ARUN KUMAR NAIDU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010002202005 2026:CGHC:39241
NAFR
Digitally signed
by AJAY KUMAR
DWIVEDI
DN: cn=AJAY
KUMAR DWIVEDI,
ou=HIGH COURT,
o=HIGH COURT OF
CHHATTISGARH,
st=Chhattisgarh,
c=IN
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 367 of 2005
Arun Kumar Naidu, aged about 30 years, S/o Late Dana Naidu, Occupation-
Driver, R/o Bhagelpur, Police Station Jashpur, District Jashpur (CG)
... Appellant.
-Versus-
State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Bagicha, District Jashpur (CG)
... Respondent.
(cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery)
For Appellant : Ms. Seema Singh, Advocate.
For State : Mr. Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer.
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi )
Order on Board
07/09/2026
1. This Criminal Appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 22.03.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Jashpur in Sessions Trial No.40/2003. By the impugned judgment, the Trial
Court held the accused/appellant guilty and sentenced him as follows:-
Conviction Sentence
7 Years R.I. and Rs. 1000 Fine (In default,
Section 394 IPC
6 months R.I.)
7 Years R.I. and Rs. 1000 Fine (In default,
6 months R.I.)
Section 397 IPC
(Both substantive sentences were ordered
to run concurrently.)

2
2. Prosecution case is that on 17.11.2002, the complainant Rameshwar Yadav
(PW-7), his son Trilochan (PW-3), Dinesh Ram (PW-2), Madhusudan (PW-1),
Jadumani (PW-4), and a few others had gone to the Jashpur cattle market.
Around 5:00 PM, they began their return journey towards Bagicha in a
Commander Jeep (bearing registration number CG 15 0263), which was
being driven by Dinesh Ram. At approximately 7:00 PM, when the jeep
reached the Bendo Nala bridge, the driver noticed that the road was
deliberately blocked with wooden logs and stones. As Dinesh slowed the
vehicle down, two individuals armed with country-made pistols (katta)
emerged from either side of the road. They attacked the driver, demanded
the vehicle keys, and when he denied, one of the attackers struck Dinesh
near the eye with the barrel (Naal) of the pistol, causing him to bleed.
3. The assailants pulled the driver out and proceeded to extort and loot money
from the passengers. They robbed Rs. 22,000, a voter ID card, and cattle
purchase receipts from Rameshwar Yadav; Rs. 15,000 from Jadumani; and
Rs. 5,000 from Madhusudan. During the incident, a Tata Sumo vehicle
approached from behind, prompting the driver, Dinesh, to throw a stone at
one of the robbers. A third associate, Nandlal, arrived on a Boxer motorcycle
to aid their escape, but upon seeing the people from the Sumo vehicle,
Nandlal fled alone on the motorcycle. The appellant, Arun Kumar Naidu,
attempted to escape by jumping off the bridge towards the river/nala.
However, the complainant, his son Trilochan, and Madhusudan chased him
at the spot.
4. Subsequently, the police were informed regarding the incident, and the
Station House Officer of P.S. Bagicha, C.S. Sharma (PW-10), arrived at the

3
scene. Based on the information provided by Rameshwar Yadav, an FIR (Ex.
P-14) was registered at Police Station Bagicha on 17.11.2002 at 21:00 hours.
The Investigating Officer sent the injured victim Rameshwar (PW-7), Dinesh
(PW-2), and Trilochan (PW-3) for medical examination, which was
conducted by Dr. R.N. Dubey (PW-5).
5. Thereafter, the police filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons
before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Jashpur. The
JMFC committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The trial court framed
charges under Sections 394, 397 IPC, and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act.
6. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses to prove its case. Under Section 313
of the Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the incriminating evidence, stating he was
falsely implicated due to a prior dispute with the complainant over cattle
market receipts. The defence also examined one witness, Sarhul Bhagat
(DW-2).
7. Upon evaluating the evidence, the trial court vide impugned judgment
acquitting Nandlal of all charges and Arun Naidu of the Arms Act charges,
while convicting the appellant under Sections 394 and 397 IPC as mentioned
opening Para of this Judgment.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that she does not press the
conviction part of the judgment in respect of Section 394 IPC and wishes to
confine her arguments in respect of 397 IPC and and the sentence part. She
submits that the statutory requirement of Section 397 of the IPC are not met
in the present case, as to attract the minimum punishment under Section 397
IPC, the injuries caused must be "grievous" in nature. Looking to the
testimonies of Dinesh Ram (PW-2) and Rameshwar Yadav (PW-7), she
submits that the victims only suffered simple injuries. Furthermore, the

4
medical expert, Dr. R.N. Dubey (PW-5), categorically opined in his reports
(Ex. P-10, P-11, and P-12) and his court testimony that the injuries sustained
by all three victims were "simple in nature" and my cause due to fell on floor.
Thus, she asserts that Section 397 IPC is not made out and the conviction
under this section may be set aside. Regarding the conviction under Section
394 IPC, learned counsel submits that the appellant has already suffered
incarceration from 19.11.2002 to 19.01.2007 i.e. more than 4 years,
therefore, she prays that the sentence for this offence may be reduced to the
period already undergone.
9. Per contra, the learned State Counsel opposes the above prayer and submits
that the evidence of the eyewitnesses clearly establishes the appellant's active
role in the robbery and the assault.
10. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records
with utmost circumspection.
11. The Complainant Rameshwar Yadav (PW-7) in his evidence deposed that on
17.11.2002, he and others were returning from the Jashpur cattle market in
a Commander jeep. Near Bendo Nala, the vehicle was forced to stop because
wooden logs and stones were placed across the road. Assailants armed with
kattas (pistols) approached from both sides. He was threatened and struck
on the forehead with a katta, causing his nose to bleed. The robbers looted
cash. He further stated that his son Trilochan and Madhusudan chased the
fleeing robbers, caught one of them (identified in court as the appellant,
Arun Naidu) in the nala (drain/riverbed) on the north side of the road, and
brought him back. However, he declared hostile in his chief examination.
12. The another main witness is Dinesh Ram (PW-2), Jeep Driver. He stated that
he was driving the jeep and slowed down near Bendo Nala around 7:00 PM

5
upon seeing stones on the road. An armed person attacked him from the
right side and demanded the vehicle keys. When he hesitated, he was struck
on the nose, causing it to bleed. He was pulled out of the vehicle and sat
quietly. While the looting took place, he managed to escape to Bhitghara and
called the Bagicha police station. However, in his cross-examination he
admitted that it became completely dark when the vehicle stopped and its
lights went off, making it difficult to see exactly who hit him. He was
declared hostile by the prosecution. The another witness Trilochan (PW-3)
corroborated the blockade and testified that the assailants threatened to
blow up the vehicle if the driver did not hand over the keys.
13. Dr. R.N. Dubey (PW-5) is the - Medical Officer. He examined the victims at
the Community Health Centre, Bagicha, on the night of the incident
(17.11.2002). In examination of Rameshwar (PW-7), he found a 2x1 cm
scratch on the forehead and a 6x4 cm swelling on the front right side of the
head (Ex. P-10). On examination of Dinesh (PW-2), doctor found a 2x1x1 cm
lacerated wound on the front of the head, a 1x1x1 cm lacerated wound near
the left eye, and a scratch on the left thumb (Ex. P-11). On examination of
Trilochan (PW-3) minor scratches on his right thumb, right hand, and leg
(Ex. P-12). After examination of the victims, the doctor categorically stated
that all the injuries sustained by the victims were simple in nature and were
caused by hard and blunt objects. However, in respect of Dinesh and
Trilochan, doctor stated that the injuries may caused them due to fell on
ground.
14. Section 397 of the IPC deals with Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause
death or grievous hurt, which speaks that:-

6
"397. Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or
grievous hurt.-
If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender
uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person,
or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the
imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall
not be less than seven years."
15. A plain reading of Section 397 IPC clarifies that the provision is attracted
only when an offender uses a deadly weapon, causes grievous hurt, or
attempts to cause death or grievous hurt.
16. In the present, the accused was already acquitted for the offences under the
Arms Act by the Trial Court. Hence, the medical evidence on record is pivotal
here. Dr. R.N. Dubey (PW-5), who examined the injured persons on the night
of the incident, unequivocally deposed that the injuries found on Rameshwar
(PW-7), Dinesh (PW-2), and Trilochan (PW-3) were simple in nature. There
is no medical or circumstantial evidence to suggest that the hurt caused was
grievous or that there was a concerted attempt to cause death. In the absence
of these essential ingredients, the trial court erred in convicting the appellant
under Section 397 IPC. Thus, the conviction under Section 397 IPC is not
justifiable and liable to be set aside.
17. However, the evidence on record, particularly the testimonies of the injured
witnesses PW-2, PW-3 and PW-7, establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that
the appellant voluntarily caused hurt while committing the robbery.
Therefore, the conviction under Section 394 IPC is well-founded and is
hereby maintained.
18. In respect of sentence, in Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh
(1977) 3 SCC 287, Hon’ble Supreme Court while emphasizing the

7
reformative approach has exposited the words expressed by 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”. Para-9 of the said judgment is quoted below :
“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 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.”
19. The record reveals that the appellant was in continuous custody from
19.11.2002 until he was granted bail on 19.01.2007. Considering that the
incident occurred over two decades ago and the appellant has already served
a substantial period of imprisonment (more than 4 years), this Court is of the

8
considered opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately met by
reducing his substantive sentence to the period already undergone
(19.11.2002 till 19.01.2007) in respect of the sentence for the offence under
Section 394 IPC, .
20. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction
of the appellant under Section 397 of the IPC is hereby set aside, and he is
acquitted of the said charge. However, his conviction under Section 394 of
the IPC is maintained. The substantive sentence of jail sentence awarded for
the offence under Section 394 of the IPC is reduced to the period already
undergone by the appellant in custody.
21. The fine amount imposed upon the appellant by the trial court under Section
394 IPC shall remain intact.
22. The appellant is reported to be on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds
shall remain in operation for a further period of six months as per the
provision contained in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C (Section 481 of the
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).
23. Let a copy of this judgment, along with the original records, be sent to the
trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
Ajay