Chattisgarh High Court
Chhotu Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 August, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by SHUBHAM
SHUBHAM SINGH
SINGH RAGHUVANSHI
RAGHUVANSHI Date:
2025.08.26
13:08:57 +0530
2025:CGHC:43048
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 99 of 2017
Chhotu Yadav S/o Manharan Yadav, Aged About 20 Years R/o
Bangalipara, Gali No. 3 Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Police Station
Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police
Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Rudra Pratap Dubey, Advocate on
behalf of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, P.L.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
25/08/2025
1 The present revision petition under Section 397 R/w
Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
13.01.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sessions
Division Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.57/2016,
arising out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 04.03.2016 passed by leaned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.
2
1824/2015. whereby the applicant has been convicted and
sentenced as under:-
Conviction Sentence
R.I. for 1 year and to pay fine of
U/s 457 of IPC Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine
amount, S.I. for 3 months
R.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of
U/s 380 of IPC Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine
amount, S.I. for 3 months
2 The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant,
Sundari Bai Manikpuri, lodged a First Information Report
on 20/01/2015 at Police Station Sarkanda stating that she
resides at Bengali Para, Shastri Nagar. On the intervening
night of 19th-20th December 2014, after having dinner,
she went to sleep. In another room of the house, inside an
almirah, a cash amount of ₹3,00,000, one gold chain, one
pair of gold earrings, one gold mangalsutra containing six
gold beads were kept. It was alleged that by forcibly
breaking the latch of the door of the room, the said gold
ornaments and cash kept in the almirah were stolen. On
the said information, FIR was registered against an
unknown person. During investigation, a site map of the
place of occurrence was prepared, the stolen property was
seized, and the statements of witnesses were recorded.
During investigation, the accused/appellant Chhotu Yadav,
in his memorandum statement, admitted his involvement in
the said theft incidents along with other co-accused
persons. Accordingly, the accused Chhotu Yadav was taken
into custody and his memorandum statement was recorded.
On the basis of the said statement, the stolen property was
seized and the accused was arrested. After completion of
the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed.
3
3 So as to hold the applicant guilty, the prosecution has
examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 10
documents. The statements of the applicant 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.
4 The trial Court, taking into consideration the evidence
which has come on record convicted and sentenced the
applicant as mentioned in paragraph-1 of this judgment,
which has been affirmed by the learned appellate Court
leading to the filing of this criminal revision.
5 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is not
pressing the revision petition so far as it relates to the
conviction part of the judgment and would confine his
argument to the sentence part only. According to him, the
incident is said to have taken place in the year 2014 since
then the applicant is facing lis, the applicant has already
been served the jail sentence of about 422 days. The
applicant has no criminal antecedents. Hence, considering
all these facts, the sentence imposed upon the applicant
may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State,
supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the
arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for the
applicant.
7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
8 Having gone through the material available on record and
the statements of Sundari Bai (PW-1), Santoshi Manikpuri
(PW-2), Head Constable Virendra Singh (PW-3), Shailendra
Manikpuri (PW-4), Deepak Manikpuri (PW-5) and Pawan
Kumar Kashyap (PW-10), established the involvement of the
4
applicant in the crime in question. This Court does not find
any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as
well as appellate Court as regards conviction of the
applicant for the aforementioned offence.
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 in para-9 as follows:
“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 :
“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
5the 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.”
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 incident is said to have taken place about
11 years ago in the year 2014 since than the applicant is
facing lis, the applicant has already served the jail sentence
of about 422 days, as per arrest memo, the applicant
appellants has no criminal antecedents, this Court is of the
opinion that the ends of justice would serve if the applicant
is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.
11 Accordingly, the conviction of the applicant for offence
under Sections 457 & 380 of IPC is maintained, but his jail
sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him
i.e. 422 days. However, the fine amount imposed upon the
applicant by the Trial Court shall remain intact.
12 Consequently, the criminal revision is allowed in part to
the extent indicated herein-above.
13 The applicants are reported to be on bail. He need not to
surrender in this case. However, his bonds shall remain in
force for a period of six months in view of the provisions
contained in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.
14 Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment
be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary
action, if any.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
JUDGE
Shubham