Jahir Ahmad Alias Rohit Saxena vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 4201 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Jahir Ahmad Alias Rohit Saxena vs State Of Uttarakhand on 11 September, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

  HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
               Criminal Revision No.207 of 2013
Jahir Ahmad Alias Rohit Saxena                 .........Revisionist

                             Versus

State of Uttarakhand                           .........Respondent

Ms. Rajni Rangwal, amicus curiae for the revisionist.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, AGA with Ms. Sweta B. Dobhal, Brief Holder for the
State.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

This revision preferred under Sections 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.03.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Junior Division), Lansdowen, Pauri in Criminal Case No.142 of 2011, State vs. Jahir Ahmad @ Rohit Saxena, whereby the revisionist has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC and sentenced to undergo three year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. He was further convicted under Section 386 IPC and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo two months additional imprisonment. He was further convicted under Section 420 IPC and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo two months additional imprisonment. For the offence under Section 504 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment henceforth for the offence under Section 506 IPC, the revisionist was directed to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. All the

sentences were directed to run concurrently, period spent in jail was directed to be adjusted in the sentences awarded to him.

2. The revisionist has also challenged the judgment and order dated 07.06.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2012 and Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2012 (Jail Appeal), whereby the appeal preferred by the revisionist has been dismissed and the order passed by the trial court has been affirmed.

3. The facts in nutshell are that a report was lodged by the informant at P.S. Satpuli with the averments that in the month of January, 2009, she received a call from a lady named Monika and talks continued. That lady introduced one person as her brother whose name was Rohit Saxena. That Rohit Saxena informed the informant that his mother, father and sister met with an accident and demanded some money due to which the informant deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/-. Thereafter, some time Rohit Saxena again demanded money from the informant and on refusal, he threatened that he would put the blame of death of his parents and sister upon the informant and Rekha Devi. This way, those two ladies deposited a sum of Rs.15,23,000/- in the account of the accused. The matter was investigated and the charge-sheet was submitted upon completion of the investigation.

4. Total 13 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was

recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial court at the end of trial after analyzing the evidence has convicted and sentenced the revisionist as mentioned in para no.1 of this judgment. Assailing the said judgment, the revisionist preferred an appeal which was also dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal by way of impugned order. Hence, this revision.

5. I have heard learned amicus curiae for the revisionist and learned State Counsel and perused the material on record.

6. PW1-Babli Devi is the informant. She has reiterated the averments of the FIR and stated firstly during phone chatting one Monika became her friend who further introduced Rohit Saxena to her. On demand made by the revisionist, she gave Rs.20,000/- to her. Thereafter, he made further demand. On refusal, he threatened to implicate them in the case of death of his parents and sister. This way, a sum of Rs.15,23,000/- had been deposited in different accounts numbers given by the accused. PW1-Babli Devi proved the transactions by documentary evidence.

7. PW2-Rekha Devi has supported the averments of the statement made by PW1-Babli Devi about having conversation with a lady named Monika and thereafter with Rohit. After some days, an amount of Rs.20,000/- was demanded in the account of Rohit Saxena by him. When he further disturbed them and threatened them, a plenty of amount was deposited in the account of Rohit Saxena.

8. PW3-Jagdamba Prasad has supported the statement of PW1-Babli Devi and PW2-Rekha Devi and stated that earlier his daughter did not inform him about the case. But after some time, he was informed about giving money to the revisionist by his daughter and Rekha.

9. PW4-Bharat Kumar Chauhan is the Manager of Sahil Hotel. He has proved the bills about the stay of the revisionist in his hotel from 28.01.2011.

10. PW5-Kamal Joshi (Constable) and PW6- Digamber Singh (Constable) are the formal witnesses of the case who has proved about taking the accused on remand.

11. PW7-Imran Chisti who has supported the fact of getting money by the accused in his account and on deposit of money, he handed over the money to the accused.

12. PW8-Hari Ram (Constable) has supported the averments of PW4-Bharat Kumar Chauhan and PW5-Kamal Joshi (Constable).

13. PW9-Irfan Chisti has stated that the accused remained in his house on rent for various times. This witness had given his account to the accused in which in turn was paid to the accused.

14. PW10- Dinesh Butola (Constable) who is the constable clerk and has proved about preparation of Chik FIR and recording the case in the G.D.

15. PW11-Rajendra Rayal (I.O.) who conducted the

investigation of the case.

16. PW12-Jintendra Singh Rathore who has also given his account number to Jahir Ahmed and in his account, a sum of Rs.5.5 lakhs was deposited which he took out from the ATM and gave to the accused.

17. PW13-Bhishma Sah (Constable) who has also supported the statement of PW5- Kamal Joshi (Constable), PW6-Digamber Singh (Constable), PW8-Hari Ram (Constable) and PW11-Rajendra Rayal (I.O.). Thereafter, the statement of accused/revisionist was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial court on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses has convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned in paragraph no.1 of this judgment.

18. From the aforesaid facts, it is proved that the accused made illegal extortion of money by creating a false friendship over mobile with the informant and thereafter, stating the false facts, he got the money deposited in the account of various persons and then he got that money received immediately on the pretext of treatment of doctor of his parents and sister.

19. The appellate court while analyzing the judgment passed by the trial court has reached to the conclusion that no legal error was committed by the trial court while passing the impugned order and accordingly, it affirmed the finding of acquittal of accused under Sections 388, 468 and 471 and at the same time, has affirmed the finding of conviction under Sections 384, 386, 420, 504, 506 IPC.

20. Learned amicus curiae Ms. Rajni Rangwal for the revisionist tried to take this Court through the evidence recorded during trial and pointed out certain discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. This Court delved upon the submission made by the learned amicus curiae. Since she fails to show any perversity in the judgment and order impugned, this Court cannot re- appreciate the evidence which has been examined by the trial court as well as by the appellate court in great detail.

21. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I find no ground to interfere in the impugned order. There are concurrent findings of fact against the accused/revisionist. The revision fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

22. It needs to be mentioned that the revisionist is absconding from last several dates regarding which the amicus curiae was appointed in the matter.

23. Let the copy of the judgment be sent to the court concerned alongwith the TCR. The court concerned shall take stern steps to take the accused into custody to serve out the sentence. Proceedings be initiated against the sureties in accordance with law.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 11.09.2025 Ravi