminal antecedent of the appellant is
recorded in the arrest memo, he works as an agricultural
labour and has a daughter dependent on him 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.
11 Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section
304 of the IPC is maintained but his jail sentence is
reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 04
years 4 months & 13 days. However, the fine imposed upon
the appellant by the Trial Court shall remain intact.
12 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent
indicated herein-above.
13 The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released
forthwith if not require to be detained in any other case.
14 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.
