Room Singh Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2020)

Room Singh Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2020)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed in part: conviction under Sections 2/3 of the Gangsters Act upheld, but sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment reduced to the minimum two years prescribed under the Act; fine of Rs. 5,000 affirmed with three months' additional rigorous imprisonment in default; appellant to be released immediately on completion of two years (jail period counted) if not convicted in any other criminal case.

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 2/3 of the Gangsters Act, resting on the sole conviction in Criminal Case No. 268 of 2003 (the appellant having been acquitted in the other two predicate cases), could stand in view of the plea of false implication on account of personal enmity and the absence of any finding that the appellant was a member of a 'gang' indulging in anti-social activities within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, 1986. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court found no reason to set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 2/3 of the Gangsters Act; the conviction is upheld notwithstanding the plea of false implication on account of enmity and the absence of an express gang-membership finding under Section 2(b).

Ratio / Principle

Considering the age of the appellant, the nature of criminal charges, the fact of acquittal, and that he had remained in jail for about two years, the sentence is reduced to the minimum period of two years prescribed under the Act; the appeal is partly allowed on this basis.

Key takeaways

Once the appellant has served a total period of two years for the offence under Section 2/3 of the Gangsters Act (time spent in jail counting towards it), he shall be immediately released from jail, if he is not convicted in any other criminal case.ratio¶12
The fine of Rs. 5,000 imposed by the trial court is affirmed; in case of default in payment of fine, the appellant shall serve additional three months rigorous imprisonment for this offence.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal No. 2135 of 2014 (decided 27.8.2020, Sunita Agarwal, J.), against judgment and order dated 17.5.2014 of the Special Judge (Gangsters Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Budaun convicting the appellant under Section 2 readwith Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 and sentencing him to five years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/- (three months' additional imprisonment in default): HELD, conviction upheld — the Court found no reason to set it aside despite the appellant's acquittal in two of the three predicate cases (Case Crime No. 01 of 1989, S. 302 IPC, acquitted 6.4.1998; Case Crime No. 307 of 2000, Ss. 147/148/149/302 IPC, acquitted by trial court) and his bail in the third (Criminal Case No. 268 of 2003, enlarged on bail 20.1.2011 in Criminal Appeal U/S 374 Cr.P.C. No. 3744 of 2010), and despite the first informant of that case, examined as PW-2, admitting old enmity with the appellant and the absence of an express finding that he was a member of a 'gang' within Section 2(b); sentence however reduced to the minimum two years prescribed under the Act considering the appellant's age, the nature of charges, the acquittals and about two years already spent in jail; fine of Rs. 5,000 affirmed with three months' rigorous imprisonment in default; immediate release directed once two years are served, if not convicted in any other criminal case. Appeal allowed in part.

Court No. - 34

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2135 of 2014

Appellant :- Room Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Surendra Pal Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.5.2014 passed by the Special Judge (Gangsters Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Budaun, convicting appellant Room Singh under Section 2 readwith Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Gangsters Act"). The appellant has been awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine to the tune of Rs. 5000/- with the condition that in case of default in payment of fine, additional imprisonment for a period of three months is to be imposed. The period spent in jail has to be adjusted towards the total period of sentence.

The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that appellant Room Singh has been falsely implicated under Section 2/3 of the Gangsters Act. The basis of his implication was three criminal cases lodged against him by some private persons. In Case Crime No. 01 of 1989 under Section 302 IPC, wherein the appellant Room Singh has been acquitted vide judgment and order dated 6.4.1998. In another Case Crime No. 307 of 2000 under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC, the appellant Room Singh has also been acquitted by the trial court. In Criminal Case No. 268 of 2003 under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC, P.S. Gunnaur, Budaun, though the appellant Room Singh has been convicted but has been enlarged on bail vide judgment and order dated 20.1.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal U/S 374 Cr.P.C. No. - 3744 of 2010 (Room Singh vs. State Of U.P.).

It is further contended that the conviction in sole Criminal Case No. 268 of 2003 cannot be made basis to implicate the applicant under Section 2/3 of the Gangsters Act, inasmuch as, the appellant has been falsely implicated on account of personal enmity. The first informant/complainant of Criminal Case No. 268 of 2003 has been examined by the trial court in the present

case and has admitted in his deposition as PW-2, that old enmity was going on between him and the appellant Room Singh. Even otherwise, there is nothing on record to suggest nor there is any finding of the trial court that the appellant herein is a member of a 'gang' which had indulged in Anti-social activities within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, 1986.

Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, defends the order impugned for the reasoning given therein and submits that the appeal lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court though does not find any reason to set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 2/3 of the Gangsters Act, but looking to the age of the appellant, the nature of criminal charges against him, the fact of acquittal and also that the appellant has remained in jail for about a period of two years, the present appeal is partly allowed reducing the sentence to the minimum period of two years sentence prescribed under the Act.

Once the total time spent by the appellant is two year for the offence under Section 2/3 of the Gangsters Act or if he has served the sentence for a total period of two years for the said offence, he shall be immediately released from the jail, if he is not convicted in any other criminal case. The fine of Rs. 5,000/imposed by the trial court is, however, affirmed and in case of default in payment of fine, the appellant shall serve additional three months rigorous imprisonment for this offence.

The appeal is, accordingly, allowed in part .

Order Date :- 27.8.2020 Brijesh