Chattisgarh High Court

Rishi Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 September, 2025

Digitally signed by
V PADMAVATHI
Date: 2025.09.23
10:50:57 +0530




                                                                                               2025:CGHC:47615

                                                                                                                    NAFR
                                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                                            CRA No. 1067 of 2024

                  Rishi Sahu S/o Goverdhan Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Near Shiv Mandir
                  Danganiya Sahu Para, P.S. Deendayal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
                                                                                    ... Appellant(s)

                                                                      versus

                  State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Deendayal
                  Nagar, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.)                             ... Respondent
                                               (Cause title is taken from the CIS)
                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  For Appellant                                          : Shri Balraj Gupta, Advocate
                  For Respondent/State                                   : Shri Vivek Sharma, PL

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Judgment on Board 16.09.2025

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction, and order of

sentence dated 06.05.2024 passed by the learned Session Judge, Raipur

(CG), in Session Trial-38 of 2022, whereby the appellant has been convicted

for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced RI for 4

years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI for

six months.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 16.08.2019, at about 11 pm,

complainant Vivek Sahu was celebrating birthday party with his friend Akash

Dhruv near Danganiya talab along with his another friend Ayush Sahu. At that

time, present appellant also came there, and asked for providing some food.

When the complainant refused to give him food, he started abusing, and Cra 1067 of 2024

threatening him, and meanwhile, he took out a knife, and assaulted the

complainant on his chest, by which, the complainant received injuries and with

the intervention of Yugal Sahu, Ayush Sahu, and Akash Sahu, complainant

could be saved. Complainant informed his elder brother Dhanendra Kumar

Sahu PW3, and then they took him to Mekahara Hospital, Raipur. PW3 lodged

report to the Police, appellant was arrested, and his memorandum statement

Ex.P2 was recorded. Based on the memorandum statement, knife has been

seized from him vide seizure memo Ex.P3, FIR Ex.P6 was registered, and after

investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Raipur, for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 324,

506B, 326, and 307 of the IPC. Case was committed to the Court of learned

Sessions Judge, Raipur for its trial.

3. Learned trial court has framed charge against the appellant for the

offence under Sections 294, 506B and 307 of the IPC. Appellant denied the

charge appearing against him and claimed trial.

4. In order to bring home the charge against the appellant, prosecution

has examined as many as 09 witnesses. Statement under Section 313 of the

CrPC of the appellant has also been recorded in which he denied the material

appearing against him, pleaded innocence, and submitted that he has been

falsely implicated in the offence.

5. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the

prosecution, learned trial court has convicted the appellant for commission of

offence under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in

earlier part of this judgment. Hence, this appeal by the appellant.

Cra 1067 of 2024

6. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, would submit that

appellant is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment, for the offence

under Section 307 of the IPC. He would also submit that appellant is not a

hardcore criminal. In the alleged incident, when the appellant asked for food

from the complainant, and when the complainant denied to give him food, at

that state of mind, he assaulted him by knife, which is not intentional. Learned

trial Court has awarded the sentence of four years, out of which appellant has

already served about half of the sentence. The offence of Section 307 does

not provide any minimum sentence. Appellant is a young boy, and looking to

the entire circumstances of the case, period of sentence may be reduced for

the period already undergone by him.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the

submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, and would submit that

although the appellant is not challenging the conviction for the offence 307 of

the IPC, however, looking to gravity of the offence, and nature of injury found

on the body of the complainant, learned trial Court has already shown leniency

in favour of the appellant, and he is not entitled for any further leniency. Merely

on the issue of asking food, and denial of giving food, he made assault upon

the complainant by knife, that too, on his chest. Therefore, looking to the

nature of offence, and injuries, he is not entitled for any relief, and his appeal is

liable to be dismissed.

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

9. Although the appellant is not challenging the conviction for the offence

under Section 307 of the IPC, however, it would be relevant to consider the Cra 1067 of 2024

evidence of complainant PW1Vivek Sahu, and the doctor, who treated him ie

PW7 Dr Dev Kumar Tandon, and PW9 Dr Manoj Poptani.

10. PW-1 Vivek Sahu is the injured, and he stated in his evidence that on

the date of incident, at about 11.30 pm, he was celebrating birthday of near

shiv mandir at talab, and when they were cutting the cake, appellant was also

came there asking for food, and when they denied to give him food, he started

altercation, and took out a knife from his pocket, and assaulted him on his

chest. He lost his consciousness, and then, after some time, regained his

conscious only in the hospital.

In the cross-examination, defense could not extract any material, so that

his evidence could be disbelieved, that it is not the appellant, and some other

person, who caused him the injuries.

11. PW-7, Dr Dev Kumar Tandon has stated in his evidence that on

17.08.2019 at about 1.15 am, the injured Vivek Sahu was brought before him

with stab injury on the chest, of 7 cm x 0.75 cm x 0.75 cm at intra costal space

with bleeding. He was referred for surgery, and further treatment, to Dr BR

Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur. He proved the MLC report Ex.P14, and the

discharge summary, Ex.P17C. He also proved the query report Ex.P16, in

which he opined that if the injured has not been treated in time, death might be

possible.

12. PW9 Dr Manoj Poptani, Assistant Professor at the Department of

surgery at Pt.JNM Medical College, Raipur, who proved the indoor patient

sheet Ex.P17c, by which he did surgery of the complainant, and found

penetrating injury over left side of the chest with left side pneumothorax with Cra 1067 of 2024

subcutaneous emphysema. Nothing could be extracted from this witness also,

so that it can be said that the injuries are not of the severe nature, or they are

simple in nature. Thus, the evidence clearly suggests that the appellant has

caused injury to the complainant by knife, and thereby, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the appellant has been rightly been convicted for the

offence under Section 307 of the IPC, and his conviction is therefore, affirmed.

13. So far as sentence part is concerned, the submissions made by

learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is not hardcore criminal,

and it is only when the complainant denied to give him food, the incident

occurred , which is circumstantial, and not intentional. The offence under

Section 307 of the IPC does not provide any memo of sentence. Appellant has

already remained in jail for about 1 year, 11 months, and 16 days i.e nearly

two years. Appellant is a young boy, aged about 30 years, therefore,

considering the nature of allegation, as well as his detention period, appellant

may be sentenced for the period already undergone by him, is found

appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

14. So far as the sentence part is concerned, Hon'ble Supreme court in

the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 3

SCC 287, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:

"9. Western jurisdiction 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 Micodotis, 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-

Cra 1067 of 2024

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."

15. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the

appellant, also considering totality of facts and circumstances of the present

case, and further considering the law laid down in Giasuddin (supra) case,

this Court deem it fit to reduce the sentence awarded to the appellant for the

offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. Therefore, while maintaining

the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of

the IPC, his sentence is reduced RI for three years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in

default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo RI for one month.

16. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.

17. Appellant is reported to be in jail since 06.05.2024. He shall undergo

the entire sentence as modified/altered by this Court. He is entitled for set off

his undergone period during the trial, as well as during pendency of this