Satyanarayan Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.07.09 17:30:28 +0530

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 635 of 2024

¶6

Satyanarayan Sahu S/o Late Shri Gangaram Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Chhind Kabir Chowk, Kevatapara P.S. Sarangarh, Dist. Raigarh, C.G., Present Dist. SarangarhBilaigarh, C.G.

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate SarangarhBilaigarh By Police Station Incharge Sarangarh, Dist. SarangarhBilaigarh, C.G.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Appellant : Mr. R. R. Soni, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. Govt. Advocate

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶13

Judgment on Board

¶14

08/07/2025

¶15

1 The present appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.02.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, Satra Khand Raigarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No.01/2022 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :

¶16

2

¶17

Conviction	Sentence
U/s 307 of IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional
	R.I. for 3 months.

¶18

2 The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.10.2021, when the injured Dileshwar Sahu came out of the house after having food at around 8-9 p.m., the appellant tried to kill him by sprinkling petrol on him and lighting a matchstick on the pretext of cigarette. The father of the injured, who was sitting near the house, came running and extinguished the fire by tearing his shirt. The injured was first taken to Sarangarh hospital, from where he was referred to Raigarh Hospital and then to DKS Hospital Raipur for treatment. A written complaint being made in this regard by the sister of the injured, FIR was registered and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant.

¶19

3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents in support of its case. The statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.

¶20

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.

¶21

3

¶22

5 Learned counsel for the appellant 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 appellant is in jail since 29.12.2021, the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 7 years, out of which he has already served the jail sentence of about 3 years 6 months and 10 days. Therefore, considering all these facts, the sentence imposed upon the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him and he may be released from jail.

¶23

6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellant.

¶24

7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶25

8 Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of the complainant Ku. Heera Sahu (PW-1), the injured Dileshwar Sahu (PW-2), his mother Chandrakanta Sahu (PW-3) & father Ramkumar Sahu (PW-6), Dr. Ritesh Sen (PW-10) and Dr. Vijay Laxmi Kosma (PW-13) and the medical reports of the injured, the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question is clearly established. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 307 of IPC.

¶26

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

¶27

4

¶28

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:

¶29

“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 :

¶30

"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 reculturisation. 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.”

¶31

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 the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 7 years, out of which he has already served the

¶32

5

¶33

jail sentence of about 3 years, 6 months and 10 days and also considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would serve if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

¶34

11 Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of IPC is maintained but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 3 years, 6 months & 10 days. However, the fine amount and its default stipulation imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact.

¶35

12 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above.

¶36

13 The appellant 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.

¶37

14 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.

¶38

Sd/(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE

¶39

Khatai

Satyanarayan Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyanarayan 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

Chotu Alias Shrawan Kumar Dhruw Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Juvenile in Conflict With Law Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Subham Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramdas Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jitendra Kosle Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kailash Barle Vs State of Chhattisgarh