[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Purushottam @ Puru vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 26 February, 2026

                                                1

                                 Digitally
                                 signed by
                        ALLENA ALLENA
                                ANNAJEE RAO
                        ANNAJEE Date:
                        RAO     2026.03.02
                                 12:37:50
                                 +0530




                                                           2026:CGHC:10103


                                                                        NAFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR



                                     CRA No. 799 of 2024



Purushottam @ Puru S/o Roshan Dhruw Aged About 32 Years R/o
Dipopara, Atal Awas, Sorid, Dhamtari, Police Station City Kotwali, District
Dhamtari (C.G.)                                                   ... Appellant


                                              versus


The State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station
Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.)                            ... Respondent

For the appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)

Order/Judgment on Board

26.02.2026

1. The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the

Criminal Procedure Code 1973 has been preferred by appellant

against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

07.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC),

Dhamtari District Dhamtari in Sessions Trial No. 31/2023 whereby

the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

      Conviction            :                    Sentence
      U/s 307 IPC               RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.2000/-,
                                in default of payment of fine,
                                additional RI for 1 year
      U/ 324 IPC                RI for 3 years with fine of Rs.300/-, in
                                default of payment of fine, additional
                                RI for 1 month
      U/s 327 IPC               RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.2000/-,
                                in default of payment of fine,
                                additional RI for 1 year
      U/s 25 & 27 of the        RI for 5years with fine of Rs.300/-, in
      Arms Act                  default of payment of fine, additional
                                RI for 1 month

2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.09.2022,

complainant/injured Deo Singh Netam lodged a report in P.S.

Dhamtari to the effect that on 24.09.2022 at about 7 p.m., in front of

a liquor shop at Dhamtari, appellant Purushottam @ Puru picked a

quarrel with complainant for not providing liquor or money, abused

the complainant and assaulted him with a sharp edged steel knife

on the left side of his stomach. At that time when Vishram Yadav

tried to intervene, the appellant further assaulted him near his

genitals (testicles). On the basis of such report, the crime was

registered and during investigation the statements of injured

witnesses were recorded and after complying with the procedural

formalities, the charge sheet was filed.

3. The prosecution has in all examined 9 witnesses and exhibited

34 documents to prove its case. The accused was examined under

Section 313 CrPC wherein he 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, convicted and sentenced the

appellants, as mentioned above.

4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants submits that

he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the

occurrence is related to the year 2022; the injuries caused to victim

Vishram Yadav is relating to the offence punishable u/s 307, 324

327 of IPC and section 25 & 27 of the Arms Act and he is in jail since

25.09.2022 and looking to the fact that there are no criminal

antecedents against the appellant who is a labour, he prays that the

sentences awarded to the appellant for the aforesaid offences 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. He submits that a sharp edged steel knife was seized from

the appellant. He submits that the medical reports clearly go to

show that the injuries sustained by the injured Vishram Yadav

(P.W.3) simple in nature whereas the injury sustained by

complainant Deo Singh are grievous in nature.

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

perused the material available on record including the impugned

judgment.

7. It reflects from the record that during trial the examination of

Injured Deo Singh Netam could not be done as he had died.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is shown that the

victim of offence u/s 307 IPC is injured Deo Singh Netam whereas the

victim of offence u/s 327 IPC is Vishram Yadav. He submits that the

the cause of death Deo Singh was not due to the injury caused to

him in the present incident.

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

statement of injured witness - Vishram Yadav (P.W.3), as also the

evidence of other material witnesses P.W.1 Domeshwar Sahu, P.W.2

Rajkumar Yadav, P.W.5 Manram Chandrawanshi (Head-Constable),

and P.W.8 Tikaram Sahu (Asst. Sub Inspector), which all further

stood firm by the evidence of Dr. Smit Kumar (P.W.7) and other

medical reports Ex. P-17, P-18, P-19, P-20 of injured Deo Singh and

Ex.P-21, P-22 & P-23 of injured Vishram Yadav, this Court does not

find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial

Court as regards the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the

offence punishable 307, 324, 327 of IPC & 25, 27 of the Arms Act

and it is hereby affirmed.

9. In Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1977)

3 SCC 287, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the sentencing should

be rehabilitative rather than merely retributive. The 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."

10. Applying the analogy laid down in Mohammad Giasuddin

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

imposed upon the appellant is 10 years u/s 307 & 327 IPC and the

appellant is in jail since 24.09.2022 and as per the Arrest Memo

(Ex.P.7), there are no criminal antecedents against him and he is a

daily wager, thus looking to the over-all circumstances it will be just

and proper if the sentences awarded u/s 307, 327 & 25, 27 of the

Arms Act is reduced to 4 years RI. Accordingly, the conviction u/s

307, 324, 327 & 25, 27 of the Arms Act is maintained and the

sentence imposed under these sections is reduced to 4 years.

However, the sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court shall remain

intact.