Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1288 (JHR)

Zahir Khan @ Zahir Ansari v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-07-27

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, Mr. P. K. Appu, learned A.P.P., is present. 2. As this matter is pending since 2005 as such the same is being disposed of based on the material available on record. 3. This application is directed against the judgment dated 31.01.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2005 by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa whereby and where under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa in G. R. Case No. 26 of 2004 by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years as also a fine of Rs. 4,000/- has been affirmed. 4. The prosecution story in brief is that the informant who was the director of the company was subjected to extortion demand made by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- with a threatening that if the demand is not met he will also be done to death like Debdas Mohanty. It is also alleged that threatening was also given on telephone as also by means of a letter. 5. Based on the aforesaid allegation G.R. Case No. 26 of 2004 was instituted for the offence punishable under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet and after cognizance was taken charge was framed and trial proceeded. 6. In course of trial four witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.-1, Amar Kumar Choudhary, is an employee of Nawa Metal Pvt. Ltd., Noamundi who had stated that on the date of the incident a meeting was going on in the premises of the said company and the petitioner had come and demanded from the informant to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- otherwise he will be blasted with the help of a bomb. This witness has also deposed that he had come to know that the petitioner was repeatedly giving threat to the informant. P.W.-2, Pankaj Kumar, was also an employee of Nawa Metal Pvt. Ltd., Noamundi who had stated about the demand of extortion money by the petitioner by putting him to fear of death. This witness has also deposed that he had come to know that the petitioner was repeatedly giving threat to the informant. P.W.-2, Pankaj Kumar, was also an employee of Nawa Metal Pvt. Ltd., Noamundi who had stated about the demand of extortion money by the petitioner by putting him to fear of death. This witness had stated that when the meeting was going on between the employee as well as the informant the petitioner had come inside and had threatened him with dire consequences if the demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- is not met. P.W.-3, Prabhakar Choudhary, has also stated about the threatening given by the petitioner when the meeting was held between the employees as well as the informant. P.W.-4, Sunil Kumar Jha, is the informant of the case, has stated that on 02.01.2004 he was present in his office at Nawa Metal Pvt. Ltd., Noamundi in his capacity of being the director of the company and he was holding a meeting with his staffs inside his chamber. This witness had stated that at that point of time the petitioner had entered inside the room and demanded an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and if the said demand is not met the informant was threatened that he will also be killed just like Debdas Mohanty was killed. This witness had further stated that earlier also he was received threatening calls on telephone describing caller as the petitioner and had also received letters threatening him with dire consequences. 7. It is the case of the defence that all the witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses as all are the employees of Nawa Metal Pvt. Ltd., Noamundi of which the informant is the director. It is the further case of the defence that the Investigating Officer of the case had not been examined. The defence has further argued in course of trial that no independent witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. 8. Mr. P.K. Appu, learned A.P.P., has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 9. It appears that P.W.s-1, 2, 3 and 4 have consistently stated about the entering of the petitioner inside the chamber of P.W.-4 when the meeting was going on between the P.W.-4 and his staffs and he had demanded an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as extortion money. Mr. P.K. Appu, learned A.P.P., has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 9. It appears that P.W.s-1, 2, 3 and 4 have consistently stated about the entering of the petitioner inside the chamber of P.W.-4 when the meeting was going on between the P.W.-4 and his staffs and he had demanded an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as extortion money. P.W.-4 in his statement had also stated about the earlier threat given to him over telephone as well as based on letters and, therefore, P.W.-4 was fearing for his life on account of the acts of the petitioner. Although the Investigating Officer of the case has not been examined but the same would not dilute the prosecution case in view of the fact that the place of occurrence has been clearly established by the evidence of P.W.s-1, 2, 3 and 4. On consideration of the evidence of the witnesses the learned trial court had rightly found the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced him accordingly. The learned appellate court on proper appreciation of the material available on record dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. There being no reasons to conclude otherwise the judgment of conviction passed against the petitioner by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court is, hereby, sustained. 10. As regards, the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. The acts of the petitioner of putting the informant on fear of death and demanding extortion money of Rs. 1,00,000/- is a menace to the society as it is a very common practice in the State of Jharkhand. The activity of such persons need to be curbed and no leniency can be shown to them as such acts on their part are a threat to the society. 11. On such consideration, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the sentence imposed upon the petitioner. This application, therefore, as a consequence to the discussions made here-in-above, is dismissed.