[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Jailal Pando vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 April, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:16069
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No.528 of 2026
Jailal Pando S/o Late Budhram Pando Aged About 60 Years R/o
Village Bahalpur, Pandopara, Police Station- Khadgawan, District-
M.C.B. (CG) ... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police
Station- Khadgawan, District- M.C.B. (CG) ... Respondent
For Appellant :Shri Vikrant Pillay, Advocate through Legal
Aid.
For Respondent/State :Ms. Vithika Choubey, PL.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
08.04.2026
SISTLA 1. The present Criminal Appeal under Section 415(2) of Bhartiya
NEELIMA
VISHNU PRIYA
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred by Appellant
against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
15.10.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chirmiri,
District Korea, (CG) in Sessions Case No.108/2023, whereby the
Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:
Conviction : Sentence
Under Section 326 RI for 3 years with fine of Rs.100/-,
IPC in default of payment of fine,
additional RI for 5 days.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07.08.2023 at about
7:00 AM, the complainant along with others went to Ghoda Pathra
forest and found his father Patiraj Singh lying unconscious in a
drain with multiple injuries on his head near the right eye and on
the little finger of his left hand, bleeding. At the spot, blood-stained
articles including an umbrella, slippers, a white gamcha and a
tobacco pouch with a cloth bag belonging to the victim were found.
It is alleged that the present Appellant assaulted the victim with a
tangi with intent to kill him. The injured was taken by 108
ambulance to Hospital, Khadgawan for treatment and
subsequently, an offence was registered against the present
Appellant at Police Station Khadgawan and after investigation,
charge-sheet was filed.
3. The prosecution has in all examined 9 witnesses and
exhibited 18 documents to prove its case. The accused was
examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein he pleaded innocence
and false implication. After conclusion of trial, considering the
evidence of prosecution witnesses and material available on
record, learned Trial Court by impugned judgment, convicted and
sentenced the Appellant, as mentioned above.
4. At this stage, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that
he does not challenge the finding of conviction and confines his
argument to the sentence part only, which according to him is on
higher side. He further submits that the occurrence is related to
the year 2023 and the detention period of the accused Appellant
during trial is 1 year 2 months and 12 days and his total custody
period is 1 year 8 months and 8 days out of total sentence of 3
years' RI. He further submits that the Appellant is presently in jail,
there are no criminal antecedents against him and prays that the
sentence awarded to him for the aforesaid offence may be reduced
to the period already undergone by him.
5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned
judgment and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the
Appellant. She, however, submits that there are no previous
criminal antecedents against the present Appellant.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also
perused the material available on record including the impugned
judgment.
7. Having gone through the material available on record and the
statements of witnesses, particularly the doctor i.e. Dr. Manish
Pratap Singh (PW-7), who stated that the injured had swelling on
the posterior aspect of the head, an incised wound measuring 5 ×
2 cm above the left shoulder with active bleeding, another incised
wound measuring 4 × 1 cm on the left side of the head with active
bleeding, an incised wound measuring 4 × 1 cm on the left thumb,
from which blood was oozing and the left hand little finger was
found amputated and bleeding, this Court does not find any
illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court as
regards the conviction of the Appellant for the offence mentioned
above, which is hereby affirmed.
8. As regards sentence, in 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."
9. Applying the analogy laid down in Mohammad Giasuddin
(supra) and keeping in view the fact that the maximum sentence
imposed upon the Appellant is 3 years under Section 326 IPC and
as per the Arrest Memo (Ex.P-9), the Appellant is an illiterate and
by profession he is an agriculturist and there are no criminal
antecedents against him and thus looking to the over-all
circumstances, it will be just and proper if the sentence of 3 years
RI awarded by the trial court for offence under section 326 IPC is
reduced to 2 years' RI. Accordingly, The conviction 326 IPC is
maintained and the sentence is reduced from 3 years to that of 2
years. However, the fine amount is enhanced from Rs. 100/- to
Rs.5,000/-. It is further directed that upon deposit of the said fine
amount, the same shall be paid to the victim-Patiraj Singh.
10. In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part to the extent
indicated here-in-above.
11. The Appellant's custody period (1 year 8 months and 8 days)
shall be entitled to set-off of the said period against the sentence of
2 years' RI. Any fine amount already deposited by the Appellant
shall be adjusted towards the enhanced fine amount.
12. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original
record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith for
information and necessary action. A copy of this judgment be also
sent to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the Appellant is
undergoing jail sentence. Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Priya
