Chattisgarh High Court
Dharmendra @ Rajju Dhiwar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 July, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH PATEL
PATEL Date:
2025.07.31 2025:CGHC:37277
11:16:53
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 928 of 2025
1 - Jay Yadav @ Ajay Yadav S/o Ashok Yadav Aged About 24 Years
R/o Moulipara, Near Pani Tanki, Telibandha District Raipur, (C.G.)
--- Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S. Civil Lines, District- Raipur
(C.G.)
--- Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Aman Saxena, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpury & Ms.
Pragya Shrivastava, Dy.G.A.
CRA No. 2244 of 2024
1 – Satyam Shukla @ Chhotu S/o Rajesh Shukla Aged About 22
Years R/o Peela Bangla, Lodhipara, Police Station- Pandri, Mova,
Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
—Appellant
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Raipur,
District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
— Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpury & Ms.
Pragya Shrivastava, Dy.G.A.
2
CRA No. 3 of 2025
1 – Dharmendra @ Rajju Dhiwar S/o Lt. Shri Thanu Dhiwar Aged
About 23 Years R/o Infront Of Dolphine Lmpress, Mova, Bazaar
Chowk , P.S. Mova, Pandari Raipur District Raipur ( C.G. ).
—Appellant
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh P.S. Civil ,lines, Raipur, District Raipur
(C.G.).
— Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpury & Ms.
Pragya Shrivastava, Dy.G.A.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
30/07/2025
1. Since all the appeals arise out of the same judgment dated
07.11.2024, they are being heard and disposed of by this
common order.
2. The present appeals arises out of the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 07.11.2024 passed by
the learned Special Judge, (N.D.P.S. Act) Raipur, District-
Raipur (C.G.), in Special (NDPS) Case No. 31/2024 whereby the
learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the
appellants as under :
Conviction Sentence
U/s 22(B) of R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-
N.D.P.S. Act to each of the appellants and in default of
payment of fine amount additional R.I. for
02 years to each.s
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 07.01.2024, Sub-Inspector
3
Jitendra Dubey of Civil Lines Police Station, Raipur, received a
tip-off about three individuals standing near Shankar Nagar
Over Bridge, possessing and intending to sell restricted narcotic
tablets. The police team, along with independent witnesses,
conducted a raid and apprehended the accused persons,
namely Satyam Shukla, Jay Yadav, and Dharmendra Dhivar.
During the search, the following items were recovered from the
accused persons:- I.) From Satyam Shukla: 360 tablets of
Nitrosun-10, a smartphone, cash of ₹3,000, and a white Activa
vehicle. II.) From Jay Yadav: 240 tablets of Nitrosun-10, a
Realme smartphone, and cash of ₹2,000. III.) From
Dharmendra Dhiwar: 240 tablets of Nitrosun-10, a Samsung
keypad mobile phone, cash of ₹2,000, and a black Activa
vehicle. The accused persons were informed about the
allegations and their rights, and a seizure memo was prepared
at the scene. Consequently, the appellants were arrested and
after completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed
against the appellants.
4. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution
has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 51
documents. The statements of the accused/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.
5. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 07.11.2024, learned Special Judge
has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as
mentioned in para-2 of this judgment. Hence, the present
appeals.
6. Learned counsels for the appellants submit that they are not
pressing the appeals so far as the conviction is concerned and
are confining their arguments to the sentence part thereof.
According to them the incident is said to have taken place on
07.01.2024, and the appellants were in jail from 07.01.2024
till date i.e. about 1 year, 07 months & 23 days. The appellant
4
jay @ Ajay Yadav is aged about 25 years, appellant Satyam
Shukla @ Chhotu is aged about 23 years and appellant
Dharmendra @ Rajju Dhiwar is aged about 24 years and they
are still serving the jail sentence; therefore, in the interest of
justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon
them may be reduced to the period already undergone by them
and they may be released from jail.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting
the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on
behalf of the appellants.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
on record including the impugned judgment.
9. Having gone through the material on record and the evidence of
the witnesses Mohammad Sultan (PW-2), Kamal Yadav (PW-3),
Jitendra Dubey (PW-4), Surendra Das Manikpuri (PW-5),
Mahendra Kumar Verma (PW-7), Kripa Sindhu Patel (PW-10)
and Surfaraz Chisti (PW-11) establishes the involvement of the
accused/appellants in the crime in question. Thus, considering
the oral and documentary evidence on record the seizure of
narcotic tablets from the possession of the accused/appellants
I.) From Satyam Shukla – 360 tablets (252gms), II.) From Jay
@ Ajay Yadav – 240 tablets (168gms) and III.) From
Dharmendra @ Rajju Dhiwar – 240 tablets (168gms) i.e., total
weight 588 grams without strip and were subsequently found
to be Nitrosun-10 narcotic tablets as per FSL report vide Ex. P-
50. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings
recorded by the trial Court as regards conviction of the
appellants under Section 22(B) of Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act.
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 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:
5
“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
facts that the appellants have been arrested on 07.01.2024
since then they were in custody till date i.e. about 1 year 07
months and 23 days, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and also considering the fac that
the appellants have no criminal antecedent, this court is of
the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if they
are sentenced to the period already undergone by them while
keeping the fine amount with default stipulation as imposed
by the Trial Court intact.
6
12. In the result the appeals are allowed in part. While
maintaining the conviction of the appellants under Section
22(B) of NDPS Act, their jail sentence is reduced to the period
already undergone by them i.e. about 1 year, 07 months & 23
days instead of R.I. for 10 years. However, the fine imposed
upon each of the appellants by the Trial Court shall remain
intact.
13. The appellants are reported to be in jail. Subject to the
appellants depositing the fine amount imposed upon them by
the trial Court, they be released forthwith if not required to be
detained in any other case.
14. Let a certified copy of this order along with original record be
transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned as well as to
the Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are languishing
for information and necessary action, if any.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
JUDGE
Sourabh P.