Ramsakha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.11.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, (N.D.P.S. Act), Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case (NDPS Act) No. 142/2022 whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:-

¶14

Conviction	Sen	tence
U/s 20(b)(ii)(B)R.I. for	5years	with a fine of Rs.

¶15

Digitally signed by HEERA HEERA LAL LAL SAHUDate: SAHU 2026.04.06 17:54:24 +0530

¶16

2

¶17

of N.D.P.S. Act 50,000/- each, and in default of payment of the fine amount, additional R.I. for 1 year each.

¶18

As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 06.08.2022, at about 10:10 pm, near Pujari Park, within the jurisdiction of City Kotwali Police Station, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G., the accused Ramsakha was found to be in illegal possession of a total of 4.300 Kg of ganja and the accused Yogendra Kumar Sen was found to be in illegal possession of a total of 4.600 Kg of Ganja in violation of the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Based on this offence has been registered against the accused persons, and after due investigation and procedure charge sheet was filed against the accused persons.

¶19

So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 59 documents. The statements of the accused/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.

¶20

After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.11.2025, learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he is not pressing the appeal so far as the conviction is concerned and would confine his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place on 06.08.2022, and only 4.300 kg of ganja has been seized from the possession of the accused/appellant

¶22

3

¶23

Ramsakha and only 4.600 kg of ganja has been seized from the possession of the accused/appellant Yogendra Kumar Sen. The appellants was in jail from 07.08.2022 to 23.11.2022 (during trial), and now they are in jail from 04.11.2025 till date, i.e. total of 8 months and 15 days, and they are still serving the jail sentence. He also submits that the appellants have no criminal antecedents; therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon the present appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them and they may be released from jail.

¶24

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants and submits that the appellants have served only 8 months jail sentence and the fine amount has not been paid by them.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment.

¶26

Having gone through the material on record and the evidence of the witnesses Ghanshyam Sharma (PW-1), Shrawan Soni (PW-2), Hemant Kumar Rathore (PW-3), Sumit Verma (PW-4), Mukesh Kumar Sahu (PW-5), Manoj Verma (PW-6), Saroj Kujur (PW-7), Chandulal Sinha (PW8), Kasan Raja (PW-9), Smt. Alma Minj (PW-10) and S. K. Yadav (PW-12), establishes the involvement of the accused/appellants in the crime in question. Thus, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record the seizure of Ganja from the possession of the accused/appellants which was subsequently found to be Ganja as per FSL report vide Ex. P-56. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards conviction of the appellants under Section 20(b) (ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

¶27

4

¶28

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:

¶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

¶32

5

¶33

view the facts that the appellants have already served the jail sentence of a total of 8 months and 15 days and at present appellant Ramsakha is aged about 43 years, as per arrest memo, he studied upto 5^th class and works as a labour; appellant Yogendra Kumar is aged about 31 years, as per arrest memo he studied upto 12^th Class and works as a labour, the appellants have no criminal antecedents, this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them, while keeping the fine amount intact with default stipulation.

¶34

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part . While maintaining the conviction of the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, their jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them i.e., 8 months and 15 days instead of R.I. for 5 years. However, the fine of Rs. 50,000/- on each of the appellants imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact with default stipulation.

¶35

The appellants are reported to be in jail. They be released forthwith if not required in default of payment of the fine amount, and in any other case.

¶36

Let a certified copy of this order along with original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned as well as to the Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are languishing for information and necessary action, if any.

¶37

Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE

¶38

H.L. Sahu

Ramsakha v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramsakha 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

Ajay Kumar Majhwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vikas Kumar Bhagat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Harishankar Pav @ Bablu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Yogesh Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mr. Anand Kumar Sahay Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dinesh Pradhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh