Partly allowed¶12

Thanwar Nishad v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC13 Jul 2025CRA/825/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur — CRA 825/2025, Thanwar Nishad v. State of Chhattisgarh (14.07.2025, Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal). Keywords: Section 415(2) BNSS 2023 appeal; Section 307 IPC conviction upheld; sentence reduction to period already undergone; 3 years 8 months served; Mohammad Giasuddin (1977) 3 SCC 287 relied upon for rehabilitative sentencing; fine enhancement Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 12,000 as victim compensation; default R.I. six months; release forthwith; iron-rod assault on labourer, P.S. Chhura, Gariyaband.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 307 IPC maintained; jail sentence reduced to the period already undergone (3 years 8 months); fine enhanced to Rs. 12,000/- payable to the victim as compensation with default R.I. of six months; appellant to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Thanwar Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 IPC recorded by the trial court suffers from any illegality (appellant's counsel did not press this part of the appeal). +1 more

¶5

Court's answer

The involvement of the appellant in the crime is clearly established on the deposition of PW-15, PW-1, PW-6, PW-3, PW-2 and the Investigating Officer (PW-13), and this Court does not find any illegality in the trial court's findings convicting him under Section 307 IPC.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

In light of the Supreme Court's decision in Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and considering that the appellant is in detention since 11.11.2021, has served about 3 years 8 months of the maximum 7-year sentence, and has no criminal antecedent recorded in the arrest memo, the ends of justice would be served by sentencing him to the period already undergone.

¶10

Key takeaways

Conviction under Section 307 IPC maintained; jail sentence reduced to the period already undergone (3 years 8 months); fine enhanced from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 12,000/- to be given to the victim as compensation, with default rigorous imprisonment of six months; any fine already paid to be adjusted against the enhanced amount.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRA No. 825 of 2025 (High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; Single Judge: Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal; decided 14.07.2025): Appeal under Section 415(2) BNSS 2023 against judgment dated 01.03.2025 of the Upper Sessions Judge, Gariyaband (Sessions Case No. 16/2022) convicting the appellant under Section 307 IPC and sentencing him to 7 years' R.I. plus Rs. 1,000/- fine. Conviction upheld — involvement clearly established from the depositions of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-6, PW-13 and PW-15, with no illegality found in the trial court's findings. On sentence, relying on Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 3 SCC 287 (rehabilitative, non-retributive approach to penology), and considering detention since 11.11.2021, service of about 3 years 8 months, and absence of criminal antecedents, the jail sentence was reduced to the period already undergone; the fine was enhanced from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- to be paid to the victim as compensation, with default R.I. of six months and adjustment of any fine already paid. Appeal allowed in part; appellant directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

2025:CGHC:32525

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 825 of 2025

¶6

Thanwar Nishad S/o Bhanwar Lal Nishad Aged About 36 Years R/oRaniparteva, Police Station- Chhura, District- Gariyaband (C.G.).

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Gariyaband DistrictGariyaband (C.G.)

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Appellant : Mr. Shivendue Pandya, Advocate For Res./State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶13

Judgment on Board

¶14

14/07/2025

¶15

1 The present appeal under Section 415(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.03.2025 passed by learned Upper Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband (C.G.), in Sessions Case No. 16/2022 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :

¶16

¶17

Conviction	Sentence
	Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine
	of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine
U/s 307 of IPC	amount, additional R.I. for 6 months. The fine amount has already been deposited by the appellant in the instant case

¶18

2 The prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant namely Bhojram Sahu (P.W. 01) lodged a report in the Police Station Chhura, District – Gariyaband to the effect that on the date of incident i.e.10.11.2021 at about 09:00 A.M., when the injured namely Smt. Rekha Bai Yadav (P.W. 06) along with other labour was working in his agriculture field situated at village karkara, Police Station Chhura, District Gariyaband, at that time, the present appellant came there and assaulted Smt. Rekha Bai Yadav by means of iron rod, as a result thereof, she sustained multiple injuries on her person. After the incident, the complainant went to the Police Station - Chhura, District - Gariyaband and lodged the report. The matter was enquired by the Police and on the basis of memorandum statement of victim/injured Smt. Rekha Bai Yadav, the offence under Section 307 of the IPC has been registered offence against the appellant. After usual investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gariaband for the offence punishable under Sections 307 & 294 of the IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act.

¶19

3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 26 documents. 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

¶20

¶21

innocence and false implication in the case.

¶22

4 Upper Sessions Judge, Gariaband, after appreciating the oral & documentary evidence available on record and after considering the same, vide impugned judgment dated 01.3.2025 acquitted the appellant of the offences punishable under Sections 294 of IPC and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act by extending him benefit of doubt, however, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned in paragraph-1 of this judgment leading to the filing of this appeal.

¶23

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. According to him, the appellant is in detention since 11.11.2021, the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is of 7 years, out of which, the appellant has already served the jail sentence of about 3 years and 8 month and no criminal antecedents have been reported against the appellant. Hence, considering all theses facts, the sentence imposed upon the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

8 Having gone through the material available on record and considering the deposition of Dr. B. B. Aarya (PW-15), Bhojram Sahu (PW-1), Smt. Rekha Bai Yadav (PW-6), Jagmohan (PW-3), Ram Baii (PW-2) and Investigating Officer of the case, namely, Heeralal Chandrakar (PW-13), the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question is clearly established. This Court does not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC.

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

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:

¶30

“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 :

¶31

"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.”

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

appellant is in detention since 11.11.2021, the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is of 7 years, out of which he has already served the jail sentence of 3 years and 8 month, no criminal antecedent of the appellant is recorded in the arrest memo, 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.

¶35

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 and 8 month. However, in lieu thereof, the fine amount of Rs. 1000/- imposed by the Trial Court enhanced to Rs. 12,000/- and the said enhanced fine amount shall be given to the victim as compensation. In default of payment of aforesaid enhanced fine amount, the appellant shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. It is made clear that if any amount of fine has been paid by the appellant/accused earlier, the same shall be adjusted in the enhanced amount.

¶36

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

¶37

13 The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

¶38

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.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)

JUDGE

amita

AMITA DUBEY

Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.07.17 17:25:31 +0530

Thanwar Nishad v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thanwar Nishad 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

Smt Basanti Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shobharam Kurre Vs Saraswati Kurre

Mohammed Mateen Ahamed Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Xyz (Juvenile in Conflict With Law) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Xyz Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dharmendra Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh