IN THE HONOURABLE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. . 0 12010. 'Qmgi-g $é?‘*® APPLICANTS: 1. Anand Tirky S/o Tivartiyus Tirky, Aged about 30 years, R/o Villagq: Khajuri, Thana Balrampur, Dist: ‘Balrampur, Chhattisgarh . 2. Dinesh Ram Korva S/o Ramkiran, Aged about 22 years,' Village: Panchaval, Dist: Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. (1N JAIL} ' State of Chhattisgarh Through: District Magistrate, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. NON—APPLICANT: ‘ - CRIMINAL REVISI0N APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 397i 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973. SENTENCE/ PUNISHMENT IMPOSED By Trial Court: Rigourous Im Arisonrnent of ThrEe’Yeafs 8a Fine of Rs.1 0/- eag. By Appellate Court: As above. OFFENCE U/s 384 Pc. /V HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH : B!LA5FUR §inq§e aench: Hon’ble $hri Manin‘dra Mohan Shrivastava: .Jx 0 Qriminai Revi$ion NG.210!201 0 (Crimina! Revisian unaer Samar: 39?!4n€}1 af the €f.P.G.) 1 Shri M, K‘Baeg. co‘unse! for the appiicants. Shri Sai‘ish Gupta, GA. for the State/non-appiicant. - ORAL ORDER (Pagsed an 315‘ omugust, 20m) $resent: :- This Revision peiition is directed against the order dated 12-01-201Q passed by the 4‘“ Additidnai Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Raigarh in iiriminai Appeai No.47l2009 ayising out of the judgment of conviction and order of Sentence dated 0840-2009 passed by the Judioiai Magistrate First Claeei Raigarh in Crimtnai Case No.68/2008 whereby the applicants are convicted under ‘Section 384 0f the I.P.C, and sentenced tc undergo Ri ici' three years eed fine e? Rs.100/— en each eeunt. (2) :Case ef the presecution is that the applicants administered threat te ene Rataii Kujui‘, Pit-v.1 requiting him to coiiect money from the villagers whereupon Retail Kujur cellected money. On the basis 0f the aforesaid aliegatiens, ottence cf extorticn was registeted against the applicants and they were tried by the Judiciat Magistrate First Ciass, Raigarh fer alleged commission 0f ettence under Sattion 384 of the l.F’.C. Vide'jiidgment dated 08-10—2009, the learned trial Ceurt heid the appiicants guilty at commissien at effence under $ectien 384 et the l.P.C. and sentenced to underge RI for three years and te pay fine of 9wpmicant$ A Anand Tirky and Anoiher {in Jail) Versus $§an=app§cam State of Chhattisgarh Rs.100!~ on each count. Aggrieved by the judgment of canvistion and order of semtence, ihe applicants preferred criminal appear, which tao, has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dated i 2th January, 201 0. 9 (3) Aesaiiing the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and arder at cenviction paseed by the learned trial Couit and attirmed by the appeliate Ceurt; learned ceunsel for the appticants argued that the Courts belew have 'cemmitted gross illegality in holding the applicants guilty for commission of offence ‘nrfder Section 384 of the l.P.C. relying upon the testimony sf Refaii Kuju; PW1 and Smt Phul Kuman Ti ky PW9 Learned Counsel for the applicants sfubmits that very ingredient of the commieeion of offence of extortion i5 not made out from the testimony of Rafail Kujur, P.W.1, who in his cross- examination oieerly deposed that the applieente never administered any threat ‘ nor recovered money from him. Learned counsei for the applieants further atguee‘that even from the testimony of Smt. Phul Kumari Tirky, P.W.9, it i5 t nowhere borne out that the applicants ever put the witness Smt. Phul Kumari Tirky, PWS. or Rafail Kujur, P.W.1 in fear of any injury and thereby extracted money for being paid to the applicants. ‘ x,” \\\‘ r1 (4) On the other hand, teamed State counsel would suhmit that from the ‘ a evidence of Rafaii Kujur, P.W.1 and Smt. Phul Kumari Tirky, RW.9., it is clearly home out that Retail Kujur collected money from the villagers on the threat of applicants; who were armed with gun and under that feat, money was extracted ftom the villagers and therefore ‘feree under Section 3841 of the tPC ie cteatly made out and the learned Court below has not committed any Iiiegatity o: oervereity in cowng to the concluston that the appiicants are guilty for commtemon o: offence under Section 384 of the l.P.C. w (5) mm ihe fudgments of the learned Court below. it is found that the cmwigi‘im ef the applicants is based on the teStimany of RafaH Kujm, FWj aw Smt. Phm Kumari Tirky, P.W.9. Learned Court be$ow have heldfc5et other wiknesses have ne: supperted the presecution story. {6) Rafail Kujuf, P.W,1 in his examination in-chief has deposed that the aeetieante met him in the fereet and asked him te coliect meney fmm the vitiagere and the applicant No.1«Anand Tirky stated that he belengs to naxatite l ees‘ty encht‘h‘ey are wetking for the welfare of the public and if any persen will net i gtve the ameent fer the party fund then the same wilt be treatect as enemy aria wit! mt he eaared. He‘has thither depoeeol in his croes-examinattoh that the aehticahte did het administer any threat to him as also deposed that the aepiteants cite hot do anything with him. He has further deposed that he did not todge ahy teport ih the Potice Station and his signatures were obtatned. (7) lh so far as evidence of Smt. Phul Kumari Tirky, PWVQ‘ is concerned, she hae heeh declared hastite by the prosecution. She has stated in her testtmehy that Rafatl came to eeltect money frem her by stating that few hersohs, who have come from the forest stde, are demanding money. in her /: ctossuexamination, she has stated that that Rafail Kujur and Parsah Ekka came to her house and stated that naxalites have come and are demanding mehey u! fer party fund upon administering threat and if any person witt not contribute, he wtlt he the enemy of naxatite party and will be kilted. {8) Qther proseeution witnesses inctuding seizure witnesses have atso not supported the caee at the preseeution, x (9) Evidence of Retail Kujur, P.W.1 does not inspire eonfidenoe so as to rest the eroseeutien and make out a case against the appticants. in View of the staiemem of Rafai} Kujur in his crow-examination that the apmicams r§ever administered any thieat nor money was recovered fmm him, the $tatemeni of ' other prosecution witnesses including that of Smt. Phul Kumari Tiricy, Pin/.3; cauld mt be made a basis for holding the applicants guilty for cnmmiasion of offence. in the abseme of other incriminating evidence to correberate the Stan; of the preseeution, ehakylinconsistent anal contradictory etatement of Retail . Kujur ceuld net be made basis to hold applicants guilty, {l O) lam of the censide‘red opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the ease of extortion against the applicants, beyond reasonable doubt. Learned Comte beiow have hetcl the applicants guilty for commission of offence without there being reiiable and credible evidence on record. Therefore, impugned itiegment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appiicants cannot 'oe sustained under the law. (11.) Accordingly. the revision is ailowed. Impugned judgment of conviction I and order of sentence passed against the applicants are set aside. Applicants are acquitted. As the applicants are in jail, they shall be reieaseci forthwith, if not required in any other case. Sd/- Tumane Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge é v‘