# Dhananjay Singh & Anr v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 1188
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-04-27
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2596 of 2024
- **Bench:** Sanjay Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dhananjay-singh-anr-v-state-of-u-p-51781
- **Pages:** 22

## Headnote

Shri P.C. Srivastava (Addl. A.G.), Shri J.K.
Upadhyay (A.G.A.), Shri Deepak Mishra (A.G.A.),
4 All. Dhananjay Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
1189
Shri Vikas Sahai(A.G.A.), Shri Rabindra Kumar
Singh (A.G.A.)

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 364, 386, 504, 506 & 120-B -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Sections 374(2), 389(1), 161 & 313 -
Representation of People Act, 1951 -
Section 8(3) - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -
Sections 3, 65-B & 101 - Criminal Appeal -
Suspension of Sentence - Stay of Conviction -
Kidnapping for Murder - Extortion - Intentional
Insult - Criminal Intimidation - Criminal
Conspiracy - Hostile Witnesses - Electronic
Evidence
-
Criminal
History
-
Political
Disqualification
The appellants, Dhananjay Singh and Santosh
Vikram Singh, challenged the judgment dated
05.03.2024
and
sentence
order
dated
06.03.2024 by the Additional Sessions JudgeIV/Special Judge, MP/MLA, Jaunpur, in Sessions
Trial No. 109 of 2020, convicting them under
Section 364 IPC (7 years rigorous imprisonment,
Rs.
50,000
fine,
4
months
additional
imprisonment in default), Section 386 IPC (5
years rigorous imprisonment, Rs. 25,000 fine, 3
months additional imprisonment in default),
Section 504 IPC (1 year rigorous imprisonment,
Rs.
10,000
fine,
1
month
additional
imprisonment in default), Section 506 IPC (2
years rigorous imprisonment, Rs. 15,000 fine,
45 days additional imprisonment in default), and
Section
120-B
IPC
(7
years
rigorous
imprisonment, Rs. 50,000 fine, 4 months
additional
imprisonment
in
default),
with
sentences to run concurrently. The prosecution
alleged that on 10.05.2020 at 5:30 PM, the
appellants abducted Abhinav Singhal (PW-1/CW1) to Dhananjay Singh's residence, where Singh,
armed with a pistol, abused and threatened him
to supply substandard materials for the Namami
Gange Project, supported by a WhatsApp
message, CCTV footage, and mobile location
data. The appellants sought suspension of
sentence and stay of conviction, citing false
implication due to political motives and lack of
evidence, as PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, and CW-2
turned hostile, and PW-1's Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Statementdenied the incident. Held: (1) The
application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for
suspension of sentence was allowed, and both
appellants were granted bail pending appeal,
considering the lack of substantive evidence,
hostile witnesses, and no misuse of prior bail.
(2) The prayer for stay of conviction was
rejected for appellant No. 1 (Dhananjay Singh)
due to his extensive criminal history (46 cases,
28 acquittals due to hostile witnesses, 10
pending), absence of exceptional circumstances,
and the need to prevent criminalization of
politics under Section 8(3) of the Representation
of People Act, 1951. (3) The prosecution failed
to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt,
as all fact witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3) and
CW-2 did not support the case, CCTV footage
lacked Section 65-B certification and was
unusable, and key witnesses (Mohan Lal
Singhal, Pulkit) were not examined. (4) The trial
court's findings, including an erroneous mention
of ransom, were based on presumption rather
than evidence, violating Section 101 of the
Evidence Act. (5) The appeal was listed for final
hearing after paper book preparation.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,936 of 67,627. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39936 for what follows._

1188 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
E. Next argument of the counsel for
the appellant that statement of the mother of
the appellant who was a natural witness was
not recorded is also without any substance as
she died 4-5 months after the incident that is
much prior to recording of her evidence. It
has come in the statement of PW-9 that
during
investigation,
he
has
recorded
statement of Durgawati, who stated that her
son had committed murder of her other sonDileep and had even caused injuries to her.
This statement was recorded by PW-9 under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. even in the Case Diary
which was exhibited as Ex.Ka-15.
Though it is settled principle of law
that statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. can
only be used for the purpose of confrontation
of the witness. However, perusal of statement
of PW-9 shows that the defence has even
cross examined this witness qua Ex.Ka-15
and PW-9 has stated that he recorded the
statement of Durgawati at her residence
which he also recorded in the Case Diary in
verbatim.
Even while recording the statement
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the statement of
Durgawati Ex.Ka-15 was put to appellant but
no explanation was given by defence.
F. Argument of counsel for the
appellant that prosecution has failed to prove
that weapon of offence recovered from the
appellant, in fact was used for commission of
offence is also without any substance. It has
come in the reports of Forensic Science
Laboratory (Ex.Ka-19 & 20) that the
cartridges sent for examination matched with
the weapon of offence and were fired upon
by the same weapon. Therefore, the
categorical finding recorded by the Forensic
Science Laboratory that disputed cartridges
marked as EC-1, EC-2 and EC-3 were fired
upon by the pistol of .32 (point three two)
bore marked as 1/10 proves that the
weapon recovered from the appellant was
used in commission of offence whereby the
accused-appellant committed murder of his
brother and caused gunshot injuries to his
mother.
G. Learned A.G.A. for the State has
rightly pointed out that Pradeep Kumar
Jaiswal (DW-2) being brother of deceased
as well as accused, after performing
marriage with PW-1, in order to save
accused, has made false statement that PW1 and PW-2 were not present at the spot.

55. In view of the above, we find
no merit in the present appeal.

56. Accordingly, this appeal is
dismissed.

57. The accused-appellant is
already in custody. He will undergo the
remaining sentence in accordance with law.

58. Record and proceedings be
sent back to the Trial Court forthwith.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 1188
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2596 of 2024

Dhananjay Singh & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Sudhir Walia (Sr. Adv.), Shri Saghir Ahmad
(Sr. Adv.), Shri Kartikeya Saran, Sri S.P. Singh,
Shri Prakash Mani Tripathi, Shri Mohd. Raghib
Ali

Counsel for the Respondent:
Shri P.C. Srivastava (Addl. A.G.), Shri J.K.
Upadhyay (A.G.A.), Shri Deepak Mishra (A.G.A.),
4 All. Dhananjay Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
1189
Shri Vikas Sahai(A.G.A.), Shri Rabindra Kumar
Singh (A.G.A.)

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 364, 386, 504, 506 & 120-B -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Sections 374(2), 389(1), 161 & 313 -
Representation of People Act, 1951 -
Section 8(3) - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -
Sections 3, 65-B & 101 - Criminal Appeal -
Suspension of Sentence - Stay of Conviction -
Kidnapping for Murder - Extortion - Intentional
Insult - Criminal Intimidation - Criminal
Conspiracy - Hostile Witnesses - Electronic
Evidence
-
Criminal
History
-
Political
Disqualification
The appellants, Dhananjay Singh and Santosh
Vikram Singh, challenged the judgment dated
05.03.2024
and
sentence
order
dated
06.03.2024 by the Additional Sessions JudgeIV/Special Judge, MP/MLA, Jaunpur, in Sessions
Trial No. 109 of 2020, convicting them under
Section 364 IPC (7 years rigorous imprisonment,
Rs.
50,000
fine,
4
months
additional
imprisonment in default), Section 386 IPC (5
years rigorous imprisonment, Rs. 25,000 fine, 3
months additional imprisonment in default),
Section 504 IPC (1 year rigorous imprisonment,
Rs.
10,000
fine,
1
month
additional
imprisonment in default), Section 506 IPC (2
years rigorous imprisonment, Rs. 15,000 fine,
45 days additional imprisonment in default), and
Section
120-B
IPC
(7
years
rigorous
imprisonment, Rs. 50,000 fine, 4 months
additional
imprisonment
in
default),
with
sentences to run concurrently. The prosecution
alleged that on 10.05.2020 at 5:30 PM, the
appellants abducted Abhinav Singhal (PW-1/CW1) to Dhananjay Singh's residence, where Singh,
armed with a pistol, abused and threatened him
to supply substandard materials for the Namami
Gange Project, supported by a WhatsApp
message, CCTV footage, and mobile location
data. The appellants sought suspension of
sentence and stay of conviction, citing false
implication due to political motives and lack of
evidence, as PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, and CW-2
turned hostile, and PW-1's Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Statementdenied the incident. Held: (1) The
application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for
suspension of sentence was allowed, and both
appellants were granted bail pending appeal,
considering the lack of substantive evidence,
hostile witnesses, and no misuse of prior bail.
(2) The prayer for stay of conviction was
rejected for appellant No. 1 (Dhananjay Singh)
due to his extensive criminal history (46 cases,
28 acquittals due to hostile witnesses, 10
pending), absence of exceptional circumstances,
and the need to prevent criminalization of
politics under Section 8(3) of the Representation
of People Act, 1951. (3) The prosecution failed
to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt,
as all fact witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3) and
CW-2 did not support the case, CCTV footage
lacked Section 65-B certification and was
unusable, and key witnesses (Mohan Lal
Singhal, Pulkit) were not examined. (4) The trial
court's findings, including an erroneous mention
of ransom, were based on presumption rather
than evidence, violating Section 101 of the
Evidence Act. (5) The appeal was listed for final
hearing after paper book preparation.

List of Cases cited:

1. Anvar P.VS Vs P.K. Basheer & ors., (2014) 10
SCC 473

2. Lallu Manjhi & Anr. Vs St. of Jharkhand,
(2003) 2 SCC 401

3. St. of Rajasthan Vs Babu Meena, (2013) 4
SCC 206

4. Afjal Ansari Vs St. of U.P., (2024) 2 SCC 187

5. Navjot Singh Sidhu Vs St. of Punj. & Anr.,
(2007) 2 SCC 574

6. Sucha Singh Langah Vs St. of Punj., Criminal
Appeal No. 40 of 2017 (decided on 05.01.2017)

7. K.C. Sareen Vs CBI, (2001) 6 SCC 584

8. Union of India Vs Atar Singh, (2003) 12 SCC
434

9. St. of Maharashtra Vs Gajanan, (2003) 12
SCC 432

10. St. of Har. Vs Hasmat, (2004) 6 SCC 175

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar
Singh, J.)
1190 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ORDER

In re: Criminal Misc. Application
(For Suspension of Sentence) Under
Section 389 (1) Cr.P.C. No. 02 of 2024

1. The above mentioned appeal
under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been
preferred by the appellants-Dhananjay Singh
and Santosh Vikram Singh against the
judgment of conviction dated 05.03.2024
and order of sentence dated 06.03.2024
passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge-IV/Special Judge, MP/MLA, Jaunpur
in Sessions Trial No. 109 of 2020 (State Vs.
Dhananjay Singh and another) arising out of
Case Crime No. 142 of 2020, Police Station
Line Bazar, District Jaunpur, convicting and
sentencing the appellants as under :-

(a)
Seven
years'
rigorous
imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50,000/- for
the offence under Section 364 I.P.C. and in
default of payment of fine, four months'
additional imprisonment.
(b)
Five
years'
rigorous
imprisonment and fine of Rs. 25,000/- for
the offence under Section 386 I.P.C. and in
default of payment of fine, three months'
additional imprisonment.
(c)
One
year's
rigorous
imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for
the offence under Section 504 I.P.C. and in
default of payment of fine, one month's
additional imprisonment.
(d)
Two
years'
rigorous
imprisonment and fine of Rs. 15,000/- for
the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. and in
default of payment of fine, forty five days'
additional imprisonment.
(e)
Seven
years'
rigorous
imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50,000/- for
the offence under Section 120-B I.P.C. and
in default of payment of fine, four months'
additional imprisonment.
However,
the
sentences
were
ordered to run concurrently.

Relief

2. By means of this application
No. 02 of 2024, a prayer has been made to
stay the operation and effect of the
judgment of conviction dated 05.03.2024
and order of sentence dated 06.03.2024 of
the appellants and enlarge them on bail
during pendency of this Criminal Appeal
before this Court.

3. Heard Shri Sudhir Walia,
learned Senior counsel, Shri Saghir Ahmad
learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri
Kartikay Saran, Shri S.P. Singh, Shri
Prakash
Mani
Tripathi
and
Shri
Mohammad Raghib Ali, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants and
Shri P.C. Srivastava, learned Additional
Advocate General assisted by Shri J.K.
Upadhyay, Shri Deepak Mishra, Shri Vikas
Sahai and Shri Rabindra Kumar Singh,
learned Additional Government Advocate
representing the State.

Brief facts

4. The emanation of facts giving
rise to the present Criminal Appeal as per
prosecution case are that on 10.05.2022 at
about 10:40 PM, an FIR was lodged by
Shri
Abhinav
Singhal,
complainant/informant
(PW-1/CW-1),
verbatim whereof is quoted here-under :-

"Sir, with due respect, I would like to
inform you that last couple of weeks back I
have got random call from (8948320530) &
Vikram Singh (9415905703) regarding to
meet Mr. Dhananjay Singh. Once I have meet
with him before Holi with Dhananjay Singh
ji at his home but his phone started again on
4 All. Dhananjay Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
1191
04.05.2020. Surprise to note that today Mr.
Vikram singh has visit our site and forcely
with his two person captured and taken to me
at Dhananjay Singh ji house when I reached.
Dhananjay Singh ji came with his black
colour pistol and using abusing words his
intention is for supply the material (aggregate
& Sand) to STP site. By forcely he has taken
my M.D. mobile no and talked to them in
front of me. They have called to UPJN
department J.E. also and asking for quality of
materials.
Mr.
Satya
Prakash
Yadav
(8115879097) told him that the quality which
they have supplied is not up to the mark
(back pto) that is why we are not in position
to place the order, more to him. Where as,
what ever they forcely send it may be
consumed in some other disposing work but
not for construction. Today at 17.30 pm
Vikram Singh along with two men with black
colour fortuner (0111) come at panchatiya
site. Finally they leave and I also leave from
there office but Vikram Singh told me that
provide your supply rate list so that he can
proceed further. The whole incident took
place in residence of Mr. Dhananjay Singh.
They forcefully want to supply quality less
material to our firm and for that they said that
they will do this under any situation. Mr.
Dhananjay Singh and his men are very hard
criminals and through his gangs and gang
members he forcefully wants to do this things
which we already denied. He has threaten me
that I and my MD and firm owner will not
accept his demand or cooperate, then he will
not leave any one I am very much afraid and
I want your help. So I kindly request you to
lodge my FIR and take stern action against
gangster Dhanjay Singh, Vikram Singh and
his men."

5. After registration of F.I.R.,
appellants were promptly arrested in the
night intervening 10/11.05.2020 at about
02:50 AM.
6. During investigation Statement
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.of Abhinav
Singhal (complainant / informant) was also
recorded on 02.07.2020, in which he has
denied the alleged incident and did not
support the prosecution case. The said
statement of the complainant is quoted as
under:-

"मैं
नमाधम
गंगे
प्रोजेक्र्
उसमें
उपम्स्र्थत प्रोजेक्र् में प्रोजेक्र् मैनेजर िूं। हदनांक
10 मई 2020 को वििम जी के सार्थ पूिज सांसद
िनंजय धसंि के घर गया र्था ििां पर एक जन
धिकायत के धसिधसिे में गया र्था। िाकडाउन
की िजि से मेरे पास कार न िोने की िजि से
सांसद जी ने वििम को कार िेकर मेरे पास
भेजा र्था। ििां पर जाने के बाद िमारी क्िाधिर्ी
को िेकर िाताजिाप िुई और मैंने उनको असोरेंस
हदया हक िम अच्िी क्िाधिर्ी का काम करेंगे।
उसके बाद उन्िोंने मुझे जिां से वपकअप हकया
र्था ििीं पर िुडिा हदया ड्यूररंग हदस र्ेम्क्नकि
हडसकसन मेरे पर कोई दबाि निीं डािा गया, न
िी गािी गिौज की गयी और न िी मेरा
अपिरण हकया गया मैंने एम.डी. और कमपनी
के सीधनयर के किने पर मैं S.P. सािेब के पास
बताने गया र्था सारा प्रकरण क्या र्था, पता निीं
मेरे सीधनयर के हदमाग में क्या र्था मुझे निीं
मािूम। S.P. सािेब ने मुझे हदनेि कुमार पाण्डे
के पास भेजा, जो S.H.O. िैं ििां पे। S.H.O. ने
मुझे 03 घंर्े-04 घंर्े तक मुझे बैठा कर रखा। मेरे
ऊपर S.H.O. ने दबाि बनाया हक आप कमपिेंर्
धिखो। हफर मुझे हडक्र्ेर् करके कमपिेंर्
धिखिाया म्जसको बाद में उन्िोंने FIR में दजज
कर हदया। अगिे हदन11.05.2020 को मुझे
1192 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
सोिि मीहडया से पता चिा हक सांसद जी की
धगरफ्तारी ढाई बजे िुई। मेरे सार्थ कुि भी ऐसा
निीं िुआ जो मैं सांसद जी के म्खिाफ FIR या
कमपिेंर् करूं। मेरे ऊपर कोई दबाि निीं िै और
मैंने 11.05.2020 को िी पर्त्र S.P. सािेब को हदया
र्था हक मैंने कोई कमपिेंर् निीं हदया र्था उसके
बारे में मैंने अफीडेविर् भी हदया िै। मुझे और
कुि निीं किना िै।"

7. After culmination of the
investigation, Shri Kaushlendra Pratap
Singh, first Investigating Officer/PW-4
filed final/closer report No. 83 of 2020
dated 03.07.2020 after recording his
conclusion in the case diary that no crime
was found to have been committed, on
which Circle Officer, City Jaunpur made
objection
and
directed
for
further
investigation.

8.

On
26.07.2020,
further
investigation was handed over to Mr. Jai
Prakash
Singh-second
Investigating
Officer/PW-6, who after further investigation,
submitted Charge sheet No. 228 of 2020
dated 05.08.2020 under Sections 364, 386,
504, 506 and 120-B I.P.C. against appellants
Dhananjay Singh and Santosh Vikram Singh,
on which learned C.J.M., Jaunpur took
cognizance
on
06.08.2020
and
on
14.08.2020, the case was committed to the
Court of Sessions for trial.

9. On 02.04.2022, charges under
Sections 364, 386, 504, 506 and 120-B
I.P.C. were framed against the appellants,
which reads as under:-

"1. यि हक हदनांक-10.05.2020 को
समय करीब 17.30 बजे घर्नास्र्थि पचिहर्या
र्थाना िाइन भाजार जनपद जौनपुर में आप
िोगों ने अपने सबके सामान्य आिय के
अिसारण में िादी मुकदमा अधभनि धसंिि की
ित्या करने के आिय से अपिरण कर ऐसे
व्यधनत हकया हक िि अपनी ित्या िोने के
खतरे में पड जाये। इस प्रकार आप िोगों ने ऐसा
अपराि काररत हकया, जो िारा-364 भ०दं०सं०
के अिीन दण्डनीय िै और इस न्यायािय के
प्रसंज्ञान में िै।
2. यि हक उपरोि समय हदनांक स्र्थान
पर आप िोगों ने अपने सबके सामान्य आिय
के अिसारण में िादी मुकदमा अधभनि धसंिि
को मृत्यु या घोर उपिधत के भय में डािकर
उद्दापन कर ऐसा अपराि काररत हकया िै। जो
िारा-386 भा०दं०सं० के अंतगजत दण्डनीय िै
और इस न्यायािय के प्रसंज्ञान में िै।
3. यि हक उपरोि हदनांक, समय ि
स्र्थान पर आप िोगों ने अपने सबके सामान्य
आिय के अिसारणमें िादी मुकदमा अधभनि
धसंिि को भद्दी-भद्दी गाधियां देकर िासय
अपमाधनत हकया। इस प्रकार आप िोगों ने एक
ऐसा अपराि काररत हकया िै। जो िारा-504
भा०दं०सं० के अंतगजत दण्डनीय िै और इस
न्यायािय के प्रसंझान में िै।
4. यि हक उपरोि हदनांक, समय ि
स्र्थान पर आप िोगों ने अपने सबके सामान्य
आिय के अिसारण में िादी मुकदमा अधभनि
धसंिि को जान से मारने की िमकी देकर ऐसा
अपराि काररत हकया िै, जो िारा-506
भा०दं०सं० के अंतगजत दण्डनीय िै और इस
न्यायािय के प्रसंज्ञान में िै।
4 All. Dhananjay Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
1193
5. यि हक उपरोि हदनांक समय ि
स्र्थान पर आप िोगों ने अपने अज्ञात
सियोधगयों के सार्थ धमिकर पूिज धनयोम्जत
योजनानुसार िादी मुकदमा अधभनि धसंिि का
अपिरण कर मृत्यु या घोर उपिधत में डािकर
उद्दापन करने का आपराधिक षडयन्र्त्र रचकर
ऐसा अपराि हकये िै, जो िारा-120 बी भा०दं०सं०
के अंतगजत दण्डनीय िै और जो इस न्यायािय के
प्रसंज्ञान में िै।"
The appellants denied the charges
and claimed to be tried.

10. Before the Trial Court, following
three prosecution witnesses of the fact and
three formal prosecution witnesses were
produced to prove the charges against the
appellants :

The prosecution witnesses of fact
(i)
PW-1
Abhinav
Singhal
(Complainant)
(ii) PW-2 Satya Prakash Yadav
(iii) PW-3 Harendra Pal
The formal prosecution witnesses
(i) PW-4 Kaishlendra Pratap Singh(
First Investigating Officer)
(ii) PW-5 Anil Kumar Yadav
(iii)
PW-6
Jai
Prakash Yadav
(Second Investigating Officer)
Following three witnesses were also
summoned and examined before the trial
court including the complainant (PW-1)
The Court Witnesses
(i) CW-1 Abhinav Singhal (PW-1)
(ii) CW-2 Vinod Kumar Singh
(owner of Fortuner Car)
(iii) CW-3 Dinesh Prakash Pandey
(S.H.O.,P.S. Line Bazar)

11. On behalf of prosecution,
following
thirteen
documents
were
produced and exhibited before the trial
Court.

i-Written Complaint (Ext. Ka-1).
ii-CCTV
footage
Certificate
(Ext.Ka-2).
iii-Site Plan (Ext. Ka-3).
iv-Site Plan (Ext. Ka-4).
v- First Information Report (Ext.
Ka-5).
vi-General Diary No. 40 regarding
registration of case (Ext.Ka-6).
vii-Charge Sheet (Ext. Ka-7).
viii-Statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. of
the complainant (Ext. Ka-8).
ix-Letter
dated
14.05.2020
of
complainant sent to S.H.O, Line Bazar
(Ext. Ka-9).
x-Letter
dated
26.05.2020
of
complainant sent to District Magistrate,
Jaunpur (Ext. Ka-10).
xi-Affidavit dated 26.05.2020 of
complainant sent to District Magistrate,
Jaunpur (Ext. Ka.11).
xii-Letter dated 27.05.2020 of
complainant sent to District Magistrate,
Jaunpur (Ext.Ka.12).
xiii-G.D. Entry No. 003 dated
11.05.2020
made
at
05:02
O'clock
regarding arrest of appellants at 02:50 am
(Ext. Ka.13)

12. Five C.D.s of CCTV footage
have been exhibited as (Material Ext-1) to
(Material Ext-5).

13. The statements of accusedappellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were
recorded on 05.11.2022 and their additional
statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were
recorded on 13.02.2024, in which they have
denied the allegations levelled against them.

Submissions on behalf of the
appellants
1194 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
14. Main substratum of argument
of learned counsel for the appellants is that
the appellants have been falsely implicated
due to political reasons by fabricating and
getting false case registered against the by
the police. It is a case of no evidence
against the appellants. The impugned
judgment and order of the trial court are
illegal and based on perverse findings,
which are apparent on the face of record
itself. The presumption drawn and findings
recorded by the trial Court while convicting
and sentencing the appellants by the
impugned judgment and order dated
05.03.2020/06.03.2024 are in complete
disregard to the provisions of Cr.P.C. and
Evidence Act, hence the same are not
sustainable in the eye of law. Appellants
have been convicted on the basis of
presumption / imagination without any
legal evidence admissible under the law.
The Trial Court has failed to appreciate that
ingredients
to
constitute
the
offence
punishable under Sections 364, 386,504,
506 and 120-B IPC are lacking in this case.
Learned counsel for the appellants, in order
to strengthen the aforesaid submissions,
further argued that:-

14.1. As per prosecution case,
alleged incident as mentioned in the F.I.R.
took place on 10.05.2020 at 5:30 PM and
F.I.R. was lodged on 10.05.2020 at 10.40
PM without any preliminary enquiry
against appellant No.1 Dhananjay Singh,
who has been MLA twice and MP once and
appellant No.2 Santosh Vikram Singh.
Thereafter police in a pre-planned manner
promptly arrested them at 02:50 AM in the
night intervening 10/11.05.2020.
14.2. Referring the applications
dated
12.05.2020,
13.05.2020
and
26.05.2020 (Ext. Ka-10) as well as affidavit
dated 26.05.2020 (Ext. Ka-11) of the
complainant,
it
is
submitted
that
complainant has stated inter alia that on the
direction
of
M.L.Singhal,
Managing
Director of the company 'Pulkit Project
Pvt. Ltd', he met Superintendent of Police,
Jaunpur on 10.05.2020, who sent him to
S.H.O. Police Station Line Bazar. When he
went there, Dinesh Prakash Pandey, Station
House Officer made him to sit for about
three hours and dictated a complaint
against the appellants and obtained his
signature putting pressure on him. On the
next day when he came to know that
Dhananjay Singh, Ex MP was arrested on
his F.I.R., he was shocked. Thereafter, he
personally met Superintendent of Police,
Jaunpur and also wrote an application to
him
on
12.05.2020.
When
nothing
happened, then he also sent an application
to the Chief Minister stating true facts.
Thereafter complainant sent a letter dated
26.05.2020
and
his
affidavit
dated
26.05.2020 to District Magistrate, Jaunpur
disclosing all the true facts making
allegation against S.H.O. Dinesh Prakesh
Pandey (CW-3) that he did not allow him to
leave his house and to meet his advocate
and to give any application before Sessions
Judge. The complainant also disclosed that
S.H.O. Dinesh Prakash Pandey pressurized
him to leave district Jaunpur and to go to
his native home at Muzaffarnagar for some
time.
14.3. The case of the prosecution is
that on 14.05.2020 security was provided to
the complainant is wrong on the face of
record. In fact after getting false F.I.R.
registered by the S.H.O. Police Station Line
Bazar, local security was given to the
complainant on 10.05.2020 itself.
14.4. The complainant before the
Trial Court clearly stated that after
registration of F.I.R., his statement was not
recorded by the inspector. When statement
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was read out to
the complainant, after listening to it he said
4 All. Dhananjay Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
1195
that I had not given any such statement to
the Inspector.
14.5. The
complainant-Abhinav
Singhal in his statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C. dated 02.07.2020, did not utter
anything against the appellants so far as
commission
of
alleged
offence
is
concerned. He has not supported the
prosecution case rather he disclosed the
true facts. He also proved his statement
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in accordance
with law. There is full consistency and
corroboration
in
the
complainant's
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and his
statement recorded before the trial Court as
PW-1 and CW-1.
14.6. All the three prosecution
witnesses of the fact namely Abhinav
Singhal,
complainant
(PW-1),
Satya
Prakash Yadav (PW-2), Harendra Pal (PW3) have not supported the prosecution case
and completely denied the alleged incident
stating
true
facts.
The
informant
/
complainant Abhinav Singhal (PW-1) has
also been examined as CW-1 but again he
has not supported the prosecution case.
Vinod Kumar Singh who is owner of
Fortuner Car, has been examined as CW-2,
but he also did not support the prosecution
case.
14.7. There is no substantive
evidence against the appellants to prove
their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, even
then the Trial Court has convicted and
sentenced the appellants on the basis of
wrong presumption and placing reliance
upon police papers created by the police in
order to falsely implicate the appellants,
broken CD of CCTV footages and the
statements under Sections 161 Cr.P.C.
which are not a substantive piece of
evidence and can be used only for
corroboration.
14.8. The fact and issue so far
commission
of
alleged
offence
are
concerned, are relevant, but those facts
have not been duly proved by the
prosecution witnesses beyond reasonable
doubt.
14.9. Referring the investigation
part, it is pointed out that initially, a final /
closure report dated 03.07.2020 was
submitted by the first investigating officerKaushlendra Pratap Singh (PW-4) but on
the direction of the then Circle Officer,
further investigation was handed over to
second investigating officer on 26.07.2020
on the ground that statements of Mohan Lal
Singhal (MD) and Pulkit (employee of STP,
Namami Gangey Project) have not been
recorded,
the
CCTV
footage
dated
10.05.2020 has not been enclosed along
with case diary, audio clip of conversation
between complainant Abhinav Singhal and
Mohan Lal Singhal has not been recovered
and sent to forensic labortory, Lucknow
and did not trace the owner of vehicle No.
UP50 AJ 0111, but the second investigating
officer, except to trace the owner of vehicle
in question, also did nothing.
14.10. The ingredients of mens rea
and actus-reus, which are pre-requisite
conditions for commission of an offence
are lacking in the present case.
14.11. So far as electronic evidence
is concerned, there is neither any Forensic
Science Laboratory Report nor required
certificates under Section 65-B of Indian
Evidence Act are on record, hence, the
same cannot be taken into consideration in
view of the judgment of the Apex Court in
the case of Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer
and Ors., (2014) 10 SCC 473
14.12. The trial court, without any
evidence on record, gave finding of
demand of ransom on his own, whereas
prosecution case is otherwise. It is further
submitted that imagination is not an
evidence in accordance with Section 3 of
Evidence Act, hence, in view of Section
1196 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
101 of the Evidence Act, the trial court
cannot set up another story other than
prosecution case.
14.13. There is no direct evidence
of facts in issue nor any circumstances in
order to prove alleged guilt of the
appellants.
14.14. There is no evidence of
extending any influence by the appellants
over the prosecution witnesses.
14.15. With regard to whatsapp
message alleged to have been sent by PW-1
to PW-3, it is argued that the said whatsapp
message
was
not
collected
during
investigation. Even during trial, no question
was put to the Investigating Officers
regarding non collection of said whatsapp
message.
14.16. The prosecution could not
prove the allegation of abduction of
complainant
against
the
appellants.
Stretching his submissions, it is further
submitted that when the offence of
abduction is not made out, then all other
offences automatically abolish.
14.17. Referring the internal page
no. 42 of the judgment, it is submitted that
the trial court has recorded a wrong finding
that
"the
statement
made
by
the
complainant that the accused have not
committed any crime was made long after
the incident. This appears to have been
done under duress while the evidence on
file is contrary." In this regard it is further
pointed out that on 11.05.2020 when the
complainant came to know about the
registration of false F.I.R., he on the very
next day sent an application on 12.05.2020
to Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur and
application dated 13.05.2020 to Chief
Minister of State of U.P. denying the
incident by stating true facts.
14.18. Much emphasis has been
given by contending that the accused
appellants cannot be convicted either on the
basis of evidence of formal witnesses or
material exhibits. The accused-appellants
also cannot be held guilty on the basis of
corroborative evidence.
14.19. The materials produced by
the prosecution to prove the prosecution
case do not inspire confidence.
14.20. It is well settled that
according to Section 231 of Cr.P.C. and
Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act, the
burden of proof of the charges against the
accused is on the prosecution, which could
not be proved by the prosecution witnesses
of fact in the present case.
14.21. The appellant No.1 is a
political person. Referring the statement of
the P.W.2, it is pointed out that P.W.-2
(Satya Prakash) in his statement before the
Trial Court has stated inter alia that
Dhananjay Singh is a popular leader of the
District. Some people go to his place to
make complaint. He used to visit various
public representative in respect of public
complaints. In this matter, I had already
given an affidavit on 29.05.2020 before the
Court out of his own freewill. The
complainant
told
him
that no
such
untoward incident had happened with him.
The conversation took place in a very
dignified manner.
14.22. Referring the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of Lallu
Manjhi and Another vs. State of
Jharkhand, (2003) 2 SCC 401, and in the
case of State of Rajasthan vs. Babu
Meena, (2013) 4 SCC 206, it is also argued
that the statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C. of the accused-appellants has not
been recorded in the light of guideline laid
down by the Apex Court. The relevant
paragraph no.14 of the judgment of Lallu
Manjhi (Supra) is quoted here as under:-
"14. Incidentally, it may also be
stated that the manner in which the Trial
Court has recorded the statements of the
4 All. Dhananjay Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
1197
accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is far from
satisfactory. The entire prosecution case
running into very many details has been
summed up into just 5 questions asked to
each of the accused persons. It is
obligatory on the part of the Trial Court to
examine the accused for the purpose of
enabling the accused personally to explain
any circumstances appearing in evidence
against him. If such opportunity is not
afforded, the incriminating pieces of
evidence available in the prosecution
evidence cannot be relied on for the
purpose of recording conviction of the
accused persons."
14.23. Lastly it is submitted that the
appellant No.1 has been convicted only in
the present case. Referring and relying on
the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the cases of Afjal Ansari vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 2 SCC 187,
Navjot Singh Sidhu vs. State of Punjab
and Anr. (2007) 2 SCC 574 and Sucha
Singh Lanagh vs. State of Punjab,
Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2017 arising out
of SLP (Crl.) No. 5 of 2017, it is submitted
that appellant No.1 has been a Member of
the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly
twice and a Member of Parliament once.
He wants to contest the elections of
Member
of
Parliament,
2024.
The
notification
has
already
been
issued
notifying the schedule for 'Lok-Sabha
elections 2024' and last date of filing of
nomination
papers
for
Member
of
Parliament, Jaunpur is to begin from
29.04.2024 to 05.05.2024. In case, the
impugned conviction of the appellant No.1
is not stayed, he will be deprived of his
right to contest Lok-Sabha election 2024 in
view of the Section 8(3) of Representation
of People Act,1951. Much emphasis has
been given by contending that in case of
irreversible situation of acquittal in future,
the loss of the appellant No.1 cannot be
compensated. If he misses the bus, the time
will not come back and the clock will not
turn back.

Submissions on behalf of the
State

15. On the other hand, it is argued
on behalf of the State that :-

15.1. The F.I.R. of the incident was
promptly lodged by the complainant
Abhinav Shinghal on 10.05.2020 at 10:40
PM with regard to incident of same day,
which took place at 5:30 PM. Appellants
are named accused in the F.I.R. The
complainant during trial, has proved his
signature on the F.I.R. (Ext.Ka.1).
15.2.
On
10.05.2020,
when
complainant was abducted, he sent a
whatsapp message to Harendra Pal (PW-3)
that "Dhananjay Singh ke aadmi muzhai un
ka ghar per le ker aya hai. Inform to pulkit
sir immediately".
15.3. After two days of the
incident, the complainant started giving
application from 12.05.2020 changing his
version under the pressure, fear and
influence of the appellants.
15.4. On 10.05.2020, complainant
was also provided security and thereafter,
on his demand/letter dated 14.05.2020
(Ext.Ka-9), he was also provided security
to go to his native place Muzaffar Nagar.
15.5. Referring the G.D. No. 003
dated 11.05.2020 at 05:02 O'clock (Ext.Ka13), it is submitted that a black coloured
fortuner Car no. UP-50-AJ-0111 was also
recovered from the resident of Dhananjai
Singh at the time of his arrest.
15.6. The complainant in his letter
dated
12.05.2020
addressed
to
the
Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur stated
inter alia that "the complaint was given by
me on exaggerated facts as my mental
1198 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
condition was not good and I was in some
pressure", therefore it cannot be said that
the complainant had not lodged F.I.R.
15.7.
There
are
material
contradictions regarding the complainant's
stand that Dhananjay Singh was talking to
Mohan Lal Singhal, MD over telephone. In
this regard, it is further pointed out that
complainant in his letter dated 13.05.2020
addressed to the Chief Minister and
affidavit dated 26.05.2020 (Ext. Ka-11) has
stated inter-alia that Dhananjay Singh had
talked with owner (MD) of my company
over telephone but when the complainant
was examined as PW-1 on 15.04.2022, he
in his cross-examination has stated that it is
wrong to say that Dhananjay Singh, after
taking the mobile number of MD of his
company, talked him in his presence.
15.8. The investigating officer had
collected CCTV footage of the spot and
Harendra Pal (PW-3) had also given
certificate dated 11.05.2020 (Ext. Ka-2)
mentioning that he is posted on the post of
Supervisor in M/s SPML Pulkit Project Pvt.
Ltd. and no interpolation has been done in
the CCTV footage installed at the working
site.
15.9. During investigation, the
location of mobile number 9968872016 at
17:17:06 hours and 17:32:59 hours, used by
the
complainant,
was
found
near
Gurudwara Ras Mandal, Jaunpur, then
Jessis Chauraha, Bus Stand, then Chandra
Hotel, Oland Ganj and thereafter near the
site in question again via the same route, as
such, it was proved from the location of the
complainant tjat je was near the house of
Dhananjai Singh at the time of incident.
15.10. It is fairly admitted that
investigation of this case has not been done
properly by the investigating officers. In
this regard it is submitted that the accused
appellants cannot take benefit of the faulty
investigation.
15.11. Much emphasis has been
given by contending that considering the
facts and circumstances of the case in
totality, only conclusion can be drawn that
the complainant and other prosecution
witnesses have been won over.
15.12. Referring the list of criminal
history of the appellant No.1 enclosed as
Annexure No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit
dated 22.04.2024 filed on behalf of the
State and S.A-1 to the Supplementary
Affidavit dated 20.04.2024 filed on behalf
of appellants, it is submitted that the
appellant No.1 has long criminal history of
46 cases including heinous offences, out of
which in 28 cases, appellant No.1 has been
acquitted as the witnesses turned hostile
due to fear of accused Dhananjay Singh. It
is also submitted that due to terror of
appellant No.1, no one dares to depose
against him.
15.13. Lastly it is submitted that the
trial court considering all aspects of the
matter, rightly convicted the appellants,
therefore, the relief as sought by the
appellants by means of this Criminal
Appeal is liable to be rejected.

Issue

16. Having heard the submissions
of learned counsel for the parties at
length and examined the matter in its
entirety, I find that in view of the interim
relief as sought by means of above
mentioned Criminal Misc. Application
Under Section 389 (1) Cr.P.C., at this
stage, this Court is only required to
consider the following two prayer of the
appellants
for
interim
relief
during
pendency of this Criminal Appeal :-

(a) Suspension of Sentence
(b) Stay of operation and effect of
judgment of conviction
4 All. Dhananjay Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
1199

Discussion & Conclusion about
suspension of sentence

17. Following facts which emerge
from the record and are not in dispute are
as follows :-

17.1. All the three prosecution
witnesses (PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3) of fact
as well as two court witnesses (CW-1 and
CW-2) did not support the prosecution case
and they denied the incident in the manner
as alleged in the F.I.R., hence, they have
been declared hostile by the trial court.
17.2. Neither the statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Mohan Lal Singhal,
M.D. of the company nor Pulkit (employee
of STP, Namami Gangey Project) was
recorded nor they were produced by the
prosecution before the trial court whereas
they were material witnesses who could
throw some light on the prosecution case.
17.3. Anil Kumar (PW-5), who
registered the F.I.R., in his statement has
stated inter-alia that he had registered F.I.R.
on the direction of Dinesh Prakash Pandey,
S.H.O., Line Bazar, Jaunpur.
17.4. Despite serious allegation of
the complainant against Dinesh Prakash
Pandey, S.H.O., Line Bazar, Jaunpur that
he dictated the complaint and obtained
complainant's signature under pressure, he
was not produced by the prosecution as
prosecution
witness.
Later
he
was
summoned and examined as CW-3 by the
trial Court, who supported the prosecution
case.
17.5. No incriminating material like
mobile
phones,
conversation
between
complainant and M.L. Singhal (M.D. of the
company) etc. have been collected.
17.6. Though the prosecution has
collected five CCTV footages, but there is
no certificate under Section 65-B of the
evidence Act with regard to all CCTV
footages,
which
are
essential
for
considering the electronic evidence. Even
all the CCTV footages (Material Ext-1 to
Material
Ext-5)
produced
by
the
prosecution before the trial court were
useless as the same were produced by the
prosecution in a broken condition which
were not able to play.
17.7. As per the prosecution case,
main allegation against the appellants is
that they, through gang members, by hook
or by crook adopting different modus
operandi forcibly wanted to supply quality
less materials (Aggregate, Sand, Ballast,
Morang etc.) to the firm in question in the
project which was being run in village
Pachatiya, district Jaunpur at that time
under "Namami Gangey Project Scheme".
There is no allegation of demand of any
ransom by the accused-appellants from the
complainant but the trial court, at internal
page no. 37 of the judgment, has recorded
an erroneous finding mentioning that from
the evidence on record, it is clear that the
complainant and Satya Prakash Yadav were
called by the accused and after giving
threat to Mohan Lal Singhal on phone, a
ransom was demanded.
17.8. The statements U/s 313
Cr.P.C. of the accused appellants have been
recorded on 05.11.2022 and 13.02.2024.
The relevant part of the statement of the
appellants relating to their defence is as
under:-
A. The appellant No.1 in his
statement dated 05.11.2022 under Section
313 Cr.P.C. has taken stand inter alia that
there was gross irregularity in the S.T.P.
work, which was opposed by him on
receiving complaint. The complainant -
Abhinav Singhal came to his place
voluntarily. Earlier also he used to come.
He has nothing to do with the case. He has
been implicated because of his fight against
corruption. Public money is being misused.
1200 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The appellant No.2 in his statement dated
05.11.2022 under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has
stated inter alia that he is innocent and
false case has been registered against
him.
B. The appellant No.1 in his
statement dated 13.02.2024 under Section
313 Cr.P.C. has stated inter alia that F.I.R.
is false, complainant did not give such
statement as mentioned in the F.I.R.
Wrong action has been taken by the
Investigating Officer. Case has been
registered due to political malice. He is
innocent and was not involved in the
alleged crime. He has been implicated
due to political malice on raising his
voice against corruption. The appellant
No.2 in his statement dated 13.02.2024
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated inter
alia that case has been registered against
him due to enmity. He is innocent.
17.9.