Court upheld conviction for extortion but modified sentence to period undergone, emphasizing reformative sentencing, proportionality, mitigating factors like prolonged trial, family roles, and no criminal bent of mind.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

This criminal revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 20.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Simdega in Criminal Appeal No.19/2019 by which the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.03.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega in T. Tanger P.S. Case No.65/2017, G.R. No.565/2017 has been affirmed, whereby, the learned trial court has convicted the petitioners under Sections 386, 387, 34, 411 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for three years along with cash fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of cash fine, six months separate extended R.I. have been provided and both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. On the basis of written report of the informant, FIR has been lodged alleging therein:

The informant used to run brick kiln in Gurgurtoli beside Moremdega river under T. Tanger police station, in last 15-20 days he was being called on his mobile no. 9973585845 from Mobile no. 7077022862 and mobile no. 7684099329, caller used to threaten him and demanded extortion from him, he also threatened earlier for payment of extortion, otherwise threatening was given that he will kill his entire family members. It has been further alleged that the caller disclosed his name as Suraj. On 26.11.2017, he called him and demanded extortion and on 26.11.2017 that person also came to his brick kiln along with another person and kept his laborer under threaten, he told his laborers to say your brick kiln owner to pay the extortion money. Both the miscreants came to his brick kiln by holding gun in their hand. It has also been alleged that the informant Pramod Kumar out of fear could not be able to inform police, in his written report he further stated that initially extremists demanded Rs. 2 lacs from him thereafter he put his demand down and demanded Rs. 1 lac from him when informant shown his inability to pay such huge amount, he demanded Rs. fifty thousand and lastly, he called him and told him to pay extortion money by the evening of 16.12.2017, otherwise he would not remain alive. The informant further stated that the extremist had called him to make payment, extortion money at Tamra river bridge. Due to this extortion call, he and his entire family became scared and, therefore, he requested to provide security to him and take legal action against caller.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the prosecution has examined altogether 9 witnesses. The petitioners denied the occurrence, however, they have been convicted as aforesaid. He further submits that the learned Court ought to have considered that mobile number from which money was allegedly demanded, is not of the petitioners and they are not the owner of the same, however, the petitioners have been convicted. He then submits that the allegation of recovery of mobile from the petitioner- Punit Dungdung is highly doubtful. He next submits that there is no independent witness of alleged search and seizure. He vehemently argues that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case and further, the prosecution has failed to establish that the petitioners have demanded extortion from the said mobiles.

4. After arguing the revision petition for some time, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that petitioner no.1 has remained in custody for about 1 year and 6 months and petitioner no.2 has remained in custody for abo