[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Deepak Kujur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 April, 2026

                                 1


                                     Digitally
                                     signed by
                                     BHOLA
                            BHOLA    NATH
                            NATH     KHATAI
                                     Date:
                            KHATAI   2026.04.10
                                     15:38:25
                                     +0530




                                                                   NAFR

       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                     CRR No. 82 of 2017

Deepak Kujur S/o Gabrel Kujur, Aged About 20 Years Now 24
Years R/o Birnitola Kukarbhuka, Police Station Bagbahar
District Jashpur Chhattisgarh
                                                        ... Applicant
                            versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Of
Police Station Bagbahar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh
                                                         ... Respondent

For Applicant : Mr. Vishal Chandravanshi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Akash Agrawal, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on board

09/04/2026

1. This appeal under Section 397 read with Section 401 of

CrPC has been filed challenging the impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 10.01.2017 passed

by learned Additional Judge to the Court of Additional

Sessions Judge, Kunkuri, District Jashpur (CG) in Criminal

Appeal No.22/2014 upholding the judgment dated

26.03.2014 passed by the JMFC, Pathalgaon, District

Jashpur (CG) in Criminal Case No.359/2013, whereby the

applicant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

Conviction Sentence U/s 326 of IPC R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs.

1000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional S.I. for 1 month.

2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that the complainant,

Mikhel Khalkho, lodged a report at Bagbahar Police Station

alleging that on 05.11.2013, at approximately 1:00 pm, he

was standing near his house. At that time, his neighbour,

applicant Deepak Kujur, was coming towards his house

shouting abuses and creating a disturbance. When the

complainant asked the applicant whom he was abusing, the

applicant began hurling filthy abuses at him and threatened

to kill him. During the altercation, the applicant knocked

the complainant down and bit his nose with such force that

a portion of the nose was severed. Based on the report, FIR

was registered against the applicant under sections 294,

506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, and the case was

taken up for investigation. After complete investigation,

charges were framed against the applicant for the offence

under sections 294, 506 & 326 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. So as to hold the accused/applicant guilty, the prosecution

has examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 4

documents. The statement of the accused/applicant 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. After hearing the parties, the trial Court i.e. JMFC,

Pathalgaon, District Jashpur vide judgment dated

26.03.2014 acquitted the applicant of the charges under

Sections 294 & 506 of IPC, however, convicted him under

Section 326 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for 2 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in

default of payment fine, to undergo additional simple

imprisonment for one month. The applicant challenged this

conviction before the Additional Judge to the Court of

Additional Sessions Judge, Kunkuri, District Jashpur. The

appellate Court, vide impugned judgment dated 10.01.2017,

dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial court's

judgment, leading to the filing of this criminal revision.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is not

pressing the revision 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

took place in the year 2013 and thereby more than 12 years

have rolled by since then. Out of two years jail sentence, the

applicant has already remained in custody for about 4

months & 12 days. At the time of incident, the applicant

was about 20 years old and now he is 32 years having

family responsibility. The applicant has no criminal

antecedent. He submits that considering all these facts, in

the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the

sentence imposed upon the applicant may be reduced to the

period already undergone by him.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

State/Respondent opposed the arguments advanced on

behalf of the applicant and supported the impugned

judgment of conviction and sentence.

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

8. Upon medical examination of the injured, Dr. Ranjit Toppo (PW-2) recorded the following injuries::

1. The tip of the nose was severed by approximately 3 cm.

2. A crescent shaped scratch mark on the right cheek, measuring 2 x 1/3 cm.

According to the medical testimony, these injuries were caused by human teeth, and one was classified as grievous in nature.

9. Having gone through the material on record and the

evidence of the injured Mikhel Khalkho (PW-3), his wife

Fulobai (PW-4), witness Krishna (PW-5) and Dr. Ranjit

Toppo (PW-2) and the report given by him, the involvement

of the applicant in the crime in question is clearly

established. This Court does not see any illegality in the

findings recorded by both the Courts regarding conviction of

applicant for the offence punishable under Section 326 of

IPC.

10. 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."

11. In the instant case, the incident is said to have taken place

in the year 2013, and thereby more than 12 years have

passed since then. At the time of incident, the applicant was

20 years old and now he is approximately 32 years having

family responsibility. As per the arrest memo, the applicant

has studied upto 8th class, works in agriculture and has no

previous criminal record. The applicant has already served

the jail sentence of 4 months & 12 days and he is currently

on bail.

12. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and also

considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,