Chattisgarh High Court
Pradip @ Sonu Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 April, 2026
1
Digitally
signed by
BHOLA
BHOLA NATH
NATH KHATAI
KHATAI Date:
2026.04.06
10:24:55
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 293 of 2026
Pradip @ Sonu Sahu S/o Tiplu Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o
Atal Awas Pendri, Thana- Lalbag, Distt- Rajnandgaon C.G.
... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Distt-
Rajnandgaon C.G.
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Sameer Singh, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Akash Agrawal, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 02.04.2026
1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 438/442 of BNSS, 2023 challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.01.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), District Rajnandgaon (CG) in Criminal Appeal No.91/2024, modifying the judgment dated 03.05.2024 passed by the JMFC, Rajnandgaon (CG) in Criminal Case No.3027/2018, 2 whereby the applicant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Under Section R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/-,
456 of IPC in default of payment of fine,
additional R.I. for 1 month.
2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that 09.10.2018, the complainant, Yashoda Indulkar, lodged a complaint at Police Station Lalbagh stating that on the intervening night of 08-09.10.2018, while she was sleeping in her house with the doors locked, an unidentified person began kicking the door at approximately 12:30 am. Despite her verbal protest, the door was repeatedly kicked until the internal latch broke, whereupon the applicant, Pradip @ Sonu Sahu, forcibly entered the house. The complainant raised an alarm, but when no one arrived for assistance, she threatened to hit him with her slipper and report the incident to his wife, causing him to flee the premises. Based on the said complaint, FIR was registered against the applicant under Section 456 of the Indian Penal Code. During the investigation, the site map was prepared, a panchnama regarding the broken door latch was drawn up, and statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of entire investigation, charge sheet was filed 3 against the Applicant.
3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses and exhibited 7 documents in support of its case. The statement of the applicant / accused was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication.
4. After hearing the parties and appreciating the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, the trial Court i.e. JMFC, Rajnandgaon (CG), vide judgment dated 03.05.2024, convicted the applicant under Section 456 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment fine, to undergo additional simple imprisonment for one month. The applicant subsequently challenged this judgment of conviction and sentence before the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Rajnandgaon. Learned Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment dated 03.01.2026, affirmed the conviction of applicant under Section 456 of IPC but modified the sentence part as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the present revision.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not 4 want to press the appeal on merits and confines his argument only on sentence part. He submits that the applicant was a labour and now he is aged about 38 years having family responsibilities. Out of 1 year of jail sentence, he has already remained in custody for about 3 months and 6 days. The incident took place in the year 2018 and since then he is facing the lis. Hence, by considering all these facts, the sentence of the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him in the interest of justice.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment and opposed the argument advanced on behalf of the applicant. It was also submitted that the applicant has two criminal antecedents; one relating to the year 2019 for an offence under section 307 IPC and another from 2020 involving offences under sections 294, 506 & 323 of IPC. Hence, looking to the nature of offence, the revision of the applicant may be dismissed.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned judgment.
8. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the complainant Yashoda Indulkar (PW-4), witness Sukhbinder Kaur (PW-3), Patwari Aiswarya Mishra 5 (PW-1) and Sub Inspector Sagar Pathak (PW-5), the involvement of the applicant in the crime in question is clearly established. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court as regards the conviction of the applicant for offence punishable under Section 456 of IPC which is based on evidence available on record and it is hereby affirmed.
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:
"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 6 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."
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 applicant is now aged about 38 years having family responsibilities, as per the arrest memo, the applicant has studied upto 3rd class, he was a labour, out of 1 year jail sentence, he has already remained in custody for approximately 3 months and 6 days, the incident took place in the year 2018 and since then he is facing the lis and also considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court opines that ends of justice would be served if the applicant's sentence is reduced from one year to 5 months.
11. Accordingly, the conviction of the applicant under Section 7 456 of IPC is maintained but his jail sentence is reduced from 1 year to 5 months. However, the fine amount and its default stipulation imposed by the appellate Court shall remain intact.
12. The applicant has already served 3 months and 6 days of jail sentence, this period be set off to the period of sentence as imposed upon him today by this Court.
13. Consequently, the Criminal Revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
14. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned. A copy of this judgment be also transmitted to the concerned Jail Superintendent where the applicant is serving his sentence, for information and necessary action.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai