IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and legally valid evidence to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt, including the proper sealing of seized materials and the valid proof of CDR details.

JUDGMENT :

The present Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner by challenging the judgment dated 20.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Criminal Appeal No.40/2013, by which, the learned Court below has dismissed the said Criminal Appeal and thereby affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.07.2013 passed by Sri. Kumar Kranti Prasad, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Simdega in connection with Kersai P.S. Case No.15/2012, corresponding to G.R No.409/2012 (T.R No.113 of 2013), by which, the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 387/34 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay the fine of Rs.,2,000/-and in default of payment of fine, he has further been sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one (01) month for the offence under Section 387/34 of the IPC.

2. Heard Mrs. Vani Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, learned counsel for the State.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Informant namely, Anil Kumar Tirkey has submitted a report in the local Police Station on 19.09.2012, while he was posted as a Senior Assistant, in the State Bank of India, Branch Simdega that on 12.09.2012 at about 09:00 “O’ Clock he had received a call in his Mobile No.9431562819 from Mobile No.8690406036,. The caller asked him to pay Rs.2,00,000/-as Extortion money as he identified himself as a party men. He said that he would inform him as to where the money would be paid and on 13.09.2012 at about 07:00 A.M again he called from same number and asked the Informant to give the money to the driver of Taj Bus and also threatened for dire consequences.

5. It is submitted that by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgments and order passed by the learned Court below are illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that the learned Courts below ought to have considered that the mobile phone and Sim card were not in the name of the petitioner. It is further submitted that learned Courts below ought to have considered that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove seizure of mobile phone from the possession of this petitioner and both the seizure-list witnesses i.e. P.W.3 and P.W.4 have deposed that nothing was seized in their presence and police had taken their signature at the police station. It is further submitted that the Mobile and Sim Card were not found in the name of the petitioner and seizure-list witnesses have not supported the factum of search and seizure and the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against this petitioner. It is further submitted that the other person namely, Md. Mistar Khan, who was named in the FIR, has been acquitted by the learned Appellate Court below on 20.05.2017. It is further submitted that seizure-list witnesses i.e, P.W.3 namely, Jagarnath Mehar and P.W.4 namely, Premchand Guriya, have stated that they have signed on the blank paper. It is further submitted that the Informant has not identified the petitioner in the learned Court below, during the trial and hence, the judgments passed by the learned Court below may be set-aside in the interest of justice and this Criminal Revision Application may be allowed.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that the judgments and order passed by the learned Court below are fit and proper and no interference is required. It is further submitted that this is a case of demand of Extortion money of Rs.2,00,000/-in the name of the party men by the petitioner. It is further submitted that P.W.5 (i.e, the Informant) of this case, who has fully supported his case. It is further submitted that the Mobile Phone was recovered from the possession of this petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner had confessed his guilt before the Police.