Rajoo and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:54822

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 516 of 2002

¶6

1 – Rajoo son of Baburam (Since deceased)

¶7

2- Surti Son of Santram (Since deceased)

¶8

3- Bittu alias Narendra son of Surti aged about 29 Years, Gardner in Polling Mill, Resident of Camp-I, Near Gurudwara, Sunder Nagar Bhilai, P.S. Chhavni District Durg (C.G.)

¶9

... Appellants

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Chhavni, Distt. Durg (C.G.)

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

___________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Uttam Pandey, Advocate along with Ms. Pooja Sinha, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Ajit Singh, GA

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

¶15

Order On Board

¶16

11/11/2025

¶17

Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH ASHUTOSH MISHRA MISHRA Date: 2025.11.12 18:32:51 +0530

¶18

Pending the appeal before this Court, Appellants No. 1 & 2 namely Rajoo and Surti, respectively, have died and as such the

¶19

2

¶20

appeal so far as appellants - Rajoo and Surti is concerned, has been abated and the appeal is now being prosecuted only on behalf of the appellant No.3 /Bittu alias Narendra.

¶21

This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/accused being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24/04/2002 passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.221/95, whereby the trial Court has convicted and sentenced as under :

¶22

Conviction	Sentence	In Defaul	t
U/S 324/34 of IPC	RI for 01 year and fine amount of Rs.5,00/-	In default payment of amount addition for 1 & ½ mont	of fine al RI hs
U/s 326/34 of IPC	R.I. for 02 years and fine amount of Rs.1000/-	In default payment of amount addition for 03 months.	of fine al RI

¶23

Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 5.10.94 at 16:45 hours complainant Sohan Singh had lodged a report at Chhavni Police to the effect that he had gone to the house of Magarsingh to attend a party. While returning along with Magarsingh in a jeep and had reached near Camp-I, Bhilai Gurudwara, all the accused persons, due to previous enmity, stopped the jeep, two of the accused

¶24

3

¶25

persons pulled him out of the jeep and then started assault on him with iron pipe and sword. Thereafter Magarsingh, who was sitting in the jeep was also pulled out and assaulted by the accused persons. On the basis of said report, offence under Sections 147, 148, 149 read with Section 323 I.P. C. was registered against the accused persons. The injured Sohansingh and Magarsingh were got medically examined when the Doctor opined the injuries of Sohansingh as grievous.

¶26

During investigation, the blood stained clothes of Sohansingh and Magarsingh were seized. On the memorandum of accused Raju, a sword was seized and on the memorandum of accused Satte alias Satpal (since acquitted) an ion rod was seized. Map of the spot was prepared. Statements under Section 161 Cr.P. C. of the witnesses were recorded and after completing the investigation, challan for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 307 I.P. C. was filed again st six accused persons, in the Court of J.M.F. C. Durg, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 174/95. The J.M. F. C. Durg then committed the accused persons to stand their trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Durg and in tum the case was made over to the Court of learned trial Judge.

¶27

The prosecution on its behalf examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents. During the course of trial accused

¶28

4

¶29

Sheetal alias Surjit singh and Ramsingh had expired.

¶30

In examination of accused under Section 313 Cr. P. C. the accused persons, except accused Rasiya alias Surendar, abjured their guilt. Leamed trial Court, after recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses and after concluding the trial, acquitted accused Satte alias Satpal, Rasiya alias Surendar and Kakoo alias Balbinder from all the charges levelled against them. The present appellants/accused were also acquitted from the charge under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 of I.P.C. but convicted and sentenced them under Sections 324 and 326 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submit that he is not pressing this appeal on merits and confining his arguments to the quantum of sentence only. He further submits that the maximum sentence awarded to the appellant No.3 is 02 years and the appellants were granted bail by this Court by order dated 29/05/2002 and the appellant has been arrested on 09/11/2025 pursuant to the non-bailable warrant issued on 26/09/2025, hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to appellant No.3 be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶32

On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of

¶33

5

¶34

learned counsel for appellant, would submit that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants and therefore, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference.

¶35

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment with utmost circumspection.

¶36

Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of the witness and the relevant documents exhibited on record, the involvement of the appellant No.3 in the crime in question is clearly established. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court regarding conviction of the appellant No.3 for the offence punishable under Sections 324/34 & 326/34 of IPC.

¶37

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:

¶38

“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 :

¶39

6

¶40

"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.”

¶41

In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that sentence imposed upon the appellant No.3 is 02 years, and the incident happened in the year 1994, therefore, more than 30 years have passed till the dispute has taken place. The appellant is villager, illeterate and poor person. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would serve if the appellant No.3 is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

¶42

Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant No.3 under Section 324/34 & 326/34 of IPC is maintained, but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine amount is increased from Rs.500/- & Rs.1000/-, respectively to Rs.1000/- &

¶43

7

¶44

Rs.2000/-.

¶45

Consequently, this appeal stands allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above.

¶46

The appellant No.3 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/offence.

¶47

Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC (now Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.10,000/- with one reliable surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶48

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 the appellant is suffering the jail sentence.

SD/-

(Arvind Kumar Verma)

Judge

ashu

Rajoo and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajoo and Others 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

Dharmendra Singh Songara Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Raghuveer Singh Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Singh Sisodiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prem Lal Dewangan (Wrongly Mentioned as Dewangan) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suresh Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ankit Singh Vs Smt. Sudha Singh