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 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. 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. It is further submitted that CDR details has been marked as Exhibit-3, it reveals that the call was made on 12.09.2012 from Mobile No.8690406036 to the Mobile 9431562819 (i.e, the mobile of the Informant) and 2nd call was also made from the Mobile No. 8690406036 to the mobile of Informant. 7. Perused the records of this case and impugned judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below and also considered the submissions of both the sides. 8. It appears that the FIR was lodged on 19.09.2012 by the police, although Informant namely, Anil Kr. Tirkey, had submitted written application on 13.09.2012 stating therein, 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 him of dire consequences. 9. During the trial, the prosecution witnesses have examined eight (08) witnesses, who are as follows:- (i) P.W.1 is Bitkas Bara, (ii) P.W.2 is Rose Romolo Tirkey (wife of the Informant), (iii) P.W.3 is Jagarnath Mehar (Seizure-list witness), (iv) P.W.4 is Premchand Guriya (Seizure-list witness), (v) P.W.5 is Anil Kumar (victim), (vi) P.W.6 is Jehabinus Bara, (vii) P.W.7 is Michael Kujur and; (viii) P.W.8 is PPL Xalxo (i.e, I.O) 10. The prosecution has got the following documents as Exhibits which are as follows:- (i) Ext.1 to Ext.1/1 are the signature witnesses of the seizure-list, (ii) Ext.2, is the written application of the Informant, (iii) Ext.3 is the CDR and; (iv) Ext.4 is the confessional statement of Mr. Shaheed. 11. The prosecution has got the following documents as Exhibits which are as follows:- (i) Ext.1 to Ext.1/1 are the signature witnesses of the seizure-list, (ii) Ext.2, is the written application of the Informant, (iii) Ext.3 is the CDR and; (iv) Ext.4 is the confessional statement of Mr. Shaheed. 11. The learned Court below has convicted the petitioner on the basis of the evidence of P.W.2 namely, Rose Romolo Tirkey (i.e, wife of the Informant) and the P.W.5 namely, Anil Kumar (i.e, victim), who have stated that they have received threatening call from the Mobile No.8690406036 and also on the ground that the said mobile was recovered from the possession of this petitioner. 12. It transpires that the learned Court below has acquitted the other accused person namely, Md. Mister Khan but has upheld the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 387/34 of the IPC only on the ground that prosecution witnesses i.e, P.W.2 & P.W.5 have supported the allegation against this petitioner and also on the basis of CDR details and his confession has led to recovery of Mobile No. 8690406036. 13. It further transpires that Ext.1/2 is the seizure-list showing the recovery of three mobiles and which bears the signature of Md. Saheed @ Tinku and the seizure list-was prepared on 21.09.2012 at about 06:30 P.M from Bus Stand Simdega in presence of Jaganarth Mehar (i.e, P.W.3) and Premchand Guriya (i.e, P.W.4). 14. It further transpires that during the trial, the police has recorded the confessional statements of the petitioner i.e on 21.09.2012, which is marked as Exhibit.4, in which, he has stated that he along with one Md. Mister Khan had demanded extortion money from the Informant prior to this threatening and the petitioner was working in his house as a white washing. 15. It further transpires that the Ext.3 is the CDR details showing the call was made from Mobile No. No. 8690406036 to the Mobile of the Informant on 12.09.2012 and 13.09.2012 respectively. 16. P.W.1 is Bitkas Bara, who has stated that he learnt about the occurrence of threatening to the Informant namely, Anil Kumar Tirkey and to pay Rs.2,00,000/-as Extortion Money, but he does not identify any accused person and the defence declined to cross-examine this witness. Thus, it is evident that this witnesses has not supported the prosecution case. 17. 16. P.W.1 is Bitkas Bara, who has stated that he learnt about the occurrence of threatening to the Informant namely, Anil Kumar Tirkey and to pay Rs.2,00,000/-as Extortion Money, but he does not identify any accused person and the defence declined to cross-examine this witness. Thus, it is evident that this witnesses has not supported the prosecution case. 17. P.W.2 is Rose Romolo Tirkey (i.e, Wife of the Informant), who has stated that the occurrence took place on 12.09.2022 in the night at about 21:00 ‘0’ clock, whereby, her husband is living in Simdega, and on the next morning, she learnt from her husband that he received threatening on a call to pay Rs.2,00,000/-extortion money from the Mobile No. 8690406036 and the said amount was to be paid to the driver of Taj Bus. However, during his cross-examination, who has stated that she was not aware, who has committed the offence at the time of lodging the FIR. She has further stated that she arrived at the police station on receiving threatening and had identified the petitioner and they were shown to her in the police station and the police had informed her that two accused persons were arrested. Thus, it is evident that P.W.2 has supported the occurrence and she had also identified the petitioner, but her identification is not legal and she had identified the petitioner firstly in the police station and she was shown the petitioner even before identification in the T.I.P before the learned Court below and hence, his evidence is also not reliable. 18. P.W.3 is Jagarnath Mehar (i.e sezire list witness), who has stated that he had identified the signature on the seizure-list which is marked as Exhibit-1 and he has also identified the petitioner and one Md. Mister Khan. During his cross-examination, he has stated that nothing was seized during his presence and he has put his signature on the blank paper in the Police Station. However, P.W.3 on the one hand has identified the petitioner but on the other hand, he has stated that nothing was seized in his presence and he has also put his signature on the blank paper. Thus, the evidence of P.W.3 is doubtful and his evidence is not reliable. 19. P.W.4 is Premchand Guriya (i.e, seizure-list witness) who has proved his signature which marked as Exhibt.1/1. Thus, the evidence of P.W.3 is doubtful and his evidence is not reliable. 19. P.W.4 is Premchand Guriya (i.e, seizure-list witness) who has proved his signature which marked as Exhibt.1/1. However, during his cross-examination, she has stated that nothing was seized during his presence and she had also put his signature on the blank paper. Thus, the evidence of P.W.4, it would appear that he has not supported the prosecution case. 20. P.W.6 is Jehabinus Bara, who has stated that he learnt about the occurrence from the wife of the Informant, but he is not aware who has demanded the extortion money and he had not identified the accused persons. However, during his cross-examination of this witnesses was also declined by the defence. Thus, the evidence of P.W.6 is not reliable. 21. P.W.7 is Michael Kujur who has stated the same fact as stated by P.W.6 and he had also not identified the accused persons and defence declined to cross-examine him and hence, the evidence of P.W.7 is also not reliable. 22. P.W.5 is Anil Kumar (i.e, the Informant) who has stated that on 12.09.2012 at about 09:00 P.M., he had received a call in his mobile by a person said to be van of party and Rs.2,00,000/-was demanded as Extortion money. Thereafter, the extortion was again demanded on the next day and he was directed to pay the extortion money to the driver of Taj Bus but he had failed to identified the accused persons. During his cross-examination, he has stated that he is not aware as to who had demanded Rangdari, but so far as the evidence of P.W.5 is concerned, who has supported the fact of demanding of extortion of Rs.2,00,000/-on 12.09.2012 and on the next day, he has proved the written application which is marked as Exhibit.2 but he had also failed to identify the accused persons. 23. P.W.8 is P.P.L Xalxo. (i.e, the I.O of this case), who has stated that after lodging the FIR, he has recorded the subsequent statement of the Informant and had inspected the place of occurrence and he had recorded the statement of Rose Romolo Tirkey (i.e, the P.W.2), Jehabinus Bara (i.e, P.W.6), Michael Kujur (P.W.7) as well as Anil Kumar (i.e, P.W.5). Thereafter, he had obtained the CDR report with regard to Mobile No. 8690406036. Thereafter, he had obtained the CDR report with regard to Mobile No. 8690406036. From perusal of the report, it reveals that the Mobile No. 8690406036 was issued in the fake name which was being used by the petitioner and the said mobile was recovered from the possession of this petitioner and he has proved his seizure list marked as Ext.2. He has further proved that three mobiles was also recovered from the possession of this petitioner and thereafter, he had recorded the confessional statement of the petitioner which is marked as Ext.4, in which, he had admitted his guilt. During his cross-examination, who has stated that the Informant had informed him that he is living in Simdega, from where, he had received a call. He has further stated that the location of the mobile has not been mentioned in the CDR details and he has also stated that the Mobile is not sealed condition. He had denied the fact of doing investigation beyond his jurisdiction and had also denied the firstly investigation. Therefore, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.8, it would appear that he had seized the mobile phone from the possession of the petitioner and he had obtained CDR details though the location is mentioned in the CDR details, but the I.O has stated that the location is not found in the CDR details. Apart from this, it appears that on the confessional statement of the petitioner that he was arrested one Md. Mister Khan, near the bus stand, although, he has stated that the petitioner has done the white washing work in the house of the Informant and the wife of the Informant had given mobile Number to him and as such, he was having the Number of the Informant, which lured him to demand extortion. 24. From securitizing the evidence of P.W.2, it would appear that she has identified the petitioner in the police station on being shown and the P.W.5 namely, Anil Kumar Tirkey has not identified the petitioner. Therefore, except the evidence of the Informant and recovery of mobile phone from the alleged possession of this petitioner, there is nothing evidence against him. 24. From securitizing the evidence of P.W.2, it would appear that she has identified the petitioner in the police station on being shown and the P.W.5 namely, Anil Kumar Tirkey has not identified the petitioner. Therefore, except the evidence of the Informant and recovery of mobile phone from the alleged possession of this petitioner, there is nothing evidence against him. Moreover, if the petitioner has worked white washing shop, then there would be circumstances that the Informant and his wife should have identified him, but the Informant flatly to refuse to identify of the petitioner but the wife of the Informant (i.e, P.W.2 ) has identified the petitioner in the Police Station on being shown. Thus, there appears to be some lacuna. Therefore, the benefit of doubt can be extended to the petitioner as it is evident from the cross-examination of the Informant i.e, P.W.8 that mobile was not found in sealed condition. 25. It is well settled from a catena of decision that any materials which may be seized from the place of occurrence ought to be sealed so that it can show truthful and proper recovery. 26. Even, Ext-3 is not validly proved by the competent person and it has been proved by the I.O (i.e, P.W 8) and thus, the certificate of the CDR under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act has not been validly proved which is in violation of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anvar P.V vrs. P.K Basheer and Others reported in 2014(10) SCC 473 . 27. The Investigating Officer of this case has also stated that Sim was being used by the petitioner in the fake name but what was the fake name of the Mobile and Sim Card has not disclosed by the I.O. The I.O of this case has failed to prove the name of holder of the mobile phone as well as Sim No. Mobile No. 8690406036 . 28. Considering the aforesaid facts and in the circumstances of this case, the prosecution is not able to prove the prosecution case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt, thus, the judgment dated 20.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Criminal Appeal No.40/2013 and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.07.2013 passed by Sri. 28. Considering the aforesaid facts and in the circumstances of this case, the prosecution is not able to prove the prosecution case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt, thus, the judgment dated 20.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Criminal Appeal No.40/2013 and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.07.2013 passed by Sri. Kumar Kranti Prasad, 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), are set-aside in the interest of justice and the petitioner namely, Md. Shahid @ Tinku @ Md. Shaheed is acquitted for the offence under Section 387/34 of the IPC and the petitioner is also discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. 29. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Application 1080 of 0217 is allowed and stands disposed of.