[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Ghasiram Suryavanshi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 April, 2026

                                                   1




                                                               2026:CGHC:15460


                                                                            NAFR
                          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                                          CRA No. 73 of 2024
                   1 - Ghasiram Suryavanshi S/o Shri Amarnath Suryavanshi Aged
                   About 65 Years R/o Village Bahtarai, Police Station Sakri,
                   District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
                   2 - Sanjay Suryavanshi S/o Ghasiram Aged About 32 Years R/o
                   Village Bahtarai, Police Station Sakri, District : Bilaspur,
                   Chhattisgarh
                   3 - Nanku @ Pardeshi Ram Suryavanshi S/o Amarnath Aged
                   About 59 Years R/o Village Bahtarai, Police Station Sakri,
                   District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
                   4 - Naresh Kumar S/o Nankuram Suryavanshi Aged About 36
                   Years R/o Village Bahtarai, Police Station Sakri, District :
                   Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
                                                                     ... Appellants
                                                 versus
                   1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police
                   Chowki Sakri, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
                                                                     ... Respondent

For Appellants : Mr. Hrishabh Deo Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on board 06/04/2026

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of

Cr.P.C. against the order/judgment dated 19.12.2023 passed by Digitally signed by HEERA HEERA LAL SAHU LAL Date:

SAHU 2026.04.07 14:12:19 +0530

learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in

Sessions Trial No. 282/2021, whereby, the learned Judge has

convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:-

        Conviction                           Sentence
U/s 323 (3 times)       of S.I. for 3 months to each and a fine of Rs.
IPC                          500/- for each injured total Rs. 1500/-
                             each, in default of payment of the fine

amount, additional S.I. for 15 days each. (All the sentence were directed to run concurrently).

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.03.2021, at about 7:00

pm, complainant Narayan Rao (PW-1) came to know that the

present appellants were assaulting his brother due to old enmity.

After knowing this fact, the complainant reached the spot to

rescue his brother, and in the meantime, the appellants also

assaulted him. As a result, the complainant, Narayan Rao (PW-

1), Bhola Maratha (PW-4), and Savitri Bai (PW-2) have sustained

injuries, and the matter was reported to the police. Based on this

FIR was lodged. After completion of the investigation, charge

sheet was filed against the appellants.

3. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the

prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited

11 documents. The statements of the accused/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 hearing the parties, vide judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 19.12.2023, learned Judge has acquitted

the appellants for the offence under Sections 294 and 506 Part-II

of IPC. However, the present appellants have been convicted and

sentenced 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. According to him, the incident is said to have

taken place in the year 2021, and thereby more than 5 years

have rolled by since then. The appellants have already paid the

fine amount, they have no criminal antecedents; therefore, in the

interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence

imposed upon them could be set aside by enhancing the fine

amount, and the matter may be disposed of.

6. Per contra, Learned Counsel appearing for the

State/Respondent opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of

the appellant and supported the impugned judgment of

conviction and sentence.

7. Having gone through the material on record and the

evidence of the witnesses Narayan Rao (PW-1), Savitri Bai (PW-

2), Malti Bai (PW-3), Bhola Maratha (PW-4), Dr. Rizwan Siddiqui

(PW-7), Bharat Lal Soni (PW-8) and Omprakash Parihar (PW-9),

establishes the involvement of the accused/appellants in the

crime in question. Thus, considering the oral and documentary

evidence available on record, this Court does not see any

illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards

conviction of the appellants under Section 323 (3 times) of IPC.

8. 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 jurisprudence 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."

9. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case

of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the facts

that the incident has taken place in the year 2021 and at

present appellant No.1 Ghasiram is aged about 70 years, as per

arrest memo he is illiterate and is a farmer; appellant No. 2

Sanjay is aged about 37 years, as per arrest memo he has

studied upto 8th class and is a labour; appellant No. 3 Nanku is

aged about 64 years, as per arrest memo he is illiterate and is a

labour and appellant No. 4 Naresh is aged about 41 years, as per

arrest memo he has studied upto 10th class and is a labour,

they have no criminal antecedents, this court thinks that the

ends of justice would be served if their jail sentence is set aside