IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution bears the burden of proving the accused's connection with the crime and satisfying the essential requirements for attracting the provisions of the Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

Headnote:
Gangster Act - Conviction under Section 3(1) of The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Sections 2, 3 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The judgment discusses the definitions of 'Gang' and 'Gangster' under Section 2 of the Act, the penalties under Section 3, and the special rules of evidence under Section 4. It also references case law to establish the essential requirements for attracting the provisions of Section 2/3 of the Act and emphasizes the burden of proof on the prosecution.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 3(1) of The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The appellant argued that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence and that the charges against him were not proven. The prosecution contended that the trial court rightly appreciated the facts and law, and the appellant's criminal history justified the conviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients for the offence punishable under the Act and that the evidence did not substantiate the conviction. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appreciation of evidence, the burden of proof on the prosecution, and the fulfillment of essential requirements for attracting the provisions of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to affirmatively prove the accused's connection with the crime. It also highlighted the need to satisfy the essential requirements for attracting the provisions of the Act.
Final Decision: The appeal succeeded, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges. The impugned judgment and order of conviction were set aside, and the appellant's bail was cancelled.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by convict appellant-Pappu @ Dhani Ram against judgment of conviction dated 08.12.2008 passed by learned Special Judge, Gangster Act, Lucknow in Case No.90 of 1998, State Vs. Birju and Others, Case Crime No.78 of 1997, Police Station Fatehpur Chaurasi, District Unnao, convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 3(1) of The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 for two years and six months rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulations.

2. Learned counsel for convict appellant argued that the appellant had been convicted and sentenced with two years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-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. He further argued that six criminal cases were shown as criminal history against appellant in gang chart. There was no independent witness of public to prove prosecution case, except police and official witnesses, who were examined before trial Court. The convict appellant is neither member of any gang nor he had worked as gangster. There was no anti-social activities of him. No credible evidence was there. Hence, offence punishable under Section 3(1) 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 contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the trial court has rightly appreciated facts and law, placed before it in correct perspective of law. After approval of District Magistrate, Unnao, gang chart, having six cases lodged against appellant including Case Crime No.177/1993, under Section 395/397 I.P.C., Case Crime No.377/1997, under Section 307 I.P.C., Case Crime No.422/1993, under Sections 147/148/307 I.P.C., Case Crime No.167/1995, under Sections 147/148/302 I.P.C., Case Crime No.269/1996, under Section 302 I.P.C. and Case Crime No.56/1997, under Section 307 I.P.C., was in gang chart and on the basis of above gang chart this Case Crime No. 78 of 1997, under Section 3 of the Act got registered and investigated, resulting submission of charge sheet. Accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial for the charges leveled against him. Prosecution had examined its witnesses, who had proved prosecution case beyond doubt and on the basis of those cogent evidence, judgment of conviction with sentence, as above, was passed. Hence, this appeal is baseless.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the impugned judgment and trial court record.

5. Before entering into merits of the case, it would be relevant to discuss Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

6. Section 2(b) of the Act provides definition of Gang:-

"'Gang' means a group of persons, who acting either singly or collectively, by violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or otherwise with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person, indulge in antisocial activities, namely

(i) offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code (Act No. 45 of 1860), or

.........."

7. Who is gangster. This was decided by Full Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P., 1987 (24) ACC 164 (FB) that Clause (c) of Section 2 defines the word "Gangster". It means a member or leader or organizer of a group which indulges in the kind of activities set out under the various sub-clauses of clause (b) of Section 2, by use of violence or threat or show of violence or intimida