JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. M. Pertin, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. This is an application, under Section 397 read with Sections 401 and 482 Cr.P.C., against the judgment and order dated 29.11.2017, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 04/2015 (YPA) (Shri Bake Kepo Vs State of A.P) by Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Western Sessions Division, Yupia, Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge had upheld the order and judgment dated 01.06.2015 passed in G.R. Case No. 897/2014 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia in connection with Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 2014/14, under Section 387 IPC whereby, the present accused/convict was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months. 3. The brief facts leading to this revision petition is that on 03.11.2014, a written F.I.R. was received from one Pawan Kumar Jain to the effect that an extortion note demanding a sum of Rs. 10, 00000/- (Ten Lakhs) within two days claiming themselves to be member of National Liberation Council of Taniland (hereinafter referred as NLCT) signed by its president. On receipt of the F.I.R., the Officer-Incharge Naharlagun P.S. registered a case vide NLG P.S. Case No. 204/14, under Section 387 IPC. The accused/convict was accordingly arrested in connection with this case on 08.12.2014 and after completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet was filed on 10.01.2015. 4. The prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses including the informant and the I/O have also exhibited some documents in respect of their case. The accused/convict has taken total denial at the time of his examination under Section 387 IPC. However, he did not adduce any evidence in support of his case. 5. After completion of the trial and after hearing final argument, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia passed the judgment and order dated 01.06.2015, convicting the accused/convict under Section 387 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years along with a fine of Rs. 10, 000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months. 6. 5. After completion of the trial and after hearing final argument, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia passed the judgment and order dated 01.06.2015, convicting the accused/convict under Section 387 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years along with a fine of Rs. 10, 000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months. 6. On being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 01.06.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, an appeal has been preferred before the Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Western Sessions Division, Yupia, which is registered as Criminal Appeal No. 04/2015. 7. After hearing the parties, the learned District & Sessions Judge has upheld the judgment and order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 29.11.2017. 8. On being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.2017, passed by the Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Western Sessions Division, Yupia, this present revision petition is preferred by the petitioner on the following grounds:- (I) that the learned District & Sessions Judge, Yupia failed to appreciate the evidence of the PWs and also misread and misinterpreted the ingredients of Section 387 IPC. From the deposition of the PWs including the complainant, no fear of death or grievous hurt is remotely made out. Hence, in such circumstances, conviction under Section 387 IPC is not at all applicable rather a conviction under Section 385 IPC only could have been drawn against the accused/convict. (II) the learned District and Sessions Judge, Yupia as well as the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia failed to appreciate the fact that there is no prima facie evidence that payment was made on threat of injury and further, there is no evidence of any overt act on the part of the accused/convict except the delivery of the demand note. (III) the learned District and Sessions Judge, Yupia as well as the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia failed to appreciate the fact that the accused/convict was only of 19 years of age at the time of his conviction and was a student of Class-XII and there was no previous criminal history and without appreciating these facts, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia declined to give the benefit under Probation of Offenders Act, 1985 as well as the Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. 9. It is further submitted that the learned Court below failed to appreciate the evidence in its true perspective, which causes grave miscarriage of justice to the accused/convict and hence, the interference of this Court is necessary and if the accused is convicted, the Section of conviction should be 385 IPC but, not under 387 IPC. 10. So, the only issue to be decided is to “whether the impugned order and judgment passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 04/2015 suffers from any legality, correctness or propriety.” 11. The accused/convict was arrested in connection with this case on 08.12.2014 and he was released after 2 years and 6 days of imprisonment vide order dated 14.12.2016. After releasing him on bail on 14.12.2016, he was again sent to jail after passing the impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.2017. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that from the evidence of the PW-1 i.e. the informant/victim of this case reveals that he had received a demand note from one of his staff, whereby, Rs. 10, 00000/-was demanded and he even talked with the accused over telephone in the given number in the demand note and after having a talk with the accused he paid an amount of 80,000/-to one of his staff namely, Bir Singh Tiwari. Neither the person came to his shop nor there was any threatening from the accused and there was a simple conversation with the accused. There is no any evidence that the informant/victim was put in fear of death of grievous hurt in order to commit extortion. 13. Further, it is submitted that PW-1 also could not identify the accused/convict as the person did not come to his shop and the demand letter was handed over through his staff. The PW-2 also did not meet the accused personally and the demand letter was handed to him through a small boy, which he delivered to the owner of the PW-1. However, the accused could be identified by the PW-3 namely, Bir Singh Tiwari, who delivered the money to the accused and personally meet him at Mithun Gate. But, there is no evidence that PW-3 was also threatened or put in fear of death or grievous hurt while delivering the envelope with money to the accused. 14. However, the accused could be identified by the PW-3 namely, Bir Singh Tiwari, who delivered the money to the accused and personally meet him at Mithun Gate. But, there is no evidence that PW-3 was also threatened or put in fear of death or grievous hurt while delivering the envelope with money to the accused. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the accused/convict is a small boy of 19 years of age and at the relevant time of incident he was a student of Class-XII and hence, considering the age of the accused/convict he could have released on probation as per the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1985 or Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. The learned counsel however, submitted that the case against accused/convict may be established under Section 385 IPC but, not under Section 387 IPC. 15. In this context, the learned Additional P.P. Ms. L. Hage has submitted that the learned District and Sessions Judge, Yupia as well as the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia has rightly convicted the accused under Section 387 IPC after appreciating the evidence on record in its true perspective. She further, submitted that from the evidence of the PW-7, the I/O, it is seen that the accused/convict was identified by the witness Bir Singh Tiwari while he was conducting TIP. From the seized articles also case against the accused/convict is well established that he sent the demand letter on behalf of the organization-NLCT and the PW-7 also reveals that there was CDR analysis of his mobile phones and it was found that he was in connection with the said organization-NLCT and he sent the demand letter to the PW-1. Hence, there is no necessity of any interference of this Court in both the judgments which were passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Yupia as well as the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia. 16. After hearing the submission of the learned counsels of both sides, I have perused the case on record of Criminal Appeal No. 04/2015 and the case record of G.R. Case No. 897/2014 and also the judgment and order passed by the concerned Courts. 17. From the evidence on record it reveals that the accused/convict was well identified by the PW-3, the person who went to meet the accused with the envelope as sent by the PW-1. 17. From the evidence on record it reveals that the accused/convict was well identified by the PW-3, the person who went to meet the accused with the envelope as sent by the PW-1. After the arrest of the accused one TIP was conducted by the I/O (PW-7) wherein also, the said witness namely, Bir Singh Tiwari identified the accused. From the CDR analysis of mobile phones and other relevant seizure items it is seen that the accused had made contact with the PW-1 and send the demand letter in the name of the organization-NLCT. 18. However, it is an admitted fact that the PW-1 never have met the accused/convict personally nor he was threatened by the accused over telephone rather from the evidence of PW-1, it is seen that he made contact with the accused over telephone and after discussion with the accused he agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 80, 000/-instead of demanded amount of Rs. 10, 00000/-. 19. Thus, from the evidence of PWs it is seen that the case for extortion is well established against the accused/convict but, it is to be seen as to whether ingredients of Section 387 IPC is fulfilled or not to warrant the conviction against accused under Section 387 IPC. Section 387 IPC read as “Putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion.”— Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to put any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 20. The essential ingredients to prove a case under Section 387 IPC are as follows:- (1) Accused put or attempted to put some person in fear of death or grievous hurt; (2) He did so to commit extortion. 21. But here in the instant case, it is seen that there is no evidence of any attempt from the accused/convict putting the informant/victim in fear of death or grievous hurt in order to commit extortion rather it is evident from the testimony of PW-1 that he had a talk with the accused and accordingly, agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 80,000/- to the accused. 80,000/- to the accused. However, it cannot be denied that there was an attempt of extortion from the accused and in that process he issued a demand letter to the informant and also extorted a sum of Rs. 80,000/- from the PW-1. However, as discussed above there is no evidence that PW-1 was put in fear of death or grievous hurt. More so from the evidence of PW-3, it is seen that the accused did not threatened him or put to him in fear of any grievous hurt or injury while he went to deliver the money. 22. So, from the entire discussions made hereinabove, I am of the considered view that a case is well established under Section 385 IPC and not under Section 387 IPC as convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia and also upheld by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Yupia vide order dated 29.11.2017, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 04/2015. 23. But, the nature of offence committed by the accused/convict of extorting money, I do not find it a fit case to release the accused/convict on probation as per the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1985 or Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. However, as the case is established under Section 385 IPC and, not under Section 387 IPC, I find that some modification or alteration is necessary in the judgment and order dated 29.11.2017, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 04/2015 passed by Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Western Sessions Division, Yupia, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge had upheld the order and judgment dated 01.06.2015 passed in G.R. Case No. 897/2014 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia. 24. Accordingly, in my opinion the judgment and order dated 29.11.2017, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 04/2015 passed by Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Western Sessions Division, Yupia, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge had upheld the order and judgment dated 01.06.2015 passed in G.R. Case No. 897/2014 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia needs some interference of this Court in respect of the Section in which the accused was convicted as well as in the sentence part. 25. 25. In view of above, this present petition of revision is accordingly allowed and the judgment and order dated 29.11.2017, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 04/2015 (YPA) passed by Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Western Sessions Division, Yupia, Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge had upheld the order and judgment dated 01.06.2015 passed in G.R. Case No. 897/2014 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia in connection with Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 2014/14, under Section 387 IPC is hereby modified and altered. 26. Accordingly, the accused/convict is convicted under Section 385 IPC and thereby sentence with rigorous imprisonment of 2 years by altering and modifying the sentence imposed on the accused/convict as per the judgment and order dated 29.11.2017, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 04/2015 passed by Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Yupia, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge had upheld the order and judgment dated 01.06.2015 passed in G.R. Case No. 897/2014 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia. 27. The accused/convict will accordingly, appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia in connection with Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 2014/14, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 897/2014 to serve out the sentence as imposed on the accused/convict. Further, the hajotee period be set off from the period of imprisonment if any. 28. The copy of judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia and also to learned District and Sessions Judge, Yupia and also return back the L.C.R.