[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Mahesh Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 March, 2026

                                                      1




                                                                   2026:CGHC:12994


                                                                                NAFR
                             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                                             CRR No. 45 of 2017
                      1 - Mahesh Patel S/o Mayaram Patel Aged About 40 Years R/o
                      Village- Mahima Gavadi, Imlipara, Police Station Jharagati,
                      District- Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                           ... Applicant
                                                    versus
                      1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate-
                      Narayanpur, Police Station- Jharagati, District - Narayanpur,
                      Chhattisgarh.
                                                                        ... Respondent

For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Kumar, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Mr. Karan Baharani, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on board

18/03/2026

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section

397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated

06.12.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kondagaon,

District - Kondagaon (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 16/2016,

affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated

15.07.2016 passed by the learned CJM, Narayanpur, (C.G.), in HEERA LAL SAHU

Criminal Case No. 08/2016, whereby, the learned Judge has

convicted and sentenced the applicant as under:-

      Conviction                         Sentence
U/s 324 of IPC          R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 300/-, in
                        default   of   payment    of   fine   amount
                        additional S.I. for 1 month.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on the date of the incident

i.e. 02.12.2015, at about 1:30 pm, the complainant Khagendra

Patel along with his elder father, was sitting in front of his

house. At that time, the present applicant came there holding an

axe, without saying anything, and assaulted the complainant on

the head. Due to which the complainant sustained injuries on

his body. Based on this, offence has been registered. Statements

of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of the

investigation, charge sheet was filed against the

applicant/accused.

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

has examined as many as 6 witnesses and exhibited 6

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 15.07.2016, learned Judge has convicted

and sentenced the accused/applicant as mentioned in para-1 of

this judgment. Aggrieved by the said judgment the applicant

preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge and vide

judgment dated 06.12.2016 the appeal of the applicant has been

rejected. Hence, the present revision.

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

pressing the revision 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 2015, and thereby more than 10 years

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

jail sentence for 38 days (from 06.12.2016 to 13.01.2017) and

the fine amount has already been deposited, the applicant is

aged about 50 years at present, he has no criminal antecedent,

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.

6. Per contra, Learned Counsel appearing for the

State/Respondent opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of

the applicant and supported the impugned judgment of

conviction and sentence.

7. Having gone through the material on record and the

evidence of the witnesses Khagendra (PW-1), Brajlal (PW-2) and

Dr. P.K. Dhote (PW-4), establishes the involvement of the

accused/applicant 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 well as appellate Court as regards conviction of the

applicant under Section 324 of IPC.

8. 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."

9. 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 applicant has already served the jail sentence of total 38

days and at present appellant is aged about 50 years, he has no

criminal antecedent, as per arrest memo he is illiterate and is a

farmer, 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.

10. Accordingly, the conviction of the applicant for the

aforesaid offence is maintained, but his jail sentence is reduced

to the period already undergone by him i.e. a total of 38 days

instead of R.I. for 1 year. However, the fine of Rs. 300/- imposed