Khemlal Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 415 (2) of BNSS challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.12.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 10/2023 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

¶15

Conviction	Sentence & Fine
U/s 304(1) of the IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for 10
	years and to pay fine of 1000/-; in ₹
	default of payment of fine, 6
	months’ additional RI.

¶16

2

¶17

2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that, the complainant, Dheluram Verma, appeared at Police Station Dongargarh and lodged an oral report stating that on 02.04.2023 at around 11:00 p.m., Dukhuram Verma came to his house and informed that his son Khemlal Verma accused/appellant had entered the Shitla Temple and was shouting loudly, asking him to come and pacify him. Upon this, he accompanied Dukhuram Verma to the Shitla Temple, where they found Khemlal Verma shouting loudly inside the temple and had locked the iron gate from inside. His condition was abnormal. When Dukhuram Verma went to lock the gate, at around 11:30 p.m., Khemlal Verma, with the intention to kill, thrust an iron trident (part of the temple's iron structure) into Dukhuram Verma's mouth, causing severe injuries, resulting in his death. Based on the complainant's statement, the police registered a case and conducted an investigation. The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted, and witness statements were recorded at the scene. Based on the evidence, a case was registered against the accused Khemlal Verma and he was arrested. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

¶18

3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents in support of its case. The statement of the appellant / accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication.

¶19

4. The trial Court, upon evaluating the oral and documentary evidence on record, converted the charge against the accused/appellant from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to Section 304 (I) of the Indian Penal Code, and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant

¶20

3

¶21

questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment.

¶22

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on sentence part. He submits that the appellant is now aged about 38 and has family responsibilities and he is in jail since 04.04.2023 thereby he has completed about 2 year 9 months 11 days of jail sentence. The incident took place in the year 2023 and since then the appellant is facing the lis. Hence, considering all these facts, the sentence of the appellant may be reduced in the interest of justice.

¶23

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment and opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant.

¶24

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

¶25

8. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of Dheluram (PW-4), Rohit Verma (PW-6), Dr. Himanshu Sahu (PW-7) and post-mortem report (Ex.P-6), establish the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 304(1) of IPC which is based on evidence available on record and it is hereby affirmed.

¶26

9. As regards the 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:

¶27

4

¶28

"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:

¶29

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

¶30

10. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 2023. The appellant is the son of the deceased, studied up to class 10^th according to the arrest memo, is a farmer, belongs to a lower class, and has no criminal antecedent. Further, at the time of incident, he was aged about 35 years and now he must be aged about 38 years having family responsibilities. The appellant is facing the lis since 2023

¶31

5

¶32

and is in jail since 04.04.2023 thereby completed about 2 year 9 months 11 days of jail sentence. Taking into consideration all these facts and other surrounding circumstances, this Court would deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence of the appellant.

¶33

11. The conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 304(1) of the IPC is maintained, and the sentence of RI for 10 years is reduced to 5 years. The fine amount and its default stipulation, as imposed by the trial Court, shall remain intact. The appellant has already served 2 years, 9 months, and 11 days of his jail sentence, which shall be set off against the sentence of 5 years.

¶34

12. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

¶35

13. Let a certified copy of this judgment, along with the original record, be transmitted forthwith to the concerned trial Court. A copy of this judgment shall also be supplied to the Superintendent of the jail where the appellant is serving his sentence, for information and necessary action.

¶36

Sd/(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶37

Shubh@m

Khemlal Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khemlal Verma 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

Gulab Singh Sengar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vikas Kumar Bhagat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Srawan Kumar Dhiwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rakesh Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohit Kumar Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Diamond Bariha Vs State of Chhattisgarh