JUDGMENT :

MOHD. AZHAR HUSAIN IDRISI, J.

1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.

2. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant Arvind against the judgment and order dated 16.05.2019 passed by the Special Judge (Gangsters Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Muzaffarnagar in S.T. No. 87 of 2015 (State vs. Arvind and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 532 of 2014, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the “Gangsters Act”), Police Station Budhana, District Muzaffarnagar whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 3(1) Gangsters Act for ten years R.I. with fine of Rs.15,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to serve five months additional imprisonment.

3. Aggrieved thus, by the impugned judgment and order dated 16.05.2019, the accused appellant Arvind preferred this appeal. It may be added that there were 05 accused and they were charge sheeted in trial court. The present appeal has been preferred by accused-appellant Arvind. Thus, present appeal is heard in respect of appellant Arvind only.

4. Succinctly, the factual matrix of the prosecution story is that on the basis of information of informant S.H.O. Dhananjay Mishra and approved gang chart, on 06.11.2014 in respect of crimes alleged to have been committed by the appellant alongwith co-accused, the case (F.I.R.) was registered against accused Arvind, Pramod, Monu alias Rakesh, Parveen and Sainki alias Harshvardhan as Crime No. 532 of 2014, under Section 2/3 of the Act, 1986 It was alleged in the F.I.R. that the accused appellants have a organized gang, on the basis of which who for personal gain of gang extracts illegal money by committing offences like gang rape, murder, kidnapping and deletion of evidence of offence and by this reason general public is engulfed in their terror.

5. On the basis of gang chart, Chick F.I.R. was registered and entries were entered into Kaimi G.D and Carbon copy of which was also prepared in the same process. Investigation was entrusted to S.H.O. Ajay Pal Gautam.

6. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses, prepared site plan after inspecting the place of occurrence and after due investigation, he also procured sanction for prosecution from competent authority and after completing due investigation, submitted against the aforementioned accused/appellant under Section 2/3 Gangsters Act.

7. The trial court framed charges under Section 3(1) Gangsters Act, 1986. The accused/appellant abjured the charges, pleaded “not guilty” and claimed “to be tried.”

8. To bring home the charges, prosecution adduced following ocular evidence examining following witnesses:

9. To support the ocular version of the prosecution, following documentary evidence was also adduced and proved by prosecution ocular witnesses: