The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence under the U.P. Gangster (Prevention) Act, 1986. The High Court upheld the trial court's order, refusing to mitigate the sentence despite the appellant's confession due to the severity of alleged crimes including murder and dacoity.
Prayer for punishment only with period of detention undergone was refused.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
A.F.R.
Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3991 of 2018
Appellant :- Ganga Lahari Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Ray Sahab Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.
By way of the instant criminal appeal, challenge has been made to the validity and sustainability of the judgment and order of the trial court dated 26.5.2018 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, (Gangster Act), Budaun in S.S.T. No. 38A of 2001 (related to S.S.T. No. 38 of 2001), (State vs. Ganga Lahiri), arising out of Case Crime No. 87 of 2000, under Section - 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (in short 'Act, 1986'), Police Station - Ughaiti, District - Budaun, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section - 2 read with Section - 3 of Act, 1986 and was sentenced to four years' imprisonment coupled with fine Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation to suffer additional imprisonment for one month period.
Facts relevant for adjudication of this appeal as discernible from record appear to be that the informant - Diwakar Pandey, S.O. of Police Station - Ughaiti lodged an oral report at Police Station - Ughaiti, District - Budaun against the accusedappellant at Case Crime No. 87 of 2000, under Section-2/3 of Act, 1986, whereafter a case was registered and the same was investigated into by the Investigating
Officer, who after investigation, filed charge-sheet, whereupon cognizance was taken and the trial proceeded. However, during course of the proceeding, the appellant - Ganga Lahiri absconded, due to which his file was separated from the case of other accused and a separate case number was allotted to his case. As per the charge levelled against the accused, on and before 06.05.2000, the accused used to be a member of a criminal gang and used to threaten the people at large. They used to terrorise the people, thus causing breach of public peace and extracting advantage, pecuniary as well as physical and economic. They had created panic on account of their criminal activity in the society and their activity was penal as per the relevant provisions of the Act, 1986 and as such, punishable under Section - 2 of The Act, 1986.
Consequently, charge under aforesaid section was framed and the same was read over to the accused, who denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
The prosecution was required to adduce its testimony in support of the charge, whereupon PW-1 - Head Constable - Suresh Pal Singh was produced as secondary witness and he has proved the gang chart, check FIR and the charge-sheet, which were purportedly signed by the informant - S.O. Diwakar Pandey, Head Moharir Subhash Chandra and S.I. - Chhatrapal Singh, respectively and the same have been proved as Ext. Ka-1, Ext, Ka-2 and Ext. Ka-3, respectively. This witness has testified to the ambit that he is very much acquainted with the handwriting of S.O. - Diwakar Pandey, Head Moharrir - Subhash Chandra and S.I. - Chhatrapal Singh as they were posted with him and he usually saw them writing the paper.
Record further reflects that at this stage, an application for confession was moved by the accused-appellant Ganga
Lahiri, whereby, he confessed to have alleged criminal bent up, thus wanted to be punished with the sentence of the period undergone by him till date and requested that his statement under Section - 313 Cr.P.C. be recorded.
In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused-appellant accepted the charge in its entirety and to all intents and purposes, accepted his guilt. The trial court after considering the aforesaid confessional aspect and the merit of the case and after hearing the parties and considering the cases shown in the gang chart, numbering seven in all, which are extracted as herein below:-
(i) Case Crime No. 82 of 1997, under Section - 307 I.P.C.;
(ii) Case Crime No. 205 of 1997, under Sections - 324, 323 and 504 I.P.C.;
(iii) N.C.R. No. 24 of 1997, under Sections - 323 and 504 I.P.C.;
(iv) N.C.R. No. 54 of 1997, under Sections - 323 and 504 I.P.C.;
(v) N.C.R. No. 105 of 1997, under Sections - 323 and 504 I.P.C.;
(vi) Case Crime No. 92 of 1998, under Section - 302 I.P.C.; and
(vii) Case Crime No. 15 of 2000, under Section - 396 I.P.C.
found the accused guilty of being a member of the criminal gang indulged in terrorising the people and thus extracting economic and physical advantage, which act is very much covered under Section - 2 read with Section - 3 of Act, 1986.
Consequently, the conviction against the accused-appellant was rightly recorded by the trial judge vide his order dated 14.5.2018.
While considering the aspect of sentence, separate hearing was given to the accused and it was found by the trial court that the accused has already suffered four years of detention in this case and considering the various patches of detention referring to different dates and time, overall sentence of four years' detention coupled with fine Rs.5,000/- was awarded against the accused-appellant and it was observed that in case of default in payment of aforesaid fine, the accused would have to undergo one month's additional imprisonment.
Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently claimed that the appellant had confessed his guilt, therefore, he has nothing to say on the merit of the case. He only requested that the accused has, till date, completed more than four years' detention, hence, he be punished with the period of detention already undergone by him.
However, Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. has vehemently claimed that the cases shown in the gang chart against the accused involve inter-alia Sections - 302, 396 and 307 I.P.C. and as many as seven cases have been shown in the gang chart and the accused is a daredevilspirited man and is exercising influence over the people at large in society and is working against the interest of society in order to extract economic and physical advantage and putting the people to great terror and panic. Therefore, his confessional statement alone would not be suffice to mitigate the offence in question under the Act, 1986.
Considered the rival submissions and the aspect of confession made by the accused. In view of the cases shown in the gang chart, obviously case under Section - 302 at Case Crime No. 92 of 1998, under Section 396 IPC at Case Crime No. 15 of 2000, and under Section 307 IPC at Case
Crime No. 82 of 1997, all relating to the same Police Station - Ughaiti, District - Budaun are indicative of fact that the accused has criminal bent and these cases cannot be said to be without any substance. At least, allegations exist against the accused. Therefore, considering the entirety of the case, the sentence imposed by the trial court need not be interfered.
In view of above, the conviction and sentence pronounced by the trial court vide its judgment and order dated 14.5.2018 and 26.5.2018 are hereby affirmed and upheld. Resultantly, the prayer made for punishing the appellant with the period already undergone by him in detention in this case is hereby refused.
The appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed .
Let a copy of this order be certified to the trial court concerned for information and necessary follow up action.
Order Date :- 25.10.2018 S Rawat
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction and sentence imposed under the U.P. Gangster (Prevention) Act, 1986 should be set aside given the appellant's confession?
Whether the appellant should be released having suffered detention equal to the imposed sentence?
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Ganga Lahari
State Of U.P.
Arvind Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
