‘Vengeance’ not goal of punishment: Jharkhand High Court frees 2 men convicted in 8-year-old extortion case

Court on sentencing philosophy

• The fundamental purpose of imposition of sentence is based upon making an accused realise the consequences of the crime committed by him and the creation of the dent in the life of the victims and also the social fabric.
• The court added that the same does not oblige the court to extend an opportunity to a convict for reforming himself.
• The principles of proportionality have to be balanced and the impact of the offence on the society as a whole and its ramifications on the victim and the immediate collectives also has to be examined.
• Sentencing involves a delicate exercise of judicial discretion where multiple social, psychological, and moral factors must be balanced to ensure that justice serves both societal protection and individual redemption.
• The underlying premise is that punishment, being in itself a necessary evil and devoid of inherent virtue, must be confined strictly within the bounds of necessity.
• In light of the allegation made in the case in hand, the interest of justice would warrant a reformative approach in precedence to a punitive or retributive approach.
• It is not the function of the judges to seek the transformation of human nature itself, but rather to shape the framework within which individuals perceive that adherence to the law aligns with their own best interests.
• An appropriate sentence must be determined by considering a range of factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the offender’s background, age, mental and emotional condition, potential for rehabilitation, prior criminal record and the deterrent needs of the community.
• In the present case, there is nothing on record to reflect that the petitioners possess a criminal bent of mind or that their conduct poses any threat to society.
• Hence, by the broader principles of criminal jurisprudence, no adverse presumption can be drawn against them.

Sentence modified, fine enhanced

• Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction under sections 386 (extortion), 387 (putting person in fear of death or grievous hurt in order to commit extortion), 34 (common intention) and 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the high court modified the substantive sentence to the period already undergone.
• At the same time, it enhanced the fine from Rs 5,000 to Rs 10,000 each.
• In default of payment of the enhanced fine, the petitioners would undergo the default sentence as ordered by the lower courts.
• The court directed that the petitioners be released from custody if not required in any other case.

2017 extortion complaint

• The case traces back to November 2017, when Pramod Kumar, who ran a brick kiln near the Moremdega river under T Tanger police station in Simdega district, lodged a written report alleging repeated threats and demands for extortion.
• According to the First Information Report (FIR), over a span of 15–20 days, Kumar received calls from two mobile numbers.
• The caller allegedly disclosed his name as Suraj and initially demanded Rs 2 lakh.
• When Kumar expressed an inability to pay, the amount was reduced to Rs 1 lakh, then Rs 50,000.
• The caller allegedly warned that if the money was not paid by the evening of December 16, 2017, he “would not remain alive”.
• The complaint further alleged that on November 26, 2017, two armed men visited the brick kiln, threatened labourers at gunpoint and instructed them to tell their employer to arrange the extortion money.
• The informant stated that he and his family were deeply frightened and sought police protection.

Conviction, appeal

• Following investigation and trial in the case, the chief judicial magistrate, Simdega, on March 26, 2019, convicted Punit Dungdung alias Suraj, 35, and Kuldip Kerketta alias Dipu, 25, under IPC sections 386, 387, 34 and 411.
• They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years along with a fine of Rs 5,000 each.
• In default of payment of the fine, additional imprisonment was prescribed.
• The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
• Their appeal was dismissed on June 20, 2025, by the additional sessions judge-I, Simdega, which affirmed both conviction and sentence.

Revision plea before high court

• The counsel for the petitioners initially questioned the prosecution’s evidence, including the alleged recovery of a mobile phone and the ownership of the numbers from which the extortion calls were made.
• However, during arguments, the defence confined its challenge to the quantum of punishment.
• It was submitted that Dungdung had remained in custody for about one year and six months.
• Kerketta had been in custody for about one year, three months and five days.
• The criminal proceedings had stretched over nearly nine years since the FIR in 2017.
• Both petitioners were the sole breadwinners of their families.
• The state opposed any modification, arguing that both the trial court and the appellate court had concurrently recorded findings of guilt and that no illegality or perversity had been demonstrated to justify interference in revisional jurisdiction.

Sumit is an intern with The Indian Express.