[ad_1]
Chattisgarh High Court
Banshi Poyam vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 August, 2025
1 Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SHUBHAM SINGH SINGH RAGHUVANSHI RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.08.28 14:22:52 +0530 2025:CGHC:43049 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1034 of 2021 Banshi Poyam S/o Gando Poyam Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Dhansuli, Police Station Bayanar, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Bayanar, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Praveen Kumar Tulsyan,
Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
25.08.2025
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374
(2) of CrPC challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 10.09.2021 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Kondagaon (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 54/2019,
by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as
under:-
2
Conviction Sentence & Fine
U/s 307 of the IPC RI for 7 years and to pay fine of
₹10,000/-; in default of payment of
fine, additional RI for 6 months
U/s 452 of the IPC RI for 3 years and to pay fine of
₹1000/-; in default of payment of
fine, additional RI for 2 months
U/s 506-B of the IPC RI for 1 year and to pay fine of
₹1000/-; in default of payment of
fine, additional RI for 2 months
The sentences are directed to run concurrently
2. The prosecution’s case is that on July 13, 2019, the appellant
entered the victim’s home and professed love, proposing marriage.
Upon her refusal, he allegedly used force, threatened her life,
brandished a knife, and assaulted her. The victim’s brother, Raghu
Netam, witnessed the incident. The appellant fled after the assault,
and the victim was hospitalized. Based on her statement, a Dehati
Nalisi was lodged, leading to the registration of an FIR (Ex.P-10)
against the appellant. During investigation, site maps were
prepared, blood-stained soil was seized, and on the basis of the
accused’s memorandum, the knife was seized from him. After
recording witnesses statement, a charge sheet was filed.
3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence,
prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses in support of its
case. The statement of the appellant / accused was recorded under
Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances
appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the
prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication.
4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as
mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against
3
which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant
questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned
judgment.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to
press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on
sentence part. He submits that the appellant is now aged about 33
years and has family responsibilities and he has already remained
in jail for about 2 years 10 months. The incident took place in the
year 2019 and since then the appellant is facing the lis. Hence,
considering all these facts, the sentence of the appellant may be
reduced to the period already undergone by him in the interest of
justice.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the
impugned judgment and opposed the arguments advanced on
behalf of the Appellant.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
including the impugned judgment.
8. Dr. Khyati (PW-12), in her Court testimony, stated that on July 13,
2019, she conducted a medical examination of injured Rajay
Netam, who sustained the following injuries:-
1. On the left elbow, there was a stab wound measuring 2x1x2
cm.
2. On the right arm, there was a stab wound measuring 2x2x3
cm.
3. On the left side of the chest (upper portion), there was a stab
wound measuring 2x1x2 cm.
4. On the lower right side of the chest, there was a stab wound
measuring 1x1x2 cm.
5. On the right side of the back, slightly above, extending
4towards the middle part of the back, there was a stab wound
measuring 2x1x3 cm.
Dr. Khyati opined that during the medical examination the
injured was conversing. No written communication was made by
Police Station Bayanar to the Doctor regarding the determination of
the nature of the injuries after conducting the medical examination
of the injured. The injuries sustained by the victim could have
healed with proper treatment. No injuries were inflicted upon the
vital organs of the victim’s body.
9. Having gone through the entire material available on record and the
evidence of injured Rajaya Netam (PW-1), Raghu Netam (PW-8)
and Dr. Khyati (PW-12) her report Ex.P-21 establish the
involvement of the Appellant in the crime in question. This Court
does not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the
Trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for the
aforementioned offence which is based on evidence available on
record and it is hereby affirmed.
10.As regards the 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
5pathological 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that
the incident occurred approximately 6 years ago in 2019. At that
time, the appellant was around 27 years old and now, he must be
aged about 33 years, having family responsibilities. He is facing the
lis since 2019 and he has already remained in jail for about 2 years
and 10 months. Taking into consideration all these facts, the ends
of justice would serve if he is sentenced to the period already
undergone by him.
12. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant of offence under
Sections 307, 452 & 506-B of IPC is maintained and the sentence
of RI for 7 years & RI for 3 years is reduced to the period already
undergone by him i.e. 2 years and 10 months. However, the fine
6
amount of the aforementioned offence shall remain intact. The fine
amount shall be disbursed to the injured person i.e. Rajaya Netam
(PW-1).
13. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated
hereinabove.
14. The appellant is reported to be on bail. He need not to surrender in
this case. His bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six
months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the
CrPC.
15. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record
be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information
and necessary compliance, if any.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Shubham
[ad_2]
Source link