Punit Dungdung @ Suraj vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1266 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Punit Dungdung @ Suraj vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 18 February, 2026

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                                                                           ( 2026:JHHC:4771 )




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           Criminal Revision No. 911 of 2025
            1.    Punit Dungdung @ Suraj, aged 35 years, S/o Late Lorentus Dungdung
            2.    Kuldip Kerketta @ Dipu, aged 25 years, S/o Late Sunil Kerketta
                  Both resident of Vill. Kruskela, Baghichatoli, P.O. & P.S. Pakartanr, Dist.
                 Simdega                                              ... Petitioners
                                          -Versus-
                 The State of Jharkhand                               ... Opposite Party
                                            -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

-----

For the Petitioners : Mr. Vishal Srivastava, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, Spl.P.P.

-----

03/18.02.2026 This criminal revision petition has been preferred against the judgment

dated 20.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I,

Simdega in Criminal Appeal No.19/2019 by which the appeal has been

dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

26.03.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega in

T. Tanger P.S. Case No.65/2017, G.R. No.565/2017 has been affirmed,

whereby, the learned trial court has convicted the petitioners under Sections

386, 387, 34, 411 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo

R.I. for three years along with cash fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of

payment of cash fine, six months separate extended R.I. have been provided

and both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. On the basis of written report of the informant, FIR has been lodged

alleging therein:

The informant used to run brick kiln in Gurgurtoli beside Moremdega

river under T. Tanger police station, in last 15-20 days he was being

called on his mobile no. 9973585845 from Mobile no. 7077022862

and mobile no. 7684099329, caller used to threaten him and

-1- Criminal Revision No. 911 of 2025 ( 2026:JHHC:4771 )

demanded extortion from him, he also threatened earlier for

payment of extortion, otherwise threatening was given that he will

kill his entire family members. It has been further alleged that

the caller disclosed his name as Suraj. On 26.11.2017, he called him

and demanded extortion and on 26.11.2017 that person also

came to his brick kiln along with another person and kept his

laborer under threaten, he told his laborers to say your brick kiln

owner to pay the extortion money. Both the miscreants came to his

brick kiln by holding gun in their hand. It has also been alleged that

the informant Pramod Kumar out of fear could not be able to inform

police, in his written report he further stated that initially extremists

demanded Rs. 2 lacs from him thereafter he put his demand

down and demanded Rs. 1 lac from him when informant shown his

inability to pay such huge amount, he demanded Rs. fifty thousand

and lastly, he called him and told him to pay extortion money by the

evening of 16.12.2017, otherwise he would not remain alive.

The informant further stated that the extremist had called him to

make payment, extortion money at Tamra river bridge. Due to this

extortion call, he and his entire family became scared and,

therefore, he requested to provide security to him and take legal

action against caller.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the

prosecution has examined altogether 9 witnesses. The petitioners denied the

occurrence, however, they have been convicted as aforesaid. He further

submits that the learned Court ought to have considered that mobile number

-2- Criminal Revision No. 911 of 2025 ( 2026:JHHC:4771 )

from which money was allegedly demanded, is not of the petitioners and they

are not the owner of the same, however, the petitioners have been convicted.

He then submits that the allegation of recovery of mobile from the petitioner-

Punit Dungdung is highly doubtful. He next submits that there is no

independent witness of alleged search and seizure. He vehemently argues

that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case and further, the

prosecution has failed to establish that the petitioners have demanded

extortion from the said mobiles.

4. After arguing the revision petition for some time, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners contends that petitioner no.1 has remained in

custody for about 1 year and 6 months and petitioner no.2 has remained in

custody for about 1 year 3 months and 5 days as petitioner no.1 was earlier

taken into custody on 17.12.2017 and he was released on bail on 26.03.2019

and further he was taken into custody on 25.11.2025 and since then he is in

custody. He submits that petitioner no.2 was earlier taken into custody on

17.12.2017 and he was released on bail on 11.12.2018 and further he was

taken into custody on 25.11.2025 and since then he is in custody. He also

submits that he would not press the present criminal revision petition on

merits and contends that he would confine his challenge only to the quantum

of punishment that has been so awarded. The following mitigating

circumstances are pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners:

(i) The petitioners are sole bread earners in their families.

(ii) The petitioners have endured the ordeal of a prolonged criminal

trial spanning over nine years.

                                -3-                  Criminal Revision No. 911 of 2025
                                                                ( 2026:JHHC:4771 )

(iii) The petitioners are aged about 35 years and 25 years

respectively and continued criminal prosecution and

incarceration are likely to cause grave and disproportionate

prejudice to them in the discharge of their social, familial and

professional obligations.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, contends

that both the Courts have examined the evidence brought on record and

concurrently recorded a finding of conviction against the petitioners. In a

revisional jurisdiction, neither a new line of defence can be adopted nor any

reappreciation of the evidence can be undertaken. No illegality or perversity

has been pointed out by the petitioners, hence, no occasion would call for

upsetting the findings recorded or the sentence awarded and affirmed by

the Courts.

6. The Court has heard learned counsel appearing for both the sides and

has gone through the impugned judgments.

7. In the present case, there is nothing on record to reflect that the

petitioners possess criminal bent of mind or that their conduct pose any threat

to society. Hence, by the broader principles of criminal jurisprudence, no

adverse presumption can be drawn against them.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down certain principles to govern

the Courts in the matter of sentencing. Reference in this regard may be made

to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of

Punjab v. Prem Sagar and others, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 550.

Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 19 and 20 of the said judgment read

as under:

                                -4-                   Criminal Revision No. 911 of 2025
                                                      ( 2026:JHHC:4771 )

"5. 'Whether the Court while awarding a sentence would take recourse to the principle of deterrence or reform or invoke the doctrine of proportionality, would no doubt depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. While doing so, however, the nature of the offence said to have been committed by the accused plays an important role. The offences which affect public health must be dealt with severely. For the said purpose, the courts must notice the object for enacting Article 47 of the Constitution of India.

6. There are certain offences which touch our social fabric. We must remind ourselves that even while introducing the doctrine of plea bargaining in the Code of Criminal Procedure, certain types of offences had been kept out of the purview thereof. While imposing sentences, the said principles should be borne in mind.

7. A sentence is a judgment on conviction of a crime. It is resorted to after a person is convicted of the offence. It is the ultimate goal of any justice-delivery system. Parliament, however, in providing for a hearing on sentence, as would appear from sub-section (2) of Section 235, sub-section (2) of Section 248, Section 325 as also Sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has laid down certain principles. The said provisions lay down the principle that the court in awarding the sentence must take into consideration a large number of relevant factors; sociological backdrop of the accused being one of them.

8. Although a wide discretion has been conferred upon the court, the same must be exercised judiciously. It would depend upon the circumstances in which the crime has been committed and his mental state. Age of the accused is also relevant.

9. What would be the effect of the sentencing on the society is a question which has been left unanswered by the legislature. The Superior Courts have come across a large number of cases which go to show anomalies as regards the policy of sentencing. Whereas the quantum of punishment for commission of a similar type of offence varies from minimum to maximum, even where same sentence is imposed, the principles applied are found to be different. Similar discrepancies have been noticed in regard to imposition of fine.

10. In Dhananjoy Chatterjee Alias Dhana v. State of W.B. [(1994) 2 SCC 220], this Court held:

"15...Imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the courts respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminals. Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime..."

11. Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao and Another v. State of A.P. [(1996) 6 SCC 241], following Dhananjoy Chatterjee (supra), states the principles of deterrence and retribution but the same cannot be categorized as right or wrong. So much depends upon the belief of the judges.

                   -5-                      Criminal Revision No. 911 of 2025
                                                       ( 2026:JHHC:4771 )

12. In a recent decision in Shailesh Jasvantbhai and Another v. State of Gujarat and Others [(2006) 2 SCC 359], this Court opined:

"7. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross-cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the edifice of 'order' should meet 7 of 14 239 CRR-913-2025 (O&M) the challenges confronting the society. Friedman in his Law in Changing Society stated that: "State of criminal law continues to be--as it should be--a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society." Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration.

Relying upon the decision of this Court in Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N. [(1991) 3 SCC 471], this Court furthermore held that it was the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc. xxx

18. Don M. Gottfredson in his essay on "Sentencing Guidelines" in "Sentencing by Hyman Gross and Andrew von Hirsch" opines:

"It is a common claim in the literature of criminal justice and indeed in the popular press that there is considerable "disparity" in sentencing. The word "disparity" has become a prerogative and the concept of "sentencing disparity" now carries with it the connotation of biased or insidious practices on the part of the judges. This is unfortunate in that much otherwise valid criticism has failed to separate justified variation from the unjustified variation referred to as disparity. The phrase "unwarranted disparity" may be preferred; not all sentencing variation should be considered unwarranted or disparate. Much of it properly reflects varying degrees of seriousness in the

-6- Criminal Revision No. 911 of 2025 ( 2026:JHHC:4771 )

offense and/or varying characteristics of the offender. Dispositional variation that is based upon permissible, rationally relevant and understandably distinctive characteristics of the offender and of the offense may be wholly justified, beneficial and proper, so long as the variable qualities are carefully monitored for consistency and desirability over time. Moreover, since no two offenses or offenders are identical, the labeling of variation as disparity necessarily involves a value judgment- that is, disparity to one person may be simply justified variation to another. It is only when such variation takes the form of differing sentences for similar offenders committing similar offenses that it can be considered disparate."

[Emphasis supplied] The learned author further opines:

"In many jurisdictions, judicial discretion is nearly unlimited as to whether or not to incarcerate an individual; and bound only by statutory maxima, leaving a broad range of discretion, as to the length of sentence."

19. Kevin R. Reitz in Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice, Second edition "Sentencing guidelines" states:

"All guideline jurisdictions have found it necessary to create rules that identify the factual issues at sentencing that must be resolved under the guidelines, those that are potentially relevant to a sentencing decision, and those viewed as forbidden considerations that may not be taken into account by sentencing courts. One heated controversy, addressed differently across jurisdictions, is whether the guideline sentence should be based exclusively on crimes for which offenders have been convicted ("conviction offenses"), or whether a guideline sentence should also reflect additional alleged criminal conduct for which formal convictions have not been obtained ("non-conviction offenses").

Another difficult issue of fact-finding at sentence for guideline designers has been the degree to which trial judges should be permitted to consider the personal characteristics of offenders as mitigating factors when imposing sentence. For example: Is the defendant a single parent with young children at home? Is the defendant a drug addict but a good candidate for drug treatment? Has the defendant struggled to overcome conditions of economic, social or educational deprivation prior to the offense? Was the defendant's criminal behavior explicable in part by youth, inexperience, or an unformed ability to resist peer pressure? Most guideline states, once again including all jurisdictions with voluntary guidelines, allow trial courts latitude to sentence outside of the guideline ranges based on the Judge's assessment of such

-7- Criminal Revision No. 911 of 2025 ( 2026:JHHC:4771 )

offender characteristics. Some states, fearing that race or class disparities might be exacerbated by unguided consideration of such factors, have placed limits on the list of eligible concerns. (However, such factors may indirectly affect the sentence, since judges are permitted to base departures on the offender's particular 'amenability' to probation (Frase, 1997).)"

20. Andrew von Hirsch and Nils Jareborg have divided the process of determining sentence into stages of determining proportionality while determining a sentence, namely:

1. What interests are violated or threatened by the standard case of the crime-physical integrity, material support and amenity, freedom from humiliation, privacy and autonomy.

2. Effect of violating those interests on the living standards of a typical victim- minimum well-being, adequate well-being, significant enhancement

3. Culpability of the offender

4. Remoteness of the actual harm as seen by a reasonable man.'"

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Mishra v.

State of U.P., reported in (2023) 9 SCC 810, observed that punishment

must not be viewed as an act of vengeance but as a means of reformation

and reintegration of the offender into society. It was further held that 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. Sentencing,

the Court noted, 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.

10. The fundamental purpose of imposition of sentence is based upon

making an accused realize 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 same by itself does not oblige the Court to extend an opportunity to a

-8- Criminal Revision No. 911 of 2025 ( 2026:JHHC:4771 )

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.

11. A nine judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of the United States,

in Dennis Councle McGautha v. State of California, reported as 402

U.S. 183 (1971), observed that the criteria governing sentencing neither

furnish an exhaustive list of relevant considerations nor indicate how various

circumstances should influence the decision-making process. In essence,

these standards merely suggest broad areas for consideration and underscore

the inherent difficulty in formulating uniform sentencing principles,

particularly in matters of grave offences. The Court further cautioned against

rigidly prescribing or mandating uniform standards for sentencing,

emphasizing that the principles governing punishment must depend upon the

facts and circumstances of each individual case, and that no straightjacket

formula can be universally applied.

12. 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.

13. In light of the allegation made in the case in hand where 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.

                               -9-                   Criminal Revision No. 911 of 2025
                                                                        ( 2026:JHHC:4771 )

14. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis and considering that

the petitioners have faced the rigor of criminal prosecution for about nine

years since the registration of the FIR and as against the substantive sentence

of 3 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- and the petitioners have already undergone

sentence for about 1 year and 6 months and 1 year 3 months and 5 days

respectively, this Court deems it appropriate to partly allow the petition. While

maintaining the judgment of conviction, the order of sentence so passed is

modified. The sentence awarded under Section 386, 387, 34, 411 of the

Indian Penal Code by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega vide

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.03.2019 and upheld

by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Simdega vide judgment dated

20.06.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.19 of 2019, is modified to the period

already undergone. The petitioners will be released from custody, if not

required in any other case. The sentence of fine awarded by the Courts to a

sum of Rs.5,000/- is however increased to Rs.10,000/-, failing which the

petitioners shall undergo the default punishment, as ordered by the learned

Courts.

15. Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is partly allowed and

disposed of.

16. Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 18th February, 2026 Ajay/ A.F.R.

Uploaded on 19th February, 2026

-10- Criminal Revision No. 911 of 2025