Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No. 534 of 2012 ====================================================== Pramod Yadav @ Pramod Kumar Yadav Son of Ram Hridya Rai Resident Of Village- Tandaspur, Police Station- Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER 2. 14-05-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. The present revision application is directed against the Appellate Judgment and Order dated 10.04.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal No. 92 of 2011 by which the Judgment and Order dated 21.09.2011 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi Sadar in G.R. No. 968 of 2010/ Trial No. 1940 of 2011 convicting and sentencing the petitioner, has been upheld. The petitioner is named accused in Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 275/2010 registered for offence under [STATUTE] . Upon trial the petitioner was convicted under [STATUTE] and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment Patna High Court CR. REV. No.534 of 2012 (2) dt.14-05-2012 2 / 3 2 for three years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for further two months. The appellate Court has upheld the conviction as well as the sentence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conviction and sentence is based on single testimony of the informant and there are no other eye witnesses. It is further submitted that the petitioner was neither caught in the hotel nor was there any recovery made from his possession so as to connect him to the crime and thus he deserves the benefit of doubt and the conviction and sentence are unsustainable. It is further submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedent. Learned A.P.P. for the State on the other hand submits that the informant has specifically taken his name and has stated that he was one of the persons present at the time when Manoj Rai took the money from the informant. It is further submitted that in view of the said fact the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of doubt and even though he may have been arrested later, he cannot be absolved of the crime and being an accomplice, he was liable to be similarly punished as any other co-accused. Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the order of conviction and does not find any Patna High Court CR. REV. No.534 of 2012 (2) dt.14-05-2012 3 / 3 3 error in the same. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner is upheld. However, with regard to the sentence, since he has already undergone imprisonment for a little over 2 years, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence to the period already undergone in custody. This application, accordingly, stands disposed off without interfering in the order of conviction while modifying the sentence to the period already undergone in custody. However, the fine shall be paid by the petitioner failing which, he has to undergo further simple imprisonment for two months as stipulated in the judgment impugned. The petitioner upon depositing the fine, shall be released, if not wanted in any other case. Anand Kr. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 386

Statute Text:
Section 386 of the Indian Penal Code. extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt. Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.