Partly allowed¶40

Harisingh Negi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Mar 2026CRA/461/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Harisingh Negi v. State of Chhattisgarh; CRA No. 461 of 2026 (CGHC, Bilaspur, 11/03/2026); sentence reduction to period already undergone; Sections 307 and 427 IPC; appeal under Section 415(2) BNSS; tangia/axe assault causing grievous incised wound; Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1977) 3 SCC 287 reformatory sentencing; Sessions Case No. 44/2023, Additional Sessions Judge Gariyaband; Crime No. 290/2023 Devbhog PS; release direction; conviction upheld, appeal partly allowed; NAFR.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part: conviction under Sections 307 and 427 of IPC maintained; sentence under Section 307 IPC reduced to period already undergone (02 years, 06 months and 29 days); fines with default stipulation retained; appellant to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. ¶40

Harisingh Negi Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court's conviction of the appellant under Sections 307 and 427 of IPC suffers from any illegality. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

Conviction of the appellant under Sections 307 and 427 of IPC is maintained; the trial court's findings on conviction contain no illegality, the witness testimony establishing his involvement.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

Following the reformatory sentencing approach of the Supreme Court in Mohammad Giasuddin, and considering that the appellant has served about 02 years, 06 months and 29 days, has no recorded criminal antecedents, is aged about 55 years, studied up to 5th class and works as an agriculturist, the ends of justice would be served by sentencing him to the period already undergone.

¶37

Key takeaways

Operative direction: jail sentence for the offence under Section 307 of IPC reduced to the period already undergone (02 years, 06 months and 29 days); the fine amounts with default stipulation imposed by the trial court remain intact.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.), CRA No. 461 of 2026, order dated 11/03/2026: In an appeal under Section 415(2) of BNSS against conviction under Sections 307 and 427 of IPC (Sessions Case No. 44/2023, Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, judgment dated 12.12.2025) for striking the complainant on the left cheek with a tangia causing a grievous incised wound, the appellant confined his challenge to sentence. The Court found no illegality in the conviction and, relying on Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 3 SCC 287 (rehabilitation over retribution), and noting the appellant had served 02 years, 06 months and 29 days, had no criminal antecedents, was aged about 55 years and an agriculturist, reduced the Section 307 IPC sentence to the period already undergone while keeping the fines (Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 500/-) and default stipulations intact. Appeal allowed in part; appellant ordered released forthwith if not detained elsewhere.

¶1

¶2

2026:CGHC:11546

¶3

SOURABHPATEL Digitally signedby SOURABHPATELDate:2026.03.1116:43:35+0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRA No. 461 of 2026

¶7

1 - Harisingh Negi S/o Jailal Negi, Aged About 55 Years, R/o - Village - Barhi, Police Station - Devbhog, District - Gariyaband (C.G.).

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

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

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

For Appellant : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. Amit Verma, P.L.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board

¶14

11/03/2026

¶15

1 Heard on admission.

¶16

2 Admit.

¶17

3 The present appeal has been filed under Section 415(2) of BNSS against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband (C.G.), in Sessions Case No. 44/2023 whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:-

¶18

Conviction	Sentence
	Rigorous imprisonment for 05 years
U/s 307 of IPC	with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I.
	for 03 month.

¶19

¶20

Rigorous imprisonment for 06 months with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of U/s 427 of IPC payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 1 month.

¶21

(Both the sentences to run concurrently).

¶22

4 The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12.08.2023, about 6:00 pm, the complainant/injured Jitendra Pradhan lodged a report at the Devbhog police station stating that he had given his motorcycle to Chavan Lal Patel, a resident of his village, for repair. Chavan Lal informed him that appellant/accused Harisingh Negi had damaged the motorcycle. When the complainant confronted Harisingh Negi, he abused him with filthy language and struck him on the left cheek with a tangia (axe), causing grievous injuries. Based on the complaint, a case was registered against the appellant under Sections 294, 427, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, vide Crime No. 290/2023.

¶23

5 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 20 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 innocence and false implication in the case.

¶24

6 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.12.2025, learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

¶25

7 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 incident is said to have taken place in the year 2023, about 03 years ago. The appellant has been in jail since 13.08.2023 till date i.e. 02 years, 06 months and 29 days. The appellant is aged about 55 years, he has no criminal antecedents, and he is still serving the jail

¶26

¶27

sentence; therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him and he may be released from jail.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

10 Dr. S.S. Gupta (PW-06) opined in his statement that the injured, Jitendra Pradhan, had an incised wound on the left cheek, beside the eye, measuring 12 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm, caused by a sharp-edged object. Based on the CT scan report, he further opined that the injury sustained by the injured was grievous in nature.

¶31

11 Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the witnesses Chauvan Patel (PW-02), Jitendra Pradhan (PW-3), Dr. S.S. Gupta (PW-6), Jairam Pradhan (PW-7), Bramha Singh Markam (PW-08), Gautam Gawde (PW-9) and Tularam Sahu (PW-10), establish the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 427 of IPC.

¶32

12 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:

¶33

“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 :

¶34

"The laws of England are written in blood". Alfieri has suggested : 'society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it’. George Nicodotis, Director of Criminological

¶35

¶36

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 subculture 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.”

¶37

13 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 has been in jail since 13.08.2023 till date, the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is 05 years, out of which he has already served the jail sentence of about i.e. 02 years, 06 months 29 days, no criminal antecedent of the appellant is recorded in the arrest memo (Ex-P/06), he has studied upto 5^th class and works as an agriculturist, 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.

¶38

14 Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 307 and 427 of IPC is maintained, but his jail sentence for the offence under Section 307 of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 02 years, 06 months and 29 days. However, the fine amount with default stipulation imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court shall remain intact.

¶39

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

17 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.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE

¶45

Sourabh P.

Harisingh Negi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harisingh Negi 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

Ravi Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tarabai Sarthi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jhangal Ram Suryavanshi Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Jamin Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sudarshan Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vivek Dhruv Vs State of Chhattisgarh