[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Dev Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 March, 2026

                                                      1




                                                                     2026:CGHC:11890


                                                                                 NAFR



                            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                     Criminal Appeal No.334 of 2026


                     Ritesh Sahu S/o Netram Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o Village
                     Binauri, PS - Palari, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
                                                                         --- Appellant


                                                   versus


                     State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station - Balodabazar,
                     District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh       --- Respondent

Criminal Appeal No.379 of 2026

1 - Dev Yadav S/o Puniram Yadav Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Binauri, Thana - Palari, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

Digitally signed by

SISTLA SISTLA NEELIMA 2 - Pritesh Gupta @ Baba S/o Yogendra Kumar Gupta Aged About NEELIMA VISHNU VISHNU PRIYA PRIYA Date:

19 Years R/o Palari, Thana - Palari, District Balodabazar-

2026.03.13 11:32:55 +0530 Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ---Appellants

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

--- Respondent

For respective Appellants : Shri Shobhit Koshta and Shri Vikash Pradhan, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Shri Vivek Sharma, PL.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board

12.03.2026

1. The present Criminal Appeals under Section 415(2) of

Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 have been preferred by

respective Appellants against the judgment of conviction and order

of sentence dated 23.01.2026 passed by the learned 1st Additional

Sessions Judge Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara in

Sessions Case No.68/2025, whereby the Appellants have been

convicted and sentenced as under:-

     Conviction          :                  Sentence
     U/s 34(2) of CG         RI for 3 years with fine of

Excise Act, 1915. Rs.25,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 3 months.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29.01.2025, the

Appellants along with other co-accused were found transporting

100 cartons containing about 900 litres of English Goa Whisky in a

vehicle bearing registration No. CG-22-R-3277 near Krishi Upaj

Mandi, Balodabazar. The said liquor was allegedly being

transported for the purpose of illegal sale. The liquor was seized

by the police and proceedings were initiated against the Appellants

under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act (for short 'the

Excise Act') and Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Crime No. 11/2025 was registered and after completion of

investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Court below.

3. The prosecution has in all examined 7 witnesses and

exhibited 55 documents to prove its case. The accused were

examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein they pleaded

innocence and false implication. After conclusion of trial, upon

considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and material

available on record, learned Trial Court by impugned judgment,

acquitted the accused/Appellants of the offence under Section 111

of the BNS and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned

above.

4. At this stage, learned Counsel for the respective Appellants

submits that they do not want to press these Appeals on merits

and confine their argument only to sentence part. They also

submit that out of the maximum jail sentence of 03 - 03 years

imposed on Appellants under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act for

carrying illicit liquor, they had already completed in jail the custody

period of 1 year 1 month and 13 days. They submit that the

incident took place in the year 2025, since then the Appellants are

facing the lis and there are no previous criminal antecedents

reported against them and looking to the quantity of liquor seized,

they pray that the sentence of the Appellants be reduced to the

period already undergone by them in the interest of justice.

5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned

judgment and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the

Appellants.

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

perused the material available on record including the impugned

judgment.

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

statements of witnesses especially raiding officer Mohammad

Qayyum (PW-5), Head Constable Munshi Dahariya (PW-07) as

also independent witnesses namely Sajid Khan Chauhan (PW-1)

and Sanjay Sahu (PW-2), who substantially proved the recovery

of liquor from the joint possession of the Appellants as also the

liquor examination report (Ex.P-36) which shows that the sample

material contained was found to be positive, this Court does not

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

Court as regards the conviction of the Appellants for the offence

under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act, which is hereby affirmed.

8. As regards sentence, in 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."

9. Applying the analogy laid down in Mohammad Giasuddin

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

upon the Appellants is 3-3 years under Section 34(2) of the Excise

Act, out of which, they have already served the jail sentence of 1

year, 1 month and 13 days and considering that all the three

accused Appellants are 19 to 22 years old poor illiterate laborers

and further they have no previous criminal record and also

considering that the incident pertains to the year 2025 and the

Appellants have faced prolonged litigation, this Court is of the

opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately met if, while

maintaining the conviction of the Appellants under Section 34(2) of

the Excise Act, the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded