Back
2017 Supreme(All) 1983
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B. AMIT STHALEKAR, J.
Raj Kumar @ Chunmun - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Jail Appeal No. 7255 of 2007
Decided On : 04-08-2017
For the Appellant : Ms. Nishi Mehrotra, Amicus Curiae.
For the Respondent: A.G.A.
The judgment established the requirement of a reasonable and proximate connection between the occurrence and the activity of the person sought to be apprehended under the Gangster Act, emphasizing the interpretation of the definitions of 'gang' and 'gangster' under the Act, 1986.
Headnote:
Gangster Act - Conviction under Section 2/3 Gangster Act, P.S. Sikandarabad, District Bulandshahar - Act, 1986 - Section 2(b), Section 2(c)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 2/3 Gangster Act, P.S. Sikandarabad, District Bulandshahar for involvement in criminal offenses forming a gang and earning illegal wealth. Multiple cases were pending against the appellant, and witnesses were reluctant to testify due to fear.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court held the appellant guilty under Section 2/3 of the Act, 1986 based on the evidence presented, and the conviction and sentence were affirmed by the court. The appellant had already completed the term of sentence and been released.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant fell within the definition of a gangster as per the Act, 1986, and whether the evidence supported the conviction under Section 2/3 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the definitions of 'gang' and 'gangster' under Section 2(b) and Section 2(c) of the Act, 1986, and emphasized the requirement of a reasonable and proximate connection between the occurrence and the activity of the person sought to be apprehended.
Final Decision: The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
B. Amit Sthalekar, J.
1.Heard Ms. Nishi Mehrotra, learned Amicus Curiae appointed by the Court on behalf of the applicant and Sri Tarkeshwar Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant Raj Kumar alias Chunmun from jail against the judgment of the trial court dated 27.01.2007 passed by the Special Judge (Gangster Act), Bulandshahar in S.T. No.691/2000, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced under Section 2/3 Gangster Act, P.S. Sikandarabad, District Bulandshahar for five years R.I. and fine of Rs. 8,000/- with default stipulation.
3. The Office through its report dated 05.05.2017 has informed, on the basis of information received from the C.J.M. Bulandshahar that the accused Raj Kumar alias Chunmun has been released from jail on 06.04.2011 after completing the period of sentence.
4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the FIR was lodged by V.K. Bharadwaj, Incharge Inspector, Police Station-Sikandarabad, District Bulandhshar against the appellant under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1986) on 05.11.2000 stating that the appellant was involved in different incidents of criminal offences in collusion with others forming a Gang and as a result of which earning illegal wealth. The following cases are pending against him:
1. Case Crime No.328/89, under Section 392, 411, Police Station Sikandarabad.
2. Case Crime No.15/91, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Sikandarabad.
3. Case Crime No.236/98, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Sikandarabad.
4. Case Crime No.130/99, under Section 393, 307, Police Station Sikandarabad.
5. It was also alleged that because of his involvement in all such cases the witnesses were in fear and were not coming forward to give evidences against him. Accordingly a case was registered against the appellant and a charge-sheet was filed under Section 2/3 of the Act, 1986 read with offences under Chapter 16 and 17 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. During trial the prosecution has examined Constable, Krishna Kumar, U.P. Police, Bulandshahar as P.W.1, who has stated that on 20.06.1998 a report was submitted by Naresh Singh son of Rajveer Singh, R/O P.S., Sikandarabad, District Bulandshahar on the basis of which Case Crime No.236/98, under Section 302 IPC was lodged against Vikram and Sukhpal along-with two other persons. On cross-examination he has stated that he is not aware whether the appellant Raj Kumar was sent to jail and whether any charge-sheet has been filed against him.
7. Statement of P.W.2, Sub Inspector, P.K. Bhardwaj, who has also stated that the appellant was involved in several criminal cases already referred to here-in-above and due to fear the witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence against him. The gang chart was also filed bearing the signature of the then District Magistrate, Smt. Dimpal Verma, as exhibit 2.
8. Thereafter the statement of P.W.3, Naresh son of Rajveer Singh was recorded, who has stated that on 20.06.1998 he was going on cycle with his father and when he reached near Sikandarabad they were attacked by unknown persons which resulted in the death of his father. The persons who were witnesses of the incident their names were disclosed as Dalveer Singh and Mahendra Singh, who later on identified accused Devendra and Rajkumar alias Chunmun (appellant herein). This witness later on turned hostile and stated that he has given his statement on the dictate of the police.
9. Head Constable, Sri Niwas Sharma was examined as P.W.4. He has identified the charge-sheet which has been filed in Case Crime No.294/2001 and has also proved the signature of Sub Inspector, D.P. Singh, who has submitted the charge sheet. He has also proved the signature of the then District Magistrate, Dimpal Verma, who has submitted the gang chart against the appellant. He also stated that Sri D.P. Singh, Sub Inspector did not hold any investigation in his presence in
