SOMNATH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the outset, it is pertinent to mention here that appellants Shakoor, Zaheed and Jalil have preferred appeals through Jail Authorities bearing CRJA Nos. 57, 58, 59 of 2010 and have also filed appeal through their Advocate Ms. Neetu Singh bearing CRLA No. 178 of 2011. This Court, vide order dated 07.05.2013 passed in CRJA No. 56 of 2010, was pleased to appoint Mr. S.K. Shandilya, Advocate as Amicus Curiae for appellant Raju Mandal. Appellant Rakesh has preferred criminal appeal No. 255 of 2010 through his Advocate Mr. S.K. Shandilya and appellant Somnath has preferred criminal appeal No. 168 of 2010 through his Advocate Mr. S.C. Tyagi. All these appeals are arising out of judgment and order dated 31.07.2010 passed by Special Judge, (Gangster Act), Haridwar in Special Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2009 whereby appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti -Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (for short 'the Gangster Act') and were sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment each and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/ - each and in default of making payment of fine, to undergo additional imprisonment for two months.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the present case, inter alia, are that after approval of Gang Charts by District Magistrate, an FIR was registered as Case Crime No. 113 of 2008 at police station Jwalapur, District Haridwar against accused appellants Raju Mandal, Jaleel, Zahid, Shakur, Somnath, Rakesh under Section 2/3 of the Gangster Act stating that accused persons formed a gang and were involved in violence by committing loot, dacoity, murder and they created an atmosphere of terror in society, consequently, nobody dared to lodge any complaint against them; nobody came forward to depose against them. A number of criminal cases were registered against the accused persons mainly under Section 412, 395 IPC.

(3.) HAVING investigated the matter, Investigating Officer submitted charge -sheet against the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 2/3 of the Gangster Act. Appellants were charged for the offence punishable under Section 2/3 of the Gangster Act. Appellants denied the charges and claimed trial.