Sitaram Khatuwa Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - (Outpost - Wadrafnagar) Basantpur, District BalrampurRamanujganj (C.G.)

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

For Appellants : Mr. Vikash Pradhan, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Aman Tamboli, Panel Lawyer.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

27/01/2026

¶17

1. The present appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction

¶18

2

¶19

and order of sentence dated 27.05.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Ramanujganj, District-BalrampurRamanujganj (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case (NDPS) No.18/2024 whereby both the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under :

¶20

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section20(b)(ii)	R.I. for 10 years and fine of
(B) of NDPS Act	Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of payment of
	fine amount additional R.I. for 6 months.

¶21

2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that the investigating officer Pushpraj Singh was posted as ASI at Police Station Wadrafnagar in the year 2024. On 17.06.2024, he received information from an informer that a white coloured Indigo Car bearing Registration No. OD23-6070 is coming from Odisha in which two persons are travelling keeping narcotic substance (Ganja) in the Car’s dikki/storage compartment at the rear and are going towards MP to sell it. Thereafter the police stopped the said Car near Parshuram Chowk (Outpost-Wadrafnagar) Basantpur. Police search the said Car and seized 13.5 Kg Ganja from the joint possession of appellants. The statutory provisions under the NDPS Act was complied with and the matter was put to trial before the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Ramanujganj, DistrictBalrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.).

¶22

3. So as to hold the appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined

¶23

3

¶24

as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 42 documents. The statement of the appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.

¶25

4. The trial Court, taking into consideration the evidences which have come on record, vide impugned judgment dated 27.05.2025 found the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him under the said section as mentioned in paragraph-1 of this judgment leading to the filing of this appeal.

¶26

5. Learned counsel for the appellants 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 No.1 is in jail since 18.06.2024 and the appellant No.2 is in jail from 18.06.2024 to 23.10.2024 during trial and from 09.05.2025 till date, the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellants are 10 years, out of which the appellant No.1 has already served the jail sentence of 1 year, 7 months and 9 days and the appellant No.2 has already served the jail sentence of 1 year and 23 days. There is one previous record of criminal antecedent of the year 2018 against the appellant No.1 but, there is no criminal antecedent against the appellant No.2. Further, the both the appellants have deposited the fine amount. Hence, considering all these facts, the

¶27

4

¶28

sentence imposed upon the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

8. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of Surendra Uike (PW-5), Brijbhan Paikra (PW-6), Nandlal Ram (PW-8), Sant Kumar Netam (PW-9) and the proceedings conducted by the Investigating Officer Pushpraj Singh (PW-4), the involvement of the appellants in the crime in question is clearly established. Thus, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record the seizure of Ganja from the possession of the accused persons/appellants which was subsequently found to be Ganja as per FSL report vide Ex. P- 39A. This Court does not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards conviction of both the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.

¶32

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 him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries and held

¶33

5

¶34

in para-9 as follows:

¶35

“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 :

¶36

"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

¶37

6

¶38

Courts, you should see for yourself the conditions under which prisoners serve their sentences.”

¶39

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 appellant No.1 has already served the jail sentence of 1 year, 7 months and 9 days and the appellant No.2 has already served the jail sentence of 1 year and 23 days and both of them have deposited the fine amount and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would serve if the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them.

¶40

11. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants under Section 20(b) (ii)(B) of the NDPS Act are maintained but their jail sentences are reduced to the period already undergone by them i.e. 1 year, 7 months and 9 days by the appellant No.1/Sitaram Khatuwa and 1 year and 23 days by the appellant No.2/Nikhil Pradhan. However, the fine imposed upon the appellants by the Trial Court shall remain intact.

¶41

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

¶42

13. The appellants are reported to be in jail. If there is no need to detain the appellants in the default of fine amount, they be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

¶43

7

¶44

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

¶45

sentence.

¶46

Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE

¶47

Ravi Mandavi

Sitaram Khatuwa v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sitaram Khatuwa 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

A (Juvenile) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Ray Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajkumar Gupta Vs Jagdish

Dilip Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramu Kewat Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Sonu Madvi Vs State of Chhattisgarh