Partly allowed¶46

Rishi Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Sept 2025CRA/1067/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; CRA No. 1067 of 2024; decided 16.09.2025 by Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Conviction under Section 307 IPC affirmed on injured witness and medical evidence (stab/penetrating chest injury with pneumothorax); sentence reduced from RI 4 years to RI 3 years with fine Rs.10,000/- (default RI one month) relying on Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1977) 3 SCC 287; set off granted; knife assault on chest during birthday celebration near Danganiya talab, Raipur; appeal partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 307 IPC maintained; substantive sentence reduced from RI four years to RI three years with fine of Rs.10,000/- (in default, further RI one month); set off of period undergone during trial and pendency of appeal allowed. ¶46

Rishi Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 IPC (which the appellant chose not to challenge) was sustainable on the prosecution evidence. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

The evidence of the injured complainant and the treating doctors establishes that the appellant caused the knife injury; the appellant was rightly convicted under Section 307 IPC and his conviction is affirmed.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

While maintaining the conviction under Section 307 IPC, the sentence is reduced to RI for three years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine further RI for one month, considering the totality of facts and the law laid down in Giasuddin (supra).

¶45

Key takeaways

The appellant shall undergo the entire sentence as modified by this Court and is entitled to set off of the period undergone during the trial as well as during the pendency of this appeal.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRA No. 1067 of 2024 (High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J., decided 16.09.2025): Appeal against judgment dated 06.05.2024 of the learned Session Judge, Raipur in Session Trial-38 of 2022 convicting the appellant under Section 307 IPC and sentencing him to RI four years and fine of Rs.10,000/- (default RI six months). Held: (i) conviction affirmed — the injured complainant PW-1 Vivek Sahu withstood cross-examination, and medical evidence (PW-7 Dr Dev Kumar Tandon: stab injury on chest 7 cm x 0.75 cm x 0.75 cm; PW-9 Dr Manoj Poptani: penetrating injury over left side of chest with left side pneumothorax and subcutaneous emphysema) established a severe injury; (ii) sentence reduced to RI three years with fine of Rs.10,000/- (default further RI one month), the appellant being a young boy of about 30 years who had already undergone about 1 year 11 months and 16 days, the incident arising circumstantially out of a refusal to give food, and considering the rehabilitative approach indicated in Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 3 SCC 287; (iii) appeal partly allowed; appellant entitled to set off of period undergone during trial and pendency of appeal.

¶1

Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.09.23 10:50:57 +0530

¶2

2025:CGHC:47615

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 1067 of 2024

¶6

Rishi Sahu S/o Goverdhan Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Near Shiv Mandir Danganiya Sahu Para, P.S. Deendayal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Appellant(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Deendayal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from the CIS)

¶10

-------------------------------------------	-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant	: Shri Balraj Gupta, Advocate
For Respondent/State	: Shri Vivek Sharma, PL

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

¶12

Judgment on Board

¶13

16.09.2025

¶14

This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction, and order of sentence dated 06.05.2024 passed by the learned Session Judge, Raipur (CG), in Session Trial-38 of 2022, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced RI for 4 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI for six months.

¶15

Brief facts of the case are that, on 16.08.2019, at about 11 pm, complainant Vivek Sahu was celebrating birthday party with his friend Akash Dhruv near Danganiya talab along with his another friend Ayush Sahu. At that time, present appellant also came there, and asked for providing some food. When the complainant refused to give him food, he started abusing, and

¶16

Cra 1067 of 2024

¶17

¶18

threatening him, and meanwhile, he took out a knife, and assaulted the complainant on his chest, by which, the complainant received injuries and with the intervention of Yugal Sahu, Ayush Sahu, and Akash Sahu, complainant could be saved. Complainant informed his elder brother Dhanendra Kumar Sahu PW3, and then they took him to Mekahara Hospital, Raipur. PW3 lodged report to the Police, appellant was arrested, and his memorandum statement Ex.P2 was recorded. Based on the memorandum statement, knife has been seized from him vide seizure memo Ex.P3, FIR Ex.P6 was registered, and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 324, 506B, 326, and 307 of the IPC. Case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Raipur for its trial.

¶19

Learned trial court has framed charge against the appellant for the offence under Sections 294, 506B and 307 of the IPC. Appellant denied the charge appearing against him and claimed trial.

¶20

In order to bring home the charge against the appellant, prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses. Statement under Section 313 of the CrPC of the appellant has also been recorded in which he denied the material appearing against him, pleaded innocence, and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence.

¶21

After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, learned trial court has convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in earlier part of this judgment. Hence, this appeal by the appellant.

¶22

Cra 1067 of 2024

¶23

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, would submit that appellant is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment, for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC. He would also submit that appellant is not a hardcore criminal. In the alleged incident, when the appellant asked for food from the complainant, and when the complainant denied to give him food, at that state of mind, he assaulted him by knife, which is not intentional. Learned trial Court has awarded the sentence of four years, out of which appellant has already served about half of the sentence. The offence of Section 307 does not provide any minimum sentence. Appellant is a young boy, and looking to the entire circumstances of the case, period of sentence may be reduced for the period already undergone by him.

¶25

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, and would submit that although the appellant is not challenging the conviction for the offence 307 of the IPC, however, looking to gravity of the offence, and nature of injury found on the body of the complainant, learned trial Court has already shown leniency in favour of the appellant, and he is not entitled for any further leniency. Merely on the issue of asking food, and denial of giving food, he made assault upon the complainant by knife, that too, on his chest. Therefore, looking to the nature of offence, and injuries, he is not entitled for any relief, and his appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶27

Although the appellant is not challenging the conviction for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC, however, it would be relevant to consider the

¶28

Cra 1067 of 2024

¶29

¶30

evidence of complainant PW1Vivek Sahu, and the doctor, who treated him ie PW7 Dr Dev Kumar Tandon, and PW9 Dr Manoj Poptani.

¶31

PW-1 Vivek Sahu is the injured, and he stated in his evidence that on the date of incident, at about 11.30 pm, he was celebrating birthday of near shiv mandir at talab, and when they were cutting the cake, appellant was also came there asking for food, and when they denied to give him food, he started altercation, and took out a knife from his pocket, and assaulted him on his chest. He lost his consciousness, and then, after some time, regained his conscious only in the hospital.

¶32

In the cross-examination, defense could not extract any material, so that his evidence could be disbelieved, that it is not the appellant, and some other person, who caused him the injuries.

¶33

PW-7, Dr Dev Kumar Tandon has stated in his evidence that on 17.08.2019 at about 1.15 am, the injured Vivek Sahu was brought before him with stab injury on the chest, of 7 cm x 0.75 cm x 0.75 cm at intra costal space with bleeding. He was referred for surgery, and further treatment, to Dr BR Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur. He proved the MLC report Ex.P14, and the discharge summary, Ex.P17C. He also proved the query report Ex.P16, in which he opined that if the injured has not been treated in time, death might be possible.

¶34

PW9 Dr Manoj Poptani, Assistant Professor at the Department of surgery at Pt.JNM Medical College, Raipur, who proved the indoor patient sheet Ex.P17c, by which he did surgery of the complainant, and found penetrating injury over left side of the chest with left side pneumothorax with

¶35

Cra 1067 of 2024

¶36

¶37

subcutaneous emphysema. Nothing could be extracted from this witness also, so that it can be said that the injuries are not of the severe nature, or they are simple in nature. Thus, the evidence clearly suggests that the appellant has caused injury to the complainant by knife, and thereby, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant has been rightly been convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC, and his conviction is therefore, affirmed.

¶38

So far as sentence part is concerned, the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is not hardcore criminal, and it is only when the complainant denied to give him food, the incident occurred , which is circumstantial, and not intentional. The offence under Section 307 of the IPC does not provide any memo of sentence. Appellant has already remained in jail for about 1 year, 11 months, and 16 days i.e nearly two years. Appellant is a young boy, aged about 30 years, therefore, considering the nature of allegation, as well as his detention period, appellant may be sentenced for the period already undergone by him, is found appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶39

So far as the sentence part is concerned, Hon’ble Supreme court in the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 3 SCC 287, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under:

¶40

“9. 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-

¶41

Cra 1067 of 2024

¶42

¶43

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.”

¶44

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, also considering totality of facts and circumstances of the present case, and further considering the law laid down in Giasuddin (supra) case, this Court deem it fit to reduce the sentence awarded to the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. Therefore, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, his sentence is reduced RI for three years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo RI for one month.

¶45

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.

¶46

Appellant is reported to be in jail since 06.05.2024. He shall undergo the entire sentence as modified/altered by this Court. He is entitled for set off his undergone period during the trial, as well as during pendency of this appeal.

¶47

Cra 1067 of 2024

¶48

¶49

Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail, where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.

¶50

Record of the trial court be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned along with copy of this judgment for compliance and necessary action.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE

¶53

padma

Rishi Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rishi Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sindhu Das Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Amardip Singh Khanuja Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Idris @ Ibbu Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Krishna Kishor @ Ballu Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sushil Kumar Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shri Ramaasra Netam Vs State of Chhattisgarh