Chattisgarh High Court
Jagdish Dhruw vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 August, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by BHOLA NATH
KHATAI
Date: 2025.08.08
10:35:39 +0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 564 of 2024
1 - Jagdish Dhruw S/o Ranjulal Dhruw Aged About 26 Years
R/o Village Chorha (Singhanpuri), Chowki- Junapara Police
Station - Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Deep Dhruw S/o Ranjulal Dhruw Aged About 19 Years R/o
Village Chorha (Singhanpuri), Chowki - Junapara Police Station
- Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
... Appellants
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Takhatpur,
District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
For Appellants : Mr. Palash Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, P.L.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
07/08/2025
1 This appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been filed
challenging the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 18.01.2024 passed by learned 8th
Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.), in Sessions
2
Trial No.87/2020 whereby the appellants have been
convicted and sentenced as under :
Conviction Sentence
Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years
U/s 304 with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of
Part-II/34 of IPC payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6
months.
Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years
U/s 201/34 of with fine of Rs.300/-, in default of
IPC payment of fine, additional R.I. for 3
months.
2 The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 01.12.2019 at
about 11:00 p.m., in village Chorha (Singhanpuri) Chowki
Junapara, Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, the
appellants, in furtherance of their common intention,
assaulted their brother Chhotelal Dhruw with wooden
Pidha and bamboo stick, as a result of which he suffered
grievous injuries and died during treatment in CIMS
Hospital, Bilaspur on 11.12.2019. It is alleged that in order
to screen themselves from the offence, they destroyed the
blood stains at the scene of incident by applying cow dung
and burnt the blood-stained clothes of the deceased during
the cremation, thereby, the offence has been committed.
The matter was reported to the Police by ward boy of CIMS
Hospital, Bilaspur based on which Merg was recorded. After
due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the
present appellants.
3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has
examined as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited 34
documents. The statements of the 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.
3
4 After appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence
available on record, vide impugned judgment, learned trial
Court convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence
as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the
present appeal.
5 Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he is not
pressing the appeal so far as it relates to the conviction
part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the
sentence part thereof only. He submits that the deceased
and the appellants are real brothers. On the date of
incident at about 11 p.m., on hearing the scream of their
mother Birij Bai (PW-1) the appellants came out and saw
that the deceased Chotella Dhruw was beating their mother
with a stick and was also abusing her with filthy language.
The appellants tried to escape their mother from the
clutches of the deceased, in the meanwhile, they also
assaulted the deceased with stick, due to which he suffered
grievous injuries and died during treatment in the hospital.
He further submits that appellant No.1 Jagdish Dhruw has
already served the jail sentence of about 4 years, 5 months
& 6 days and appellant No.2 Deep Dhruw has already
served the jail sentence of 4 years, 11 months & 22 days.
Hence, considering all these facts, the sentence imposed
upon the appellants may be reduced to the period already
undergone by them.
6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State,
supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the
arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellant.
However, he submits that there is no criminal antecedents
against the appellants.
7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
4
record.
8 Having gone through the material available on record and
the statements of witnesses Babulal Dhruv (PW-6),
Ramniranjan (PW-14), Suklal (PW-15), Dr. Dinesh Kumar
Sahu (PW-17), Dr. N. Varun (PW-18) and medical &
postmortem report of the victim, the involvement of the
appellants in the crime in question is clearly established.
This Court does not find any illegality in the findings
recorded by the Trial Court regarding conviction of the
appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 304
Part-II/34 & 201/34 of IPC.
9 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 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
5process 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.”
10 In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case
of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the
fact that appellant No.1 Jagdish Dhruw has already served
the jail sentence of about 4 years, 5 months & 6 days and
appellant No.2 Deep Dhruw has already served the jail
sentence of about 4 years, 11 months & 22 days, there is
no criminal antecedent against the appellants and also
considering the fact that the appellants and the deceased
are real brothers and when the appellants saw the
deceased abusing and beating their mother with a stick,
they assaulted the deceased with bamboo stick and Pidha
leading to his death during treatment in the hospital, this
Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would serve
if the appellants are sentenced to the period already
undergone by them.
11 Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants under
Sections 304 Part-II/34 & 201/34 of IPC is maintained but
their jail sentence is reduced to the period already
undergone by them i.e. 4 years, 5 months & 6 days by
appellant appellant No.1 Jagdish and 4 years, 11 months &
6
22 days by appellant No.2 Deep Dhruv. However, the fine
and its default stipulation imposed upon the appellants by
the trial Court under the said sections shall remain intact.
12 Consequently, the present appeal is allowed in part to the
extent indicated herein-above.
13 Appellant No.1 Jagdish Dhruw is reported to be on bail. His
bail bonds shall continue for a further period of six months
from today in terms of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
14 Appellant No.2 Deep Dhruw 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.
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 Appellant No.2
Deep Dhruw is suffering the jail sentence.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
JUDGE
Khatai