Back
2019 Supreme(All) 912
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.
Dhruv Singh and another - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 3813 of 2018
Decided On : 25-07-2019
Jaysingh Yadav, Adv., Shiv Prasad, Adv.
The prosecution must prove the essential ingredients of the offence under the Gangster Act beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Gangster Act - Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. - Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Section 2/3 - 34 of 1981, 246 of 2000, 323 of 2002, 40 of 1987 - The court acquitted the appellants of all charges under the Gangster Act due to lack of evidence and failure to prove the essential ingredients of the offence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed an appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence under the Gangster Act. They argued that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence and facts, and that the charges against them were false. The prosecution contended that the trial judge correctly appreciated the facts and law, and that the appellants were members of an organized gang involved in anti-social activities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offence under the Gangster Act and that the evidence did not substantiate the judgment of the trial court. As a result, the appellants were acquitted of all charges.
Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation of the Gangster Act and the sufficiency of evidence to prove the charges against the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution must prove the essential ingredients of the offence under the Gangster Act beyond reasonable doubt, and that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants.
Final Decision: The appeal succeeded, and the appellants were acquitted of all charges. They were directed to furnish a personal bond and sureties as per the provisions of section 437-A Cr.P.C.
JUDGMENT :
Ram Krishna Gautam, J.
1. This Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by convict appellants against judgment of conviction dated 07.07.2018 and sentence made therein by Court of Special Judge (Gangster Act) / Additional Session Judge (Fast Track Court No. II) Lalitpur in G.S.T. No. 284 of 2003, arising out of Case Crime No. 25 of 2003, under Section 2/3 Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), Police Station Bar, District Lalitpur with a prayer for setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence made therein.
2. Learned counsel for convict appellants argued that both the convict appellants have been convicted and sentenced with five years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.6,000/- and in default with further imprisonment of one month, which was a severe sentence, against the evidence on record. Trial Court failed to appreciate facts and evidence placed before it, resulting this perversity. Nine criminal cases were shown as criminal history against appellant Dhruv Singh in gang chart, wherein he has been released and acquitted in all criminal cases mentioned in it. The appellant Kailash was shown to be with criminal history of four cases, but he is on bail in each of them, but this false accusation for offence under Section 2/3 of the Act was got lodged. There was no independent witness of public to prove prosecution case, except police and official witnesses, who were examined before trial Court. Both the convict appellants are neither member of any gang nor they have worked as gangsters. There was no anti-social activities of them. No credible evidence was there. Hence, offence punishable under Section 2/3 of the Act was not made out. Even then, charge sheet was submitted and judgment of conviction with sentence, as above, was passed. Hence, this appeal with above prayer.
3. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the contention of appellants with this mention that trial Judge has appreciated facts and law, placed before, it in correct perspective of law. Accused Karan Singh died during trial, hence trial against him was abated, whereas Dhruv Singh and Kailash were convicted and sentenced as above. After approval of District Magistrate, Lalitpur, gang chart, having nine cases lodged against Dhruv Singh including Case Crime No. 34 of 1981, under Sections 147, 325, 504 I.P.C., Case Crime No. 246 of 2000, under Sections 147, 447, 427, 323 I.P.C., Case Crime No. 323 of 2002, under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C. read with Section 26 of Forest Act, Case Crime No. 9 of 1987, under Sections 394, 302, 411 I.P.C., Case Crime No. 189 of 1998, under Sections 41/109 Cr.P.C., Case Crime No. 7 of 1984, under Sections 151, 107, 116 Cr.P.C., Case Crime No. 131 of 1996, under Sections 151, 107, 116 Cr.P.C., Case Crime No. 106 of 1996, under Sections 107, 116 Cr.P.C., Case Crime No. 324 of 2002, under Section 25 Arms Act, lodged at Police Station Bar, District Lalitpur, was in gang chart. Four cases including Case Crime No. 34 of 1981, under Sections 147, 325, 504 I.P.C., Case Crime No. 246 of 2000, under Sections 147, 447, 427, 323 I.P.C., Case Crime No. 323 of 2002, under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C. read with Section 26 of Forest Act and Case Crime No. 40 of 1987, under Section 60 of Excise Act, at Police Station Bar, District Lalitpur was against accused Kailash and on the basis of above gang chart this Case Crime No. 25 of 2003, under Section 2/3 of the Act was got registered and investigated, resulting submission of charge sheet. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial for the charges levelled against them. Prosecution had examined PW-1 informant Abdul Rajjak, the then S.O. of Police Station Bar, PW-2 Udai Bhan Singh, an employee of Forest Department, PW-3 Gulab, an independent public witness, PW-4 Mansha Ram Yadav, the then Head Constable, who had proved prosecution case beyond doubt and on the basis of those cogent evidence, judgment
