# Pappu @ Dhani Ram v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 1269
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-20
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2009
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pappu-dhani-ram-v-state-of-u-p-51561
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law
-
Appeal
against
conviction under Gangsters Act - The Uttar
Pradesh
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention)
Act,
1986
-
Sections 2(b) - Gang, Section 2(c) -
Gangster, Section 3(1) - Penalty - Onus is
upon prosecution to prove the different
ingredients of offence and unless it
discharges that onus, it cannot succeed -
suspicion howsoever strong cannot take
place of proof - Falsity of defence does not
establish prosecution case - Prosecution is
to prove his case beyond all reasonable
doubt whereas accused is to prove only till
establishing
preponderance
of
probabilities in. (Para - 17 to 20)

(B) Evidence Law - act or action of one of
the accused cannot be used as evidence
against another - Exception under Section
10 of Evidence Act - Court must have
reasonable ground to believe that two or
more persons had conspired together for
committing an offence - only that the
evidence of action or statement made by
one of the accused could be used as
evidence against the other.(Para -12)

(C) Criminal Law - The Uttar Pradesh
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986 - In order to
attract the substantive offence of Section
3 of the Gangsters Act, the ingredients as
provided in the definition of the word
"Gang" under Section 2(b) and that of
word "Gangster" under Section 2(c) are to
be fulfilled. (Para -15)

Appellant convicted under Section 3(1) of
Gangsters Act - Six criminal cases shown against
appellant in gang chart - challenged conviction
and sentence - Prosecution relied on police and
official witnesses - no independent public
witnesses -conviction was based on insufficient
evidence - appellant not a member of any gang
or involved in anti-social activities - No evidence
of violence, threat, or show of violence - No
recovery of property or valuable things from
appellant - Sanction by District Magistrate was
without application of mind.
(Para - 2,3, 24
to 27)

HELD: -
Prosecution failed to prove essential ingredients
of offence under Section 3(1) of the Act beyond
reasonable doubt. Judgment of trial Court was
not substantiated with evidence on record and
prosecution was not successful to prove the fact
against convict appellant. Impugned judgment
and order of conviction set aside. Appellant
acquitted of all the charges. (Para,30,31)

Appeal allowed. (E-7)

LIST OF CASES CITED: -

## Text

3 All. Pappu @ Dhani Ram Vs. State of U.P.
1269

71. The Office is directed to assign a
regular number to this Appeal.
72. Admit.

73. List after exchange of pleadings
on 10.04.2024.

74. Till the next date of listing, the
impugned order dated 13.12.2023 shall
remain stayed.)
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1269
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2009

Pappu @ Dhani Ram ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Rajendra Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate

(A)
Criminal
Law
-
Appeal
against
conviction under Gangsters Act - The Uttar
Pradesh
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention)
Act,
1986
-
Sections 2(b) - Gang, Section 2(c) -
Gangster, Section 3(1) - Penalty - Onus is
upon prosecution to prove the different
ingredients of offence and unless it
discharges that onus, it cannot succeed -
suspicion howsoever strong cannot take
place of proof - Falsity of defence does not
establish prosecution case - Prosecution is
to prove his case beyond all reasonable
doubt whereas accused is to prove only till
establishing
preponderance
of
probabilities in. (Para - 17 to 20)

(B) Evidence Law - act or action of one of
the accused cannot be used as evidence
against another - Exception under Section
10 of Evidence Act - Court must have
reasonable ground to believe that two or
more persons had conspired together for
committing an offence - only that the
evidence of action or statement made by
one of the accused could be used as
evidence against the other.(Para -12)

(C) Criminal Law - The Uttar Pradesh
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986 - In order to
attract the substantive offence of Section
3 of the Gangsters Act, the ingredients as
provided in the definition of the word
"Gang" under Section 2(b) and that of
word "Gangster" under Section 2(c) are to
be fulfilled. (Para -15)

Appellant convicted under Section 3(1) of
Gangsters Act - Six criminal cases shown against
appellant in gang chart - challenged conviction
and sentence - Prosecution relied on police and
official witnesses - no independent public
witnesses -conviction was based on insufficient
evidence - appellant not a member of any gang
or involved in anti-social activities - No evidence
of violence, threat, or show of violence - No
recovery of property or valuable things from
appellant - Sanction by District Magistrate was
without application of mind.
(Para - 2,3, 24
to 27)

HELD: -
Prosecution failed to prove essential ingredients
of offence under Section 3(1) of the Act beyond
reasonable doubt. Judgment of trial Court was
not substantiated with evidence on record and
prosecution was not successful to prove the fact
against convict appellant. Impugned judgment
and order of conviction set aside. Appellant
acquitted of all the charges. (Para,30,31)

Appeal allowed. (E-7)

LIST OF CASES CITED: -

1. Ashok Kumar Dixit Vs St. of U.P., 1987 (24)
ACC 164 (FB)

2. Saju Vs St. of Kerala, AIR 2001 SC 175
1270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3. Ram Raheesh Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2011 (73)
ACC 559

4. Kali Ram Vs St. of H.P., AIR 1973 SC 2773

5. St. of Punj. Vs Bhajan Singh, AIR 1975 SC
258

6. Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit Vs St. of Maha.,
AIR 1981 SC 765

7. Pratap Vs St. of U.P.; AIR 1976 SC 966

8. Narbada Prasad Vs Chhaganlal & ors.; AIR
1969 SC 395

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J)

1. This Appeal under Section 374(2)
Cr.P.C. has been filed by convict appellant-
Pappu @ Dhani Ram against judgment of
conviction dated 08.12.2008 passed by
learned Special Judge, Gangster Act,
Lucknow in Case No.90 of 1998, State Vs.
Birju and Others, Case Crime No.78 of
1997, Police Station Fatehpur Chaurasi,
District Unnao, convicting and sentencing
the appellant under Section 3(1) of The
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 for two
years
and
six
months
rigorous
imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/-
with default stipulations.

2. Learned counsel for convict
appellant argued that the appellant had been
convicted and sentenced with two years'
rigorous
imprisonment
and
fine
of
Rs.5,000/- and in default with further
imprisonment of one month, which was a
severe sentence, against the evidence on
record. Trial Court failed to appreciate facts
and evidence placed before it, resulting this
perversity. He further argued that six
criminal cases were shown as criminal
history against appellant in gang chart.
There was no independent witness of
public to prove prosecution case, except
police and official witnesses, who were
examined before trial Court. The convict
appellant is neither member of any gang
nor he had worked as gangster. There was
no anti-social activities of him. No credible
evidence
was
there.
Hence,
offence
punishable under Section 3(1) of the Act
was not made out. Even then, charge sheet
was submitted and judgment of conviction
with sentence, as above, was passed.
Hence, this appeal with above prayer.

3. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently
opposed the contentions raised by learned
counsel for the appellant and submitted that
the trial court has rightly appreciated facts
and law, placed before it in correct
perspective of law. After approval of
District Magistrate, Unnao, gang chart,
having six cases lodged against appellant
including Case Crime No.177/1993, under
Section
395/397
I.P.C.,
Case
Crime
No.377/1997, under Section 307 I.P.C.,
Case Crime No.422/1993, under Sections
147/148/307
I.P.C.,
Case
Crime
No.167/1995, under Sections 147/148/302
I.P.C., Case Crime No.269/1996, under
Section 302 I.P.C. and Case Crime
No.56/1997, under Section 307 I.P.C., was
in gang chart and on the basis of above
gang chart this Case Crime No. 78 of 1997,
under Section 3 of the Act got registered
and investigated, resulting submission of
charge sheet. Accused person pleaded not
guilty and claimed for trial for the charges
leveled against him. Prosecution had
examined its witnesses, who had proved
prosecution case beyond doubt and on the
basis of those cogent evidence, judgment of
conviction with sentence, as above, was
passed. Hence, this appeal is baseless.

4. Heard learned counsel for the
parties as well as perused the impugned
judgment and trial court record.
3 All. Pappu @ Dhani Ram Vs. State of U.P.
1271

5. Before entering into merits of the
case, it would be relevant to discuss
Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as
"the Act").

6. Section 2(b) of the Act provides
definition of Gang:-

"'Gang'
means
a
group
of
persons, who acting either singly or
collectively, by violence, or threat or show
of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or
otherwise with the object of disturbing
public order or of gaining any undue
temporal, pecuniary, material or other
advantage for himself or any other person,
indulge in anti- social activities, namely-

(i) offences punishable under
Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter
XXII of the Indian Penal Code (Act No. 45
of 1860), or

.........."

7. Who is gangster. This was decided
by Full Bench of this Court in Ashok
Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P., 1987 (24)
ACC 164 (FB) that Clause (c) of Section 2
defines the word "Gangster". It means a
member or leader or organizer of a group
which indulges in the kind of activities set
out under the various sub-clauses of clause
(b) of Section 2, by use of violence or
threat or show of violence or intimidation
etc.

8. The term "gangster" has been
defined in Section 2(c) and it means a
member or leader or organizer of a gang,
and includes any person who in the
activities of the gang enumerated in clauses
(b) whether before or after the commission
of such activities or harbours any person
who indulges in such activity.

9. Gangsterism is aimed at creating
special organizations and groups to commit
murder, use violence and take people for a
ransom
or
other
demands,
forcible
deprivation of freedom often involving
torture, black-marketing, etc. Gangsterism
could also mean the destruction of
buildings, ransacking and similar acts in a
cruel manner to terrorize the people.

10. Section 3 of the Act provides
penalty.

"Penalty.-(1) A gangster, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which shall not be
less than two years and which may extend
to ten years and also with fine which shall
not be less than five thousand rupees:

Provided that a gangster who
commits an offence against the person of a
public servant or the person of a member of
the family of a public servant shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which shall not be
less than three years and also with fine
which shall not be less than five thousand
rupees."

(2) Whoever being a public
servant renders any illegal help or support
in any manner to a gangster, whether
before or after the commission of any
offence by the gangster (whether by himself
of through others) or abstains from taking
lawful measures or intentionally avoids to
carry out the directions of any Court or of
his superiors officers, in this respect, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
1272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ten years but shall not be less than three
years and also with fine."

11. This Act provides special rules of
evidence under Section 4. Hence the object
of legislation for enactment of Uttar
Pradesh
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (U.P. Act
No. 7 of 1986 (as passed by the U.P.
Legislature) was an Act to make special
provisions for the prevention of, and for
coping with, gangsters and anti-social
activities
and
for
matters
connected
therewith or incidental thereto.

12. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in
Saju v. State of Kerala, AIR 2001 SC 175
has propounded at para 8 that in a criminal
case the onus lies on the prosecution to
prove affirmatively that the accused was
directly and presently connected with the
acts or omissions attributable to the crime
committed by him. It is a settled position of
law that act or action of one of the accused
cannot be used as evidence against another.
However, an exception has been carved out
under Section 10 of the Evidence Act, the
Court must have reasonable ground to
believe that two or more persons had
conspired together for committing an
offence. It is only that the evidence of
action or statement made by one of the
accused could be used as evidence against
the other.

13. In order to attract the provisions
of Section 2/3 of the Act, the essential
requirements are being enumerated below:-

(i) There should be a group of
persons, who acting singly or collectively;

(ii) By violence or threat or show
of violence or intimidation or coercion or
otherwise;

(iii) With object of disturbing
public order or of gaining any undue
temporal pecuniary material or other
advantage for himself or for any other
person;

(iv)
Indulge
in
anti-social
activities categorized in fifteen categories
of Section 2(b).

14. Meaning thereby, persons forming
group may be said to be a gang if they by
use of violence, threat show of violence
intimidation, coercion or otherwise with the
object of disturbing public order or if
unlawfully gaining temporal, pecuniary
material or other advantages either for
himself or for any other person indulged in
any of the anti-social activity enumerated
under clause (1) to (XV) and those persons
indulging in aforesaid activities as member,
leader, organizer of the gang may be treated
as gangster and may be liable for
punishment under Section 3 of the Act.

15. This Court in Ram Raheesh v.
State of U.P. and others, 2011 (73) ACC
559 has propounded that in order to attract
the substantive offence of Section 3 of the
Gangsters Act, the ingredients as provided
in the definition of the word "Gang" under
Section 2(b) and that of word "Gangster"
under Section 2(c) are to be fulfilled.

16. Full Bench of this Court in the
case of Ashok Kumar Dixit (supra) at
paragraph 75 and 76 of judgment has held
as under:-

75. While laying down so, we
should not be oblivious of the avowed
object of the Act. Under the ordinary
criminal law, it is sometimes difficult to
bring to book the overlords of crime and
underworld because they seldom operate in
3 All. Pappu @ Dhani Ram Vs. State of U.P.
1273
person or in the public gaze. They indulge
in clandestine operations which threaten to
tear apart the very fabric of society. It is
this purpose which the Act seeks to achieve.

76. But nevertheless we must
sound a note of caution. Provisions of the
Act cannot be used as a weapon to wreak
vengeance or harass or intimidate innocent
citizens or to settle scores on political or
other fronts. The prosecution has to bear in
mind that it has to bring home the guilt.
Then, there is a further provision for
appeal. Thus, the power of judicial review
of this Court has been preserved. If it is
ultimately found that a person was
proceeded with in sheer bad faith out of
malice and by way of political vendetta the
authorities do not enjoy any immunity
under Section 22 of the Act. This immunity
is confined only to acts done in good faith.

77. In Clause (b) of Section 2 the
word used is 'indulged in anti-social
activities'. We may note here that the
offences for which Sections 2 and 3 of the
Act can be attracted must be those which
have been committed after the enforcement
of the Ordinance or the Act. It is not
possible to convict a person for the
activities, which could be and were of the
nature defined in Section 2, indulged into
by him before the Ordinance or the Act.
Article 20 recities two limitations upon the
law making power of every legislative
authority as regards retrospective criminal
legislation. It prohibits......(i) the making of
ex post facto criminal law. i.e. making an
act a crime for the first time and then
making that law retrospective, (ii) infliction
of penalty greater than which might have
been inflicted under the law which was in
force when the act was committed. From
the language also, we find that Section 2 of
the Act is prospective in nature and does
not take within it the activities which were
indulged into before.

17. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in
Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh;
AIR 1973 SC 2773 has propounded that in
a criminal trial, the onus is upon
prosecution
to
prove
the
different
ingredients of offence and unless it
discharges that onus, it cannot succeed.

18. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in
State of Punjab Vs. Bhajan Singh; AIR
1975
SC 258
has propounded
that
suspicion howsoever strong cannot take
place of proof.

19. Hon'ble the Apex Court in
Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit Vs. State of
Maharashtra; AIR 1981 SC 765 has
propounded that falsity of defence does not
establish prosecution case.

20. Further in Pratap Vs. State of
U.P.; AIR 1976 SC 966 Hon'ble Apex
Court has propounded that prosecution is to
prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt
whereas accused is to prove only till
establishing preponderance of probabilities
in.

21. In Narbada Prasad v. Chhaganlal
& Ors.; AIR 1969 SC 395, Hon'ble Apex
Court has held that in an appeal the burden
is on appellant to prove how the judgment
under appeal is wrong? He must show
where the assessment has gone wrong?

22. Under above perspective of law
the impugned judgment and the evidence
placed on record is to be appreciated.

23. Charges leveled against accused
was that he was a member of an organized
gang and being a member of above gang by
1274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
violence, threat of violence and show of
violence, he used to commit crime, thereby
disturb public peace and public order and
with a view of gaining undue temporal,
pecuniary, material and other advantages
used to commit offence punishable under
Chapter XVI, XVII or XXII of the Indian
Penal Code given in gang chart. As six
cases
were
against
him,
hence
he
committed
offence
punishable
under
Section 3 of the Act. Accused pleaded not
guilty and prosecution was to prove those
essential ingredients.

24. The witnesses of this case, in their
statement on oath in examination-in-chief
have stated that the accused is history
sheeter and he is having a long criminal
history. Public abstains from giving any
evidence against him. This was gone
through from record of police station and
found to be a true information. Hence, there
was no other option than to take action
under this Act. Gang chart was prepared,
which was approved by the then District
Magistrate, Unnao. Meaning thereby, none
of accused was doing any crime or was of
public terror or involved in any offence
provided under Chapter XVI, XVII or XXII
of the I.P.C. nor they were involved in antisocial activities within the knowledge of
this S.O. Rather an information by informer
was given and on the basis of above
information police record of police station
was searched and on the basis of cases
written in it gang chart was prepared and
thereafter approved from the then District
Magistrate, Unnao and was lodged at police
station concerned i.e. no offence under
knowledge of prosecution witnesses was
there except on the basis of information and
going through record of police station.
Neither
any
recovered
goods
were
produced before trial Court nor they were
placed on record. Meaning thereby, all the
prosecution witnesses and their testimony
is not of this nature to prove the existence
of essential ingredients of offence for
which charges were leveled against convict
appellant.

25. Hence, testimony of all the
witnesses is of no assistance to prosecution
for proving that there was any violence, or
show of violence or use of violence for
commission of any offence under Chapter
XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of
the I.P.C. or doing any act for earning
property or money, as above, required for
offence of gangster under this Act.

26. The criminal jurisprudence has
developed that the victim is being accorded
proper opportunity of being heard not only
at the various stages of trial and even at the
stage of disposal of bail. But the story
herein is a bit different. The matter in
question is under Section 3(1) of U.P.
Gangster
and
Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986, and not under the
IPC or any other Special Act and the
complainant of the said case is the S.O. of
the
police
station-Fatehpur
Chaurasi,
District-Unnao. So the counsel for the
victim of the predicate offence i.e. Case
No.90 of 1998 does not come within the
category of "victim" pertaining to the
present case, thus, the present prosecution
has been initiated against the appellant only
on the basis of gang chart, which records
the criminal history of the appellant of
various nature.

27. All the evidences were produced
before the trial Court, but trial Court failed
to appreciate essential ingredients for
offence punishable under this Act and
alleged proof of prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt. Even rule of evidence in
this said Act regarding above offence could
3 All. Pappu @ Dhani Ram Vs. State of U.P.
1275
not be taken into consideration because no
property or valuable things were recovered
from the possession of convict appellant
nor it was proved to be earned or procured
out of above anti-social activities. Rather
there was no evidence at all except a formal
registration of case on the basis of formal
approval given by District Magistrate
concerned over gang chart which was
prepared on the basis of information of
hidden informer and record of police
station, in which all cases ended under
acquittal. Moreso, sanction given by
District Magistrate
is also
with
no
application of mind by District Magistrate
nor with any mention of gang chart having
specific offence given under Chapter
XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII
of the I.P.C. or offence by way of
earning property or likelihood of
creating any terror in public thereby
abusing public order.

28. It is further observed here
that a person may be involved in more
than one cases but all those cases may
be of such nature which may arise out
of some trivial personal dispute over
some drainage problem or over some
connected boundary wall dispute or
over some rival competing civil claim
on some piece of land and the
relationship of the two parties may
deteriorate to the extent that they may
get
involved
in
some
squabble,
quarrels or sometimes even in making
criminal assaults upon each other.
Such kind of crimes are somewhat of a
regular kind and nature. They do not
make a good ground to impose
Gangster Act.

29. The definition as has been
provided in the Gangster Act is very
exhaustive
and
has
very
wide
contours. While dealing with the
issues
involved
in
the
case
of
Gangster Act, the court has to be
cautious and should not stretch it too
much or to the extent where any kind
of crime committed by anybody or all
kinds
of
offences
committed
by
anybody
would
make
him
a
"gangster". In fact it is a question of
fact and the court will have to see it as
per the allegations made in each
individual case whether the nature of
crime committed was such on the
basis of which an accused can be
brought under the bracket of the
definition of the gangster or not.
There cannot be a over generalized
formula on this point and the Court
has to satisfy itself on a subjective
basis as well as on the objective basis
as
per
the
allegations
and
the
circumstances as they may appear
from the nature of crime said to have
been
committed
by
a
particular
accused and see for itself whether he
can be brought within the mischief of
the Act or not.

30. This judgment of trial Court
was not substantiated with evidence
on record and prosecution was not
successful to prove the fact against
convict appellant. Hence, this appeal
merits its allowance.

31. Accordingly, this appeal
succeeds
and
is
allowed.
The
impugned judgment and order of
conviction dated 08.12.2008, passed
by the trial court, is hereby set aside
and the appellant, Pappu @ Dhani
Ram, is acquitted of all the charges.
The appellant was on bail during the
pendency of this appeal, thus, his
1276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
personal bond and surety bonds are
canceled and sureties are discharged.

32. Let a copy of this judgment
along with trial court's record be sent
back to the court concerned for immediate
compliance.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1276
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 1998

Smt. Madhu Tandon ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
R.B.Khare, Anil Kumar Rajvanshi, Ayodhya
Prasad Mishra, H.S.Jain, Shesh Ram Verma

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate, Bireshwar Nath, Shiv P. Shukla

(A)
Criminal
Law
-
Appeal
against
conviction - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 120B, 409, 419, 420, 467,
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 -
Section 5(1)(c),5(2) - Criminal misconduct
in discharge of official duty - Standard of
proof required for conviction is proof
beyond all reasonable doubts - Burden of
proof is always on the prosecution and
never shifts on to the accused person -
Suspicion, however, grave cannot take
place of proof and the prosecution cannot
afford to rest its case in the realm of "may
be" true but has to upgrade it in the
domain of "must be" true in order to steer
clear
of
any
possible
surmises
or
conjectures
-
Reliance
solely
on
handwriting analysis and contradictory
witness statements cannot suffice for a
conviction.(Para - 20,22,28)

(B) Practice & Procedure - Finding given
by the expert examiner is not full proof -
Trial court must exercise caution when
relying on expert evidence, especially
handwriting analysis, which lacks the
same degree of certainty as fingerprint
analysis
-
Judges
must
proactively
interrogate witnesses to distinguish truth
from falsehood rather than leaving it
entirely to the advocates - Trial Court
must
shed
their
inertia
and
must
intervene
in
all
those
cases
where
intervention is necessary for the ends of
justice.(Para -14,27)

Appellant's husband was convicted of criminal
breach of trust and criminal misconduct -
misappropriating funds while serving as branch
manager of UCO Bank - prosecution relied on
testimony of various witnesses, including bank
officials and complainant - trial court convicted
him - Appellant appealed against this conviction
- citing insufficient evidence and unreliable
witness testimony. (Para - Paras: 3, 4, 7, 10,
12)

HELD: -
Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. Testimony of witnesses
wholly
untrustworthy
and
unbelievable.
Testimonies of other witnesses, even if taken on
their face value, fall short of the requirement of
proof of the charge beyond all reasonable
doubt. Conviction and sentence passed by trial
court set aside. Appellant's husband acquitted of
all charges.(Paras: 20, 28, 29,30)

Appeal allowed. (E-7)

LIST OF CASES CITED: -

1. C.S.D. Swamy Vs St., (1960) 1 SCR 461

2. Harishchandra Krishna Gadkar Vs St. of
Maha., 1994 SCC (L&S) 1055

3. Fakhruddin Vs The St. of M.P., 1966 SCC
OnLine SC 55

4. Paramjeet Singh Vs St. of Uttarakhand, AIR
2011 SC 200