Partly allowed¶35

Chandan Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Jul 2025CRA/866/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRA No. 866 of 2005, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; sentence reduced to period already undergone; conviction under Section 324 IPC upheld; charge under Section 307 IPC; appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC; proportionality in sentencing; mitigating factors of age and jail custody; Deo Narain Mandal (2004) 7 SCC 257; Mohammad Giasuddin AIR 1977 SC 1926; Section 481 BNSS 2023 bail bonds; tangi/stick assault, Dharamjaigarh, Raigarh; Sachin Singh Rajput, J.; judgment dated 07/07/2025.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 324 IPC maintained; sentence of 3 years reduced to the period already undergone; appeal allowed in part; appellant on bail with bail bonds to remain in force for 6 months under Section 481 BNSS 2023; records to be sent back with copy of the judgment. ¶35

Chandan Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 324 IPC can sustain the scrutiny of this Court. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

Statement of Banto Ram (PW1) vividly describing the incident is corroborated by Beejeram (PW2); nothing incriminating emerged in cross-examination; the findings of the learned trial Court do not appear perverse, therefore the conviction of the appellant is maintained.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

While determining quantum of punishment, relevant considerations are nature and gravity of offence, penalty provided, manner of commission, proportionality between crime and punishment, character, age and sex of offender, antecedents, possibility of reform and impact on society; possibility of reform is an important mitigating factor and undue sympathy should not flow merely from long-drawn pendency.

¶33

Key takeaways

Considering the relevant facts and mitigating circumstances (incident of 16.08.2004; appellant aged about 44 years at the time; jail custody from 23/08/2004 to 06/11/2004 and from 29/09/2005 to 12/12/2005 per Jail Superintendent's report), and relying on Mohammad Giasuddin and Deo Narain Mandal, the conviction under Section 324 IPC is maintained but the sentence of 3 years is reduced to the period already undergone.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC against judgment dated 29/10/2005 of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Sessions Trial No.139/2004 (arising out of an incident of 16/08/2004 at village Jambira, Dharamjaigarh, where the complainant was assaulted with a laathi and a tangi), by which the appellant Chandan Ram was convicted U/s 324 IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 3 years (investigation and charge sheet having been under Section 307 IPC). HELD: the testimony of the complainant Banto Ram (PW1), corroborated by Beejeram (PW2), with nothing incriminating elicited in cross-examination, established guilt; the trial Court's findings were not perverse and the conviction was maintained. On sentence, relying on Deo Narain Mandal v. State of UP, (2004) 7 SCC 257 (sentencing discretion to be guided by gravity, manner of offence, age/sex of accused and proportionality) and Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of A.P., AIR 1977 SC 1926 (rehabilitative, not purely retributive, outlook), and considering the appellant's age, the jail custody undergone (23/08/2004–06/11/2004 and 29/09/2005–12/12/2005) and mitigating circumstances, the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone. Appeal allowed in part; bail bonds kept in force for six months under Section 481 BNSS 2023.

2025:CGHC:31105

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 866 of 2005

¶6

1 - Chandan Ram S/o Shri Jai Ram Yadav aged about 44 years, occupation cultivation, resident of village – Jambira, Thana and Tehsil Dharamjaigarh, District – Raigarh (CG)

¶7

... Appellant(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through the Station House Officer, Police Station Dharamjaigarh, District – Raigarh (CG)

¶10

... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Shri Rahul Pathak, Advocate on behalf of Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent / State : Ms. Nupur Sonkar, Panel Lawyer for the State

¶11

({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput})

¶12

Judgment on Board

¶13

07/07/2025

¶14

Assailing legality, correctness and judicial propriety of judgment dated 29/10/2005 passed by the 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh (CG) in Sessions Trial No.139/2004, this appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘CrPC’) has been filed by the appellant. By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as described below -

¶15

	Conviction	Sentence
1.	U/s 324 of IPC	R.I. for 3years.

¶16

¶17

Case of the prosecution in nutshell is that on the date of incident, i.e. 16/08/2004, Bantoram Yadav along with Ranjit Yadav and Beejeram Manjhwar .. was coming back to village–Jamabira. On the way, he met Banto Ram S/o Chandan Ram and his wife. On being asked to Anto Ram by Banto Ram that where he had gone, Anto Ram told that he had gone to Puri. Thereafter, Banto Ram along with Ranjit Yadav and Beejeram Manjhwar went near the house of Chandan Ram Yadav. At that time, time was 2 PM. Chandan Ram was in the courtyard of his house. Banto Ram asked Chandan Ram as to why Anto Ram and his wife was sent back at that day itself. On this, Chandan Ram asked him as to who is he to ask such question, he assaulted Chandan Ram’s wife and in between such arguments, Chandan Ram brought a laathi from inside his house and assaulted on his head two times saying that he will kill him. Ranjit Yadav and Beejeram Manjhwar intervened and brought Chandan Ram to his home. After a while, Chandan Ram brought a tangi and went to house of Banto Ram and assaulted on the back of his head and chest due to which it started bleeding. Witnesses saw the incident. Thereafter, the complainant lodged report in the police station – Dharamjaigarh.

¶18

On the basis of report lodged at 5 PM in the police station - Dharamjaigarh by the complainant Banto Ram Yadav, offence under Section 307 of IPC was lodged against the appellant. Medical examination of Banto Ram was done after sending him to Government Hospital. On examination, one cut wound on the chest of Banto Ram, one cut wound on the right side of back of his head and one cut wound found on the above side of the head. Injury No.1 and injury No.2 were found to have been caused by hard and sharp objects and injury No. 03 was found to have been caused by a hard and blunt object. In the X-ray examination of the injured Banto Ram, no damage was found in his bones. Accused Chandan Ram was taken into custody and memorandum of his statement was recorded and on his testimony, when he was brought out of his house and produced, a stick and a tong were seized. The seized stick and tangi were sent to Dharamjaigarh Hospital for examination. Injury No. 1 and 2 were found to be coming from the tangi and injury No.3 was found to be coming from the stick. The terrycot lungi worn by the applicant Banto Ram at the time of the incident, which had blood clots, was seized from him. The lungi was also sent to Dharamjaigarh Hospital for examination.

¶19

¶20

When the doctor advised to get the stick, tangi and lungi tested for presence of blood, the seized items were sent for FSL examination. The report received from FSL confirmed the presence of blood in the lungi and tangi. During the investigation of the case, the Patwari was asked to prepare a map of the incident spot. The statements of the applicant and the witnesses were recorded. After whole investigation of the case, charge sheet was filed against the appellant punishable under Section 307 of IPC before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Dharamjaigarh.

¶21

The appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 15 documents. One defence witness was examined. The appellant was examined under Section 313 CrPC in respect of incriminating evidence and circumstances appearing against him. After due appreciation of evidence on record, learned trial Court found the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and convicted the appellant and sentenced as stated above.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution was not able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Statement of the complainant / victim does not inspire confidence. He submits that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court with regard to conviction of the appellant is bad in law and without proper appreciation of evidence on record. Alternatively, he submits that offence under Section 324 of IPC may be punishable with fine only. The appellant has already remained in jail for 4 ½ months, the incident is of the year 16/08/2004 and the appellant has no criminal antecedent. Therefore, in the event appeal being dismissed, the sentence may be reduced to period already undergone.

¶23

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the above submission and submits that statement of the witnesses is credible, therefore, it is submitted that no leniency can be shown to the appellant.

¶24

The question before this Court is as to whether conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of IPC can sustain the scrutiny of this Court. In order to prove this case, statement of Banto Ram (PW1) is material. In his statement before the Court, he has vividly described the happening of the incident. He has stated that

¶25

¶26

the appellant assaulted twice in his hands. Thereafter, he was assaulted with the help of tangi. During the cross-examination, nothing incriminating is brought on record. His statement is corroborated by statement of Beejeram (PW2). In view of above, the findings recorded by learned trial Court does not appear to be perverse. Therefore, the conviction of appellant is maintained.

¶27

The second submission which is placed before this Court whether the sentence of appellant can be reduced to period already undergone or what would be adequate sentence to be imposed in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of UP reported in (2004) 7 SCC 257 observed in paragraph 8 as under :

¶28

“8. This brings us to the next question in regard to the reduction of sentence made by the High Court. In criminal cases awarding of sentence is not a mere formality. Where the statute has given the court a choice of sentence with maximum and minimum limit presented then an element of discretion is vested with the court. This discretion can not be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically. It will have to be exercised taking into consideration the gravity of offence, the manner in which it is committed, the age, the sex of the accused, in other words, the sentence to be awarded will have to be considered in the background of the fact of each case and the court while doing so should bear in mind the principle of proportionality. The sentence awarded should be neither excessively harsh nor ridiculously low.”

¶29

In the same breath, I am persuaded to mention herein below few lines from the judgment authored by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1977 SC 1926 :-

¶30

“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

¶31

¶32

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-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.'”

¶33

While determining the quantum of punishment various factors needs to be consider. Nature and gravity of offence, penalty provided for the offence, manner of commission of offence, proportionality between crime & punishment, character of the offender, age and sex of the offender, antecedents if any, possibility of reforms, impact of crime on society etc are some of the relevant consideration in determining the quantum of punishment. Court has to strike a balance between crime and punishment. Possibility of reform is an important mitigating factor while imposing appropriate sentence. Undue sympathy should not be given only because of long drawn pendency of criminal proceedings.

¶34

¶35

In the light of above broad principle for imposing adequate sentence, facts of this case needs to be examined. The incident had occurred on 16.08.2004. Appellant was aged about 44 years at the time of incident. From the report received from the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Raigarh, CG, it reflects that he remained in jail from 23/08/2004 to 06/11/2004 and thereafter from 29/09/2005 to 12/12/2005. Considering the relevant facts and mitigating circumstances of the case and relying upon judgment of this Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and Deo Narain Mandal (supra), while maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of IPC, the sentence of 3 years imposed upon the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of 6 months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023. The records be sent back with copy of this judgment forthwith for necessary action and compliance.

¶36

({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE

¶37

Deepti

¶38

Digitally
signed by
DEEPTI
DEEPTI HARIKUMAR
HARIKUMAR Date:
2025.07.16
10:30:46
+0530

Chandan Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan Ram 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

Ashok Kumar Chandraker Vs Kamal Kurre

Mohan Lal Nayak Vs Sunil Panigrahi

Tarun Kumar Baghel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Saran Ram Kodaku Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Uma Dwivedi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Virendra Mohan Singh Vs Arun Kumar Pandey @ Lallu Maharaj