Subhash Barik vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 1791 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Subhash Barik vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 April, 2026

                                                    1




                                                                  2026:CGHC:17692


                                                                                 NAFR


                           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                          CRA No. 2030 of 2024

                   1 - Anshuman Tandi S/o Virendra Tandi Aged About 35 Years R/o
                   Virendra Nagar, Sankara, P.S. - Sankara District - Mahasamund
                   Chhattisgarh
                   2 - Kunal Yadav S/o Basant Yadav Aged About 21 Years R/o
                   Virendra Nagar, Sankara, P.S. - Sankara District - Mahasamund
                   Chhattisgarh
                                                                      --- Appellants
                                                 versus
                   1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O., Sankara, Mahasamund
                   District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh
                                                                         --- Respondent

For Appellants : Mr. Anoop Majumdar, Advocate.

For State/respondent : Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L.

1 - Subhash Barik S/o Narsingh Barik Aged About 50 Years R/o Virendra Nagar, Sankra, District- Mahasamund (C.G.)

---Appellant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sankra, District- Mahasamund (C.G.)

--- Respondent

Digitally signed by HEERA HEERA LAL SAHU LAL Date:

SAHU 2026.04.20 10:15:27 +0530

For Appellant : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate.

For State/respondent : Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Order/Judgment on Board

17/04/2026

1. Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment of

conviction and sentence, they are being heard and disposed of by this

common order.

2. The present criminal appeals under Section 415(2) of BNSS

have been preferred by appellants against the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence dated 07.10.2024 passed by the learned

Sessions Judge, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 62/2022

whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as

under:-

Conviction : Sentence U/s 307/34 of IPC : R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default of payment of fine amount additional imprisonment for 2 months each.

3. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Jitesh

Gond (PW-1) lodged a report stating that on 01.03.2022 at about

07:00 pm, when his father namely Tulsi Gond (PW-2) was bringing

milk from R.B. cheap Society, appellants along with one juvenile co-

accused assaulted his father with hands, fists and sticks in front of

Rajasthani Dhaba and threatened to kill him. One minor co-accused

assaulted the victim in his right eye with a knife; due to the said

assault, his right eye was injured. His father somehow reached his

dhaba from there, and he took him to Raipur for treatment. His eye

was badly injured. Based on this, FIR was lodged and after due

investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellants/accused

persons.

4. The prosecution has in all examined 10 witnesses and

exhibited 21 documents to prove its case. The accused persons were

examined under Section 313 CrPC, abjured the guilt and pleaded

false implication. After conclusion of trial and considering the

evidence of prosecution witnesses and material available on record,

learned Trial Court by impugned judgment, acquitted the appellants

for the offence punishable under Sections 294 and 506 Part-II of IPC.

However, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as

mentioned above. Hence, the appeal.

5. At this stage, learned counsels for the appellants submit that

they do not challenge the finding of conviction but since the

occurrence is related to the year 2022 and the appellants have

already been served the jail sentence of 1 year 11 months and 5 days

(from 01.05.2022 to 26.09.2022 and from 07.10.2024 till date). The

appellants are not highly educated and appellants Anshuman Tandi

and Subhash Barik have no criminal antecedents. Therefore, they

pray that the sentence awarded to the appellants for the aforesaid

offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

6. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned

judgment and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the

Appellants. He submits that the appellant, Kunal Yadav, has one

criminal antecedent under the IPC.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also

perused the material available on record including the impugned

judgment.

8. Dr. Gourav Khemka (PW-8) stated that the victim, Tulsi Gond

(PW-2), was admitted to Narayana Hospital, Raipur, on 02.03.2022.

The injured has suffered a rupture of the pupil, for which treatment

was provided at the hospital; the eye surgery was performed by Dr.

Ekta. On the advice of Dr. Ekta, the injured was discharged from the

hospital on 08.03.2022. Discharge summary is Ex.P-20.

9. Dr. Vinita Patel (PW-10) conducted the MLC of the injured Tulsi

Gond (PW-2) and gave her report vide Ex. P-21. Dr Vinita Patel stated

that the injured party sustained an eye injury and had brought a CT

scan report. On examination of the CT scan brought by the injured

and on physical examination, she observed that the globe of the

injured's right eye had ruptured, and a bone within the eye socket

had fractured. The area surrounding the injured's right eye had

turned black. The injured person underwent surgery on his right eye,

where stitches were applied; as a result, he lost her eyesight.

10. Having gone through the material available on record and the

statements of witnesses Jitesh Gond (P.W.1), Tulsi Gond (P.W.2),

Ravindra Kumar Sahu (P.W.6), Khemraj Yadav (P.W.7), Dr. Gourav

Khemka (P.W.8), Ramcharan Chouhan (P.W.9) and Dr. Vinita Patel

(P.W.10), establish the involvement of the appellants in crime in

question, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the

findings recorded by the trial Court as regards the conviction of the

appellants for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of IPC

and it is hereby affirmed.

11. However, as regards sentence, in Mohammad Giasuddin v.

State of Andhra Pradesh (1977) 3 SCC 287, Hon'ble Supreme

Court while emphasizing the reformative approach has exposited the

words expressed by 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". Para-9 of the

said judgment is quoted below :

"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."

12. Applying the analogy laid down in Mohammad Giasuddin

(supra) and keeping in view the fact that the maximum sentence

imposed upon the appellants is 10 years under Section 307/34 of

IPC and the appellants have already served the jail sentence of 1

year, 11 months and 5 days till date and as per the Arrest Memo

(Ex.P.10), appellant Anshuman has studied upto 12th class; he is a

painter, Arrest Memo (Ex.P.11) appellant Kunal Yadav has studied

upto 10th class; he is a driver, Arrest Memo (Ex.P.9) appellant

Subhash Barik has studied upto 5th class; he is a barber, the

incident occurred about 4 years ago, the appellants have their family

liabilities, and thus looking to the over-all circumstances it will be

just and proper if the sentence of 10 years R.I. awarded by the trial

court for offence under Section 307/34 IPC is reduced to 2 years R.I.

13. Accordingly, the conviction u/s 307/34 IPC of each of the

appellants is maintained, and the sentence is reduced from 10 years'

R.I. to 2 years' R.I. for each of the appellants. However, the sentence

of fine of Rs. 1000/- imposed by the trial Court upon each of the

appellants is hereby enhanced to Rs. 25,000/-. Each of the

appellants shall pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. In default of payment of

the fine amount imposed/enhanced by this Court today, the

appellants shall be liable to undergo S.I. for 4 months. Fine amount,

if any, already deposited by the appellants shall be adjusted.

14. The period of total custody shall be set off against the jail

sentence.