Mere Registration Of Cases Without Proof Of Organised Crime Not Sufficient To Establish Guilt Under UP Gangsters Act: Uttarakhand HC
The Uttarakhand High Court has held that mere registration of previous cases or criminal antecedents, without proof of an organised pattern of criminal activity, is not sufficient to establish guilt under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The Court observed that the prosecution must establish the existence of a gang, continuity of unlawful...
The Uttarakhand High Court has held that mere registration of previous cases or criminal antecedents, without proof of an organised pattern of criminal activity, is not sufficient to establish guilt under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The Court observed that the prosecution must establish the existence of a gang, continuity of unlawful activity, and the involvement of the accused in such activity in furtherance of a common object.
Justice Ashish Naithani was hearing a criminal appeal filed by the appellants challenging their conviction under Sections 2/3 of the Gangsters Act by the Special Judge (Gangster Act), Nainital. The appellants had been sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. The prosecution case was based on the allegation that the appellants were members of a gang engaged in anti-social activities, primarily relying on a gang chart and their alleged involvement in previous criminal cases. The appellants contended that the conviction was based solely on the gang chart and criminal history, without any independent or substantive evidence to show that they were members of an organized gang or acted in concert.
The Court noted that the statutory scheme of the Gangsters Act requires proof of existence of a gang, continuity of unlawful activity, and participation of the accused in such activity. Upon reappraisal of the evidence, the Court found that the prosecution case was based primarily on the gang chart and criminal antecedents, and that the witnesses examined were largely police officials whose testimonies were confined to proving preparation of the gang chart and registration of previous cases.
The Court found that there was no substantive evidence to demonstrate that the appellants were acting in concert as members of an organized gang, nor was there any material to show a common design or coordinated activity linking the alleged offences. It observed:
“Mere registration of previous cases, without proof of their outcome or without demonstrating that such acts form part of an organized pattern of criminal activity, cannot satisfy the statutory requirement.”
The Court further noted the absence of independent corroboration and observed that although testimony of police officials cannot be discarded solely on that ground, such evidence requires careful scrutiny. It also noted that several co-accused persons had been acquitted, and the trial court had not indicated any distinguishing material to justify conviction of the appellants.
Holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, the Court held that the conviction was unsustainable and extended the benefit of doubt to the appellants.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants under the Gangsters Act.
Case Title: Hemu Pant & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand [Criminal Appeal No. 337 of 2013]