Prashant Khadiya @ Bade Tullu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 March, 2026

                                             1


                                    Digitally
                                    signed by
                                    BHOLA
                           BHOLA    NATH
                           NATH     KHATAI
                                    Date:
                           KHATAI   2026.03.13
                                    11:10:33
                                    +0530




                                                 2026:CGHC:11803


                                                              NAFR

       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                     CRA No. 1110 of 2025

1 - Prashant Khadiya @ Bade Tullu S/o Rukdev Khadiya Aged
About 18 Years R/o Village Bhojpalli, Loing, Police Station
Chakradharanagar, District Raigarh (C.G.)
2 - Shankar Choudhari S/o Surendra Choudhari Aged About 26
Years R/o Village Dallipali, Police Station Badharpali, District
Jharsuguda (Odisha)
3 - Santosh Khadiya S/o Bhupdev Khadiya Aged About 42 Years
R/o Village Bhojpalli, Loing, Police Station Chakradharnagar,
District Raigarh (C.G.)
4 - Bharat Khadiya S/o Sukdev Khadiya Aged About 26 Years
R/o Village Bhojpalli, Loing, Police Station Chakradharnagar,
District Raigarh (C.G.)
                                                  ... Appellants
                                    versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police
Station Chakradharnagar District Raigarh (C.G.)
                                                     ... Respondent

For Appellants : Mr. A. D. Kuldeep, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Akash Agrawal, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board

12/03/2026

1. The present appeal under Section 415(2) of BNSS has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.03.2025 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No.07/2023 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under :

           Conviction                      Sentence
                           Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years
     U/s 306/34 of         with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of
     IPC                   payment of fine amount, additional
                           R.I. for 3 months.

2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 20.12.2020, around 4:00 pm, the appellants, armed with sticks, went to the house of deceased Kailash Khadiya and threatened to beat him saying that he had stolen Prashant's mobile. The appellants threatened to implicate the deceased in a police case and accused him of theft. Due to this, Kailash Khadia became very frightened, locked himself in his room and hanged himself using his mother's saree. On the report being lodged in this regard by the father of the deceased at Police Station Chakradharnagar, Merg No. 49/2020 was registered and investigation was initiated. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants.

3. So as to hold the appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 16 documents in support of its case. The statements of the appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in

the case.

4. After appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, vide impugned judgment, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants 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. He submits that the appellants were in custody for about 14 days during trail and have remained in jail since the date of judgment on 20.03.2025. As such, they have already served a total jail sentence of about 1 year & 4 days out of the maximum sentence of 7 years. The appellants have no criminal antecedents. Although they were granted bail by this Court, they remain in custody as they could not furnish the bail bond. Therefore, considering all these facts, the sentence imposed upon the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them and they may be released from jail.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellants.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Having gone through the material available on record and the testimony of the deceased's father Jagdish Khadiya (PW-

1), brother Prakash Khadiya (PW-2), mother Janki Khadiya (PW-4) as well as the statement and report of Dr. S. Lakda (PW-5) and the statement of Investigating Officer B. P.

Mishra (PW-11), the involvement of the appellants in the crime in question is clearly established. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court regarding conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 306/34 of IPC.

9. 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."

10. 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 maximum sentence imposed upon the appellants is 7 years, out of which they have already served the jail sentence of about 1 year & 4 days, the appellants were granted bail by this Court but they are in jail as they could not furnish the bail bond, they have no criminal antecedent and also considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would serve if the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them.

11. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants under Section 306/34 of IPC is maintained but their jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them i.e. 1 year 4 days. However, the fine amount and its default stipulation imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact.

12. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above.

13. The appellants are reported to be in jail. They be released forthwith if not required to be detained in default of fine, and in any other case.

14. Let the 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 appellants are suffering the jail sentence.

Sd/-

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai