Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No. 559 of 2012 ====================================================== Amar Yadav @ Amar Kumar Yadav Son of Devendra Prasad Yadav, 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. 18-05-2012 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. 10 of 2012 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 along with others is accused in Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 275 of 2010 dated 03.05.2010 which was registered for offence under [STATUTE] . Upon trial the petitioner was convicted under both the Sections and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- for offence under [STATUTE] and further to Patna High Court CR. REV. No.559 of 2012 (2) dt.18-05-2012 2 / 3 2 undergo simple imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- under [STATUTE] . The fine so released was directed to be paid to the informant by way of compensation as per the provisions of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) and in default of payment of fine the petitioner was to undergo further simple imprisonment for two months each on both the counts. The appellate Court has upheld the conviction as well as the sentence. The allegation against the petitioner was that he was one of the person in whose presence payment of ransom was made but he was caught from his house and no recovery was made from him whereas the main accused namely, Manoj Rai was caught from the hotel with the ransom money along with two other persons. Without going in the merits of the case in detail, learned counsel submits that the said Manoj Rai had moved this Court in the present case in Cr. Revision No. 533 of 2012 and this Court by order dated 14.05.2012 did not interfere either in the conviction or the sentence on the ground that he was the driver, made the ransom call and also received the money and with which he was caught. However, with regard to Pramod Yadav, who was another accused in the case, this Court in Cr. Revision No. 534 of 2012 had upheld the conviction but had modified the sentence to the period Patna High Court CR. REV. No.559 of 2012 (2) dt.18-05-2012 3 / 3 3 already undergone in custody. In view of the aforesaid, this Court would not like to take a different view in the present case. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner is upheld whereas the sentence is modified to the period already undergone in custody. This application stands disposed off in the aforementioned terms. Upon payment of fine, as stipulated, the petitioner shall be released, if not wanted in any other case. Anand Kr. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 387

Statute Text:
Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code. Putting or attempting to put a person in fear of death or grievous hurt in order to commit extortion. Whoever in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to put 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 seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.