JUDGMENT :

Sudhir Singh, J.

CRM-4293-2020 IN CRA-AD-72-2020

For the reasons stated in application, same is allowed. Delay of 327 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

CRM-13003-2020 IN CRR-937-2020

For the reasons stated in application, same is allowed. Delay of 420 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

Main cases (O&M)

Vide this common order, we shall be disposing off above noted two cases arising out of the common judgment of conviction and order of sentence. CRA-AD-72-2020 has been filed by the complainant against the impugned judgment of conviction/order of sentence dated 10/11.10.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby accused/respondents No.2 to 6 have been acquitted for offences under Sections 395, 412 of IPC read with Sections 67/67-A of the Information Technology Act; whereas, CRR-937-2020 has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of sentence awarded to the aforesaid respondents under Section 384 read with Section 120-B IPC. For brevity, facts are taken from CRA-AD-72-2020.

2. Vide order dated 01.08.2022, the Lower Court record was called for. The same was received.

3. The prosecution case was that on 22.05.2017, complainant, namely, Sukhjinder Singh (appellant/petitioner herein) was present, along with his friend, namely Som Nath, in his fields to get the electricity tubewell connection repaired and levelling of some portion of the land was also going on. At about 4.30 p.m., Tarsem Singh alias Goma (respondent No.2), telephonically, desired to meet complainant to resolve some issue relating to conflict of a lady, who was relative of said Tarsem Singh alias Goma. Tarsem Singh alongwith said lady reached the fields of the complainant at about 9.00 p.m. In the meanwhile, Bablu Singh (respondent No.3), Lakhwinder Singh alias Kala (respondent No.4), Billa and Bhai also reached the spot, on two motorcycles. They scolded the complainant and Som Nath by saying that they had indulged under illegal activities with the aforesaid lady, and started raising noise; that they had taken the complainant and said Som Nath into their captivity in a room and had also brandished the kirpan by giving threats to kill them. They also took an amount of Rs.9,000/- from the pocket of the complainant after exerting threats of making viral the photographs of the complainant along with the aforesaid lady on the internet and had demanded an amount of Rs.50,000/- on that pretext. Subsequently, the complainant and Som Nath had reached near Bansal Hospital, Sangrur by carrying an amount of Rs.50,000/- where Bablu and Lakhwinder Singh alias Kala along with two other unidentified persons appeared and the aforesaid amount was delivered to them. It was further the case of the prosecution that accused-Lakhwinder Singh alias Kala had raised a further demand of Rs.1 lakh threatening that in case the said amount was not paid, the police would be informed about illegal acts of the complainant and Som Nath.

4. Based on the aforesaid complaint, FIR in question was registered. After investigation, the challan/report under Section 173 of Cr. P.C. was submitted in the Court. Thereafter, charges were framed against respondents No.2 to 6, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. During trial, the prosecution examined PW1-Sukhjinder Singh (complainant), PW2-ASI Kamaljit Singh, PW3-HC Lakhwinder Singh, Malkhana Munshi, PW4-Lakhvir Singh, PW5-Inspector Deepinderpal Singh, Investigating Officer, PW6-Avtar Singh, PW7-Som Nath (eye witness), PW8-Harwinder Singh, PW9-Nirmal Singh and PW10-Jagbir Singh, Nodal Officer. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein entire incriminating evidence was put to them. However, they denied the same and pleaded false implication in the case. In defence, the accused did not lead any evidence.

6. The grounds considered by the learned Trial Court, while passing the impugned judgment and order, are as under:-

i) There is