[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Harisingh Negi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:11546
Digitally signed
NAFR
by SOURABH
PATEL
SOURABH Date:
PATEL 2026.03.11
16:43:35
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 461 of 2026
1 - Harisingh Negi S/o Jailal Negi, Aged About 55 Years, R/o - Village
- Barhi, Police Station - Devbhog, District - Gariyaband (C.G.).
... Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate,
Gariyaband, District - Gariyaband (C.G.).
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Adv.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Amit Verma, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
11/03/2026
1 Heard on admission.
2 Admit.
3 The present appeal has been filed under Section 415(2) of BNSS
against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
12.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Gariyaband (C.G.), in Sessions Case No. 44/2023 whereby the
learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as
under:-
Conviction Sentence
Rigorous imprisonment for 05 years
with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of
U/s 307 of IPC
payment of fine amount additional R.I.
for 03 month.
Rigorous imprisonment for 06 months
with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of
U/s 427 of IPC
payment of fine amount additional R.I.
for 1 month.
(Both the sentences to run concurrently).
4 The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12.08.2023, about
6:00 pm, the complainant/injured Jitendra Pradhan lodged a
report at the Devbhog police station stating that he had given
his motorcycle to Chavan Lal Patel, a resident of his village, for
repair. Chavan Lal informed him that appellant/accused
Harisingh Negi had damaged the motorcycle. When the
complainant confronted Harisingh Negi, he abused him with
filthy language and struck him on the left cheek with a tangia
(axe), causing grievous injuries. Based on the complaint, a case
was registered against the appellant under Sections 294, 427,
and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, vide Crime No. 290/2023.
5 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined
as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents. The
statement of the appellant 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.
6 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 12.12.2025, learned Judge has
convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as
mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present
appeal.
7 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 2023, about 03 years ago. The appellant
has been in jail since 13.08.2023 till date i.e. 02 years, 06
months and 29 days. The appellant is aged about 55 years, he
has no criminal antecedents, and he is still serving the jail
sentence; 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.
8 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting
the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on
behalf of the counsel for appellant.
9 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record including the impugned judgment.
10 Dr. S.S. Gupta (PW-06) opined in his statement that the
injured, Jitendra Pradhan, had an incised wound on the left
cheek, beside the eye, measuring 12 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm, caused
by a sharp-edged object. Based on the CT scan report, he
further opined that the injury sustained by the injured was
grievous in nature.
11 Having gone through the material available on record and the
evidence of the witnesses Chauvan Patel (PW-02), Jitendra
Pradhan (PW-3), Dr. S.S. Gupta (PW-6), Jairam Pradhan (PW-7),
Bramha Singh Markam (PW-08), Gautam Gawde (PW-9) and
Tularam Sahu (PW-10), establish the involvement of the
appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not see any
illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards
conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under
Sections 307 and 427 of IPC.
12 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 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."
13 In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact
that the appellant has been in jail since 13.08.2023 till date, the
maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 05 years, out
of which he has already served the jail sentence of about i.e. 02
years, 06 months 29 days, no criminal antecedent of the
appellant is recorded in the arrest memo (Ex-P/06), he has
studied upto 5th class and works as an agriculturist, this Court
is of the opinion that the ends of justice would serve if the
appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.
14 Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 307
and 427 of IPC is maintained, but his jail sentence for the
offence under Section 307 of IPC is reduced to the period
already undergone by him i.e. 02 years, 06 months and 29
days. However, the fine amount with default stipulation
imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court shall remain
intact.
15 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent
indicated herein-above.
16 The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released forthwith if
not required to be detained in any other case.
17 Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be
sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any.
A copy of the judgment may also be sent to the concerned Jail
Superintendent wherein the appellant is suffering the jail
sentence.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
JUDGE
Sourabh P.
