# State of U.P v. Mukhtar Ansari 1340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 1339
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-21
- **Case number:** Government Appeal No. 780 of 2021
- **Bench:** Dinesh Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-mukhtar-ansari-1340-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-48995
- **Pages:** 23

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, - Sections 161, 311, 313 & 378 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 353,
503, 504 & 506 - U.P. Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 -
Sections 2 & 3 - Government Appeal - against
Acquittal - complainant - FIR - offence of threat
of life by pointing a revolver by the accused
person to complainant who is on official duty as
Jailer - during trial witnesses were hostile - Trial
court held that offences did not get proved
against accused person - Appeal - Law is very
clear that, appellant court lightly should not
interfere with the judgment of the acquittal
unless the impugned judgment is perverse or
the view taken by the learned Trial Court is
impossible view - the testimony of witness PW
2, who was given threats of life by accused
respondent has fully supported the prosecution
case in all respects in his examination-in-chief -
there was no reason to falsely implicate the
accused for commission of the offence - Trial
court completely ignored the evidence of PW2
given in Examination-in-chief and had only
considered his cross examination - approach of
the trial court is palpably erroneous and against
the settled law - therefore impugned judgment
is unsustainable. (Para - 53, 54, 55)

(B) Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Sections 161, 311, 313 &
378, - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections
353, 503, 504 & 506 - U.P. Gangsters and
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986 - Section - 2, 3 - Government Appeal -
against Acquittal - complainant - FIR -
Testimony of hostile witnesses does not effaced
completely and washed off record but it is for
the court to closely scrutinize the testimony of
such witnesses in the facts and circumstances
and take into consideration while convicting or
acquitting the accused - part of the testimony of
such witness which supports the prosecution
case can be relied on for conviction of the
accused - hence, present appeal is allowed -
accused respondent is convicted for offence and
sentenced for offence as per law. (Para 53, 59)

Appeal allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,882 of 77,989. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39882 for what follows._

9 All. State of U.P. Vs. Mukhtar Ansari
1339
indicates that if the person indulges into the
commission of offence enumerated under
Section 2(b)(I) to (XV) as a member or leader
of a gang for gaining any undue temporal,
pecuniary, material or other advantage then
he is purviewed within the ambit of the Act
and it is not the requirement of law that the
FIR for the input offence must be registered
before he is booked under the Act. Since the
purpose of the Act is to curb the activities of
gangster, which are more often than not
commit not in any public gaze therefore the
provisions of Act have to interpret in a
manner which fosters its purpose and the
intention of legislature best."

27. It is not in dispute that several FIRs
and charge-sheets for offences, which are
provided under definition clause of Section
2(b) of the Gangsters Act, were registered
against the accused-respondent and the
charge-sheets
were
filed
against
him,
including in the case of murder of Jail
Superintendent of District Jail, Lucknow.
Acquittal or conviction is immaterial for
invoking the provisions of Gangsters Act
against a person, who is otherwise a member
of the gang and, allegedly commits offences,
which are defined under Section 2(b) of the
Gangsters Act. If the FIR is registered or the
charge-sheet is filed and the person is
member of gang, which is defined under
Section 2(b) Gangsters Act, it fulfills the
ingredients of Section 2 of the Gangsters Act
and he can be punished under Section 3 of the
Gangsters Act. The trial Court has acquitted
the accused-respondent on the ground that the
accused-respondent was acquitted in all the
offences, which were mentioned in the gangchart. The gang-chart was approved and the
FIR came to be registered against accusedrespondent along with others. This Court is of
the view, on considering the law laid down by
the Supreme Court and this Court, as
discussed above, and carefully reading all the
provisions of the Gangsters Act, that the
accused-respondent was a member of the
gang and for his criminal activities several
FIRs and charge-sheets came to be registered
and submitted against him for offences,
which are defined under Section 2/3
Gangsters Act. The acquittal of the accusedrespondent for turning the witness hostile or
otherwise is not a material aspect. The trial
Court has grossly erred in acquitting the
accused-respondent vide impugned judgment
and order. The gang-chart was proved in the
Court as documentary evidence. In view of
the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
view that the accused-respondent is a
gangster and he allegedly committed several
offences and, therefore, he is found guilty for
offence under Section 2/3 Gangsters Act.
Therefore,
the
impugned
order
dated
23.12.2020 passed by the learned trial Court
is hereby set-aside. The accused-respondent
is
sentenced
for
five
years
rigorous
imprisonment with fine of Rs.50,000/-.

28. In view of aforesaid, the appeal is
allowed. Since the accused-respondent is
already in jail, no order is required to be
passed for his surrender.

29. Let the record of the trial Court be
remitted back for preparing the conviction
warrant against the accused-respondent.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 1339
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED:LUCKNOW 21.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Government Appeal No. 780 of 2021

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Mukhtar Ansari ...Respondent
1340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Appellant:
G.A.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Abhishek Misra, Karunesh Singh, Satendra
Kumar (Singh)

(A) Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, - Sections 161, 311, 313 & 378 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 353,
503, 504 & 506 - U.P. Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 -
Sections 2 & 3 - Government Appeal - against
Acquittal - complainant - FIR - offence of threat
of life by pointing a revolver by the accused
person to complainant who is on official duty as
Jailer - during trial witnesses were hostile - Trial
court held that offences did not get proved
against accused person - Appeal - Law is very
clear that, appellant court lightly should not
interfere with the judgment of the acquittal
unless the impugned judgment is perverse or
the view taken by the learned Trial Court is
impossible view - the testimony of witness PW
2, who was given threats of life by accused
respondent has fully supported the prosecution
case in all respects in his examination-in-chief -
there was no reason to falsely implicate the
accused for commission of the offence - Trial
court completely ignored the evidence of PW2
given in Examination-in-chief and had only
considered his cross examination - approach of
the trial court is palpably erroneous and against
the settled law - therefore impugned judgment
is unsustainable. (Para - 53, 54, 55)

(B) Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Sections 161, 311, 313 &
378, - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections
353, 503, 504 & 506 - U.P. Gangsters and
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986 - Section - 2, 3 - Government Appeal -
against Acquittal - complainant - FIR -
Testimony of hostile witnesses does not effaced
completely and washed off record but it is for
the court to closely scrutinize the testimony of
such witnesses in the facts and circumstances
and take into consideration while convicting or
acquitting the accused - part of the testimony of
such witness which supports the prosecution
case can be relied on for conviction of the
accused - hence, present appeal is allowed -
accused respondent is convicted for offence and
sentenced for offence as per law. (Para 53, 59)

Appeal allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Dhanapal Vs St. by Public Prosecutor, Madras,
(2009) 10 SCC 401,

2. St. of Raj. Vs Naresh @ Ram Naresh, (2009)
9 SCC 368,

3. St. of U.P. Vs Banne @ Baijnath & ors.,
(2009) 4 SCC 271,

4. Ghurey Lal Vs St. of U.P., (2008) 10 SCC 450,

5. Samghaji Hariba Patil Vs St. of Karnataka,
(2006) 10 SCC 494,

6. Dayaram& anr. Vs St. of M. P., (2020) 13 SCC
382,

7. Ramesh & ors. Vs St. of Har., (2017) 1 SCC
529,

8. Swaran Singh Vs St. of Punj., (2000) 5 SCC
668,

9. Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb Vs St. of
U.P., (2006) 2 SCC 450,

10. Bhagwan Singh v. St. of Har., (1976) 1 SCC
389 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 7 : AIR 1976 SC 202

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. Present appeal has been filed under
Section 378 Cr.P.C. with an application for
leave to appeal against the judgment and
order dated 23.12.2020 passed by Special
Judge, M.P./M.L.A., Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No.19, Lucknow in Criminal
Case No. 1818 of 2012: CNR No.
U.P.L.K.O.10052862012 arising out of
Case Crime No.131 of 2003 under Sections
353,
504,
506
IPC,
Police
Station
Alambagh, Lucknow.
9 All. State of U.P. Vs. Mukhtar Ansari
1341

2. Learned Trial Court has acquitted
respondent, Mukhtar Ansari of all charges.

3. This Court vide order dated
27.04.2021 had granted leave to appeal and
admitted the appeal.

4. Prosecution case in brief is that the
complainant, S.K. Awasthi was posted as
Jailer in District Jail, Lucknow in the year
2003. On 23.04.2003 at around 10:30 A.M.,
when he was sitting in his office inside the
jail, Gatekeeper, Prem Chandra Maurya
told him that some persons had come to
meet
prisoner,
Mukhtar
Ansari,
the
respondent. Mukhtar Ansari, who was also
an M.L.A., came to the office of the Jailer.
The complainant ordered for his frisking,
on which Mukhtar Ansari got highly
annoyed. He said, "You Jailer think
yourself very high. You create hurdles in
coming persons to meet me." Mr. S.K.
Awasthi told the respondent that these
persons cannot not come inside without
being frisked. Mukhtar Ansari said, "You
come out of Jail today, I would get you
killed." Prisoner, Mukhtar Ansari abused
him and took revolver from one of the
persons, who had come to meet him and
pointed it towards the complainant. It was
said that some people caught hold of
Mukhtar Ansari and some caught hold of
the complainant, otherwise any untoward
incident could have taken place. Prisoner,
Mukhtar Ansari sent his men, who came to
meet him, out of prison and said to the
complainant, "Now your days are over and
nobody can save you now."

5. At the time of incident, Deputy
Jailer, Mr. Sarvesh Vikram Singh, Deputy
Jailer, Shailendra Pratap Singh, Gate
Keeper, Prem Chandra Maurya, I.W. Rudra
Bihari
Srivastava,
I.W.
Radheyshyam
Yadav, I.W. Ram Swaroop Pal were
present.

6. Mr. S.K. Awasthi, the complainant,
gave a complaint to this effect on
28.04.2003 at Police Station Alambagh,
Lucknow on which the FIR at Case Crime
No.131 of 2003 under Sections 353, 504,
506 IPC came to be registered on the same
day against respondent-Mukhtar Ansari.
The investigation of the case was entrusted
to Sub Inspector, Mr. Ganesh Singh and
Smt. Indu Srivastava.

7. After completing the investigation,
charge-sheet
against
the
accusedrespondent was filed under Sections 353,
506, 504 IPC, 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti
Social Activities (Prevention) Act (for short
'the
Gangsters
Act')
on
08.06.2003.
Thereafter, on 05.02.2005 a supplementary
charge-sheet
No.137
of
2003
under
Sections 353, 506, 504 IPC was submitted
in the Court. Learned Magistrate took
cognizance on Charge-sheet No.137 of
2003 arising out of Case Crime No.131 of
2003 under Sections 353, 506, 504 IPC.

8. Charges were framed for offences
under Sections 353, 504, 506 IPC on
28.06.2003. The accused-respondent denied
the charge and claimed for trial.

9. Prosecution to prove its case,
proved
documentary
evidence
i.e.
complaint (Exh.Ka-1), Chik FIR (Exh.Ka2), GD Entry (Exh.Ka-3), Site Map
(Exh.Ka-4), Charge-sheets (Exh.Ka-5 and
Exh.Ka-6).

10.
Prosecution
also
examined
following witnesses to prove its case:-

(a) Gate Keeper, Prem Chanda Maurya
as P.W.-1;
1342 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(b)
Jailer,
S.K.
Awasthi,
the
complainant, as P.W.-2;

(c) Jail Warden, Shailendra Pratap
Singh as P.W.-3;

(d) I.W. Ram Swaroop Pal as P.W.-4;

(e) I.W. Rudra Bihari Srivastava as
P.W.-5;

(f) Inspector, Smt. Indu Srivastava as
P.W.6

(g) Inspector Ganesh Singh as P.W.-7.

11. P.W.-1, Prem Chandra Maurya in
his evidence has deposed that he had been
 posted as Jail Warden in Lucknow District
Jail since 06.07.2002. On 27.04.2003, he
was deputed as Gate Keeper on the main
gate of Lucknow District Jail. Between
10:30 A.M. and 11:00 A.M. some persons
came to meet prisoner, Mukhtar Ansari.
The witness asked Jailer, Mr.S.K. Awasthi
present in his office to allow these persons.
The jailer denied permission to these
persons to come inside to meet Mukhtar
Ansari. Persons, who came to meet
prisoner,
Mukhtar
Ansari
returned.
Thereafter, he started doing his desk work.
He did not know that what happened
between the Jailer, S.K. Awasthi and
Mukhtar Ansari in Jailer's office. He further
said that distance between the Jailer's office
and main gate of the Jail would be around
40-50 ft and duty of gate keeper is quite
onerous and busy. He said that he could not
say that how the Jailer in his report had
written that some persons came inside the
jail from outside, and when the Jailer asked
to frisk these persons, prisoner, Mukhtar
Ansari got highly annoyed. He said that he
did not see what incident took place
between Jailer, S.K. Awasthi and Mukhtar
Ansari. In his report, Jailer had shown him
as an eye witness, but he could not say why
he did so. The Investigating Officer did not
take his statement. He further said that he
did not know how the Investigating Officer
had written that this witness out of fear
opened the main gate and some persons
came inside, and the alleged incident took
place. This witness was not cross examined
by the defence.

12. P.W.-2, Mr.S.K. Awasthi, the
complainant supported the FIR version and
said that the incident was of April, 2003. It
took place during day time. He was posted
as Jailer in District Jail, Lucknow. The
accused-respondent was a prisoner in the
jail. Some persons had come from outside
to meet the accused-respondent, and
dispute took place in respect of frisking
these persons. The incident took place
inside the jail. Prisoner, Mukhtar Ansari
took out revolver from one of the persons
who had come to meet him. He further said
that along with him entire staff and two
Deputy Jailers, Sarvendra Vikram Singh
and Shailendra Pratap Singh were present.
The gate keeper under pressure and fear of
the
accused-respondent
allowed
these
persons who had come to meet prisoner,
Mukhtar Ansari inside the jail. Prisoner,
Mukhtar Ansari had extended threats to
him. He lodged the FIR at the police station
regarding this incident. He proved the
complaint given at the police station which
was
marked
as
Exh.
Ka-1.
After
examination-in-chief got concluded, no
cross examination of the witness was
conducted on behalf of the accusedrespondent and the trial Court closed the
examination of the said witness vide order
of
date
i.e.
12.12.2013
when
his
examination-in-chief was recorded.

13. Mr.Shailendra Pratap Singh, who
was posted as Deputy Jailer, was examined
as P.W.-3. He said that on 27.04.2003, he
was present in his office. Someone told him
that some hot talk was taking place
between prisoner, Mukhtar Ansari and
9 All. State of U.P. Vs. Mukhtar Ansari
1343
Jailer, Mr. S.K. Awasthi. On this, he went to
the office of Jailer and found Mukhtar
Ansari coming out of the office of the
Jailer. Mr. S.K. Awasthi was sitting in his
office. Mr. S.K. Awasthi told him that some
hot talk had taken place between him and
prisoner, Mukhtar Ansari in respect of some
persons coming to meet him. No cross
examination of this witness was conducted
on behalf of the defence.

14. Mr. Ram Swaroop Pal was examined
as P.W.-4. He on oath said that he was
posted as Warden in District Jail, Lucknow
on 27.04.2003 and Mr. S.K. Awasthi was
the Jailer. On the date of incident at 10:30,
he was in lock up office. Office of Mr. S.K.
Awasthi was not visible from his office.
Distance between two offices was more
than 500 meters. On 27.04.2003 at around
10:00 A.M., no disturbance/deterrence was
created in discharge of the official function
of the Jailer, Mr. S.K. Awasthi. Mukhtar
Ansari did not abuse Jailer and humiliate
him nor he gave threat to the Jailer for his
killing. This witness was declared hostile,
and was cross examined by the prosecution.
During the cross examination, he said that
on the alleged date of incident his duty was
in the Lock-up complex from 5:30 AM to
8:00 PM. He did not have any information
in respect of the incident, subject matter of
the case. After finishing his duty, he went to
his residence. The investigating officer did
not make enquiry from him. The witness
was confronted with his statement recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He said that he
did not give any such statement. He denied
the suggestion that he was giving false
statement under pressure and fear of the
accused.

15.

P.W.5,
Mr.
Rudra
Bihari
Srivastava (retired), aged around 66 years,
in his statement said that he was posted as
Chief Warden on 27.04.2003, and Mr. S.K.
Awasthi was the Jailer of the District Jail,
Lucknow. His duty on the said date at
10:30 A.M. was on the second gate, and the
distance of the Jailer's office from his duty
place would be around 250 meters. Office
of the Jailer was not visible from his office
as the window remained closed. He said
that at around 10:30 AM on 27.04.2003,
prisoner, Mukhtar Ansari did not create any
disturbances/deterrence in the official duty/
function of the Jailer nor he abused the
Jailer to humiliate him nor he gave any
threat of killing him. No incident took
place in front of him. This witness was also
declared hostile and was cross examined by
the prosecution.

16. In his cross-examination, he said
that his duty on the date of incident was
from 8 AM to 8 PM, and while he was on
duty he did not get the information
regarding the alleged incident. After duty
got over, he went to his residence. The
investigating officer did not make any
enquiry from him nor recorded any
statement of him. The witness was
confronted with his statement recorded
Section 161 Cr.P.C. then he said he was not
aware that how the investigating officer had
written his statement. He denied the
suggestion that he was giving evidence
under pressure mounted by the accused,
Mukhtar Ansari out of fear.

17. P.W.-6, Smt. Indu Srivastava said
that in the year 2003, she was posted as
S.S.I.
at
Police
Station
Alambagh.
Investigation of the offence registered at
Case Crime No.137 of 2003 under Sections
353, 504, 506 IPC, 2/3 Gangsters Act was
entrusted
to
her
after
the
previous
investigating officer, Shri Ganesh Singh
was transferred from the police station.
Earlier, the Investigating Officer had
1344 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
completed the investigation up to Parcha
No.5. She had requested the district
authorities for approval of the gang chart
against the accused-respondent, however,
the District Magistrate did not approve the
gang chart. Earlier, the investigating officer
had completed the investigation in respect
of the Gangsters Act up to Parcha No.5.
Report for deleting the provisions of the
Gangsters Act was sent to Superintendent
of Police (East), Lucknow on 11.01.2004.
Supplementary charge sheet and Parcha
No.6 were completed by her. She made
efforts to get the earlier charge-sheet
cancelled on 15.05.2004. She completed
Parcha No.7 and again efforts were made to
get earlier charge-sheet cancelled.

18. On 10.06.2004, an additional
Parcha No.8 was completed by P.W.-6, and
on the said date, she went to District Jail
and a request was made from the District
Jailer's office to give the list of persons,
who had come to visit the jail on
27.04.2003. On this request, information
was given that no application or name was
mentioned of the person(s) who came to
meet Mukhtar Ansari on the said date. On
20.07.2004, she submitted Parcha No.9 and
went to District Jail and met Deputy Jailer
S.P. Singh and Jailer R.C. Gupta, and their
statements were recorded.She tried to
collect information regarding the incident,
however, no one was ready to give any
statement
against
the
accused.
On
10.06.2004 she completed supplementary
Parcha Nos. 10 and 11 and made efforts to
get the previous charge-sheet cancelled.
However, she did not receive any order
during her investigation from the witnesses.
Thereafter, she was transferred. She also
said that that Constable Moharir who was
posted during her tenure, she had seen him
reading and writing. She recognized his
writing. She said that the chik FIR and
carbon copy were prepared by Head
Moharrir.

19. In her cross examination, P.W.-6
said that she was entrusted with the
investigation
on
11.01.2004
and
the
investigation was complete on 29.09.2004.
She also said that she had made an entry in
the G.D. regarding her going to jail. She
denied the suggestion that she had
completed the charge-sheet sitting in the
police
station.
She
also
denied
the
suggestion that she was giving evidence
under pressure of the higher authorities.

20. It would be relevant to take note
of the fact that examination-in-chief of
Jailer, S.K. Awasthi, aged around 61, was
recorded on 12.12.2013, and he was not
cross examined by the accused and right to
defence to cross examine him was closed
on the said date. Vide an order dated
30.01.2014 on an application moved on
behalf of the accused under Section 311
Cr.P.C., the said witness recalled and cross
examined on 25.02.2014. In his cross
examination, he said that he was posted in
Lucknow
District
Jail
in
2002-03.
Complete information including entry of
any visitor inside the jail was made in the
jail book. He denied the suggestion that it
was not necessary to mention name of the
visitor who would meet which prisoner, and
only number of persons coming to meet the
prisoner was mentioned. He clarified that
the visitor would give an application in
which he would write name of the prisoner
whom he would like to meet. However, it
was not necessary to get the signature of
the visitor made on gate register. He also
accepted the suggestion that as per the Jail
Manual, only three persons can be allowed
to meet a prisoner in a day, and only twice
a prisoner can meet the visitors in a week.
Any visitor coming to meet a prisoner is
9 All. State of U.P. Vs. Mukhtar Ansari
1345
frisked and thereafter he comes inside.
Frisking is done outside the gate as well as
inside the gate. When incident took place
he was in the office, the accusedrespondent came in the office and he
protested. The witness said, "I had stopped
visitors coming to meet him, he became
angry and went out of the office."
Thereafter, the witness remained sitting in
the office. He further said that the fact of
showing weapon and threats of killing him
were heard by him but he did not see from
his own eyes. These facts were told to him
by staff and, thereafter, he got the FIR
registered. FIR was registered as per his
own
wisdom.
Whatever
information
regarding the incident was recorded by
him, he informed his higher officials and
then lodged the FIR.

21. He further deposed that it was
prohibited to take mobile and firearm
inside the jail. No person could have a
firearm inside the jail as only after frisking,
prisoners were sent inside the jail. Routine
checking would also take place inside the
jail. He also said that FIR was registered
after consultation with the higher officials.
He denied the suggestion that under
pressure of the Government, he lodged the
false FIR. He accepted the suggestion that
he did not see weapon in the hands of
Mukhtar Ansari and he did not extend treats
to anyone before him, and he also did not
abuse the witness on the said date. Mukhtar
Ansari
did
not
create
deterrence
/disturbance in performing the official
duties by him.

22. P.W.-7, Inspector Ganesh Singh,
deposed that on 28.04.2003 he was
posted as S.S.I. in Alambagh Police
Station. He conducted the investigation of
the Case Crime No.131 of 2003 under
Sections 353, 504, 506 IPC. He received
the copy of the FIR to conduct the
investigation. On the said date, he
recorded statement of the complainant,
Mr. S.K. Awasthi. He inspected the place
of incident, prepared site plan, which was
marked as Exh-Ka-4. He recorded the
statement of Chief Warden, Rudra Bihari
Srivastava and Radhey Shyam, eye
witnesses. He also recorded the statement
of Deputy Jailer, Shailendra Pratap Singh
and after having sufficient evidence
against the accused-Mukhtar Ansari, he
prepared charge-sheet under Section 353,
504, 506 IPC, 2/3 of the Gangsters Act.
He submitted charge-sheet No.134 of
2003 in the Court, which was in his
writing and signature. This was marked
as Exh Ka-5. He prepared supplementary
Parcha
No.SCD-5
and
from
supplementary
SCD-6
to
13
were
completed by Smt. Indu Srivastava.
Supplementary
charge-sheet
was
submitted under Section 353, 504, 506
IPC in the Court, which was marked as
Exh-Ka-6.

23. In his cross examination, he said
that he carried out the investigation outside
the jail and inside the jail. He denied
suggestion
that
he
completed
the
investigation sitting in the police station.
He also said that he denied the suggestion
that provisions of the Gangsters Act were
added under the pressure of higher
authorities. District Magistrate did not
sanction the Gang chart. He denied the
suggestion that the case diary was not sent
to the circle officer. He denied the
suggestion
that
he
carried
out
the
investigation under the pressure of higher
authorities. He also denied the suggestion
that he used to receive call from a Minister
for filing of charge-sheet, and he also
denied the suggestion that he prepared the
charge-sheet under the political pressure.
1346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
He also denied the suggestion that he was
coming to give evidence after 17 years
under the pressure of higher officials.

24. In his statement recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused-respondent
denied the incident and said that no hot talk
between him and Jailer took place on the
date of incident and for this reason,
Gatekeeper, Prem Chandra Maurya did not
hear anything. He further said that the
complainant, S.K. Awasthi had given false
evidence regarding the fact that when the
incident took place, his entire staff
including two Deputy Jailers, Sarvendra
Vikram Singh and Shailendra Pratap Singh
were present. He denied that the Warden
allowed the visitors inside the Jail under his
fear and terror. In respect of statement of
P.W.-3, Shailendra Pratap Singh that while
he was sitting in the office some hot talk
had taken place between S.K. Awasthi and
Mukhtar Ansari, and when he went to the
office of the Jailer he found accused going
out of the office and S.K. Awasthi was
sitting in his office, he denied the incident.
He also denied the statement regarding the
version given by other witnesses and said
that the investigation was conducted under
political pressure to falsely implicate him.
He said that he had been M.L.A. for 5
terms from different political parties. He
defeated
the
candidates
of
different
political parties. He was quite popular in
the constituency and he was falsely
implicated in the case.

25. Learned Trial Court after
considering the evidence and submissions
on behalf of the prosecution and the
defence vide impugned judgment and order
held that from the evidence, offences under
Sections 504, 506 did not get proved
against the accused-respondent nor the
offence under Section 353 IPC was made
out and, therefore, learned Trial Court
acquitted the accused.

26.

Mr.
U.C. Verma,
learned
Additional
Government
Advocate
appearing for the State-appellant assisted
by Mr.Rao Narendra Singh, learned A.G.A.
has submitted that place of incident,
presence of the complainant and witnesses
are not in dispute. Alleged incident had
taken place inside the jail. The accusedrespondent is biggest bahubali of the State,
facing several dozens of cases of heinous
offences.
Accused-respondent's
name
strikes fear and terror in the hearts and
minds of general public, and even in the
Government
officials.
Mr.R.K. Tiwari
earlier Jailer was killed in a cold blooded
manner in a broad day light near Governor
House, Lucknow allegedly on behest of the
accused-respondent and other accused as he
was enforcing the rules and regulation of
jail which was causing hindrance in
carrying out illegal and criminal activities
of the accused-respondent from Jail in
organized manner. These accused, however,
could secure acquittal as witnesses turned
hostile which is a pattern in all cases where
the
accused-respondent
had
secured
acquittal.

27. This Court recently while
rejecting Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.46494
of 2021
of
the
accusedrespondent in a case registered as Case
Crime No.185 of 2021 under Sections 419,
420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, Police
Station Sarai Lakhansi, District Mau vide
order dated 30.06.2020 while rejecting the
bail of the accused-respondent, has held as
under:-

"4.
The
applicant
deserves
no
introduction in the State of U.P. on account
of his alleged ''Robin Hood' image in Hindi
9 All. State of U.P. Vs. Mukhtar Ansari
1347
speaking States of India. He is the harden
and habitual offender, who is in sphere of
crime since 1986 but surprisingly, he has
managed not a single conviction against
him. It is indeed astounding and more
amusing angle of the issue, that a person
having more than 50+ criminal cases to his
credit of various varieties, has managed his
affairs in such a way that he has not
received a single conviction order against
him. Infact it is slur and challenge to the
judicial system that such a dreaded and
''White Collored' criminal in the field of
crime undefeated and unabetted."

28. This Court has noted the long criminal
history of the accused-respondent in the
aforesaid judgment which is reproduced as
under:-

"Cases registered at Gazipur

Case Crime No. Under Sections
Police Station/District

1. 493/05 302, 506, 120B IPC
Mohammdabad

2. 589/05 302, 504, 506, 120B IPC
Bhanwar Col

3. 169/86 302 IPC Mohammadabad

4. 266/90 467, 468, 420, 120B IPC

5. 172/91 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC
Mohammadabad

6. 237/96 136(2), 130, 135, 136(1)
Public Property Act & 384, 506 IPC

 Mohammadabad

7. 1182/09 307, 506, 120B IPC
Mohammadabad

8. 1051/07 3(1) U.P.Gangster Act
Mohammadabad

9. 482/10 3(1) U.P.Gangster Act
Karanda

10. 361/09 302, 120 IPC & 7 C.L.Act
Karanda

11. NCR No. 219/78 506 IPC Saidpur

12. NCR No. 19/97 506 IPC Saidpur

13. 106/88 302 IPC Kotwali

14. 682/90 143, 506 IPC Kotwali

15. 399/90 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC
Kotwali

16. 44/91 302, 506 IPC Kotwali

17. 165/96 147, 148, 149, 307, 332,
353, 506, 504 IPC & 7C.L Act Kotwali

18. 834/95 353, 504, 506 IPC
Kotwali

19. 284/96 3(2) NSA Act Kotwali

20. 33/99 3(2) NSA Act Kotwali

21. 192/96 3(1) U.P.Ganster Act
Kotwali

22.
121/21
21/25
Arms
Act
Mohammadabad

Cases registered at District Varanasi

1. 58/98 3 NSA Act Bhelupur

2. 17/99 506 IPC Bhelupur

3. 285/17 302 IPC Bhelupur

4. 19/97 364A, 365 IPC Bhelupur

5. 229/91 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC
Chetganj

6. 410/88 147, 148, 149, 302, 307
IPC Cantt.

Cases
registered
at
District
Lucknow

1. 209/02 3/7/25 Arms Act Hazratganj

2. 106/99 307, 302, 120B IPC
Hazratganj

3. 91-A/04 147, 148, 149, 307, 427
IPC Cantt.

4.
428/99
2/3
Gangster
Act
Hazratganj

5. 126/99 506 IPC Krishna Nagar

6. 66/2000 147, 336, 353, 506 IPC
Alambagh

7. 236/20 468, 471, 120B IPC &
Section 3 of Damages of Public Property
Act Hazratganj

Case registered at District Chandauli
1348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1.
294/91
302,
307
IPC
Mughalsarai/Chandauli

Case
registered
at
District
Shonbhadra

1. 121/97 364A Anpara

Cases registered at District Mau

1. 808/04 147, 148, 149, 393, 307,
504, 506, 342 IPC Kotwali

2. 1580/05 147, 148, 149,302, 435,
436, 427, 153A IPC Kotwali

3. 1866/09 147, 148, 149,302, 307,
120B, 404, 325/34 IPC & 7 CLAct Kotwali

4. 399/10 302, 307, 120B, 34 IPC & 7
CL Act & 25/27 Arms Act Dakshin Tola

5. 891/10 3(1) Gangster Act Dakshin
Tola

6. 185/21 419, 420, 467, 468, 471,
120B IPC Sarai Lakhansi

7. 55/21 3(1) of U.P.Gangster Act
Dakshin Tola

8. 4/20 30 Arms Act and Sections 419,
420, 467, 468, 471, 120 B IPC Dakshin
 Tola

Cases registered at New Delhi

1. 456/93 364A, 365, 387 IPC Tilak
Marg

2. 508/93 24/54/59 Arms Act & S.
Tada K.G. Marg

Case registered in State of Punjab

1. 5/19 386/506 IPC Mathaur, Mohali

Cases registered at District Azamgarh

1. 20/14 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 506,
120B IPC & Tarwa 7 Crl. Law Amendment Act

2. 160/20 3(1) U.P.Gangster Act
Tarwa

Cases
registered
at
District
Barabanki

1. 369/21 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B,
506, 177 IPC & 7 Crl. Law Amendment Act
Kotwali."

29. This Court also commented about
the criminals like the accused-respondent
being elected by the public as their
representative for six consecutive terms in
following words:-

"26. The above mentioned is a rich
criminal horoscope of the applicant on
which the applicant can boast and claim
himself to be a popular public figure, who
was elected as MLA for the six consecutive
time. As mentioned above, this is a most
unfortunate
and
ugly
face
of
our
democracy where a person on one hand
facing almost two dozen Sessions Trials
and on the other hand the public is electing
him
as
their
representative
for
six
consecutive times. It is really uphill task to
adjudicate, as to whether he is really a
popular public figure? Or his nuisance
value, which are giving dividends to him?"

30. Mr. U.C. Verma has submitted
that the incident is dated 27.04.2003. The
accused-respondent did not allow trial to
proceed until he was sure of turning the
witnesses hostile. Most of the witnesses got
retired
when
they
turned
up
for
examination in the Court. He has submitted
that trial court start only in July, 2013.

31. Mr. U.C. Verma has further
submitted that the accused-respondent used to
enjoy high status and privileges inside the jail
and, therefore, would carry out his organized
criminal activities from the jail including
killing of the people for exhortation, political
opponents and officials, who he thought were
9 All. State of U.P. Vs. Mukhtar Ansari
1349
coming in his way of his crime world or they
could challenge him politically or otherwise.
He used to treat jail as his seat of power
where his people could come and meet him
freely at any time even carrying arms without
any hindrance or obstacle by jail officials. Mr.
S.K. Awasthi, the complainant, P.W.-2 tried to
regulate visitors according to Jail Book and
Jail Manual, and this could not be tolerated
by the accused-respondent. He has further
submitted that there was no enmity between
the complainant and accused-respondent
Mukhtar Ansari for his false implication. He
has further submitted that P.W.-2, who was
the complainant, his examination was
completed on 12.12.2013, the accused did not
cross examine on that day and the right of
cross examination was closed. The witnesses
got retired soon thereafter and after his
retirement when he was won over for fear
and terror of the accused-respondent, an
application came to be filed under Section
311 Cr.P.C. to recall the said witness, and
vide order dated 30.01.2014, the witness was
recalled. He has submitted that the said
witness in his examination-in-chief has fully
supported the prosecution case in all respects
and evidence given in cross-examination after
he was won over, was because of fear and
terror as after retirement there would be
concern for his security and security of his
family. Even P.W.-3 has supported the
prosecution case and deposed that the dispute
took place between the accused-respondent
and the complainant in respect of visitors
coming to meet the accused-respondentMukhtar Ansari and hot talk between the
accused-respondent and the complainant. He
saw the accused-respondent coming out of
the office of the complainant.

32. P.W.-6, second Investigating
Officer,
Smt.
Indu
Srivastava
who
completed the investigation had said that
her staff was not willing to give evidence
against the accused-respondent. P.W.-7,
who conducted the final investigation, has
also supported the prosecution case. She
further said that there was no application
and record of visitors who had come to
meet the accused-respondent. This would
mean that the accused-respondent wanted
to the visitors to meet him without any
formality. Mr.U.C. Verma, learned A.G.A.
for the appellant-State has, therefore,
submitted that the offence under Sections
353, 504, 506 IPC are proved on the basis
of evidence of prosecution, and the trial
Court erred in acquitting the accusedrespondent. He has further submitted that
even if there is contradiction in the
evidence of P.W.-2 given in examinationin-chief and cross examination, it is for the
Court to separate wheat from the chaff and
find out of the truth. Statement in
examination-in-chief has equal value as of
cross examination. Even from the evidence
of P.W.-3, and P.W.-6 charges against the
accused-respondent
for
offence
under
Sections 504, 506, 353 IPC are clearly
proved and the appeal is liable to be
allowed.

33. On the other hand, Mr. Jyotindra
Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted
by Mr. Satendra Kumar (Singh), Advocate
appearing for the accused-respondent has
submitted that evidence of none of the
witnesses is cogent and credible. P.W.-1,
P.W.-4,
P.W.-5
did
not
support
the
prosecution
case
either
in
their
examination-in-chief or cross examination.
P.W.-2 supported the prosecution case in
his examination-in-chief he did not support
the
prosecution
case
in
his
cross
examination. Evidence of P.W.-6 and P.W.-
7 independently are not enough to prove
the prosecution case as they are the formal
witnesses, who conducted the investigation.
He, therefore, has submitted that the Trial
1350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court after considering the evidence
brought by the prosecution did not find the
prosecution
case
proved
against
the
accused-respondent. From the evidence
available on record, it cannot be said that
the prosecution was able to prove case
against the accused-respondent beyond
reasonable doubt, and there is no error in
the impugned judgment and order passed
by learned Trial Court. He has, therefore,
submitted that the appeal is without any
merit and substance and is liable to be
dismissed.

34. Mr. Jyotindra Mishra, learned
Senior Advocate has further submitted that
in case of appeal against acquittal, the
appellate court is required to consider
whether the view taken by the Trial Court
is possible one or not. If the view of the
Trial Court is possible one, then acquittal
should not be set aside by merely
substituting its reason. He in support of the
aforesaid submission has placed reliance on
the judgment of in the case of Dhanapal vs
State by Public Prosecutor, Madras:
(2009) 10 SCC 401 wherein the Supreme
Court has culled out the principal for
dealing the judgment of acquittal of trial
Court by appellate Court in para 39 which
reads as under:-

"39. The following principles emerge
from the cases above:

1. The accused is presumed to be
innocent until proven guilty. The accused
possessed this presumption when he was
before the trial court. The trial court's
acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is
innocent.

2. The power of reviewing evidence is
wide
and
the
appellate
court
can
reappreciate the entire evidence on record.
It can review the trial court's conclusion
with respect to both facts and law, but the
appellate court must give due weight and
consideration to the decision of the trial
court.

3. The appellate court should always
keep in mind that the trial court had the
distinct
advantage
of
watching
the
demeanour of the witnesses. The trial court
is in a better position to evaluate the
credibility of the witnesses.

4. The appellate court may only
overrule or otherwise disturb the trial
court's acquittal if it has "very substantial
and compelling reasons" for doing so.

5. If two reasonable or possible views
can be reached--one that leads to acquittal,
the
other
to
conviction--the
High
Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour
of the accused."

35. Mr.Jyotindra Mishra, learned
Senior Advocate has further submitted that
in appeal against acquittal under Section
378/386 Cr.P.C. the appellate Court should
not likely to interfere with the judgment of
acquittal, even if the appellate Court
believes that there is some evidence
pointing finger towards the accused. In
support of the said submission, he has
placed reliance on the judgments in the
cases of State of Rajasthan vs Naresh @
Ram Naresh: (2009) 9 SCC 368 and
State of Uttar Pradesh vs Banne @
Baijnath & Ors: (2009) 4 SCC 271.

36. Mr.Jyotindra Mishra, learned
Senior Advocate has further submitted that
in
criminal
jurisprudence
there
is
presumption of innocence until the guilt is
proved beyond reasonable doubt. If an
accused
is
acquitted
in
the
trial,
presumption of innocence gets re-enforced,
and the appellate court in exercise of
appellate
jurisdiction
under
Section
378/386 Cr.P.C. should reverse an acquittal
only when it has "very substantial and
9 All. State of U.P. Vs. Mukhtar Ansari
1351
compelling reasons." For the aforesaid
submission, learned Senior Advocate has
placed reliance on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Ghurey Lal
vs State of Uttar Pradesh : (2008) 10
SCC 450.

37.