Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Lok Pal Singh, J.
Pappu - Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2020
Decided On : 13-01-2021
Gangster Act - Conviction under U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social (Prevention) Activities Act, 1986 - Section 2/3 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed section 2(b) and (c) of the Act, defining 'gang' and 'gangster', and examined whether the appellant had formed a gang indulging in prohibited activities. The judgment highlighted the lack of evidence to prove the appellant's involvement in anti-social activities or offenses under the specified sections of the Indian Penal Code, ultimately leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social (Prevention) Activities Act, 1986 based on allegations of being a member of an active gang involved in various criminal activities. The prosecution presented evidence through witnesses and documents, while the appellant claimed false implication. The trial court found the appellant guilty, leading to the present appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's involvement in anti-social activities or offenses specified under the Act, highlighting the lack of evidence to establish the appellant's guilt. The trial court's judgment was deemed unsustainable and set aside, leading to the appellant's release if not wanted in any other case.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the appellant's alleged involvement in a gang engaging in prohibited activities, the sufficiency of evidence presented by the prosecution, and the trial court's findings regarding the appellant's guilt under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence to establish the appellant's involvement in anti-social activities or offenses specified under the Act, ultimately leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment and order convicting the appellant under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social (Prevention) Activities Act, 1986 was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The appellant was directed to be released if not wanted in any other case.
JUDGMENT
Lok Pal Singh, J. - This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.02.2019, passed by the Special Judge/3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in S.S.T. No. 11 of 2009, State vs. Praveen Balmiki & Ors., whereby the said court has convicted the appellant Pappu under section 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social (Prevention) Activities Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as the Act) and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of which accused/appellant to undergo further three months' simple imprisonment.
2. Brief facts, in nutshell, are that the informant Incharge Inspector Sri B.S. Chauhan gave a report with the averments that on 24.07.2008 when he along with Constable Sandeep Kumar and constable Ravi Pant was on patrolling duty, he was informed by the villagers that there is active gang of Praveen Balmiki who is its leader, which runs with the help of its associates namely Sushil, Narendra and Pappu(present accused/appellant),. The gang has been involved in the commission of the offences like dacoity, murder, extortion etc., and due to their act, there is terror in the society and, therefore, nobody lodged any report or gives any evidence against the member of the gang. In the gang chart (Ex. A1) against accused Sushil case crime no. 125 of 2008, under sections 302/307, 506, 34 and 120B IPC , case crime no. 107 of 2005 under section 147, 148, 149, 302, 34 IPC and case crime no. 54 of 2000 under section 302 and 120B IPC, against Praveen Balmiki case crime no. 125 of 2008 under section 302/307, 506, 34 and 120B IPC, case crime no. 291 of 2006 under sections 392, 411, 120B IPC, case crime no. 77 of 2006 under sections 302 IPC and case crime no. 372 of 2006 under section 25 Arms Act, against Naresh case crime no. 125 of 2008 under section 302/307, 506, 34 and 120B IPC, case crime no. 298 of 2007 under section 308 IPC and against accused Pappu (present appellant) case crime no. 125 of 2008 under section 302/307, 506, 34 and 120B IPC and , case crime no.107 of 2005 under section 147, 148, 149, 302, 34 IPC are registered at Police Station Kotwali Gangnahar, Roorkee, Laksar and Manglaur..
3. On the basis of said report FIR (Ex. A4) was got lodged and case crime no. 211 of 2008, under section 2/3 of the Act was registered. After grant of approval of the gang chart by the District Magistrate and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the present accused/appellant by the Investigating Officer. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charge under section 2/3 of the Act against the accused/appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. To prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, the prosecution got examined ten witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Inspector Bahadur Singh Chauhan,( complainant) P.W.2 Sachin (informant in another case) P.W.3 Sub-Inspector Dinesh Kumar (Investigating officer of case crime no. 231 of 2006), P.W. 4 Shahazad (complainant of another case) P.W.5 Inspector Vijay Chandra Singh Gusain (Investigating officer of case crime no. 211 of 2008), P.W.6 Swyamwar Singh Rautela, P.W. 7 S.I. Bhupendra Mehta, P.W. 8 Cons. Sandeep Kumar, P.W.9 Vikas Kumar Salar, and P.W.10 Atul Kumar.
5. The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. in reply to which he alleged that he has been falsely implicated in the case. He further stated that the in connection with crime no. 125 of 2008, he preferred an appeal which is pending consideration . However, no evidence in defence was adduced. The trial court after hearing learned counsel for the parties found that prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of doubt and convicted him accordingly. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, present appeal has been preferred by the accused/ appellant.
6. Pw1 B.S. Chauhan, Inspector, complainant proved the averments of the FIR, gang chart (Ex. A1) his
AI
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the accused's involvement in anti-social activities or specified offenses under the Act, and the co....
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 to the appellant's actions, and the court's interp....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of procedural compliance and due application of mind in cases under the Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention Act, 1986), highlighting the fundamenta....
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
