The appellate court should interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and law, and very strong and cogent reasons must exist to do so.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in preferring the instant appeal.

2. Heard Sri S.P. Tiwari, Additional Government Advocate-I for the applicant/State and also perused the record.

3. Office report reveals that there is a delay of fifteen days in preferring the instant appeal.

4. Having heard the learned Additional Government Advocate-I representing the State/applicant and upon perusal of averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay, this Court is satisfied that the delay has sufficiently been explained.

5. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in preferring the instant appeal is hereby condoned.

Order on Memo of Appeal:

6. Heard Sri S.P. Tiwari, Additional Government Advocate-I for the applicant/State and also perused the record.

7. The instant appeal has been filed against the order dated 08.06.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (Gangster Act) / Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Unnao in Sessions Trial No.133 of 2012, Case Crime No.163 of 2002, under Section 3 of The U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Ajgain, District Unnao, whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him.

8. The prosecution case, in short conspectus, is that the first informant i.e. Station House Officer Ravindra Nath Singh had lodged the First Information Report No.163 of 2002, under Section 3(ii) of The U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 at Police Station Sohramau, District Unnao against the accused Ravishanker Kurmi, Deepu Gupta, Saleem, Nanhke @ Kaliya, Munna Shah, Shivmangal and Pappu @ Raju with the allegation that on 31.05.2002 at about 00:15 hours while the first informant alongwith S.I. Chandrabhan Singh, Constable Virendra Kumar Dwivedi, Constable Suresh Chandra, Constable Radhey Shyam and Constable Ramakant Mishra were searching the accused of another case i.e. Case Crime No.144 of 2002, under Sections 307, 323, 504, 427 I.P.C., they saw that the accused persons were cutting the electricity wires with intention to steal it. When the police surrounded them, the accused tried to fled away. Two accused succeeded in escaping while one was caught by the police. On being asked his name, he told Deepu Gupta. On being searched, a wooden danda and an iron axe was recovered from the possession of Deepu Gupta. The police also inquired him about co-accused. The accused Deepu Gupta informed the names of the accused.

9. On the basis of aforesaid incident, first information report as Case Crime No.163 of 2002, under Section 3(ii) of The U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Ajgain, District Unnao was lodged.

10. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He also visited the place of occurrence and prepared site plan. Upon conclusion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet against the accused/respondent under Section 3(ii) of The U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. A gang chart was also prepared wherein the respondent was mentioned as gang leader.

11. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined Constable Harishchandra as P.W.-1, S.O. Ravindra Singh as P.W.-2 and Investigating Officer Parsuram Tripathi, C.O. as P.W.-3.

12. The accused respondent was charged under Section 3 of The U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, who denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

13. No evidence in defence was adduced by the respondent.

14. After the conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused-respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he had stated the prosecution story to be false and concocted and also stated himself to be innocent, who has been falsely implicated in this case.

15. The learned trial court vide impugned judgment and order dated 08.06.2023 has acquitted t