Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No. 533 of 2012 ====================================================== Manoj Rai Son of Late Musafir Rai Resident Of Village- Ghaghra, Police Station- Parihar, District- Sitamarhi. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mr. Najmul Hoda, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Matloob Rab, A.P.P. ====================================================== 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 Order and Judgment dated 10.04.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal No. 95 of 2011 by which the judgment and order dated 21.09.2011 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi Sadar in G.R. Case 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 Patna High Court CR. REV. No.533 of 2012 (2) dt.14-05-2012 2 / 4 2 under [STATUTE] and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment 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 is based only on the basis of testimony of a single witness namely P.W. 5, who is also the informant. It is stated that there are no other eye witnesses which gives rise to doubt with regard to the allegations itself. It is also submitted that arrest and recovery of money was within three hours of the incident which also raises doubt about whether the money was recovered or planted by the prosecution to falsely implicate the petitioner. It is stated that on the basis of materials which have come before the Court, the charge has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubts so as to record an order of conviction. Learned A.P.P. on the other hand has supported the judgment impugned and submits that since it was the informant alone who was being called to pay ‘Rangdari’ and he has made the payments, it is not expected that there would be other eye Patna High Court CR. REV. No.533 of 2012 (2) dt.14-05-2012 3 / 4 3 witnesses. Further it is stated that he has not controverted his earlier statement in cross- examination and has been consistent. It is further submitted that the fact that within three hours recovery was made fortifies the prosecution case and there cannot be any question of the same being infirm either on facts or in law. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was earlier working as driver in the house of the informant and thus had knowledge about the financial condition as well as other circumstances existing and he being the person who had called for money and to whom it was paid which later on upon arrest was also recovered, does not leave any shadow of doubt that the allegation is true and the conviction has rightly been recorded. It is submitted that in fact the sentence is on the lighter side since the section envisages up to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment whereas in the present case only three years simple imprisonment has been awarded. Upon going through the judgments of the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, this Court does not find any infirmity in the same. They are well considered and based upon admissible evidence leaving no room for doubt with regard to the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.533 of 2012 (2) dt.14-05-2012 4 / 4 4 complicity of the petitioner in the crime. This Court is in agreement with the submissions of learned A.P.P. for the State with regard to the sentence that since it is on the lighter side, it warrants enhancement. However this Court does not propose to do the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere either with the order of conviction or the order of sentence. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. 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.