Chattisgarh High Court
Dinesh Kumar Prajapati vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 July, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by BHOLA
NATH KHATAI
Date:
2025.07.31
17:37:21 +0530
2025:CGHC:37271
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 241 of 2025
Dinesh Kumar Prajapati S/o Shri Radhe Lal Aged About 22
Years R/o Newsa Gorratikra, P.S. Gaurela, District Gaurela-
Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Officer-In-Charge, Police
Station Pendra, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.)
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, P.L.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
30/07/2025
1 The present revision has been filed challenging the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
04.12.2024 passed by learned Additional Session Judge,
Pendraroad, Bilaspur (C.G.), in Criminal Appeal
No.19/2024 whereby the applicant has been convicted and
sentenced as under :
2
Conviction Sentence
Rigorous imprisonment for 03 years
U/s 420/34 of with fine of Rs.200/-, in default of
IPC payment of fine amount, additional
simple imprisonment for 1 month.
Rigorous imprisonment for 05 years
U/s 467/34 of with fine of Rs.200/-, in default of
IPC payment of fine amount, additional
simple imprisonment for 1 month.
Rigorous imprisonment for 03 years
U/s 468/34 of with fine of Rs.200/-, in default of
IPC payment of fine amount, additional
simple imprisonment for 1 month.
Rigorous imprisonment for 05 years
U/s 471/34 of with fine of Rs.200/-, in default of
IPC payment of fine amount, additional
simple imprisonment for 1 month.
2 The case of prosecution, in short, is that the applicant
along with co-accused Bajrangi Lal, in furtherance of their
common intention, by showing forged registration papers of
HF Deluxe motorcycle to the complainant, cheated and
dishonestly induced him and sold the said motorcycle to
the complainant by claiming it to be his nephew’s
motorcycle and received the sale consideration of
Rs.38,000. It is the further case of prosecution that
complainant Sudhir Singh Oladi was looking for a second-
hand motorcycle for his personal use. Co-accused Bajrangi
Lal told that his nephew Dinesh Kumar Prajapati i.e. the
present applicant had given him one HF Deluxe motorcycle
for sale with documents. The said motorcycle was
purchased by the complainant and kept at his house.
Later, during investigation, the police informed him that
the said motorcycle is a theft property and seized the same
on 23.03.2023. Based on the complainant’s report, a case
was registered against the applicant and co-accused for the
3
aforesaid offence.
3 So as to hold the applicant guilty, the prosecution has
examined as many as 22 witnesses and exhibited 84
documents. The statement of the 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 appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence
available on record, the trial Court vide judgment dated
15.05.2024 in Criminal Case No.1015/2023 convicted and
sentenced the applicant and co-accused as mentioned in
paragraph-1 of this judgment. This order was challenged by
applicant and co-accused before the appellate Court and in
the appeal, learned Appellate Court vide impugned
judgment dated 04.12.2024 confirmed the conviction and
sentence of the applicant and co-accused and dismissed
the appeal. Hence, the present revision has been preferred
by the applicant. Co-accused Bajrangi Lal is absconding.
5 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is not
pressing the revision so far as the conviction part of the
impugned judgment is concerned and would confine his
argument to the sentence part thereof only. He submits
that the applicant is in jail since 13.06.2023, the maximum
sentence imposed upon the applicant is 5 years, out of
which the applicant has already served the jail sentence for
about 2 years & 45 days. He prays that the sentence
imposed upon the applicant 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,
supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the
4
arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for applicant
and submitted that there are 18 criminal antecedents
against the present applicant out of which 2 cases are
under Sections 467 & 468 of IPC and 16 cases are of theft
i.e. under Section 379 of IPC.
7 At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicant submits
that the other cases as pointed out by the State counsel are
under trial, therefore, even if the jail sentence of the
applicant in this case is reduced to the period already
undergone by him, he will still remain in jail in other
cases.
8 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
9 Having gone through the material available on record and
the statements of the complainant Sudhir Singh Oladi (PW-
1), Upendra Singh (PW-2), Ashok Kumar Puri (PW-3),
Ramprasad Yadav (PW-4), Hirasingh Oladi (PW-5),
Hirasingh Marabi (PW-6), Manvijay Singh (PW-15),
Ramprasad Baghel (PW-19), Veernarayan Katiyar (PW-10)
and the relevant documents exhibited on record, the
involvement of the applicant in the crime in question is
clearly established. This Court does not see any illegality in
the findings recorded by the Trial Court and confirmed by
the appellate Court regarding conviction of the applicant for
the offence punishable under Sections 420/34, 467/34,
468/34 & 471/34 of IPC.
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
5
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.”
11 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
applicant is 5 years, out of which he has already served the
6
jail sentence of about 02 years and 45 days 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 applicant is sentenced to the period already
undergone by him.
12 Accordingly, the conviction of the applicant under Sections
420/34, 467/34, 468/34 & 471/34 of IPC is maintained
but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already
undergone by him i.e. 02 years and 45 days. However, the
fine and its default stipulation imposed upon the applicant
by the appellate Court under the said sections shall
remain intact.
13 Consequently, the Criminal Revision stands allowed in
part to the extent indicated herein-above.
14 The applicant is reported to be in jail. He be released
forthwith if not required to be detained in default of fine
and not required in any other case/offence.
15 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 applicant is
suffering the jail sentence.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
JUDGE
Khatai