Kailash Kashyap vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 April, 2026

                                      1


                                            Digitally signed
                                            by SHUBHAM
                                SHUBHAM     SINGH
                                SINGH       RAGHUVANSHI
                                RAGHUVANSHI Date:
                                            2026.04.21
                                            13:10:57 +0530




                                                                      NAFR

         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                        CRR No. 214 of 2026



1 - Kailash Kashyap S/o Mannuram Kashyap Aged About 27 Years
R/o Village- Turenar P.S.- Nagarnar, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh
2 - Dhanu Kashyap S/o Sonsai Kashyap Aged About 50 Years R/o
Village- Turenar P.S.- Nagarnar, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh
3 - Baalsingh Kashyap S/o Loknath Kashyap Aged About 40 Years
R/o Village- Turenar P.S.- Nagarnar, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh
4 - Samo Kashyap S/o Sonsai Kashyap Aged About 45 Years R/o
Village- Turenar P.S.- Nagarnar, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh
5 - Mannuram Kashyap S/o Sonsai Kashyap Aged About 51 Years
R/o Village- Turenar P.S.- Nagarnar, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh
6 - Murli Kashyap S/o Mannuram Kashyap Aged About 18 Years R/o
Village- Turenar P.S.- Nagarnar, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh
7 - Samu Kashyap S/o Mannu Kashyap Aged About 32 Years
(Wrongly Mentioned As Sambhu Kashyap In The Order Of The
Appellate Court), R/o Village- Turenar P.S.- Nagarnar, District- Bastar,
Chhattisgarh
8 - Dheeran Kashyap S/o Sonsai Kashyap Aged About 50 Years R/o
Village- Turenar P.S.- Nagarnar, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh
                                                               ... Applicants
                                versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station-
Nagarnar, District- Bastar (C.G.)
                                                               ... Respondent

(Cause-title is taken from CIS)

For Applicants : Mr. Shubhankar Singh, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board

17.04.2026

1. This revision has been preferred under Section 438 r/w Section 442 of BNSS, 2023 challenging the impugned judgment dated 21.01.2026 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar Place Jagdalpur (C.G.), in Criminal Appeal No.29/2025, arising out of order dated 26.06.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Place Jagdalpur District Batar (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.1583/2018, whereby the applicants and one other co-accused have been convicted as under:-

                Conviction                      Sentence
    Under Section 147 of IPC       Fine of Rs. 200/-, in default
                                   thereof, one months' RI
    Under Section 294 of IPC       Fine of Rs. 200/-, in default
                                   thereof, one months' RI
    Under Section 506 Part II      Fine of Rs. 200/-, in default
    of IPC                         thereof, one months' RI
    Under Section 323/149 of       Till rising of the Court and fine
    IPC                            of Rs.500/-, in default thereof,
                                   one months' RI
    Under Section 325 of IPC       1 year rigorous imprisonment
                                   and fine of Rs.500/-, in default
                                   thereof, one months' RI

2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant, Rainu Kashyap, lodged a report stating that on 17.02.2018, he had summoned a Patwari to the Panchayat Bhawan to partition his ancestral property. The Patwari was in the process of partitioning the ancestral land when applicant Dheeran and others claimed

that their ancestral land actually amounted to more and on that point, Kailash, Janardan, Dheeran, and others conspired together and began hurling filthy language at the complainant, They proceeded to physically assault the complainant with their hands and fists; specifically, they struck the complainant near his left eyebrow and on his right elbow with a bamboo stick. They also struck his son, Madan, near the nose--causing him to bleed

--and inflicted an injury on Raghunath's left elbow. The complainant subsequently lodged a report regarding this incident. The offense was registered, and an investigation was initiated. The bamboo stick used in the incident was seized, and a site map of the crime scene was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded, the accused were arrested and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 16 documents in support of its case. The statement of the applicants/accused were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication.

4. Learned Trial Court (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Place Jagdalpur), after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the applicants and one other co-accused as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. Vide impugned judgment, the Appellate Court has affirmed the order of learned CJM, against which the present revision has been preferred by the applicants questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not want to press the revision on merits and confines his arguments only on sentence part. He submits that the applicants are farmers and

have family responsibilities. Out of 1 year of jail sentence, they have already remained in jail for about 2 months and 27 days. The incident took place in the year 2018 and since then they are facing the lis. They have no criminal antecedents. Hence, by considering all these facts, the sentence of the applicants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them in the interest of justice.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment and opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicants.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned judgment.

8. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of Dr. Gopesh Ku. (PW-14) and his report Ex.P-15, Dr. Govind Singh (PW-13) and his report Ex.P-14, complainant Renu (PW-1), Raghunath (PW-5), and Madan (PW-6), it is clear that Renu and Raghunath sustained simple injuries, whereas injured Madan sustained a fracture on his nasal bone which establish the involvement of the applicants in the crime in question. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court, affirmed by the Appellate Court as regards the conviction and sentence of the applicants for offence punishable under Sections 147, 294, 506 Part-II & 323/149 of IPC which is based on evidence available on record and it is hereby affirmed. This Court also does not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court, affirmed by the Appellate Court as regards the conviction of the applicants for offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC which is based on evidence available on record and it is also hereby affirmed.

9. As regards the sentence for offence under Section 325 of IPC, 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 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."

10. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the

fact that the applicants were the farmers and having family responsibilities. They have no criminal antecedents. They are facing the lis since 2018. They already remained in jail for about 2 months and 27 days. Considering all these facts, this Court opines that justice would be served if the applicant's sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them.

11. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the applicants for offence under Sections 147, 294, 506 Part-II & 323/149 of IPC is maintained. The conviction of the applicants for offence under Sections 325 of IPC is also maintained and the sentence of RI for 1 year is reduced to the period already undergone by them i.e. 2 months and 27 days. However, fine amount for offence under Section 325 of IPC is enhanced from Rs.500/- to 2,000/- to each of the applicants. In default of payment of fine, the applicants shall liable to undergo 2 months' of rigorous imprisonment. If any amount of fine was deposited by the applicants shall be adjusted.

12. The applicants are in jail. They be released forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other case/s.

13. The fine amount to be deposited by the applicants, after verification will be disbursed to injured Madan Kashyap.

14. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

15. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned. A copy of this judgment be also transmitted to the concerned Jail Superintendent where the applicants are serving their sentence, for information and necessary action.

Sd/-

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham