Case Facts:
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.482 of 2012 (4) dt.29-06-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.482 of 2012 ====================================================== Munna Kumar Son of Nand Kishore Prasad, resident of village- Dharohara, P.S.- Chiraiya, District- East Champaran .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Munchun Sah son of Ramekbal Sah, R/o village- Dharohara, P.S.- Chiraiya, District- East Champaran .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. D.K. Tondon, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) 4 29-06-2012 The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 1st February, 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge VIth, East Champaran, Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 1056 of 2007 arising out of Chiraiya P.S. Case No. 35 of 2004 G.R.No. 254 of 2004 under [STATUTE] whereby the opposite party no. 2 was acquitted from the charges levelled against him. The sole accused opposite party no. 2 Munchun Sah was put on trial for the offence under [STATUTE] on the allegation that the informant’s grand son Munna Kumar aged about 8 years was kidnapped and later on Munna was released from the custody of the kidnappers after payment of ransom amount Rs. 80,000/-. Further allegation was Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.482 of 2012 (4) dt.29-06-2012 that nine months after the incident, accused again came to the house of the informant and demanded Rs. 25,000/- by way of Rangdari. On perusal of the judgment it appears that the trial court after considering the various contradictions between the ocular evidence and the evidence of the I. O., the accused was held not guilty. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that at least conviction under [STATUTE] should have been recorded. The trial court has given sound reason in disbelieving the testimony of ocular evidences which requires no interference of this Court. This appeal is held to be without merit and it is accordingly, dismissed. avin/- (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 506

Statute Text:
Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal intimidation. Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc — and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, of with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.