Chattisgarh High Court
Ghansu @ Ghanshyam Ganda And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 June, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:29110
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 776 of 2005
1 - Ghansu @ Ghanshyam Ganda S/o Late Punit Ram Ganda aged about 25 years.
2- Banshilal Ganda S/o Late Punit Ram Ganda aged about 21 years.
3- Rohit Ganda S/o Late Punit Ram Ganda aged about 28 years.
All appellants are R/o Joginagar Tikarapara P. S.- Tikarapara District- Raipur (CG)
... Appellants
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Raipur (CG)
... Respondent
For Appellants : Mr. Aishwarya Diwan, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Neeta Tulsani, P. L.
(Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judgment on Board
30/06/2025
1. This appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short
“CrPC“) has been filed challenging the judgment dated 31.08.2005 passed in
Sessions Trial No.120/2005 by 11th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur (CG)
by which the appellants has been convicted under Section 324 read with 34 of IPC
and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years each and fine of Rs.500/- each with default
stipulations.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 03.12.2004 at about 9.30 pm, the
complainant Mirza Hashim Beg had gone towards Joginagar Tikarapara where the
accused Ghanshu Ganda met him who prior on 02.12.2004 assaulted the friend of
2
complainant namely Sunny by a shaving razor. On being questioned as to why the
appellant has assaulted Sunny, he started filthily abusing him and with the common
intention of other appellants, the brother of appellant No.1 asked them to tie the
hands of complainant Mirza Hashim Beg. Thereafter appellants Banshilal and Rohit
slammed him on floor and tied his hands from behind. Appellant Ghansu took out the
shaving razor from his pocket and with intention to kill caused the injury on his
throat. On being shouted, people of the vicinity came running upon which the
appellants ran away. The incident was reported to the Police Station Tikarapara upon
which crime under Section 307/34 IPC was registered and investigation was set on
motion. Complainant (PW-6) was medically examined. His full pant worn at the time
of incident was seized. Appellant Ghansu was arrested and his memorandum
statement was recorded and on the strength of that memorandum statement in
presence of witnesses, the shaving razor was seized at the instance of appellant
Ghansu vide seizure memo Ex. P-5. The clothes worn by him was also seized. Spot
map was prepared, seized articles were sent for chemical examination to Forensic
Science Laboratory, statement of witnesses were recorded. After completion of
investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Court who committed the
case to the Sessions Court, Raipur who made over the case to the trial Court for trial.
The appellants were charged as stated above, however, denied the charge framed
against them and claimed for trial.
3. So as to establish its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses and
exhibited 27 documents. The statement of the accused/appellants under Section 313
CrPC was also recorded where they pleaded their innocence and false implication in
the case.
4. By the judgment impugned learned trial Court has held the accused/appellants guilty
and imposed the sentence as described above which is challenged before this Court
by the appellants.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the prosecution was not able to bring
home the guilt of the accused persons and the finding recorded by trial Court is bad
in law and contrary to evidence and material on record. The learned trial Court failed
to appreciate the evidence brought before it to its proper perspective and erroneously
3
convicted the appellants as stated above. He submits that the incident had occurred
on 03.12.2004, during pendency of the appeal, the appellants were granted bail by
this Court, they have never misused the liberty granted to them, their sentences were
suspended by this Court and they have been duly following the conditions. They
were aged about 25, 21 & 28 years respectively at the time of incident and faced the
lis for more than 20 years. Therefore, he prays that the appeal may be allowed and
the sentence imposed upon the appellants may be reduced to period already
undergone by them.
6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel
for appellants and submits that statement of PW-6 is very categorical against the
appellants which is also corroborated by the statement of Dr. Sarita Dubey (PW-11)
and the meritorious finding has been recorded by learned trial Court. Hence, this
appeal is liable to be dismissed.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record
including the impugned judgment.
8. The incident is said to have occurred on 03.12.2004. A prompt FIR within 15 minutes
was lodged at Police Station Tikarapara Ex. P-8 naming the present appellants and
detailing the manner in which the incident had occurred. Complainant- injured (PW-
6) in his deposition before the Court has categorically deposed the manner in which
the incident had occurred and he deposed that the appellant Ghansu has kept the
shaving razor in his pocket and he was filthily abused and during this course the
shaving razor was touched on his throat and he further deposed that both the brothers
held him and tied him from behind as he fell down he could not shout. When the
Police people came they lifted him up. The incident was reported and report is Ex. P-
8. He also happens to prove the seizure of his full pant and t-shirt vide Ex. P-6. In
detailed cross-examination nothing incriminating is brought on record. The statement
of this witness finds corroboration from the statement of Dr. Sarita Dubey (PW-11)
who found a incised wound in front of his throat which is 5×2 cm and was caused
within 6 hrs by a sharp edged weapon and the report is Ex. P-20. Therefore, looking
to the statement of complainant and corroborated by statement of doctor (PW-11), the
prosecution was able to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable
4
doubt, therefore, their conviction under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC is hereby
maintained.
9. The second submission which is placed before this Court whether the sentence of
appellant can be reduced to period already undergone or what would be adequate
sentence to be imposed in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case of Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of UP reported in (2004) 7
SCC 257 observed in paragraph 8 as under :
“8. This brings us to the next question in regard to the
reduction of sentence made by the High Court. In criminal
cases awarding of sentence is not a mere formality. Where the
statute has given the court a choice of sentence with maximum
and minimum limit presented then an element of discretion is
vested with the court. This discretion can not be exercised
arbitrarily or whimsically. It will have to be exercised taking
into consideration the gravity of offence, the manner in which it
is committed, the age, the sex of the accused, in other words,
the sentence to be awarded will have to be considered in the
background of the fact of each case and the court while doing
so should bear in mind the principle of proportionality. The
sentence awarded should be neither excessively harsh nor
ridiculously low.”
10. In the same breath, I am persuaded to mention herein below few lines from the
judgment authored by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in the case of Mohammad
Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1977 SC 1926 :-
“Western jurisdiction 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
Micodotis, 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
5of 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 light of above broad principle for imposing adequate sentence the facts of this case
examined.
12. While determining the quantum of punishment various factors need to be considered.
Nature and gravity of offence, penalty provided for the offence, manner of
commission of offence, proportionality between crime & punishment, character of
the offender, age and sex of the offender, antecedents if any, possibility of reforms,
impact of crime on society etc are some of the relevant consideration in determining
the quantum of punishment. Court has to strike a balance between crime and
punishment. Possibility of reform is an important mitigating factor while imposing
appropriate sentence. Undue sympathy should not be given only because of long
drawn pendency of criminal proceedings. The incident had occurred on 03.12.2004.
The appellants were aged about 25, 21 & 28 years respectively at the time of incident
and now they are at mature age and facing the lis for about more than 20 years.
During trial, they were granted bail by this Court and their sentences were also
suspended by this Court. Nothing incriminating is brought to the notice of this Court
that they have not reformed during pendency of this appeal. Nothing significant is on
record to suggest that their freedom is detrimental to society at large. The appellant
Dhansu @ Ghanshyam was in judicial custody from 04.12.2004 to 05.03.2005,
appellant Banshilal from 09.12.2004 to 05.03.2005 and appellant Rohit from
6
29.03.2005 to 01.04.2005. Overall facts & circumstances indicates that no harm to
society at large is likely to cause in case the appellants are prematurely released.
However, in order to meet the ends of justice and looking to the injuries sustained by
injured, it requires to be compensated suitably. Section 324 IPC may be punishable
with fine only. In view of above, this court is inclined to reduce the sentence imposed
upon the appellants to the sentence already undergone/served by them by enhancing
the fine amount of Rs.500/- to 1000/- for each appellants. The fine amount shall be
deposited by each of appellants within 90 days, failing which they will undergo R.I.
for 20 days. On depositing the fine, the enhanced amount shall be paid to injured-
Mirza Hashim Beg (PW-6) in view of Section 395 of BNSS, 2023 after due
identification.
13. As a consequence of the above discussion, while maintaining the conviction, the
sentence imposed upon the appellants is reduced to sentence already
served/undergone by them. The appellants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds
shall remain in force for 6 months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023. The
record be sent back with copy of this Judgment forthwith for necessary action and
compliance. Appeal thus partly allowed.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
JUDGE
PARUL
MITTAL
Digitally signed by
PARUL MITTAL
Date: 2025.07.15
11:02:22 +0530
Parul
[ad_1]
Source link