[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Chhagan Nishad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 March, 2026

        Digitally
        signed by
HEERA HEERA
      SAHU
             LAL
LAL   Date:
SAHU 2026.03.28
      12:30:50
        +0530



                                                     1




                                                                 2026:CGHC:14613


                                                                              NAFR
                           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                           CRA No. 104 of 2025

                    1 - Chhagan Nishad S/o Shri Bajrang Nishad Aged About 23
                    Years R/o Bada Ashok Nagar, Durga Chowk, P.S.- Gudiyari,
                    Dist.- Raipur (C.G.)
                                                                         ... Applicant
                                                  versus
                    1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer
                    P.S.- Gudiyari, Dist- Raipur (C.G.)
                                                                      ... Respondent

For Applicant : Mr. Ashutosh Biswas, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Aman Tamboli, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on board

27/03/2026

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 415(2) of

BNSS against the order dated 09.04.2024 passed by learned

Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions

Trial No. 04/2023, arising out of Cr. No. 375/2022, PS.

Gudiyari, District - Raipur (C.G.), whereby, the learned Judge

has convicted and sentenced the applicant as under:-

       Conviction                         Sentence
U/s 307 of IPC           R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in
                         default   of   payment    of    fine   amount
                         additional R.I. for 3 months.

U/s 25(1)(b) of Arms R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in Act default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 3 months.

U/s 27(1) of Arms Act    R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in
                         default   of   payment    of    fine   amount
                         additional R.I. for 3 months.

(All the sentences were directed to run concurrently).

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Chandan Sahu

(PW-1), who is the brother of the injured/victim Suraj Sahu (PW-

5) lodged a report in the police station stating that on

12.09.2022 at about 8:10 am, his younger sister Gayatri Sahu

(PW-3) called him and informed him that her brother Suraj Sahu

(victim) had been stabbed in the stomach near Jhagarhin Dabra

Ganesh Pandal. After that, he went to his sister's house, where

his brother Suraj was lying. He asked the victim/Suraj, about

the incident where he told that he was travelling in the auto of

his friend Amit Bhannat (PW-2), when they reached near

Jhagarhin Dabra Ganesh Pandal, the victim was called upon by

the accused/appellant and another co-accused, Jawahar @

Dadu, who were standing there. Thereafter accused forcefully

pulled him out of the auto and took him to the Ganesh Pandal,

where he was allegedly stabbed in the stomach over an old

dispute. Based on this FIR was lodged. After completion of the

investigation, charge sheet was filed against the

applicant/accused persons.

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

has examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 33

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 09.04.2024, learned Judge has acquitted

the co-accused Jawahar @ Dadu. However, the present appellant

has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned in para-1 of this

judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

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

pressing the appeal 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 2022, and thereby more than 3 years

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

jail sentence of 3 years, 6 months and 8 days as he is in jail

since 13.09.2022, the appellant is aged about 27 years at

present, he has already acquitted in one criminal case of 2020,

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 and he may be released from jail.

6. Per contra, Learned Counsel appearing for the

State/Respondent opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of

the appellant and supported the impugned judgment of

conviction and sentence. He submits that the appellant has two

criminal antecedents.

7. Dr. Priya Dahake (PW-8), conducted the MLC of injured

Suraj Sahu (PW-5) and gave her report vide Ex. P-18. As per the

MLC report (Ex.P-18), the victim sustained a penetrating injury

to the left side of his abdomen, measuring 3x4x2 cm. The injury

extended into the peritoneum, with the omentum visibly

protruding. She has stated that the injury was caused by a hard

and sharp object and the injured was referred to the surgery

department for treatment.

8. Dr. Shilendra Pushpkar (PW-12) has stated that Acting in

accordance with the instructions of the Medical Officer, he

recorded his opinion in the portion marked 'B to B' of the Ex.P-

28, stating that the injured was not in condition to provide a

statement; at that very time, the injured was undergoing surgery

and was intubated (placed on a ventilator). The query report

regarding the knife seized in connection with the said crime was

submitted by his junior colleague, Dr. Prachi Shirmor, in which

it has been stated that if the injury sustained by the injured was

not treated immediately, death would be the outcome. The said

query report is Ex.P-29.

9. Having gone through the material on record and the

evidence of the witnesses Chandan Sahu (PW-1), Suraj Sahu

(PW-5), Dr. Priya Dahake (PW-8), Ravikant Kosle (PW-10), G.P.

Pathak (PW-11) and Dr. Shailendra Pushpkar (PW-12),

establishes the involvement of the accused/appellant 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 regards

conviction of the appellant under Sections 307 of IPC and

Sections 25(1)(b) & 27(1) of Arms Act.

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 light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case

of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the facts

that the appellant has already served the jail sentence of total of

3 years, 6 months and 8 days and at present appellant is aged

about 27 years, as per arrest memo he has studied upto 12 th

class and is a labour, 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.

12. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for the

aforesaid offence is maintained, but his jail sentence is reduced

to the period already undergone by him i.e. a total of 3 years, 6

months and 8 days instead of R.I. for 5 years for the offence