Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
State of U.P. - Appellant
Versus
Mukhtar Ansari - Respondent
Government Appeal No. 780 of 2021
Decided On : 21-09-2022
The court allowed the appeal filed by the state against the acquittal of the accused-respondent by the trial court. The court held that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused-respondent as the prosecution had proved the charges against him beyond reasonable doubt. The court convicted the accused-respondent for offences under Sections 353, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to imprisonment and fine.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a jailer, alleged that the accused-respondent, a politician, came to the jail to meet a prisoner and got into an argument with the jailer over the frisking of visitors. The accused-respondent allegedly abused and threatened the jailer and pointed a revolver at him. The jailer lodged a complaint, and the accused-respondent was charged with offences under Sections 353, 504, 506 IPC, and 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, including the jailer, supported the prosecution case. The court held that the accused-respondent had committed the offences of assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of his duty (Section 353 IPC), intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace (Section 504 IPC), and criminal intimidation (Section 506 IPC).
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused-respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused-respondent as the prosecution had proved the charges against him beyond reasonable doubt. The court relied on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, including the jailer, to hold that the accused-respondent had committed the offences of assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of his duty (Section 353 IPC), intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace (Section 504 IPC), and criminal intimidation (Section 506 IPC).
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal filed by the state and convicted the accused-respondent for offences under Sections 353, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court sentenced the accused-respondent to imprisonment and fine.
JUDGMENT :
1. Present appeal has been filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C. with an application for leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 23.12.2020 passed by Special Judge, M.P./M.L.A., Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.19, Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 1818 of 2012: CNR No. U.P.L.K.O.10052862012 arising out of Case Crime No.131 of 2003 under Sections 353, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Alambagh, Lucknow.
2. Learned Trial Court has acquitted respondent, Mukhtar Ansari of all charges.
3. This Court vide order dated 27.04.2021 had granted leave to appeal and admitted the appeal.
4. Prosecution case in brief is that the complainant, S.K. Awasthi was posted as Jailer in District Jail, Lucknow in the year 2003. On 23.04.2003 at around 10:30 A.M., when he was sitting in his office inside the jail, Gatekeeper, Prem Chandra Maurya told him that some persons had come to meet prisoner, Mukhtar Ansari, the respondent. Mukhtar Ansari, who was also an M.L.A., came to the office of the Jailer. The complainant ordered for his frisking, on which Mukhtar Ansari got highly annoyed. He said, "You Jailer think yourself very high. You create hurdles in coming persons to meet me." Mr. S.K. Awasthi told the respondent that these persons cannot not come inside without being frisked. Mukhtar Ansari said, "You come out of Jail today, I would get you killed." Prisoner, Mukhtar Ansari abused him and took revolver from one of the persons, who had come to meet him and pointed it towards the complainant. It was said that some people caught hold of Mukhtar Ansari and some caught hold of the complainant, otherwise any untoward incident could have taken place. Prisoner, Mukhtar Ansari sent his men, who came to meet him, out of prison and said to the complainant, "Now your days are over and nobody can save you now."
5. At the time of incident, Deputy Jailer, Mr. Sarvesh Vikram Singh, Deputy Jailer, Shailendra Pratap Singh, Gate Keeper, Prem Chandra Maurya, I.W. Rudra Bihari Srivastava, I.W. Radheyshyam Yadav, I.W. Ram Swaroop Pal were present.
6. Mr. S.K. Awasthi, the complainant, gave a complaint to this effect on 28.04.2003 at Police Station Alambagh, Lucknow on which the FIR at Case Crime No.131 of 2003 under Sections 353, 504, 506 IPC came to be registered on the same day against respondent-Mukhtar Ansari. The investigation of the case was entrusted to Sub Inspector, Mr. Ganesh Singh and Smt. Indu Srivastava.
7. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet against the accused-respondent was filed under Sections 353, 506, 504 IPC, 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act (for short 'the Gangsters Act') on 08.06.2003. Thereafter, on 05.02.2005 a supplementary charge-sheet No.137 of 2003 under Sections 353, 506, 504 IPC was submitted in the Court. Learned Magistrate took cognizance on Charge-sheet No.137 of 2003 arising out of Case Crime No.131 of 2003 under Sections 353, 506, 504 IPC.
8. Charges were framed for offences under Sections 353, 504, 506 IPC on 28.06.2003. The accused-respondent denied the charge and claimed for trial.
9. Prosecution to prove its case, proved documentary evidence i.e. complaint (Exh.Ka-1), Chik FIR (Exh.Ka-2), GD Entry (Exh.Ka-3), Site Map (Exh.Ka-4), Charge-sheets (Exh.Ka-5 and Exh.Ka-6).
10. Prosecution also examined following witnesses to prove its case:-
(a) Gate Keeper, Prem Chanda Maurya as P.W.-1;
(b) Jailer, S.K. Awasthi, the complainant, as P.W.-2;
(c) Jail Warden, Shailendra Pratap Singh as P.W.-3;
(d) I.W. Ram Swaroop Pal as P.W.-4;
(e) I.W. Rudra Bihari Srivastava as P.W.-5;
(f) Inspector, Smt. Indu Srivastava as P.W.6
(g) Inspector Ganesh Singh as P.W.-7.
11. P.W.-1, Prem Chandra Maurya in his evidence has deposed that he had been posted as Jail Warden in Lucknow District Jail since 06.07.2002. On 27.04.2003, he was deputed as Gate Keeper on the main gate of Lucknow District Jail. Between 10:30 A.M. and 11:00 A.M. some persons came to meet prisoner, Mukhtar Ansari. The witness asked Jailer, Mr. S.K. Aw
The court held that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused-respondent as the prosecution had proved the charges against him beyond reasonable doubt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of presumption of innocence, the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the careful scrutiny ....
The duty of the prosecution to prove guilt, the presumption of innocence, and the careful assessment of witness testimony, especially that of hostile witnesses, are central legal principles establish....
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to Section 309 Cr.P.C. for timely witness examination to prevent undue influence and ensure justice in criminal trials.
It is settled law that evidence of hostile witnesses can also be relied upon by prosecution to extent to which it supports prosecution version of incident.
(1) Bail – Even if accused is confined in jail for a long period, same is not a ground to grant relief of bail to accused.(2) Rights of victims and witnesses – To make arrangements of protection of v....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, the limited evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and the need ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
