Chattisgarh High Court
Mahesh Kumar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 August, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by BHOLA NATH
KHATAI
Date: 2025.08.07
17:17:24 +0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1778 of 2024
Mahesh Kumar Sahu S/o. Jivan Lal Sahu Aged About 25 Years
R/o. Village - Ward No. 25, Shriram Colony, Mahasamund,
District - Mahasamund (C.G.)
--- Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mahasamund,
District - Mahasamund (C.G.)
--- Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Virendra Kashyap, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L.
CRA No. 1750 of 2024
Sushil Soni S/o Raju Ghasiya Aged About 25 Years R/o Ward
No. 25, Subhash Nagar, Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
—Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police
Station – City Kotwali, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
— Respondent
For Appellants : Mr. K. K. Dewangan, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L.
2
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
06/08/2025
1 Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment
dated 16.08.2024, they are being heard and disposed of by
this common judgment.
2 Both the appeals under Section 415(2)/(3) of BNSS have
been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 16.08.2024 passed by learned Second
Additional Sessions Judge Mahasamund, (C.G.), in
Sessions Trial No. H 32/2022 whereby the appellants have
been convicted and sentenced as under :
Conviction Sentence
Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years
U/s 325/34 of with fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default
IPC of payment of fine amount, additional
R.I. for 3 months.
3 The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20.02.2016,
complainant Khelun Patel lodged a report stating that he
had gone to Mahasamund for repairing motorcycle, but
due to late night, he was unable to return his house,
therefore, he was going to the house of one relative namely
Narendra Nirmalkar working as constable in crime branch.
At that time, he asked the address of Narendra Nirmalkar
from the appellants, upon which, they abused him and
also tried to snatch his mobile. Thereafter, the complainant
reached the house of Narendra Nirmalkar and informed
him about the incident. Upon which, Narendra Nirmalkar
advised the appellants, but they abused and assaulted
Narendra Nirmalkar with a club and fled away from the
spot. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed against
3
the present appellants.
4 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has
examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 10
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.
5 The trial Court, taking into consideration the evidence
which has come on record, vide impugned judgment dated
16.08.2024, acquitted the appellants of the offence
punishable under Sections 294, 506-B, 186/34 and 393 of
IPC. However, the appellants have been convicted and
sentenced by the impugned judgment as mentioned in
paragraph-2 of this judgment, leading to the filing of these
appeals.
6 Learned counsel for the appellants submit that they are
not pressing the appeals so far as it relates to the
conviction part of the judgment and would confine their
argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to
them, appellant Sushil Soni was in jail from 21.02.2016 to
05.03.2016 (18 days) and from 24.04.2022 to 29.04.2022
(5 days) during trial and at present he is in jail since
08.07.2025, meaning thereby appellant Sushil Soni has
already served the jail sentence of about 1 month 16 days;
appellant Mahesh was in jail from 21.02.2016 to
27.02.2016 (6 days), appellant Mahesh has no criminal
antecedents. Hence, considering all these facts, the
sentence imposed upon the appellants may be reduced to
the period already undergone by them.
7 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State,
supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the
4
arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellant.
He submits that appellant Sushil Soni has 6 criminal
antecedents.
8 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
9 Dr. Dinesh Kumar Sinha (PW-7) examined the Injured
Narendra Nirmalkar (PW-4) and gave his report Ex.P-9. As
per Ex.P-9, following injuries were found:-
1. A cut wound 3×3 cm in L shape in the middle of the
head.
2. A cut wound 1×1/2 cm in the left palm.
3. A cut wound 2×1/2 cm on the back side of the right
hand.
4. An abrasion wound 2×1 cm in front of the left knee.
5. An abrasion wound 1×1 cm in front of the right waist
bone.
Dr. Dinesh Kumar Sinha (PW-7) stated that all the above
injuries were likely to have been caused by a hard and
blunt object and advised to X-ray. As per the X-ray report,
a fracture was found in the second metacarpal of the right
palm.
10 Having gone through the material available on record and
the statements of complainant Khelun Patel (PW-1),
injured Narendra Kumar Nirmalkar (PW-4), Bhikham Patel
(PW-2), Vinod Jagat (PW-3), Manish Shrivastava (PW-5),
Santosh Kumar Sanwra (PW-6), Mohd. Suleman (PW-8), K.
K. Baijpai (PW-9), Dr. Dinesh Kumar Sinha (PW-7) and the
medical report of the injured, 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
5
appellants for the offence punishable under Section
325/34 of IPC.
11 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
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
6with the criminal Courts, you should see for
yourself the conditions under which prisoners
serve their sentences.”
12 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 Sushil Soni has already served the
jail sentence of about 1 month and 16 days and appellant
Mahesh has already served the jail sentence of about 6
days, as per arrest memo, the appellants work as
labourers, 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.
13 Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants under Section
325/34 of IPC is maintained but their jail sentence is
reduced to the period already undergone by them i.e. 1
month 16 days by appellant Sushil and 6 days by
appellant Mahesh. However, the fine of Rs.1000/- imposed
upon the appellants by the Trial Court is enhanced to Rs.
5,000/- each i.e. a total of Rs.10,000/- which shall be
payable to injured Narendra Kumar Nirmalkar. In default
of payment of enhanced fine amount, the appellants shall
be liable to undergo R.I. for 3 months. The fine amount
already deposited by the appellants shall be adjusted.
14 Consequently, both the appeals are allowed in part to the
extent indicated herein-above.
15 Appellant Sushil 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.
16 Appellant Mahesh 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
7
Procedure.
17 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 Sushil is suffering the jail sentence.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
JUDGE
Khatai