# State of U.P v. Mukhtar Ansari & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 1019
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-08-31
- **Case number:** Government Appeal No. 778 of 2021
- **Bench:** Dinesh Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-mukhtar-ansari-anr-48959
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Sushil
Kumar
Singh,
Abhishek
Misra,
Karunesh Singh, Satendra Kumar (Singh)

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 378, - Indian Penal Code,
1860 -Section 506 - Government Appeal -
against
order
of
Acquittal
-
written
complainant - FIR - Complainant in his crossexamination admit that merely on the basis of
suspicion, he gave the complaint, however
those accused person did not commit any
offence - court finds that, prosecution case
was only based on suspicion and without
there being any cogent and credible evidence
to connect the accused person - A person
cannot be convicted merely on the basis of
suspicion if the suspicion is not otherwise
proved - impugned judgment and order
requires no interference - thus, appeal
dismissed. (Para 18, 19, 20)

Appeal dismissed. (E-11)
1020 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

## Text

9 All. State of U.P. Vs. Mukhtar Ansari & Anr.
1019
could be surfaced in the postmortem nor
there has been any evidence led by the
prosecution so as to corroborate the same.
The said aspect is also important as the
same along with the other factors shows
that the ocular testimony of PW4 also does
not inspire confidence of the Court so as to
support the prosecution case.

100. Net analysis of the background so
painted by the prosecution goes to show that
barring PW4 Jai Prakash nobody has
supported the prosecution case entailing
demolition of the entire prosecution theory.

101. Though learned AGA has sought to
argue that the prosecution theory is erected
upon solid foundation but we find that the case
of the prosecution proceeds on weak
foundation.

102. Cumulatively giving anxious
consideration to the judgment and the order
passed by the learned trial court acquitting the
accused, this Court finds that the learned trial
court has not committed any palpable illegality
or perversity as the learned trial court has
appreciated each and every aspect of the
matter from the four-corners of law while
acquitting the accused. The view taken by the
learned trial court is a possible and plausible
view based upon not only the appreciation of
the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and
the documents so adduced therein but also
upon the cardial principles of law which
govern the subject in question.

103. Thus, this Court has no option but
to concur that the judgement of the learned
trial court whereby the accused herein has
been acquitted.

104. Resultantly no ground is made so
as
to
accord
leave
to
appeal
and
accordingly the same is rejected.

105. As the leave to appeal stands
rejected thus the present Government
Appeal so instituted by the State-appellant
under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. stands
dismissed.

106. The record and proceedings be
sent back to the court-below.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 1019
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Government Appeal No. 778 of 2021

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Mukhtar Ansari & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
G.A.

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

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 378, - Indian Penal Code,
1860 -Section 506 - Government Appeal -
against
order
of
Acquittal
-
written
complainant - FIR - Complainant in his crossexamination admit that merely on the basis of
suspicion, he gave the complaint, however
those accused person did not commit any
offence - court finds that, prosecution case
was only based on suspicion and without
there being any cogent and credible evidence
to connect the accused person - A person
cannot be convicted merely on the basis of
suspicion if the suspicion is not otherwise
proved - impugned judgment and order
requires no interference - thus, appeal
dismissed. (Para 18, 19, 20)

Appeal dismissed. (E-11)
1020 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. The present appeal under Section
378 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the
judgement and order dated 23.12.2020
passed
by
the
Special
Judge,
MP/MLA/Additional Sessions Judge, Court
No.19, Lucknow in Criminal Case No.970
of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No.126
of 1999, under Section 506 IPC, Police
Station Krishna Nagar, District Lucknow,
whereby the learned trial court had
acquitted the respondents for the offence
under Section 506 IPC.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are
that respondents, Mukhtar Ansari and
Abhay Singh were imprisoned in Lucknow
Jail as under trial. The complainant, S.P.
Singh Pundir was serving in Uttar Pradesh
Police as Additional Inspector General of
Police (Prison). On 26.2.1999, a search
operation was conducted in the Lucknow
Prison and barracks were searched. It was
alleged that respondent, Mukhtar Ansari,
who was sitting Member of Legislative
Assembly at that time and Abhay Singh,
who are the Mafias, were unhappy with the
search conducted by the police in the
prison. Search was conducted on the order
passed by Sri S.P. Singh Pundir, Additional
Inspector General of Police (Prison). It was
alleged that Mukhtar Ansari, respondent
no.1 gave threat to kill Sri Sri S.P. Singh
Pundir, Additional Inspector General of
Police (Prison).

3. It was further said that on
27.2.1999 at around 10.30 P.M., Sri Manish
Pundir, son of Sri S.P. Singh Pundir told the
complainant that two persons were sitting
on a motorcycle under the Eucalyptus tree
near the house of the complainant and they
were smoking cigarettes. They were staring
towards the house of the complainant.
When the complainant along with others
came out of the house, two persons siting
under the Eucalyptus tree had vanished
from there. It was further alleged that out of
two, one was well built of six feet height
and the second one was of short height and
fatty.

4. On 28.2.1999, again at 9.15 P.M.
when the son of the complainant came out
of the house with his dog for a walk, he
noticed that a person jumping out from the
vacant plot near the house of the
complainant. One person of short height
and well built wearing shirt and pant
having stole was seen running towards
eucalyptus tree. It was further said that two
persons,
who
were
seen
under
the
eucalyptus tree on previous day, were also
present near the eucalyptus tree. Two
persons present near the eucalyptus tree
were giving signals to a third person.
Thereafter, these persons sat on rickshaw
and
went
from
there.
Son
of
the
complainant told the complainant about this
incident and they could see three persons
going on rickshaw at a little distance.

5. On 1.3.1999 at around 12.15 A.M.,
two persons on a motorcycle were seen
near the house of the complainant in
suspicious
condition,
and
when
the
complainant could see them, they went
inside the Hydel Colony, which was
situated near the house of the complainant.
It was further said that Hydel Colony was
not a thoroughfare. The complainant
informed about these incidents through
telephone to police control room and also
to other officers. The complainant could
gather information that on 27.2.1999 and
28.2.1999, the persons who were seen near
the house of the complainant, were also
seen near the house of his official driver.
9 All. State of U.P. Vs. Mukhtar Ansari & Anr.
1021
These
persons
were
also
seen
on
motorcycle
near
the
office
of
the
complainant. Two persons were on Yamaha
Motorcycle having numbers UP32 W 5721
or UP32 K 5721. The complainant
suspected that these persons were the men
of Mafia, Mukhtar Ansari and they were
being sent to kill the complainant, his
family members, abduction or causing
other damages to his family. It was further
said that Mukhtar Ansari was trying to
terrorise the complainant, so that he could
flout the jail rules. Mukhtar Ansari by
creating terror was interfering in the official
work for the purpose of carrying out his
illegal activities from the prison.

6. A written complaint was given on
1.3.1999 by Sri Sri S.P. Singh Pundir,
Additional Inspector General of Police
(Prison) and on the basis of written
complaint, an FIR got registered at Case
Crime No.126 of 1999, under Section 506
IPC.
The
Investigating
Officer
after
conducting the investigation, filed the charge
sheet against the Mukhtar Ansari and Abhay
Singh under Section 506 IPC. Vide order
dated 8.12.2003, the charge under Section
506 IPC was framed against the two
respondents. The prosecution to prove its
case examined as many as six witnesses.

7. P.W.-1, S.P. Singh Pundir, in his
examination-in-chief
had
reiterated
the
allegations in the FIR. He proved the
complaint, which was marked as Ext.Ka-1. In
his cross-examination, he said that as per the
direction given by the Government, a search
was carried out in the prison, in which
District Magistrate, Senior Superintendent of
Police, Lucknow and the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate were present. This search was
conducted
under
his
supervision.
On
26.2.1999, Abhay Singh was brought to the
court to attend a case. He further said that
neither Mukhtar Ansari nor Abhay Singh
gave any threat to him during search
operation. The persons, who were seen
loitering around the house of the complainant
on 27.2.1999 and 28.2.1999 ,were not seen
by the complainant himself. On 1.3.1999 at
around 12.15 A.M., he saw the suspicious
persons. He said that on the basis of the
suspicion, he gave the complainant, on which
the FIR got registered. He said that the
suspicious persons, who were seen near the
house of the complainant, were never spotted
with Mukhtar Ansari or Abhay Singh.

8. P.W.-2, Manish Pundir, in his
extermination-in-chief
supported
the
prosecution case. However, in his crossexamination, he said that his father did not
tell him and other family members who were
the persons unhappy by the search operation.
He deposed that during discussion in the
house, he and other family members got
suspicious about the persons coming or going
near their house. He further said that road in
front of their house was a thoroughfare and
people would come and go on that road. On
the basis of suspicion, he noticed the suspects
and their built etc. On 27th and 28th
February, 1999, the suspects who were
noticed by him, did not say anything to him
or any other family member. It was further
said that he did not tell any number of the
motorcycle in his statement recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., and if such a number had
been mentioned in the case diary, he was not
in a position to tell how the said number of
motorcycle was mentioned in the case diary.
He further said that no one had given any
threat to him or any other family member in
his presence.

9. P.W.-3, Saurabh Bhatnagar, in his
statement said that motorcycle no.UP32
5721 mentioned in the statement of P.W.-1
under
Section
161
Cr.P.C.
was
his
1022 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
motorcycle and at the time of incident, he
was in Moradabad and on 1.3.1999 at
around 12 hours, this motorcycle was
standing in his house. He further said that
he would only ride the said motorcycle.

10. P.W.-4, Prem Shanker Dixit, in
his extermination-in-chief said that on
26.2.1999, he was posted as warden in
the District Jail, Lucknow, and he was on
duty from 12 hours to 4 P.M. On
14.2.1999, some persons had come to
meet the prisoner, Mukhtar Ansari. There
was no stamp on their hands and he asked
these persons to show permission as seal
was not stamped on their hands, which
would be stamped on the hands of the
persons coming to meet a prisoner. He
further said that nobody gave direct threat
to
him.
On
26.2.1999,
the
search
operation was conducted under the
supervision of Sri S.P. Singh Pundir,
Additional Inspector General of Police
(Prison) and he was on duty at the gate.
He could not hear any threat given by
anyone as he was around 200 meters
away from where the search operation
was being conducted. He himself was not
threatened by anyone when he asked the
persons coming to meet Mukhtar Ansari
to show permission to meet him. This
witness was declared hostile. He said that
respondent, Mukhtar Ansari and Abhay
Singh did not threaten the complainant to
kill him or his family members in front of
him. He did not give any such statement
to the Investigating Officer. This witness
was cross-examined by the prosecution.
However, in his cross-examination also,
he said that the Investigating Officer did
not take any statement of him.

11. P.W.-5, Constable, Daya Shanker
in his examination-in-chief proved the FIR,
which was marked as Ext.Ka-2.

12. P.W.-6. Javed Khan, Investigating
Officer who conducted partial investigation
and prepared the site plan, which was
proved by him and marked as Ext.Ka-3. In
his cross-examination, he said that he
recorded the statement of the complainant,
however, the complainant did not tell him
about the persons, who were found
loitering around his house on 26th and 27th
February, 1999 and on 1.3.1999. He did not
recover any motorcycle.

13. Learned trial court after analysing
the evidence brought on record by the
prosecution, was of the opinion that the
prosecution had failed to bring on record
any cogent and credible evidence against
the respondents and the case was of no
evidence. In view thereof, the respondents
were acquitted for the offence under
Section 506 IPC.

14. Sri Umesh Chandra Verma,
learned AGA along with Sri Rao Narendra
Singh, learned AGA for the appellant-State
submits that the respondents were in prison
in
respect
of
the
murder
of
Jail
Superintendent, R.K. Tewari, who was
brutally murdered near the Governor?s
House on a busy road in broad day light.
He further submits that the respondents are
Mafia Dons having several cases of
committing heinous offences to their credit.
Allegedly, murder of Jail Superintendent,
R.K. Tewari was planned by the accusedrespondents, who command rein of terror in
the minds and hearts of the people
including the officials. He also submits that
the accused-respondents did not appreciate
that any jail staff or any official would stop
and search a person coming to meet them.
They would like free entry of people
coming to meet them in violation of Jail
Manual and relevant Rules. The accusedrespondents had guts and confidence to
9 All. State of U.P. Vs. Mukhtar Ansari & Anr.
1023
terrorise the jail staff and gave threats of
killing the senior officer like the Additional
Inspector General of Police (Prison) as
search operation was conducted under his
supervision in the prison on Government
order.

15. Sri Umesh Chandra Verma, learned
AGA further submits that threats were given
in the prison, which was heard by P.W.-4.
However, P.W. 4, out of fear and terror,
turned hostile during his examination in the
court. He also submits that P.W.-2, son of the
complainant, soon after the search operation,
on 26.2.1999 noticed suspicious persons
loitering around the house of the complainant
in the night to execute the threat. Testimony
of the son of the complainant was not shaken
during his cross-examination. Even P.W.-1
has supported the prosecution case in all
respects.
He,
therefore,
submits
that
considering the fact that the accusedrespondents command, fear and threat in the
minds and hearts of the general public as well
as the officials, the trial court finding that the
offence under Section 506 IPC was not
proved against the respondents, is wholly
erroneous. Soon after the complainant could
come to know about the threats given by
Mukhtar Ansari for his killing and abduction
etc., suspicious persons loitered around his
house were noticed by his son. If the
testimony of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 is considered
together, offence under Section 506 IPC is
clearly
made
out
and,
therefore,
the
impugned judgement and order passed by the
trial court acquitting the accused-respondents
for the offence under Section 506 IPC, is
unsustainable and is liable to be set aside, and
the accused-respondents should be convicted
for offence under Section 506 IPC.

16. On the other hand, Sri Jyotindra
Misra, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by
Sri Sushil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
the accused-respondents has submitted that
P.W.-1 in his evidence before the court, had
said that he lodged the FIR on the basis of
suspicion. He did not hear any threat given by
the accused-respondents. He also submits that
accused-respondents did not misbehave or
utter anything when the search operation was
conducted. However, he came to know that
threats
were
given
by
the
accusedrespondents for his elimination. He. Further
submits that P.W.-2 in his evidence before the
court, has said that road in front of their
house is thoroughfare and people would use
that road for commuting. After his father
discussed about the perceived threat, he
started suspecting people, who would come
and go from the road in front of their house,
and he himself said that it was a mere
suspicion as those persons, who were
suspected, did not commit any wrong or
harm P.W.-2 or any of the family members.
Even the motorcycle, which was said to be
present on 1.3.1999 near the house of the
complainant, was of P.W.-5. He has,
therefore, submitted that on the basis of mere
suspicion without there being any cogent and
credible evidence, the respondents could not
have been convicted and there is no evidence
on record, which can be said to be cogent and
credible to prove the offence under Section
506 IPC against the respondents. Merely on
the basis of suspicion and general and
perception image of the respondents, the
conviction cannot be recorded for an offence,
which on the basis of the facts and
circumstances and the evidence, is not made
out against the respondents.

17. I have considered the submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

18. P.W.-1, the complainant in his crossexamination, had clearly said that merely on
the basis of suspicion, he gave the compliant,
1024 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on which the FIR in question came to be
registered. From perusal of the evidence of
P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, it would be evident that
the complainant and his son had only
suspicion about the perceived threat given by
the accused-respondents and they believed
that persons, who were noticed loitering
around their house on 26.2.1999, 27.2.1999
and 1.3.1999, had come to execute that threat.
It is further admitted that these persons did
not commit any offence nor did they say
anything to the complainant or his family
members.

19. In view of the aforesaid facts and
the evidence on record, this court is of the
view that the prosecution case was based on
suspicion without there being any cogent and
credible evidence to connect the accusedrespondents for commission of offence under
Section 506 IPC. The prosecution is required
to prove the charge by leading cogent and
credible evidence. A person cannot be
convicted merely on the basis of suspicion if
the suspicion is not otherwise proved by
leading cogent and credible evidence.

20. Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances and the evidence, I am of the
view that the impugned judgement and order
passed by the learned trial court does not
require any interference by this Court and
thus, the appeal gets dismissed.

21. Consigned to record.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 1024
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.
Government Appeal No. 1919 of 1985

The State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Vijai Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
G.A., Sri D.S. Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.K. Agarwal, Sri Indra Bhan Yadav, Sri
Onkar Singh

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 313 & 378 - Indian
Penal Code,1860 - Sections 34, 201 &
302 - Government Appeal - Acquittal -
offence of murder - FIR - accused husband
murder his wife for bring more and more
money from her father - acquitted all the four
accused - Govt. Appeal - held - in view of
settled law lay down by Hon'ble Apex Court -
when chain has been found to be incomplete
and when evidence is so scanty than accused
cannot punished or convicted for offences -
interference with acquittal can only be
justified when it is based on a perverse view -
consequently
Government
Appeal
stands
dismissed.(Para -24, 25, 26)

Appeal dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs St. of Kerala
& Anr., (2006) 6 S.C.C. 39,

2. Chandrappa Vs St. of Karna., (2007) 4 S.C.C.
415,

3. St. of Goa Vs Sanjay Thakran & Anr., (2007) 3
S.C.C. 75,

4. St. of U. P. Vs Ram Veer Singh & ors., 2007
A.I.R. S.C.W. 5553,

5. Girja Prasad (Dead) by L.R.s Vs St. of M.P.,
2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5589,

6. Luna Ram Vs Bhupat Singh & ors., (2009)
SCC 749,