2026:JHHC:19142 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1228 of 2016 ------ Pravin Jordan Mundari @ Praveen Jordan Kumar Mundari, son of Sanika Amrit Mundari, Resident of Prem Nagar, P.O. – Hatia, P.S. – Jagarnathpur, District – Ranchi. .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Violet Kandulna, W/o Late Samuel Kandulna, R/o Singh More (Karma Chowk), Latma Road, Behind Ma Medical Hall, P.O. – Hatia, P.S. – Jagarnathpur, District – Ranchi (Jharkhand). .... .... Opp. Parties ------ Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Nitin Nitesh Bhengra, Advocate. Mr. Neil Abhijit Toppo, Advocate. ------ JUDGMENT Dated- 29.06.2026 By Court:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 10.08.2016 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-V, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the appellate court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.02.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in G.R. No. 669 of 2026:JHHC:19142 2012 / T.R. No. 883 of 2014, whereby the learned trial court has found the accused persons including petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 120- B of the I.P.C. and present petitioner, Pravin Jordan Mundari and Sudhir Bhengra were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 ½ years along with fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. with default stipulation, further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 02 years for the offence under Section 406 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for 06 months for the offence under Section 120-B of the I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently, whereas accused Amrit Sanika Mundari and Sandhya Mundari were sentenced to undergo R.I. of one year and nine months along with fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 420 of I.P.C. with default stipulation, further sentenced to undergo R.I. of one year and six months under Section 406 of I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo R.I. of six months under Section 120B of the I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently and period undergone in the jail custody shall be set off accordingly to law. 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that on 30.03.2009, the accused persons namely, Sanika Amrit Mundari, Pravin Jordan Mundari (petitioner), Sandhya Mundari and Sudhir Bhengra came to the house the informant and told that they are 2026:JHHC:19142 opening an Insurance Company and on deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 10,000/- has to be given as pure bonus. The informant was trapped in their enticement and gave Rs. 1,50,000/- to Sudhir Bhengra and thereafter, she gave Rs. 50,000/- to Pravin Jordan Mundari and Pravin Jordan Mundari gave the same to Sudhir Bhengra and at last, the informant gave Rs. 23,000/- to Sudhir Bhegra, thus, the informant gave total Rs. 2, 23,000/- . Apart from informant, the accused persons have also cheated 20 other persons. It is further alleged that the victim were always demanded their money, but the accused persons have procrastinated their demand. 4. On the basis of written report of informant Violet Kandulana, Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 33/2012 dated 05.02.2012 under Sections 406 / 420 of the I.P.C. was registered. 5. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 406/420/120B of the I.P.C., to which the accused persons including the petitioner denied and claimed to be tried. 6. In the course of trial, altogether 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Apart from oral evidence, several documentary evidences were also adduced. 7. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. The case of defence is of false implication. 2026:JHHC:19142 8. After conclusion of trial, the learned trial court found and held the accused persons including the petitioner guilty for the offence under Sections 406/420 read with 120B of the I.P.C. and sentenced them, as stated above. 9. The aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court was challenged by the petitioner in Criminal Appeal No. 71/2014 before the learned appellate court, but the same has been dismissed, which has been assailed in this revision. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was no documentary evidence regarding receipt of money, as alleged by the witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that punishment awarded to the accused persons are discriminatory in nature as other two co-accused, with similar allegations, have been awarded sentence of 01 year 09 months, which was already undergone during the trial and have been released by the concerned trial court while the petitioner has been sentenced for 02 years 06 months. The petitioner has also undergone 01 year 10 months out of 02 years 06 months sentence awarded to him, as such, the petitioner has been sufficiently punished for his guilt. Therefore, the imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner would meet the ends of justice in this case, instead of undergoing further imprisonment awarded by the 2026:JHHC:19142 learned trial court. Therefore, this revision may be disposed of with modification in sentence. 11. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has defended the impugned judgment but has not disputed that the other co-accused persons have been awarded sentence of 01 year and 09 months and released by the concerned trial court. 12. I have gone through the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court. 13. It appears from the impugned judgment that for the same set of allegations, two co-accused have been awarded sentence of 01 year 09 months, while petitioner and one co-accused have been awarded sentence of two and half years and out of which, petitioner has already sustained one year ten months custody. 14. In view of aforesaid discussions and reasons, the impugned judgment of conviction of the petitioner is upheld, but the sentence passed by the learned trial court is reduced to imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner during trial of the case. 15. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence, as stated above. 16. The petitioner is on bail. As such, he is discharged from the liability of bail bonds and sureties are also discharged. 2026:JHHC:19142 17. Pending I.A., if any stands disposed of. 18. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 29/06/2026 Sunil/-NAFR Uploaded On 03/07/2026