[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Dubraj Kanwar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 26 February, 2026

                                                   1




                                                                 2026:CGHC:10109
                                                                              NAFR
                          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                                          CRR No. 226 of 2017
                   1 - Dubraj Kanwar S/o Shri Rameshwar Singh Kanwar Aged
                   About 28 Years R/o Sonpuri, Thana- Balko, District Korba,
                   Chhattisgarh.
                                                                        ... Applicant
                                                 versus
                   1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District
                   Korba, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                      ... Respondent

For Applicant : Mr. Arvind Prasad, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on board

26/02/2026

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section

397/401 of Cr.P.C., against the order dated 07.02.2017 passed

by learned Additional Sessions Judge of Additional Judge,

Katghora, District - Korba (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 22/2013

affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

17.09.2012 passed by the learned JMFC, Katghora, (C.G.), in

Criminal Case No. 82/2008, whereby, the learned Judge has

Digitally signed by HEERA HEERA LAL SAHU LAL Date:

SAHU 2026.02.27 10:24:01 +0530

convicted and sentenced the applicant as under:-

      Conviction                        Sentence
U/s 304 A of IPC       R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in
                       default   of   payment    of   fine   amount
                       additional R.I. for 1 month.

2. Brief facts of the case were that on 02.01.2008, in between

8:00-9:00 am, Shashikant and Ramakant, sons of complainant

Baldev Dhimar, had gone to graze goats near the MGR NTPC

plant. At about 10:30 am, Ramakant (now deceased) drank

water from a tap near the plant and returned to his goats, where

his elder brother Shashikant was grazing goats. The driver of an

unknown dumper, while driving rashly and negligently, caused

an accident in which Ramakant, the younger son of the

complainant, died. Based on the report, a crime was registered

and investigation was carried out by the Darri Police Station.

After due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the

present applicant under Section 304-A of the IPC.

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

has examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 9

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, vide judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 17.09.2012, learned Judge has convicted

and sentenced the accused/applicant as mentioned in para-1 of

this judgment. Aggrieved by the said judgment the applicant

preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge and vide

judgment dated 07.02.2017 the appeal of the applicant has been

rejected. Hence, the present 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 is said to have

taken place in the year 2008, and thereby more than 17 years

have rolled by since then. The applicant has already served the

jail sentence for 20 days (from 07.02.2017 to 27.02.2017) and

the applicant is aged about 45 years at present, he has no

criminal antecedent, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would

be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him 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. Having gone through the material on record and the

evidence of the witnesses Baldev (PW-1), Shashikant (PW-3), Dr.

Antosh Kumar (PW-5) and Dhaniram Rathore (PW-7), establishes

the involvement of the accused/applicant 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 well as appellate Court as

regards conviction of the applicant under Section 304-A 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 took place in the year 2008, about 17 years

ago, the applicant has already served the jail sentence of a total

of 20 days, and at present appellant is aged about 45 years; he

has no criminal antecedent, as per arrest memo he has studied

upto 8th class and is a driver by profession, this court is of the

opinion that the ends of justice would be served if he is

sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

10. In the result the appeal is allowed in part. While

maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid

offence, his jail sentence is reduced to the period already