2026:JHHC:10949 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No.1007 of 2012 --------- Banty Kumar Singh, Son of Ashish Singh, resident of Hume Pipe, Kalyan Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Sitaramdera, Town Jamshedpur, District – Singhbhum East, Jharkhand. ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... Opp. Party --------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --------- For the Petitioner : Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate Ms. Shweta Suman, Advocate Ms. Pragunee Kashyap, Advocate For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P --------- Order No.28/ Dated: 17 th April, 2026 1. Heard Ms. Amrita Sinha, learned counsel for the revisionist and Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed against the judgment dated 07.09.2012, passed by the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, in Criminal Appeal No.187 of 2010, whereby and whereunder the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.07.2010, passed by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in Trial No.235 of 2010 (G.R. No.772 of 2009), arising out of Mango (MGM) P.S. Case No.117 of 2009, has been affirmed. The revisionist has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default clause. - 1 - Cr. Revision No.1007 of 2012 2026:JHHC:10949 3. It appears that criminal law has been put into motion by lodging F.I.R being Mango (MGM) P.S. Case No.117 of 2009 against unknown persons for the offence under Section 394 of I.P.C, Thereafter, four persons have been charged and on conclusion of trial, four persons including the revisionist have been convicted by the trial court vide judgment dated 06.07.2010 by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, passed in T.R No.235 of 2010. 4. It further appears that thereafter, against that order, an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.187 of 2010 has been preferred by the accused and the same has been dismissed vide judgment dated 07.09.2012, passed by the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, affirming the order dated 06.07.2010, passed by the learned trial court. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that charge under Section 394 IPC is per se not maintainable as there must be five persons for charging under Section 394 IPC. Since in the present case only four persons have been charged and as such the offence under Section 394 IPC is not made out and at best it is an offence under Section 392 IPC. It has further been submitted that the revisionist has remained in custody for about 2 years i.e. from 10.04.2009 to 16.03.2011. On the above basis, prayer has been made that the sentencing part may be reduced to the period - 2 - Cr. Revision No.1007 of 2012 2026:JHHC:10949 already undergone by the revisionist. 6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer. 7. Considering the fact that only four persons have been charged in the criminal trial, the conviction of the revisionist under Section 394 IPC is bad in law, and as such it is, hereby, converted to Section 392 IPC. So far as aggravating circumstances is concerned, no aggravating circumstances has been brought on record. 8. In that view of the matter, the sentencing part is reduced to the period already undergone by the revisionist, i.e., about 2 years. The fine amount, as imposed by the trial court, shall remain as it is. 9. With above modification, the present revision application is, hereby, disposed of. 10. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, the 17th April, 2026 Ravi-Chandan/- NAFR Uploaded on 21.04.2026 - 3 - Cr. Revision No.1007 of 2012