MOHAN LAL DANSENA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

VED
PRAKASH
DEWANGAN
1
Digitally signed
by VED PRAKASH
DEWANGAN
Date: 2026.11.05
18:37:26 +0530

CGHC010120052018 2026:CGHC:46800
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 546 of 2018
Mohan Lal Dansena S/o Shri Kartik Ram Dansena Aged About 27 Years R/o-
Village- Aurda, Police Station And Tahsil- Kharsia, District- Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- S.H.O. Of The Police Station- Kharsia, District-
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate
For Respondent : Ms. Isha Jajodia, Penal Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
04/11/2026
1. Present is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 against the impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 05.04.2018, passed by learned officiating Additional
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Raigarh, in Sessions Trial No. 149 of
2016, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the
following manner:

2
Conviction Sentence
U/s. 456 of the IPC R.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs.
1000/-, in default of payment of fine
additional R.I. for 1 month.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 08.05.2016, the victim
(PW-1) has lodged a written complaint (Exhibit P-1) at Police Station
Kharsia, alleging that on 08.05.2016 in the night at about 12:00-12:30
AM, when she along with her family members were sleeping, the
appellant came there and outraged her modesty. When she woke up
and shouted, her husband also woke up and at the same moment the
appellant assaulted her husband by axe on his right leg, by which he
received injuries on his right leg. He also repeated his blow on his knee,
and when he tried to assault on his head, somehow he could save
himself and received injury on his hand. Her husband was immediately
taken to hospital for his treatment.
3. Based on the written complaint, the FIR (Exhibit P-2) was registered
against the appellant for the offence under Sections 354 and 456 of IPC.
The injured Sanjeevan Dansena was sent for his medical examination to
Civil Hospital Kharsia, where he was medically examined by Dr. Smt.
Lalita Rathia (PW-3), who gave her report (Exhibit P-5). On medical
examination of the injured Sanjeevan Dansena, the doctor has found
one lacerated wound on just above the ankle joint which was bone deep
and bleeding present, clinically fracture of tibio-fibula bone of right lower
one third of leg bleeding present, lacerated wound on left knee joint
bleeding present, fracture of left patella bone, lacerated wound on left

3
hand with swelling from wound present, and one lacerated wound on left
frontal region of head bleeding was present from the injuries. The
injuries found on the body of the victim was grievous in nature. The
victim Sanjeevan Dansena remained hospitalized at Nayak Nursing
Home, Champa from 08.05.2016 to 25.05.2016.
4. Spot map (Exhibit P-3) was prepared by police. The appellant was
arrested on 01.06.2016 and one axe has been seized from him vide
seizure memo (Exhibit P-15). The axe was sent for its query report to
the doctor, who give his query report (Exhibit P-6), whereby he opined
that the injuries mentioned in the MLC report of Sanjeevan Dansena can
be inflicted by the said axe and in the query report (Exhibit P-7), it has
also been opined that the injuries in the MLC report can cause death if
not treated immediately.
5. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of CrPC and statement of
the victim and her daughter under Section 164 of CrPC have been
recorded, and after completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet was
filed against the appellant before the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Kharsia, District Raigarh for the offence under Sections 456, 354,
323, 326 and 459 of IPC. The case was committed to the Court of
learned Sessions Judge, Raigarh, from where the same has been
transferred to the learned Trial Court for its trial.
6. The learned Trial Court has framed charge against the appellant for the
offence under Sections 456, 354, 326 and 459 of the IPC. The appellant
denied the charge and claimed trial.
7. In order to prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has

4
examined as many as 7 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under
Section 313 of CrPC has also been recorded, in which he denied the
circumstances that appeared against him, pleaded innocence and has
submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence.
8. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the
prosecution, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the appellant from the
offence of Sections 354, 326 and 459 of IPC, however he has been
convicted for the offence under Section 456 of IPC and sentenced as
has been mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment, hence this
appeal.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is not
challenging his conviction, but he is challenging the sentence awarded
to the appellant as the same is excessive under the facts and
circumstances of the case. He would submit that the offence of Section
456 of IPC does not provide any minimum sentence, the appellant is
real brother of the injured Sanjeevan Dansena and the victim is his
sister-in-law. The offence is of the year 2016 and their relation has
become cordial. The appellant is presently aged about 37 years and
having innumerable responsibilities of his family. Looking to the nature of
offence, evidence available on record, the relationship between the
parties and their cordial relation, and also that there is no minimum
sentence provided for the alleged offence, the sentence awarded to the
appellant may be reduced for the period already undergone by him by
enhancing the fine amount suitably.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the

5
submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and would
submit that the appellant had committed the offence of house-trespass
by night, which has been proved by the victim (PW-1) and her daughter
(PW-2). Though the appellant has been acquitted from the other
offences of Sections 354, 326 and 459 of IPC, but considering the
evidence available on record, he has rightly been convicted for the
offence under Section 456 of IPC and appropriately sentenced by the
learned Trial Court. The appellant is not entitled for further leniency in
his sentence and his appeal is liable to be dismissed.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
the Trial Court.
12. Although the appellant is not challenging his conviction, this Court
deems it appropriate to examine the evidence available on record with
respect to the appellant's conviction under Section 456 of the IPC.
Section 456 provides for punishment for lurking house-trespass or
housebreaking by night, which may extend to three years and shall also
render the offender liable to a fine. Lurking house-trespass and lurking
house-trespass by night have been defined under Sections 443 and 444
of the IPC, respectively, which read as under:
“ 443. Lurking house-trespass .—Whoever commits house-
trespass having taken precautions to conceal such house-
trespass from some person who has a right to exclude or
eject the trespasser from the building, tent or vessel which
is the subject of the trespass, is said to commit “lurking
house-trespass”.
444. Lurking house-trespass by night .—Whoever
commits lurking house-trespass after sunset and before

6
sunrise, is said to commit “lurking house-trespass by night”.
13. Section 446 of the IPC provided the house-breaking by night, which is
also relevant to notice here for its consideration, which reads as under:
“ 446. House-breaking by night .—Whoever commits
house-breaking after sunset and before sunrise, is said to
commit “house-breaking by night”.
14. The victim (PW-1) has stated that on the date of the incident, she, along
with her family members, was sleeping in her house, and at about 12:30
in the night, the appellant trespassed into her house and pulled her
clothes. When she woke up, the appellant dealt an axe blow on the leg
of her husband. He assaulted him on his left knee, and the third blow
was inflicted on his head. When her husband tried to stop him, he
sustained an injury on his hand. The appellant threatened him that if
they lodged a report, he would see them. Thereafter, the appellant fled
from the house. She called the persons residing in the vicinity and then
took her husband to Kharsia Hospital. She made a written complaint,
which is Exhibit P-1, and on the basis of her complaint, the FIR was
lodged, which is Exhibit P-2. When a leading question was put to this
witness, she admitted that at the time when the appellant trespassed
into her house, he tried to commit rape upon her.
* In her cross-examination, she admitted that the appellant is her
brother-in-law. She had married her husband 13-14 years ago. Her
house is situated in the middle of the vicinity, and the houses of others
are adjacent to her house. The house of the appellant is also situated in
the same vicinity, with one intervening house. She admitted that the
kitchen of the appellant is separate from her house and that they are

7
residing separately. She further admitted that there was a land dispute
between her husband and the appellant and that quarrels had taken
place between them on several occasions. Before the present incident,
a report regarding the property dispute had been lodged at Kharsia
Police Station. She further stated that on the date of the incident, her
daughter was also present in her house and had witnessed the incident.
In her further cross-examination, she stated that on 07.09.2015, her
husband had tried to assault the appellant. She voluntarily stated that
before the said incident, the appellant had assaulted her on the issue of
theft of an axe.
15. From the evidence of this witness, the house trespass by night has been
clearly proved by the prosecution that it is the appellant who entered into
the house of victim.
16. PW-2 is the daughter of the victim, who stated in her evidence that the
appellant is her uncle. The appellant assaulted her father with an axe
and also outraged the modesty of her mother. When the appellant
outraged the modesty of her mother, her mother shouted, upon hearing
which PW-2 woke up and saw the incident. At the same time, her father
also woke up, and the appellant assaulted him.
* In her cross-examination, she admitted that she had herself seen
the appellant outraging the modesty of her mother. Though she denied
that she had not seen the appellant assaulting her father, she further
admitted that she had deposed at the instance of her parents.
17. PW-5 is the injured, to whom the appellant allegedly caused injuries with
an axe. He is the elder brother of the appellant and stated that on the

8
date of the incident, in the evening, while he was cutting a wooden log,
he sustained an injury to his leg from an axe. Thereafter, his father took
him to Champa Hospital, where he was treated. He has been declared
hostile and has not supported the prosecution's case and remained firm
in saying that he received the injury while cutting the wooden log.
18. PW-3, Dr. Smt. Lalita Rathia, and PW-6, Dr. G.K. Nayak, are the
witnesses with respect to the injuries found on the body of PW-5. When
PW-5 has not stated that it was the appellant who caused injuries to
him, the evidence of the doctors does not appear to be relevant in the
present appeal, as the appellant has been acquitted of the offence under
Section 326 of the IPC. Though PW-5 received injuries, he himself has
stated that he received the injuries while cutting a wooden log, and he
has not stated that it was the appellant who caused injuries to him.
19. From the aforesaid evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, the prosecution has
been able to prove that the appellant committed the offence of house-
breaking by night. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly
convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 456 of the IPC.
Though the appellant has been acquitted of the offences punishable
under Sections 354, 326 and 459 of the IPC by giving him the benefit of
doubt, in view of the substantive evidence available on record, the
conviction of the appellant under Section 456 of the IPC is hereby
affirmed.
20. So far as the sentence awarded to the appellant is concerned, the
submission made by learned counsel appearing for the appellant that
the appellant is the real brother of the injured and the real brother-in-law

9
of the victim, that their relations may become cordial, that the incident
occurred in the year 2016, and that no minimum sentence is prescribed
for the offence in question, and therefore, the sentence awarded to the
appellant may be reduced, is appealing to this Court.
21. So far as sentence part is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
“ Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh” 1977 (3) SCC
287 has laid down the law with respect to awarding sentence to the
accused persons. In paragraph 9 it was held as under :-
“9. Western jurisdiction 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
Micodotis, 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

10
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.' In the same strain a British Buddhist-Christian
Judge, speaking to a BBC reporter underscored the role of
compassion : "Circuit Judge Christmas Humphreys told the
BBC reporter recently that a judge looks 'at the man in the
dock in a different way : not just a criminal to be punished,
but a fellow human being, another form of life who is also a
form of the same one life as oneself.' In the context of
karuna and punishment for karma the same Judge said :
'The two things are not incompatible. You do punish him for
what he did, but you bring in a quality of what is sometimes
called mercy, rather than an emotional hate against the man
for doing something harmful. You feel with him; that is what
compassion means."
22. Further, in the matter of “ Raj Bala Vs. State of Haryana & Others”
2016 (1) SCC 463 in paragraph 1 & 2 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held as under :
“1. In Gopal Singh v. State of Uttrakahand[1], while focusing
on the gravity of the crime and the concept of proportionality
as regards the punishment, the Court had observed:-
"18. Just punishment is the collective cry of the
society. While the collective cry has to be kept
uppermost in the mind, simultaneously the principle of
proportionality between the crime and punishment
cannot be totally brushed aside. The principle of just
punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of

11
a criminal offence. A punishment should not be
disproportionately excessive.
The concept of proportionality allows a significant
discretion to the Judge but the same has to be guided
by certain principles. In certain cases, the nature of
culpability, the antecedents of the accused, the
factum of age, the potentiality of the convict to
become a criminal in future, capability of his
reformation and to lead an acceptable life in the
prevalent milieu, the effect - propensity to become a
social threat or nuisance, and sometimes lapse of
time in the commission of the crime and his conduct
in the interregnum bearing in mind the nature of the
offence, the relationship between the parties and
attractability of the doctrine of bringing the convict to
the value-based social mainstream may be the
guiding factors. Needless to emphasise, these are
certain illustrative aspects put forth in a condensed
manner.We may hasten to add that there can neither
be a straitjacket formula nor a solvable theory in
mathematical exactitude. It would be dependent on
the facts of the case and rationalised judicial
discretion. Neither the personal perception of a Judge
nor self-adhered moralistic vision nor hypothetical
apprehensions should be allowed to have any play.
For every offence, a drastic measure cannot be
thought of. Similarly, an offender cannot be allowed to
be treated with leniency solely on the ground of
discretion vested in a court.The real requisite is to
weigh the circumstances in which the crime has been
committed and other concomitant factors which we
have indicated hereinbefore and also have been
stated in a number of pronouncements by this Court.
On such touchstone, the sentences are to be
imposed. The discretion should not be in the realm of

12
fancy. It should be embedded in the conceptual
essence of just punishment."
[Emphasis supplied]
2. Seven years prior to that, in Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State
of Gujarat [2], it has been held that:-
"7. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates
conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons
and property of the people is an essential function of
the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality
of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross-cultural
conflict where living law must find answer to the new
challenges and the courts are required to mould the
sentencing system to meet the challenges. The
contagion of lawlessness would undermine social
order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and
stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of
law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate
sentence. Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the
edifice of "order" should meet the challenges
confronting the society.
Friedman in his Law in Changing Society stated that:
"State of criminal law continues to be-as it should be-
a decisive reflection of social consciousness of
society." Therefore, in operating the sentencing
system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or
deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft
modulation, sentencing process be stern where it
should be, and tempered with mercy where it
warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in
each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in
which it was planned and committed, the motive for
commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused,
the nature of weapons used and all other attending

13
circumstances are relevant facts which would enter
into the area of consideration.
8. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate
sentence would do more harm to the justice system to
undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law,
and society could not long endure under such serious
threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to
award proper sentence having regard to the nature of
the offence and the manner in which it was executed
or committed, etc. This position was illuminatingly
stated by this Court in Sevaka Perumal v. State of
T.N.[3]"
[Emphasis supplied]
And again:- "The court will be failing in its duty if
appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime
which has been committed not only against the
individual victim but also against the society to which
the criminal and the victim belong. The punishment to
be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it
should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity
and brutality with which the crime has been
perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting
public abhorrence and it should "respond to the
society's cry for justice against the criminal"."
23. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant
and the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that no
minimum sentence is prescribed for the offence punishable under
Section 456 of the IPC, that the appellant is the real brother of the
injured and the brother-in-law of the victim, that the incident occurred in
the year 2016, that their relations are stated to have been cordial, and
also considering the age of the appellant and his numerous family

14
responsibilities, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence
awarded to the appellant to the period already undergone by him, while
enhancing the fine amount.
24. Consequently, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the
offence punishable under Section 456 of the IPC, his sentence is
reduced to the period already undergone by him, subject to payment of
an additional fine of Rs. 25,000/-, over and above the fine amount
imposed by the learned trial Court. The aforesaid additional fine shall be
deposited within three months from today. Any fine amount already
deposited by the appellant pursuant to the judgment of the learned trial
Court shall be adjusted towards the total fine amount payable. In default
of payment of the aforesaid additional fine, the appellant shall undergo
further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Upon deposit of the
additional fine amount of Rs. 25,000/-, the entire amount shall be paid to
Sanjeevan Dansena (PW-5) as compensation under Section 395 of the
BNSS, 2023.
25. With the aforesaid modification/alteration of the sentence, the appeal is
partly allowed .
26. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bond shall remain in
force for a further period of six months, as provided under Section 481 of
the BNSS, 2023.
27. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the
trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and
compliance.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
ved