Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 929 (ALL)

STATE OF U. P. v. JAGPAT SINGH

2017-04-04

VIJAY LAKSHMI

body2017
Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J. 1. The State has filed this appeal along with an application for leave to appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and order of acquittal dated 01.10.2016, passed by Special Judge, U.P. Gangsters Act and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act/ IInd Additional Sessions Judge (Court No.2) Banda in G.S.T. No.192 of 2006, (State of U.P. vs. Jagpat Singh and others) in Case Crime No.98 of 2006, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station-Kotwali Dehat-District-Banda. 2. Learned A.G.A. has contended that by the impugned judgment and order, the learned Special Judge, U.P. Gangsters Act and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, has illegally acquitted all the accused-respondents from the charges framed against them under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 without weighing and assessing the evidence properly and thereby arriving at the wrong conclusion while acquitting the accused-respondents on flimsy grounds. Hence, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal being perverse, illegal, unjustified and bad in the eyes of law the same may be set-aside. 3. Vide order dated 18.1.2017, the lower court's record was summoned, which has been received. 4. The accused respondent nos.2 and 5 are also present in person before this Court in compliance of the order dated 02.3.2017. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Lalchand Mishra appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1,3 and 4 and Shri G.S. Srivastava holding brief of Shri I.K. Chaturvedi on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 5. 6. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, S.O. of Police Station Kotwali Dehat, lodged First Information Report at Police Station Kotwali Dehat, on 27.8.2006 at 11:15 A.M. hours against the accused-respondents mentioning therein that he came to know from local public that Jagpat Singh (respondent no.1) is a hardened Criminal, he is the leader of an organized gang and Anil Singh Babu Darji, Angad Singh, Syam Sundar, Durga Prasad and Ashwani are other active members of this gang. All of them use to indulge in anti-social activities and in commission of heinous crimes, like murder and abduction etc. by creating panic in public with the object of disturbing public order and gaining undue pecuniary and material advantage. Nobody dares to lodge report or to give evidence against them due to their terror. All of them use to indulge in anti-social activities and in commission of heinous crimes, like murder and abduction etc. by creating panic in public with the object of disturbing public order and gaining undue pecuniary and material advantage. Nobody dares to lodge report or to give evidence against them due to their terror. The accused persons are habitual of committing offences mentioned in Chapter XVI, XVII and XXII of I.P.C. As per gang chart, cases in crime no.95/06, under Sections 394, 411 and 120-B I.P.C. Crime No.135/03 under Sections 13 Gunda Act, Crime No.47/02 under Sections 387, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. were registered against Jagpat Singh, Crime No.95/2006 under Section 394, 411 and 120B I.P.C., Crime No.388/06 under Sections 25A Act were registered against Anil Singh, Crime No.95/06 under Sections 394, 411 and 120B I.P.C., Crime No.390/06 under Section 25A Act were registered against Angad Singh, Crime No.95/06 under Sections 394, 411 and 120B I.P.C., Crime No.391/06 under Section 25A Act were registered against Shyam Singh and Crime No.95/06 under Sections 394, 411 and 120B I.P.C. were registered against Durga Prasad and Ashwani Ojha. Hence, an action under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 is required to be taken against all the accused persons. After grant of approval of gang-chart by District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Banda, the first Information Report was lodged against accused persons. The investigation of the case was entrusted to Station Officer, Mataundh. After conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused person under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. 7. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 7 prosecution witnesses namely, PW 1, Sub Inspector Yuvraj Singh, PW 2, Complainant Sub Inspector Sunil Kumar Mishra, PW 3, S.O. Madhu Sudan, PW 4 S.O. Virendra Singh, PW5 Narayan Babu Tiwari, PW 6 Ram Subhag Ram Swaroj and PW-7 Sub Inspector Bajrang Bali Yadav. However, the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondents vide impugned judgment and order dated 01.10.2016. 8. A careful perusal of the impugned judgement and order shows that the trial court while acquitting the accused-respondents has placed reliance on the law laid down by this Court in Ajai Rai Vs. State of U.P. 1995 (32) ACC 477 and Ram Raheesh Vs. However, the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondents vide impugned judgment and order dated 01.10.2016. 8. A careful perusal of the impugned judgement and order shows that the trial court while acquitting the accused-respondents has placed reliance on the law laid down by this Court in Ajai Rai Vs. State of U.P. 1995 (32) ACC 477 and Ram Raheesh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (73) ACC 559 and also the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the cases of State of Assam Vs. Manohar Ali 1987 (1) Crimes 748 (754) (GOU), Sukliya Vs. State of M.P. 2002 (5) JT 302 , Kalyan Singh vs. State of M.P. 2006 (13) SCC 303 and Sujit Bishwas Vs. State of Assam, 2013 Crl Law Journal 3140 (SC). 9. The impugned order shows that the learned trial court has discussed in detail, the entire evidence and has recorded its findings on the basis of the evidence available on record. 10. On a careful perusal of the impugned judgment, I do not find any factual or legal error in the assessment of evidence by the court below in so far as the acquittal of accused-respondents is concerned. The view taken by the court below is a possible view. The court below has given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while acquitting the respondents and the impugned judgment and order passed by the court below does not suffer from any infirmity in so far as the acquittal of accused-respondents are concerned. 11. The golden thread which runs through the administration of criminal justice while hearing the appeal against the acquittal is that even if two views are possible on the evidence, one pointing towards the acquittal of the accused and other towards their innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be accepted and the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court should not be disturbed by the appellate court. 12. In Mahadeo Laxman Sarane vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 12 SCC 705 , it has been held as under: "It is true, that the settled legal position is that in an appeal against acquittal the High Court ought not to interfere with the order of acquittal if on the basis of the same evidence two views are reasonably possible-one in favour of the accused and the other against him. In such a case if the trial court takes a view in favour of the accused, the High Court ought not to interfere with the order of acquittal." 13. In C. Antony Vs. K.G. Raghavan Nair, (2003) 1 SCC 1 , the Apex Court has observed as follows:- "Unless the findings of trial court are perverse or contrary to the material on record, High Court cannot, in appeal, substitute its finding merely because another contrary opinion was possible on the basis of the material on record." 14. In Sirajuddin Vs. State of Karnataka, (1980) 4 SCC 375 , the Apex Court has reiterated the same principle in the following words:- "Where trial Court's order of acquittal is based on a reasonably possible view, High court should not, as a rule of prudence, disturb the acquittal." 15. Considering the facts and circumstances in wake of the above cited legal position, I do not consider it to be a fit case for grant of leave to appeal to the applicant. The application seeking leave to appeal is, accordingly, rejected and, consequently the appeal is also dismissed. 16. The lower court's record be immediately returned back to the court concerned along with a copy of this judgment.